Saturday, February 28, 2009

The Stupidity of the "Right to Reply" law

Neal Cruz explains it:
The "Right of Reply" bill, both the senate and House versions, were obviously crafted and, in the case of the Senate bill authored by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr., already passed, with total ignorance of the workings of news organizations. They were done without undergoing committee hearings where journalists were invited as resource persons. If they had, they would have known that the bill is unnecessary and a waste of time. Persons and organizations that are the subject of news stories are already given the right to reply-in fact, asked for their comments-which are published at the same time as the first story. No need to wait one or three days.

When the reply or comment is not published at the same time as the story, it means one of two things: the subject is not available or withholds comment until he or she reads the story in the newspaper and/or he/she wants to consult his/her lawyer. In any case, the story says why there is no comment from the subject in spite of efforts to contact him. A third reason is that the subject is guilty or does not want to incriminate himself further or does not know what to say and would rather not say anything. You know, no talk, no mistake.

Read the whole article. GMA Arroyo and Manny Villar were cited as examples of stonewalling.

More from Ellen Tordesillas and Dean Bocobo.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Gov. Bobby Jindal's creationism problem

Randy Barnett:
This is Not Good: From Little Green Footballs:
Everything the media tried to pin on Sarah Palin, [Bobby] Jindal actually did: he promoted and signed a creationism bill (with help from the Discovery Institute), he took part in an amateur exorcism and claimed it cured a woman of cancer, and possibly worst of all, he pals around with people on the extreme edges of fundamentalist Christianity, and at least one person who has associated with outright neo-Nazis.
You can read the dirty details here. The LGF prediction:
My take: the MSM and the left would love it if Jindal is the GOP nominee in 2012, because he will lose. So they’re going to ignore all the damaging issues until then, preemptively sabotaging any effort to find a more viable GOP candidate.
While at it, you can read about GOP Governors Mark Sanford and Tim Pawlenty's creationist sympathies here. Republicans be warned: No demonstrably creationist politician will be elected President of the United States.
Follow up post by Randy re Jindal.

I think the only way for jindal to deal with the problem if he wants to run for president is for the issue to come out during the primaries. let it come out early and let the voters and the national media scrutinize and rake jindal over the coals with this (ala obama's jeremiah wright issue). this will allow jindal to address the issue early on on whether he wants to disown his previous statements and positions, and whether the public, polls and MSM are willing to let him off the hook.

if he STILL wins the primaries despite the revelation and make a good job of reassuring the public early on (determined by credible internal and national polls) that the creationism issue will be in the past and and that it won't affect the way he governs the country, then that issue will become old news and less potent against him come october.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Obama's teleprompter

man, they guy even used it during his first national press conference as president, even during the Q and A portion... for his handlers to pass along talking points, statistics etc on the screen without being to obvious to the folks watching on tv.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Chiz Escudero = the second coming of Marcos?

Nagtataka ako sa sinabi ni MLQ3. Is he really that bad? O hyperbole lang yan? Personal ba ito?

Look, I'm not a big fan of Escudero, especially after he made these comments na parang gusto nyang tumakbo para sa third term ni Arroyo.

Legarda and Escudero belong to the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC), although at the Senate, Legarda is with the minority and Escudero, with the majority. Legarda was number one in 2007, having won the most number of votes among all the senatorial bets. Escudero was number two.

… Escudero predicted that there would be no one-on-one contest between the opposition and the administration in the 2010 presidential election, “since no incumbent is running, and there is the question on who is really an opposition.”

“GMA is not running in 2010, and it would be unfair to the people if presidential candidates should still use her as an issue,” he explained.

Indeed, candidates would be like shadowboxing if they will be punching at a non-opponent. Chiz said that instead of raising the GMA bogy, candidates should talk about their platform of government.

“Any candidate who runs on an anti-GMA platform is insulting the intelligence of the people. The people will vote for a presidential candidate because of what he or she intends to do if victorious, not because he or she is against GMA,” Chiz stressed.

Yes, medyo suspicious na ako kay Chiz. But it's still too early to compare him to Marcos. (i'm thinking of Godwin's Law)

Previous: Damning with faint praise.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

GOPs favorite wedge issue makes a comeback

"Welfare." From Mickey Kaus:

Shouldn't Republicans be making more of a fuss about the provision in the stimulus bill--both House and Senate versions, apparently--that spends $2-3 billion to the states for "temporary welfare payments"? I initially thought Charles Hurt of the N.Y. Post was being alarmist when he suggested the provision would "drastically undo two decades of welfare reforms." The essence of the 1996 reform was ending the individual legal entitlement to AFDC (cash aid to single mothers, basically) and replacing it with state-run programs that, in theory, require recipients to enter the work force. The stimulus bill doesn't rip up that basic deal, as I understand it. But it is part of a larger liberal campaign** to use the recession to weaken work requirements and let millions of non-working single mothers back on the welfare rolls. Specifically, it would apparently reward states that expand their welfare caseloads--even if the increase is only the product of loosened work requirements rather than a worsening local economy.

Nothing wrong with helping states avoid anti-stimulating cuts in a recession. Nothing wrong with targeting money to the poorest, who are most likely to spend it quickly. But why use the aid specifically to encourage expansion of welfare? This isn't "welfare" as only conservative Republicans would define it--i.e. any means-tested assistance. This is welfare as everyone would define it--cash assistance to able-bodied single mothers (or fathers) who may or may not be working, as in the old, despised AFDC program. Better to use the money (and more) to create public jobs*** for these would-be recipients if private sector jobs have dried up, even if that upsets municipal employee unions (which don't want welfare recipients doing jobs their members might do)? Don't revive the old AFDC principle that if you have a child, you can count on the government to take care of you with cash aid even if you don't work.

At the very least the extra aid to the states shouldn't be triggered by caseload expansion. (You could, for example, give states aid in proportion to their local unemployment rate.)

You would think this would be a potential killer issue for the GOPs--"See, the Democrats already want to undo welfare reform"--and Obama, being sensitive to the charge, might quickly back down. It's easiest to whack the camel when only its nose is in the tent, no?

Read the whole thing.