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.

" Considerettes"?

"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:
Hugh Hewitt

<< Return to
"Consider This!"

Did Bush lie? Google it!
Georgia Marriage Amendment Rally
Considerettes Radio:
2 /16/04
2 /23/04
3/ 5/04
3 /9/04
3 /10/04
3 /16/04
4 /1/04
4 /7/04
4 /21/04
5 /4/04
5 /6/04
6/ 1/04
6 /9/04
6 /16/04
7 /6/04 (1)
7 /6/04 (2)
7 /29/04
7 /30/04
8 /16/04
9 /1/04
9 /8/04
9 /13/04
9 /16/04
9 /24/04
1 0/6/04
1 1/9/04
1 2/9/04
1 /11/05
1 /31/05
2 /28/05
3 /14/05
3 /21/05
5 /16/05
5 /23/05
8 /1/05
8 /10/05
9 /6/05

Homespun Bloggers Radio 

Considerettes for your PDA


Web Rings
p ? Atlanta Blogs # n
< GAwebloggers ? >

My other blog
Considerable Quotes
Contributor to
Stones Cry Out

My diaries at

(Commenting available)

I'm a reporter for BNN:
The Bloggers News Network

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Listed on Blogwise
Search For Blogs, Submit 

Blogs, The Ultimate Blog Directory
Subscribe with Bloglines

Ye Olde Blogroll

Homespun Blogger

Join Fair Tax Fans

Friday, July 30, 2004

"Doug from Atlanta reporting for duty, sir!" gave Hugh Hewitt a chuckle as I started my call. Actually, James Lileks did the line first (it's actually in the first part of the clip), but I got a kick out of it.

But seriously folks, John Kerry's speech Thursday night was supposed to "introduce" him to the American public (though one then wonders what all the money spent on those TV ads and campaign appearances were for). Given that speech, however, one would have a very odd, time-warped view of his biography, and having virtually nothing to go on when he says he's running on his record. Barely a mention of it. Listen in for the details.

(Oh, and Hugh, you do get your calls posted on the web. >grin< The radio station link below, for starters, makes you available to the world from your home in Atlanta. Thanks, WGKA.)

"Considerettes Radio" on The Hugh Hewitt Show (WGKA, Atlanta, GA) 7/30/2004 7:55pm EST (225K)

If Al Jazeera says it, it must be true.
Reports in Kuwait on Friday said a man assumed to be Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi has been captured near the Syrian border.

The comments on the news page are beginning to sound like Democrats who were upset when Hussein was captured. Limber up those clicking fingers and get ready to surf the liberal blogs, because if this turns out to be true, it'll be a target-rich environment for bagging conspiracy theories and apoplectic bloggers.

I think the biggest thing to note in John Kerry's speech last night was it was further confirmation that this convention has been an attempt to re-invent him and cover up his record. There was far more said in his speech (and his biopic) about his service in Vietnam than his Senate voting record. This is not to minimize his military service by any means, but his policies matter far more to me. Military service, at least to me, as never been more than a mitigating factor in choosing who I think should run the country; it's a good plus, but many other issues can outweigh it.

The words "Senate" and "vote" each only appear once, and in the same sentence, when he mentioned his vote for a balanced budget and for Clinton's "100,000 cops" bill. Other than that, there was precious little to really latch on to and say what he will do specifically. A stronger military? You mean, as I said before when he previously tried to define himself, stronger than the one that went through Iraq like a hot knife through quagmire? A bigger health care system? Like the one in Canada where folks run across the border to the U.S. when they really want to get help? Your Attorney General will be one "who actually upholds the Constitution"? Well then why does your platform support the Patriot Act, the main bit of legislation you accuse of ripping up said document?

Oh, and the whole "patriotism" thing. Look fella, the Republicans didn't claim exclusive rights to patriotism. What happened is that the Democrats discarded it, and only pull it out when it's needed to get votes. When there are Democrats that instinctively have a negative association with the flag allegedly being a "gun-toting, flag-waving, Bush-loving" symbol, that's an indication of a patriotism of convenience, not of spirit. No one has questioned the patriotism of you, or Max Cleland who introduced you. If anything, the association so closely with Michael Moore who calls Americans "possibly the dumbest people on the planet" does not help in this regard. Actions such as these don't speak highly of you at all.

As I said this was a re-inventing of John Kerry, one in which it is required you ignore his voting record, which would reflect his real values, notwithstanding the platitudes he rattled off in his speech. And that is the hallmark of a candidate who, like Bill Clinton did masterfully, will try to play the chameleon; telling you what you want to hear long enough to get him into office where he doesn't have to follow through on his promises because the faithful will keep him there. Clinton campaigned hard on the "middle class tax cut" issue, for example, then dropped it promptly upon walking into the Oval Office. Kerry's campaigning the same way. I hope America doesn't get snookered by it again.

UPDATE: Q&O has a similar take ("specifics, please?"), but of course in a far more in-depth format. And Kerry wants to be judged on his record, when he didn't present his record, nor do his new policies harmonize with his record.
So I beg to differ with Mr. Kerry when he says “I ask you to judge me by my record”. He really doesn’t want that at all. He wants you to judge him on the facade he’s erected, the platitudes and vague plans he’s put out there and to vote for him because he isn’t George Bush.

It'll be interesting if the one actual plan he has works or whether people will actually take him at his word and judge him by his record.

A very good article by McQ.

Thursday, July 29, 2004

First shot at Audioblogging
this is an audio post - click to play

Remember how the Communist Party would airbrush out of pictures members who had fallen out of favor? Looks like the Democrats are upgrading that technology for the digital era. James Taranto notes it in his Best of the Web Today column, quoting a Wall Street Journal article.
Is John Kerry part of the vast right-wing conspiracy? To hear Joe Wilson talk, you might think so. The Kerry campaign had been touting the Niger-Iraq "whistleblower" as a foreign-policy adviser--but that changed after both the Senate Intelligence Committee and a British report discredited Mr. Wilson's claims about his wife's role in sending him to Niger and about what he found there.

A search of Mr. Kerry's Web site now turns up no reference to either Mr. Wilson or his wife, Valerie Plame. And, a Web site the campaign had set up to showcase Mr. Wilson's accusations against the Bush Administration, now redirects browsers to the homepage.

Bryan Preston, writer of one of my favorite blogs, Junkyard Blog, scores a column at TechCentralStation, one of many to come, it sounds like. Kudos, dude!

Here's the teaser:
It is playing a key role in curbing and caging North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il. It played a key role in disarming Libya, discovering and rolling up the Pakistani A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network, and has become a framework for international military and police exercises organized by the United States. Its membership includes most of the world's largest economic powers, most of the world's largest military powers, and most of the most influential states on earth. The United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Russia, the Netherlands, France, Australia and Germany are among its 15 member states, and it is one of the pillars of the Bush administration's strategy to both win the war on terrorism and halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As an organization set up to perform a mission that the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency have jointly failed, halting the spread of nuclear weapons, it has the potential of becoming an alternative to the UN itself in coming decades. Notably, all of its members to date are democracies.

But thanks to the media and Democrats who insist on portraying the Bush administration as "unilateral," you have probably never heard of it.

Read on...

In his speech to the Democratic National Convention last night, John Edwards told the hypothetical story of a woman, sitting at her kitchen table, unable to make ends meet while her husband was away in Iraq.
She thinks she's alone. But tonight in this hall and in your homes -- you know what? She's got a lot of friends. We want her to know that we hear her. And it's time to bring opportunity and an equal chance to her door.

The typical Democrat translation of that is, we need bigger government to help her. But is that the best way to do it? What about private charities; don't they do a better job? And if all those folks in the hall are her friends, what have they done for her lately? Are they more likely to help out than, say, Republicans?

The answers to these questions can be found in this installment of "Considerettes Radio". Bill Bennett and I discuss the difference between the Democrats' and the Republicans' definition of "compassion".

"Considerettes Radio" on Bill Bennett's Morning in America (WGKA, Atlanta, GA) 7/29/2004 7:50am EST (434K)

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Dean Esmay is asking conservatives to take a pledge that if Kerry becomes President to support him if/when he does the right thing on any issue. Will partisanship stop at the water's edge?

Just for starters, does anyone remember how much support Bill Clinton got from Republicans when he supported NAFTA? Boatloads! Frankly, I don't think conservatives (in general) are so blatantly partisan that they'll throw bombs on a president from the opposition when he's doing something we agree with. Said another way, conservatives are harder on Republicans than liberals are on Democrats. Liberals need to consider this pledge, under a 2nd Bush term. Wonder how that would go over.

Bryan Preston over at JunkYard Blog takes on Michael Moore's declaration that those on the right are "hate-triots".

You mean like the folks who had a "Hate Bush" rally? Or guys selling T-shirts that say "Love America, Hate Bush"? Or a guy from Massachusetts who says he hates Kerry but "we hate Bush even more"? Or this avid Michael Moore fan who, after watching his movie, proclaimed, ''I hate Bush and I don't want him reelected."

Are those the people he's talking about? (Ironic, that last one, eh?)

Happy Fun Pundit, the first entry ever placed on my blogroll, is finally back!

Swamphopper over at the Rough Woodsman is going on the record for 2004 electoral predictions.

Reagan v Reagan.
"The media should keep in mind that we are also members of the Reagan family, and my father, as I do, opposed the creation of human embryos for the sole purpose of using their stem cells as possible medical cures," said Michael Reagan.

Michael Reagan said embryonic stem-cell research could not have saved his father from the ordeal of Alzheimer's disease.

"This is junk science at its worst," he said.

Ron Reagan's speech last night was full of promise, but they were empty promises.
"He is basically saying vote for Kerry and there will be stem-cell research," said Mike Reagan. "What I am saying is that there is already stem-cell research taking place. The media would have you believe – and my brother would have you believe – that stem-cell research is not going on. But it is."

Ron Reagan told the 20,000 people assembled at the convention that stem-cell research may lead to the "greatest medical breakthrough in our or in any lifetime."

In 2001, President Bush limited the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, citing moral and ethical concerns about performing experiments with fertilized human embryos. Proponents of such research insist those restrictions interfere with efforts to develop new treatments for a variety of diseases, including Alzheimer's, which slowly killed the former president.

However, adult stem-cell treatments have actually shown far more potential in treating dread diseases. Preliminary research involving embryonic stem-cell research has been associated with the development of tumors.

So the Democrats are politicizing science, and junk science at that, to try to come up with a reason for their faithful to vote against Bush. Pathetic.

There's a new tool out there for keeping up with the news and the blogs. NEWSFEED aims to be a one-stop-shopping site for culling the news sources. He's still coming up with new features, so stop by and give him a suggestion.

A Washington Post columnist gets an education. In his June 29th column, Jay Mathews acknowledged his ignorance on the subject of homeschooling. In yesterday's column, he noted this:
Much of what I thought about home schooling was wrong. The conventional wisdom about this rapidly growing dimension of American education is too simple, too stereotyped and too stale.

This is a very balanced look at what homeschooling really is. And it's not just a religious-right, Republican phenomenon, as Mathews finds out. The article is really worth a look, even if you wouldn't consider homeschooling for yourself.

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Ron Reagan, son of the former president, is going to speak to the Democrats tonight, renewing his call for embryonic stem cell research. But don't confuse his endorsement of it as an endorsement by his father. As I said during the week of mourning for former President Reagan, the Gipper would not have approved.

Jimmy Carter, showing that his head is still in the clouds, speaking last night at the Democratic Convention.
"The Middle East peace process has come to a screeching halt for the first time since Israel became a nation," he said. "All former presidents, Democratic and Republican, have attempted to secure a comprehensive peace for Israel with hope and justice for the Palestinians. The achievements of Camp David a quarter century ago and the more recent progress made by President Bill Clinton are now in peril."

Mr. Carter seems to have forgotten that, in the waning days of the Clinton administration, In an attempt to salvage some sort of legacy, Bill and Ehud Barak gave Arafat virtually everything he asked for, and Arafat turned them down cold. You can't negotiate with someone like that. There is no current peace process, not because of Bush, and not for want of trying, but because Arafat's whole political capital is tied up in the intifadah. This guy's got such a hold on things, he can still strong-arm his own Prime Minister into bowing and scraping to him. His rejection of the Clinton/Barak offer has painted him into a corner, and the only way out for either Israel or the Palestinians is for him to leave the scene altogether, something that's only going to happen after he's dead.

So please, Mr. Carter, stop playing Rip van Winkle and wake up.

>whew< Just finished a mass blogroll addition of the members of Homespun Bloggers. There's a bunch of new entries over there on the left. Check 'em out.

Back from vacation today, just in time for the Democratic Convention (or, as Limbaugh puts it, "The Snow Job in July"). I've heard just a few clips of what was said last night by the heavy hitters, and so I don't have any comments of my own about it. However, I heard some good remarks from callers to Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" talk show.
  • Bill Clinton said that we'd done it the Republican's way for 12 years, the Democrats way for 8, then the Republicans way for 4, and when it's done the Democrats' way thing turn out better. So consider that after 12 years of Reagan then Bush 1 the economy was in ascension like it hadn't been for a long time (certainly far, far better than doing it the Democrats' way under Carter). Then Clinton inherits a fantastic economy and rides it like it's his, only to hand off a declining one to Bush 2 (all the stats say so). Bush 2 inherits that, and then 9/11 smashes the economy even further, and he's turned it around. OK, so who's way is better? Not to mention that Clinton's trying to claim that 1 simple, small tax cut destroyed 20 years of economic progress. Yeah, right.
  • Saddam Hussein invaded his neighbor. We went in to kick him out with a large coalition. UN resolutions were passed against him (all ignored). Hussein used loopholes in the ceasefire agreement to continue his reign of terror against his own people. More UN resolutions ignored. No fly zones ignored, and our guy are getting shot at. Oil for Palaces Food props up his regime. More killings. The taxpayers supporting two carrier contingents to keep him in line. More UN resolutions ignored. Finally George W. Bush goes in, takes out Hussein, kills his heirs apparent, turns the government over to the Iraqi people and (and this is the kicker) ends the war! The Gulf War that started over a decade ago that ended with a ceasefire agreement (just a ceasefire agreement, not a war-ending treaty) was ended by Dubya. Shouldn't "peace" activists applaud this?
  • Dubya was excoriated for his minimal military service, while Kerry was said to have shown up with his country needed him. Kinda like Bush 1 being a fighter pilot while Clinton was a draft dodger, eh?

And I read this line from an AP article:
"Lt. Kerry was known for taking the fight to the enemy," said the Rev. David Alston, who served on a Vietnam swiftboat commanded by Kerry a generation ago.

Kinda like taking the fight to Hussein & al Qaeda in Iraq? Yup. And this line from Clinton was a doozy.
"They need a divided America but we don't," the former president said of the Republicans who have held power for four years.

How in the world can you possibly say (or believe) that a wartime President wants (needs?) a divided America? That's insane! And this coming from the convention of the party that seeks to divide people based on race, income, age, and any other demographic you can name, and that lives for class warfare? Ever luvin', if you fall for that line you aren't paying attention.

And speaking of hypocrisy, from the same article...
What passed for controversy at the Democrats' unified convention was stirred by Kerry's wife. She told a persistent reporter on Sunday to "shove it" when he urged her to expand on her call for more civility in politics.

"I think my wife speaks her mind appropriately," Kerry told reporters who asked about the exchange between Teresa Heinz Kerry and the editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

You'll never hear Laura Bush say something like that.

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Still on vacation this week, but check out over at Homespun Bloggers for the first of a weekly "Best Of" posting, featuring a lot of other Homespunners. And folks keep adding to the role all the time.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Didn't happen.
Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage foundered Wednesday afternoon when the proposal failed to garner enough votes in the Senate to stay alive.

After final arguments by the leaders of each party, Republicans mustered 48 votes, 12 short of the 60 they needed to overcome a procedural hurdle and move the proposed amendment to the floor.

Clayton Cramer takes Daschle to task for his explanation of his vote against the amendment.
This quote from Senator Daschle shows how dishonest these turkeys can be:
But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no "urgent need" to amend the Constitution. "Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It's what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It's what I believe."

"In South Dakota, we've never had a single same sex marriage and we won't have any," he said. "It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity."
And what will he say after the Supreme Court rules (as they hinted in Lawrence) that bans on homosexual marriage are just bigotry? His excuse then will be that by the time Congress and the states act, there will be thousands of married homosexuals, and who would want to break up those marriages?

Say what they want about it, this vote was for or against the classic institution of marriage as one man and one woman. Alleged concern for states rights won't wash. "States rights" is something the Democrats never concern themselves with unless they're obfuscating. As Clayton notes, that's a "principle that Democrats last embraced to justify segregation of public schools". I'd also note they trotted it out during the 2000 election, objecting to the fact that the Supreme Court was telling Florida to follow its own election rules.

Monday, July 12, 2004

I'm not hot on this idea.
American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.

It would appear like another terrorist win if that happened. Now, I could understand it if some major vote-counting infrastructure was out of commission, but I think that overall we should press on in the face of any attack. If voting is delayed in one city or area, then arrangements should be made to perhaps give folks more time to vote there, but I don't think the general election should be postponed if at all possible. Let's not give terrorists the psychological win they may be trying to get.

Controversial or common sense? You make the call.
A controversy erupted at a global AIDS conference on Monday over whether abstaining from sex or using condoms was more effective to prevent the disease.

Question: Which is more effective in preventing injury from moving vehicles: staying out of the road, or wearing armor while playing in the street?
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni brought the issue, which has set many AIDS activists at odds with Washington, into the open at the first full day of the AIDS conference by saying abstinence was the best way to stem the spread of the killer virus.

The remarks by Museveni, whose country is a rare success story in Africa's war on AIDS, were at odds with health experts who back condoms as a frontline defense against the incurable disease.

Why in the world would groups intent on reducing AIDS worldwide even create a hint of controversy over what is obviously working quite well? Makes you wonder if they're more intent on pushing the envelope on sexual mores while trying to reduce the consequences rather than actually fulfilling their stated mission.

Abstinence, of course, works 100% of the time every time it's tried. Condoms are good, but they aren't 100%. So by the common sense standard, which is better? Hmmm, tough choice.
"I look at condoms as an improvisation, not a solution," Museveni told delegates on the second day of the 15th International AIDS Conference in Bangkok.

Instead, he called for "optimal relationships based on love and trust instead of institutionalized mistrust which is what the condom is all about."

Museveni added fuel to a debate within the AIDS community over the best way to halt the spread of a disease that has killed 20 million people and infected 38 million. Uganda's "ABC" method (Abstinence, Being faithful and Condoms) is a model for the AIDS policies of the administration of President Bush and which are under fire at the conference for advocating sexual abstinence to stem infection.

But that obvious effectiveness rate and Uganda's "rare success story" aren't enough to convince these condom shills conferencees. There's an agenda here, no doubt about it.

I joined up with a group called Homespun Bloggers, a group for those who blog regularly, are "family friendly", and don't derive our main source of income from the blog. It's a rather new consortium, so things are just getting cranking, but there are some interesting things they want to do with it. If you qualify, sign on up!

Sunday, July 11, 2004

  • Via marcland via Ace of Spades comes word (again) and Joe Wilson (he who raised such a big stink about his wife being "outed" as a CIA employee) lied about yet more of the matter. This couple has no credibility anymore, and Bryan Preston would like some liberal bloggers who've really pushed this whole thing to start apologizing. Sic transit Wilson/Plame.
  • Joe Gandleman, guest blogging at Dean's World, notes that the terrorists have won another one, this time in the Phillipines. This is not looking good.
  • John Hawkins answers a reader's question about a topic near and dear to my heart; vouchers for private schools. (I fisked the Clinton administration policy in an essay here.)
  • McQ over at QandO is doing his old vaudeville act. Take Cynthia McKinney...please!

Friday, July 09, 2004

I'm going to be training people next week, so blogging will be light. This will be followed by a vacation, in which blogging may be non-existent. Hopefully, both my regular readers will keep tabs on me and realize when I return. >grin<

In the meantime, please stop by here and sign the petition for the Federal Marriage Amendment (as I did). While you're there, you can find out how your senator stands on the subject. If they're in the "Oppose" or "Uncommitted" column, give 'em a call and let them know how important this amendment is. (And if they support it, congratulate them.)

And then tell a friend. The vote is July 15th. Let's get this done.

(Oh, and while I'm away, you should continue reading marcland. Just do it.)

Hugh Hewitt played a clip of a speech given by Barbara Boxer yesterday on the floor of the Senate where she referred to the Madrid train bombings as a "rail accident".

Yeah, and 9/11 was an "airline mishap".

Now we all know that Boxer misspoke (albeit in a huge way). But imagine the Democrats' reactions if Bush had said something like that. Do you think for one moment that her intelligence will be questioned in the slightest way, if at all, in the same way that Bush's would be? Bush haters start from the assumption that Bush is stupid, and any misstatement is proof of some sort of sub-50 IQ, while giving folks like Boxer a free pass when they call terrorist bombings an "accident".

(And, as I and others have mentioned before, the same guy they consider a dunce they simultaneously consider some sort of evil genius, as well as, amazingly, kowtowing to both the Saudi Arabs and the Israeli Jews. The internal inconsistencies are mind-boggling.)

Thursday, July 08, 2004

Good news watch:
The number of new people signing up for jobless benefits dropped last week to the lowest level in more than three years, a potentially encouraging sign for a labor market experiencing a bumpy recovery.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that new applications for unemployment insurance plunged by a seasonally adjusted 39,000 to 310,000 for the week ending July 3. That marked the best showing since Oct. 8, 2000. The latest snapshot of the layoffs climate was better than economists were expecting. They were forecasting claims to decline to around 345,000.

Just keeps getting better and better. Remember this (and all the other good economic news) when Kerry/Edwards start beating the "Two Americas" drum. They won't have any rhythm to speak of.

When tender liberal sensibilities and freedom of religion collide, who wins?
A Swedish court has sentenced Ake Green, a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon, according to Ecumenical News International.

Green had described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society" in a 2003 sermon.

Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights, said on hearing Green's jail sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people.

A harbinger of things to come over here. You can just see it a little farther down the slope.

This doesn't bode well for Kerry/Edwards:
July 8 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic candidate John Kerry's standing against President George W. Bush didn't improve following his pick of North Carolina Senator John Edwards as his running mate July 6, according to a Zogby International poll.

Forty-eight percent of 1,008 likely voters polled by Zogby from July 6-7 supported Kerry and Edwards and 46 percent back Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The two percentage-point margin is within the poll's 3.1 percentage point margin of error and matches the two point spread in a Zogby poll taken June 2-5.

Other polls taken after Kerry's July 6 announcement show the Democrat gaining popularity in a race that is still in a statistical dead heat. A CBS poll found a Kerry-Edwards ticket would draw the support of 49 percent of voters if the election were held now, compared with 44 percent for Bush-Cheney, within the survey's margin of error. In a June 23-27 poll of the same voters, Kerry drew 45 percent support to Bush's 44 percent.

``This is not a big bounce electorate,'' pollster John Zogby said in a statement. ``We are a nation that is split down the middle, polarized and hardened.''

If Zogby's right, that would make the call for less federal control and more states' rights even more compelling. If people are completely set in their minds about who they plan to vote for that the traditional bumps in the polls fall flat, then it only makes sense to start pushing out more of the governing to the states, and let people in Rhode Island decide what's good for Rhode Island and not for Hawaii as well.

Of course, there would be those who'd say that this is a conservative principle (which it is) and hand-wave it away unconsidered, even though it would be in their best interest and the interest of their community. You decide what's best and you take responsibility, instead of saying that X should happen and force everyone to pay for it. Yeah, you'd still have unhappy liberals in conservative states and unhappy conservatives in liberal states, but the discontent over a governmental policy some don't agree with would be on a far smaller scale than a national level. And I see that as a Good Thing.

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Global warming update:
A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.
Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

Oh, but let's not forget the talking points.
This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.

They can't, and won't, say how much it's being amplified. They can suggest it is all they want, but the evidence suggests that the Sun can do just fine all by itself. As I've mentioned before, sunspots in the past have caused the coast of Greenland to melt, allowing what farming! And this was way back in the 980s, quite a bit before the advent of oil companies and automobiles. Yet humanity managed to survive (against all the dire predictions and scare tactics of the current brand of "ecologists"). Imagine that.

What would Democrats call a Republican presidential ticket that combined Dennis Hastert (who got a 96 in National Journal's Composite Conservative Score) and Tom DeLay (94)?

Extreme? Out of the mainstream? Ultra-conservative?

OK then, how about the Kerry (97 Composite Liberal Score) / Edwards (95) ticket?

Moderate? Middle of the road? Populist?

Please define your terms.

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

I highlighted the main difference between VP choices--Edwards vs. Cheney--and Hugh Hewitt gave me credit for discovering The "Gravitas Gap". And I have the audio file to prove it. >grin<

"Considerettes Radio" on The Hugh Hewitt Show (WGKA, Atlanta, GA) 7/6/2004 7:55pm EST (186K)

Good news watch:
The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates.

In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.

But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent rate in 1984, a year when another Republican president -- Ronald Reagan -- was running for re-election.

"We are moving into a sweet spot for the economy with interest rates not too high, jobs coming back and business investment providing strength," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Bank One in Chicago, who is predicting GDP growth of 4.8 percent this year.

And this article highlights something Democrats and liberals in the media usually ignore.
The economy has now created 1.5 million new jobs since last August, compared with a loss of 2.7 million jobs in the previous 29 months, when the country was struggling with a string of blows from a collapsing stock market to a recession and terrorist attacks.

A recession that started at the end of Clinton's term, and the 9/11-induced crash. Doesn't any Democrat (and Kerry in particular) remember those?

David Limbaugh says what I wanted to say about Kerry's abortion comment this weekend (except that he, of course, says it better).
Kerry stated, "I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist ... who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

But instead of threading the needle, the senator pricked himself with it and he's bleeding. If he genuinely believes we are dealing with life, it's difficult to understand how he would refuse to use the power of the state to protect that life. Unless, of course, he wants to go even further and concede he is a disciple of moral relativism – a risky admission that might earn him further disfavor with the Catholic Church.

For if you acknowledge a fetus is a life, it's very difficult to justify killing it (with the possible exception of protecting the mother's life) without making a determination that the mother's convenience is so paramount that it must take precedence over an innocent life. That this notion is even "thinkable" is a staggering testament to the moral decline of our culture.

Limbaugh goes on to say that Kerry apparently doesn't mind essentially imposing this belief on the unborn babies. Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Kerry.

Some folks suggested that Hussein should have been tried by the World Court in The Hague. Good thing he's not, otherwise we could expect such "swift" justice as this:
The chief judge at The Hague says the trial of ex-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic needs a "radical review" because of the defendant's poor health.
Judge Patrick Robinson issued his warning after a court-appointed doctor's report said Mr Milosevic needed to rest.

The judges delayed the start of Mr Milosevic's defence case and said they would decide later how to proceed.

Mr Milosevic has been on trial for genocide and war crimes since 2002.

It's been 2 years, and they're only now getting ready to hear the defense case! And it could take much longer.
"The time has come for a radical review of the trial process," Judge Robinson told the court.

Steven Kay, a lawyer appointed by the court to ensure that Mr Milosevic gets a fair trial, said the future of the trial was now in doubt.

"It's quite clear over the past five months that [Milosevic's] health had been gradually declining.

"It may well be that the court is at a stage now of having to consider that as a distinct issue on this trial as to his very fitness to stand trial at all."

The guy's going to die of natural causes (if the stress doesn't kill him) before these folks finish nit-picking over procedure. And of course Milosevic, who's representing himself, knows exactly how to play these guys like a violin.
Prosecutors finished their case in February, but BBC legal affairs analyst Jon Silverman says it did not deliver the spectacular knockout punch which it promised before the trial began.

Mr Milosevic's witness list - at about 1,600 - is more than five times longer than the number called in two years by the prosecution.

It's a very good thing that these folks aren't in charge of the Hussein trial. And who knows how long these guys would've taken to handle the Nuremberg trials!

"Considerettes Radio" expands its horizons to Bill Bennett's morning talk show "Morning in America". One of Bill's regular guests is Lucianne Goldberg who comments about politics and the culture. Today she mentioned Dick Morris, who has made some predictions about Hillary Clinton, her possible aspirations for the presidency, and how she will be reacting to a Kerry campaign if, by his winning, it would keep her out of the running in 2008. I was really interested in Morris' columns when I first read them, because of how tight he was with the Clintons when he worked for them yet how critical he was of them. However, some things he's said and predictions he's made make me wonder just how well he really knows them.

"Considerettes Radio" on Bill Bennett's Morning in America (WGKA, Atlanta, GA) 7/6/2004 7:50am EST (352K)

Thursday, July 01, 2004

Today's question: Who said, "Bush is the real criminal"? Was it:

A. Saddam Hussein, murderous dictator.
B. John Kaminski, a way-out, paranoid conspiracy theorist who thinks (among other nutty things) that the Nick Berg video was produced in Abu Ghraib
C. Monica Leland-Evers, who signed a petition to prevent Stephen Funk from going to prison for joining the Marines and then calling himself a "conscientious objector". (Funk did get jailed for desertion before being discharged. What did he think the Marines did, anyway?)
D. Pamela Quattrochi, an anti-war protestor, "echoing the sentiments of many other demonstrators", according to Indymedia.

The answer is "E - All of the above". They all find themselves on the same side of the issue, they each propped the other up during the war, and all of them deserve each other. Saddam, meet your best buddies.

This just in:
Publisher Revokes Hillary's Advance for Common Good

(2004-07-01) -- In the same week that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told a San Francisco audience that future President John Forbes Kerry will take money away from wealthy Americans "on behalf of the common good", the former First Lady's publisher announced it would not pay the $5.3 million deferred advance it owes for her book Living History.

"To get the publishing industry, and our company in particular, back on track, we're going to cut that short and not give it to you," a spokesman for Simon and Shuster reportedly told Mrs. Clinton. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Mrs. Clinton's office released a statement saying she was "delighted to help cover the publisher's losses from unpopular books by other authors, bad management decisions and bureaucratic waste."

She suggested that her husband, who served with her in the White House during the 1990s, would like to do the same with his $10 million advance from Knopf.

OK, it's not a real news story, it's a ScrappleFace satire. But really, you don't really expect Hillary to practice what she preaches, do you? Certainly she could live just fine without that money and give it too the poor. Or she could do the "compassionate liberal" thing and voluntarily give it up in taxes. Then the poor would see 1.3 million of it, and the government would get the rest. Yup, that's compassionate.