Please note: This is an archive page from the old Blogger version of Considerettes. Please click here to go to the new WordPress version. All old posts were imported into the new site. Thanks.
Conservative commentary served up in bite-sized bits.
"Warning: first examination of Considerettes suggests an excess of rational thought goes into that blog."
- Clayton Cramer
Comments, questions, cookie recipes? E-mail me! (frodo at thepaytons dot org)
Considerettes in the news:
<< Return to
Georgia Marriage Amendment Rally
Considerettes for your PDA
p ? Atlanta Blogs # n
< GAwebloggers ? >
My other blog
Stones Cry Out
My diaries at
I'm a reporter for BNN:
The Bloggers News Network
Ye Olde Blogroll
Friday, June 28, 2002
Once again, according to Democrats, all the evils of the world began the day Bush was inaugurated. First they acted as if all bin Laden intelligence began coming in from the time W took the oath of office, to try and deflect anything from The Man Without A Legacy. Now Al Gore is implying that corporate shenanigans began only after a Republican plopped himself in the chair in the Oval Office. In a New York Daily News article, Gore claims, "You see now what it means to have an administration that's that committed to fighting and working on behalf of the powerful, and letting the people of this country get the short end of the stick." Is that why W didn't move to bail out Enron? All his alleged commitment to fighting and working for Ken Lay was manifest in his not bailing them out of their own problems? Golly, I missed that subtlety.
Gore continued, "What we see now is a lack of confidence in our national economic policy, in the integrity of our accounting system, in the way government is being run." Ah, so then these corporate execs lacked confidence in national policy and the way government under Bush was being run--the same Bush, mind you, allegedly "committed to fighting and working on behalf of the powerful". So now Al's saying that these CEO's were both assuming they'd have the White House working for them, and at the same time lacking confidence in that same administration. And this caused them to hide billions of dollars! Of course! This seeming contradiction in motivations was the source of their greed! And see, it's not their fault, it's Bush's, of course. Under some other administration, where lying was commonplace and the biggest corporate mergers in history took place, this never happened. Man oh man, Al's blamed everything but tax cuts.
But wait...he does manage to work them in. He insists that these private companies "are not telling the truth about their future liabilities so they can shovel money out to executives at the top. That is exactly what the Bush-Cheney tax plan will do. They are misleading the country about the extent of the liabilities they are putting on us ... on you." See, tax cuts, giving every single taxpayer more of their own money back, is exactly like hiding billions in the Caymen Islands. (Truth be told, it's spending, coming from both sides of the Congressional aisle, that are causing far, far more future liabilities than the tax cuts ever will. Al, of course, never talks about that.)
Expect to hear more of this nonsense as Election Day draws nearer. Al's speech featured both internal contradictions and absurd comparisons. That will be the Democrat platform.
Thursday, June 27, 2002
This nation was concieved "under God". Virtually every one of the founding fathers gave God (and in many cases, the God of the Christian Bible specifically) the credit for bringing this nation into existance. Many of the decisions made in the creation of the United States were done with the idea that God made it possible, God's law was over any law made by man, and therefore that the government and the nation should be "under God".
The phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance acknowledges that, plain and simple, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court notwithstanding. All these hypothetical questions like "would you think the same thing if the phrase was 'under Allah'" utterly miss the point. When the 13 original colonies became the United States of America, guided by men who were guided by a Higher Power, they became one nation under God. "One nation under Vishnu" has no meaning, because that religion did not play a role in the founding of this country.
"One nation under God" is not a prayer, it's an historical fact. One more fact about the religious nature of our country that liberal educators seek to expunge from history.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of school vouchers, with the 5-4 majority saying that if parents have the true choice, then it doesn't constitute entangling religion with government.
The minority on the court said that the voucher system does not treat religion neutrally. Pure nonsense. If the voucher system had specifically singled out religious schools as ineligible for voucher money, that would have been the non-neutral stance. As it stands, the Cleveland voucher system lets religious schools play on a level playing field with secular schools. Some complain that the majority of the voucher money goes to Catholic schools and so this is de facto sponsorship of Christianity. This is essentially "blaming" the Catholics for making better schools. We've got the Darwinian public schools and the Christian private schools (Catholic, Protestant, etc.) among others. If you want to start a school with a neo-pagan world view, I have news for you. This is still America, and you are still free to do what you think is right. But if nobody comes, don't blame the Catholics.
The Post's contention that the decision "continued a trend of the court in recent years to ease the path toward state support of religion" is liberal bias at its subtlest. They deliberately confuse the church/state issue with the freedom of religion issue. The state is not supporting religion, it's supporting the parents (directly, in the Cleveland case, where the parents physically get the vouchers, not the schools). I also wonder how all those allegedly "pro-choice" liberals are against parental choice. Always make sure you know what choices they deem you worthy of making.
See also: A House of Straw, my essay on why school vouchers are better for everyone. Or better yet, let me keep my own money and do with it as I please. Then the Supreme Court wouldn't have to get involved.
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
Does the left hand know what the right hand is writing? At the NY Times, apparently not. Two stories, a day apart, proclaim that Alaska is melting, and then Alaska is freezing! Do we really want to set global climate policy when we really have no idea what's going on? (Hint: No.)
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
There's still quite a large number of people who believe that homeschooling is some sort of radical idea that can't possibly work on a large scale, and (in spite of reams of studies to the contrary) causes kids to be non-social and under-educated. And of course, these people believe that all this must be regulated by the government. With that in mind, plant your tongue firmly in your cheek and read Lydia McGrew's scathing satire on the subject: "Homefeeding Children: Threat or Menace?"