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: UPI Hugh Hewitt Slate << Return to "Consider This!"  Features Georgia Marriage Amendment Rally Considerettes 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 
   Ye Olde Blogroll 
|
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
The "Cartoon Jihad" has given Europe a chance to reevaluate its values. To what degree should immigrants be assimilated? Newsweek has an article on this topic, but it has an odd title, "The End of Tolerance". The subheading goes further: "Farewell, multiculturalism. A cartoon backlash is pushing Europe to insist upon its values." Is this what "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" means, that countries should allow the killings and burnings to continue? Does "tolerance" mean that no set of values is better than another, or that a country can't insist that people follow its values as expressed in its laws? It's this mindset that has turned schools into values-free war zones. The Dutch have seen what kind of war zones have been imported, and how it has been exported to the world. But Newsweek doesn't want anyone to make value judgements. Instead we get writing like this: What's going on here? Weren't the Dutch supposed to be the nicest people on earth, the most tolerant nation in Europe, a melting pot for minorities and immigrants since the Renaissance? No longer, and in this the Dutch are once again at the forefront of changes in Europe. This time, the Dutch model for Europe is one of multiculturalism besieged, if not plain defunct. "Be nice and let 'em in, but be tolerant and don't judge them when they burn down your towns and kill you over cartoons." Remember that America was, and still is, a melting pot, and we still generally ask that immigrants accept our shared values, including freedom of the press and religious freedom. Multiculturalism isn't being besieged so much as it's coming in contact with reality. As the saying goes, a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out, Blogger News Network and Redstate. Comments welcome.) Friday, February 24, 2006
This sounds promising. The Japanese manufacturer Honda is close to winning the race in becoming the first mass car producer to offer a hydrogen- powered fuel cell car. The sooner we come up with an oil alternative the better, and I think the free-market will get it here just fine, without the need for overt government legislation. Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Back in June, I talked about J. Matt Barber who got fired from Allstate Insurance for writing an article, on his own time, critical of homosexuality and same-sex marriage from a Christian perspective. Today comes word that there has been a sealed, out-of-court settlement. Tuesday, February 21, 2006
In 6 years, if all trends continue, half the babies born in the UK will be to unmarried mothers. As "progressive" as the UK has been at, among other things, de-emphasizing religious and moral values, this may be a shock, but it's no surprise. The number of births outside wedlock exceeds 50 per cent in some parts, including Wales. In the North East, it was 54.1 per cent last year. Now comes the common sense, but is anyone listening? The figures have alarmed family campaigners, who say the collapse of marriage could have a serious impact on social structures. This, of course, will be used by "progressives" to further the idea that same-sex marriage is the answer to this dilemma, but this arrangement is little better than a single parent family, as well-rounded children need both a male and female influence. (Here's the report on one study, but there are many more.) The commitment in a "same-sex marriage" is better than none, of course, but as the report notes, there is far more that children need than that. What we have is a slippery slope. While each person or group moving us down may not be working in concert with anyone else farther up the slope, the effect in any case is to have an incremental push over the course of a couple generations to the liberal side of the spectrum. In order to really make "same-sex marriage" palpable to a majority of people, you have to find a reason for redefining a term that has endured for millennia. Out-of-wedlock births fits that bill, but in order to do that, you have to break down the traditional taboos and mainstream extramarital sexual activity. In order to do that, you have to erode the religious traditions of the country (and sometimes you get the churches to help in that regard, unfortunately). What it amounts to is the classic entrepreneurial action of creating a need and then filling it. Unfortunately, as people have continued to accept more and more liberal values during this process, countless lives have been destroyed. But with each slip, the proposed "solution" was always sold as being better than what came before. Instead, more and more lives are ruined. I predict that the next "solution" will bring about even worse results. Campaigners and Church leaders have accused politicians of marginalizing marriage by undermining its legal and financial privileges and shying away from promoting it above other types of family. The real solution is to go back to what worked, and worked well. Unfortunately, this may take further generations. In the meantime, the slippery slope is further littered with the lives of those who believed in the new "solutions". (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out and Redstate. Comments welcome.) Backpedalling at the speed of light. Iran's foreign minister denied on Monday that Tehran wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map," saying President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. If he meant the regime, he would have said the regime. And taken together with the President's remark that Israel should be moved to Europe--thus wiping it off the Middle Eastern map--it's not hard to understand that he meant what he said. This has everything to do with how the world is preparing to deal with Iran's uranium enrichment program. The government is now trying to present a calmer face than one in which a madman is ready to blow up the Jewish state. Mottaki's comments came as he sought to assure EU lawmakers and institutions that Tehran had no ambitions to make nuclear weapons, despite widespread mistrust in Europe and the United States of the reasons behind Iran's nuclear program. But it's just a mask. Thursday, February 16, 2006
Do you consider the Boy Scouts a religion? A judge in San Diego said it was, and now the 9th Circuit (oh joy) gets a shot at it. Arguments in a major Boy Scouts case unfolding in Pasadena, Calif., before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – a case that is certain to be headed for the Supreme Court -- centered on the contention that the revered organization is actually a religion and should therefore not be given a lease of public land. That any federal judge considered the BSA a religion is truly unbelievable. But the idea that using the "G" word in a sentence prevents you from consideration at all by any level of government is even more preposterous. When you see how much religion the Founding Fathers allowed for in government by their actions, this can't possibly be a First Amendment issue. At least not the First Amendment the way they intended it to be. But to the "living document" judges, the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean. Today. Until they change their minds. Again. So much for the Constitution be a foundation. (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out, Blogger News Network and Redstate. Comments welcome.) Predictably, now a California town has banned outdoor smoking. The new Calabasas secondhand smoke ordinance, which would prohibit smoking in all public areas of the city including parks, sidewalks and outdoor businesses, will take effect by the middle of March, city officials said. But in their magnanimity, they did allow some exceptions. The city council agreed to allow smoking in the following areas: Check out that first one; private property? They allowed it on private property? Folks, if you can't smoke a cigarette outside on your own land, how private is that property? I'm not a smoker and I encourage folks not to smoke, but if second-hand smoke, diluted by the vast outdoors, is as bad and harmful as all this, then have the guts to ban it completely. If you don't, then legislation like this has no place. If you do completely ban tobacco, I'll bet some folks, lulled to sleep during all these incremental incursions into their liberty by an ever more intrusive government, will wake up and kick you out. (Which is why I'm sure it's all being done incrementally.) Wednesday, February 15, 2006
'I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving with Ted Kennedy." -- Frank Traynor in a Feb. 15th letter to the editor of WorldNetDaily. (Unfortunately, not a permalink.) Aesop's Fables for the 21st century. In response to reports the United States and Israel are exploring ways to monetarily isolate his terror group, which is currently forming the next Palestinian government, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar yesterday slammed international critics and claimed Hamas doesn't need "satanic" American money. And the fox said, "The grapes are sour anyway." Another former Baathist member and former high-ranking General in Hussein's army has come out to say that he understands that Iraq's WMDs have been moved to Syria. [Ali Ibrahim] Al-Tikriti says he knows Saddam's weapons are in Syria because of contingency plans established as far back as the late 1980s, in the event either Damascus or Baghdad were taken over. What I find interesting was his motivation to leave the Baathists. Al-Tikriti said he turned against the Baath Party after his wife stood up to him and questioned his brutal tactics. If you're a married man, or about to be one (as one of our Stones is), this bit of advice is always timely. Listen to your wife. Yeah, you can always come up with a bad biblical example (Adam, for instance) but typically a man's wife is a source he should tap more often. And women, you can stand by your man, but stand up to him, too. (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out. Comments welcome.) Tuesday, February 14, 2006
The mayor of Tall'Afar in Iraq has some choice words for our military. The Mudville Gazette has the full letter, but here are two hard-hitting paragraphs. Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi’s followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them. I encourage you, as the saying goes, to read the whole thing. Friday, February 10, 2006
Heh heh. Great letter to the editor of the Boston Globe. Good satire makes you laugh and makes a point. This one stings. I FIND all of your editorial cartoons deeply offensive, morally, religiously, philosophically, and spiritually. In fact, I don't like your editorials, either. And the editorializing in your news coverage is annoying as well. Makes you think. Hopefully, it'll make the Globe think. Does the Quran prohibit creating any image of the prophet Muhammad? According to Amir Taheri, writing in the Wall St. Journal, no. There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One. He goes on to list a few of the many famous depictions. Well then, does this have more to do with a deep Muslim resistance to having their religion made fun of? Again, no. Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims "suicide martyrdom" as the highest goal for all true believers. Again, he offers further historical examples. So if what some are calling the "Cartoon Intifadah" is not religious in its origin, what is it? Mr. Taheri, explains. The "rage machine" was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood--a political, not a religious, organization--called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood's rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party's 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut. It's political. Much of the defense of Muslims has tried to come at this from one or the other of these perspectives. The fact is that nothing happened for months after the cartoons were first published, and only after a political body called for a response that 10 people (so far) were killed and buildings burned over them. This is a calculated political response, even if it may have gone farther than the Muslim Brotherhood intended. I'm not thrilled when religion is lampooned, but I understand that not everyone shares the same opinion. One's religion is as personal as one's political opinion and so both are subject to it. Hence, I understand that it's generally all fair game, including my own Christianity. And on the other side, when someone's offended, it is their right to speak out against what they believe to be wrong, whether in fact, or whether it be one opinion vs. another. But this furor is unjustified on many counts. It's has a political origin in spite of claims to the contrary. It doesn't follow Islam's own history. And it has become outrageous in its excess and cruelty. This may be the oft-cited "less than 1% of Muslims" who are doing all the damage. I can buy that. But how soon will it be before we see this kind of action from the other 99%, rather than just press releases? There has been some, but it's been lost in the din raging over some cartoons. (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out and Blogger News Network. Comments welcome.) "I'm not dead yet!" A woman was yesterday celebrating the end of a seven-year battle to be removed from Spain's register of deaths after officials insisted she died in 1992. Don't expect anyone to die over this. POLAND'S Roman Catholics expressed outrage today after a magazine published a picture of the much revered icon of the Black Madonna with pop singer Madonna's face transposed onto it. Thursday, February 09, 2006
The Captain brings the NSA wiretapping program into perspective. The Democrats, of course, initially wanted to hang Bush from a yardarm over this program, but quickly ran into a problem: the White House had kept key Democratic leaders abreast of the program since its 2001 inception. They then wanted to get the public irate over what they kept calling "domestic spying," but eventually realized that the public thought it reasonable to check on international calls from suspected al-Qaeda terrorists during a war against them. Now they have settled for the most reasonable position yet -- that Congress should have some method of weighing the risk/benefit ratio of warrantless wiretaps, even in a time of war. It may still not meet the terms of the Constitution, but politically it's the most resonant message that Democrats can make. And that has been my big problem with those screaming "Impeachment!" over this; they didn't know what they were talking about. Frankly, none of us did. Only now is it coming out, and, predictably, the rhetoric is cooling down (rabid Bush-haters being the perennial exception). Al Gore himself, in his speech on the subject, demonstrated this problem. "We still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and insistently," Gore said. The more we've learned, the less it has troubled even Democrat lawmakers. But Al was a big "Impeachment!" guy, and the Left ate it up. Some more interesting bits: The original NY Times article noted that purely domestic calls were done under warrant, so the label of "Domestic Spying" lumped in with "warrantless wiretaps" was disingenuous each time they were paired. (Thank you, mainstream media, for propagating that bit of misinformation.) The original article noted that the program was actually suspended twice and further restrictions put into place due to concerns about the legalities, but the Left has ignored this bit of good-faith effort on the part of the Administration. I am concerned about those on the Right who blindly approve of this. It's not necessarily true that being against the program means you're for the terrorists. I don't really buy the "what do you have to hide?" argument. I just think that much of the noise from the Left about this was knee-jerk, and like Gore's speech, was bluster from ignorance (ignorance, I again note, that we all shared). Some on the Right were, I suspect, willing to accept it just because it was Bush doing it. As I said when this first came out, this is government we're talking about, and unchecked expansion is never a good thing. However, from the get-go this has been checked. It has been modified over legality concerns. And because of this, I'm not as concerned. I'm glad we're having an investigation. Let the chips fall where they may. (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out. Comments welcome.) Today's Odd "Considerettes" Search Phrase - what is the record high temperature for this area on this day. clinton county ohio [#1! on Yahoo! Search] Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Today brings another couple of sources that say they know where at least some of Iraq's WMDs are, and one is Hussein himself. Via Clayton Cramer comes a link to this NY Sun story. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is studying 12 hours of audio recordings between Saddam Hussein and his top advisers that may provide clues to the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. And (also from the NY Sun): A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Since the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence reopened the case of the missing WMDs, I imagine we'll be hearing more about this in the coming weeks. (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out. Comments welcome.) Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Finally, Fayetteville State University has released audio of what Julian Bond said in his speech. Turns out that not only does Bond use inflammatory speech, he mixes his inflammatory metaphors. Hours after his speech, the Web site for World Net Daily published an article in which it quoted Bond as saying, “The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side.” The comment quickly spread on the Internet and prompted sharp criticism from conservatives including Rush Limbaugh, who mentioned the report on his radio show Friday. WND had to get its information from people who attended the speech and probably weren't taking notes. Turns out, they gave Bond more credit than he deserved. Bond's denial was categorical, but in fact he did use the swastika imagery. Now that we have the words themselves, it appears he bumbled in his attempt. But people are still trying to cover for him. The criticism has been equally harsh against newspapers and television networks, with conservative organizations and Internet bloggers accusing the media of ignoring offensive remarks. On Monday, World Net Daily posted another article citing FSU’s news release. The site says it verified Bond’s comments as originally reported by talking with people who said they attended the speech. Yeah, it's truly "outrageous" that when people heard the word "swastika" they immediately thought of Nazis. Please. This wasn't a fabrication by listeners. If anything, it was a gracious mis-hearing of otherwise poorly worded hate speech. A (43 megabyte) MP3 recording of the speech can be found here. (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out and Blogger News Network. Comments welcome.) Global Warming Update: A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity. Of course, I keep going back to the warming period in the 960s (no, that's not a typo) when Vikings were able to harvest wheat on the coast of Greenland. No SUVs back then, eh? Got to changes these things to Solar Warming Updates. Monday, February 06, 2006
This is simply beyond the pale. Feel the need to self-abuse? Some in the medical profession want to give you clean blades. And I'm not talking about shaving. A professional nurses group is proposing that "self-harming" patients who are intent on mutilating themselves be given clean blades, bandages and "how-to" advice so they can cut themselves more safely. "Safe self-harm"? Cutting yourself more safely? Is this what the medical community has come to? Current practice mirrors what most people expect of the medical profession - stopping anyone from harming himself and removing any sharp objects that could be used to cut the skin. Not to mention, quite possibly, psychological help and counselling. The new proposal is basically throwing in the towel. According to the National Mental Health Association, self-harm - also termed self-mutilation, self-injury or self-abuse - is defined as the "deliberate, repetitive, impulsive, non-lethal harming of one's self. It includes: 1) cutting, 2) scratching, 3) picking scabs or interfering with wound healing, 4) burning, 5) punching self or objects, 6) infecting oneself, 7) inserting objects in body openings, 8) bruising or breaking bones, 9) some forms of hair-pulling, as well as other various forms of bodily harm. These behaviors, which pose serious risks, may by symptoms of a mental health problem that can be treated." But if they won't get help, these nurses would like you to be comfortable in your mental illness. They're even likely willing to take other peoples' money to pay for it. RCN's Jeremy Bore supports the proposal. "We should give patients clean blades and a clean environment to self-harm and then access to good-quality dressings," he said Well, of course. That would make sense. Except Mr. Bore isn't interested in talking them out of it. "We should definitely give advice on safer parts of the body to cut. It could get to the stage where we could have a discussion with the patient about how deep the cuts were going to be and how many." One would hope it would get to the stage of telling them where to go for help. He doesn't mention that. And the RCN maps out quite nicely the slippery slope we're currently on. Ian Hulatt, mental health adviser for the RCN, sees a parallel to the similar proposal to give hypodermic needles to drug users to prevent the spread of AIDS through shared needles. Not that far from free needles to allow you to slowly kill yourself to free blades to allow your mental condition to progress (but comfortably). According to one unnamed source, some nurses already do what is being proposed. "We may not like someone self-harming, but they are going to do it whether we like it or not and we will need to deal with the problems afterwards." You know what I never hear suggested? "Kids are going to smoke anyway; let's give them safe cigarettes." Unless you think smoking is a sign of mental disease, does it really make sense to ban a legal action while supporting the habits of junkies and cutters? I've never really bought into the argument that since someone is going to do something anyway, that we should make them comfortable in their destruction and provide them the tools to feed their habit. The medical profession pledges to do no harm, not less harm. Fortunately, there are those speaking out against this. The UK's Patient Association has come out against the proposal. "Supplying individuals who self-harm with blades cannot be good for them," said the group's director of communications. "Nurses should not be supporting patients to self-harm. By giving self-harmers the tools they need, the nurses could be seen as encouraging individuals to harm themselves. We should be doing something to discourage this behavior." And that logic follows for all the other giveaways; needles, condoms, whatever. We encourage those things we enable. This is an issue of co-dependence, not compassion. (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out, Blogger News Network and Redstate. Comments welcome.) Julian Bond is now trying to deny that he made Yet Another Inappropriate Nazi Reference (tm). Stung by national criticism of a speech in which he reportedly equated the Republican Party and Nazis, Julian Bond, the chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, denies the comments attributed to him by members of the audience and has lashed out at WND as a "right-wing blog." (By "right-wing blog" he means WorldNetDaily, an actual news organization.) The university is standing by him...sort of. University officials say they reviewed a tape of Bond's speech. But an official statement issued by Jeffrey Womble, director of public relations for the university, was carefully worded to avoid addressing whether Bond actually uttered the words attributed to him in the WND story. Technically, no, Mr. Bond didn't use the "N" word in a sentence. But I highly doubt that he was trying to associate Republicans with "a symbol of good luck and auspiciousness". However, there were actually people listening to what he said. They disagree with Julian's account. That quote and other comments reportedly made by Bond at the speech were relayed by members of the audience who were appalled at the specific charges as well as the overall divisive tone of the address. So it sounds like Mr. Bond has been caught and is trying to weasel his way out. Today, if you search for "'julian bond' swastika", unlike the paltry coverage yesterday, you get a bit more; 24 hits. Of course, WND still owns the story, and all the commentary you find is from the right. The Left still considers the devaluation of crimes against humanity no big deal if it's one of their guys doing it. And apparently they're also not willing to look into the disconnect in his denials of it. UPDATE: James Taranto has more details on the denial (he called the university to get the specifics what and wasn't said--doesn't sound good for Julian). He notes: n any case, all of this reinforces the point we made on Friday, which is that the so-called mainstream media were at best negligent in their coverage of the speech. Bond said quite a few partisan and inflammatory things that no one disputes, yet the local media characterized him as having a "positive attitude" and being engaged in a "fight for equal rights." Were it not for WND, we would not know that Bond had anything harsher to say than, "We have a president who talks like a populist and governs for the privileged." (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out and Blogger News Network. Comments welcome.) Friday, February 03, 2006
If the #2 guy in Saddam's air force had information about WMDs in Iraq, would you believe him? Even if he didn't say what you wanted him to? The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed. But don't you think we would have noticed that; a bunch of trucks or planes heading to Syria for no good reason? Mr. Sada tells us what Saddam was doing while the UN fiddled. Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops. But can we believe this guy? In his visit to the Sun yesterday, Mr. Sada was accompanied by Terry Law, the president of a Tulsa, Oklahoma based Christian humanitarian organization called World Compassion. Mr. Law said he has known Mr. Sada since 2002, lived in his house in Iraq and had Mr. Sada as a guest in his home in America. "Do I believe this man? Yes," Mr. Law said. "It's been solid down the line and everything checked out." They won't be the only ones who won't like it. Folks won't give up their "Bush lied!" meme without a fight. (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out and Blogger News Network. Comments welcome.) If he were a Republican, this would be hate speech. Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens." But since he's a Democrat, nothing will happen, and mostly because the MSM won't notice. A search of "'julian bond' swastika" in Google News (at this moment) showed only WorldNetDaily covering this. A blog and a college newspaper were the only other mentions of it. Just a collective yawn from the Left. This time. UPDATE: James Taranto has more. (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out and Blogger News Network. Comments welcome.) Thursday, February 02, 2006
Looks like an e-mail archiving problem has caused some potential evidence to go missing in the Plame investigation. The lefty blogosphere is all over this issue. One calls it "pulling an Andersen" in reference to the shredding of evidence by Arthur Andersen in the Enron scandal. How soon they forget. Google "'missing emails' northrop grumman" to find out about another administration that had e-mail archiving issues. If you are going to blindly assign sinister motives to these missing e-mails, were you just as willing to assign those motives to those missing e-mails? Somehow, I really doubt it. Wish blogs had been just as popular back then. (Cross-posted at Redstate. Comments welcome.) Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Why didn't the federal government help Louisiana out earlier, in anticipation of Katrina? We now know (with a hat tip to Captain's Quarters), that it's partly because Louisiana told them to stay away. A ranking Louisiana health official turned down federal offers to help move or evacuate patients as Hurricane Katrina bore down on New Orleans, a newly released document shows. The more evidence that comes out, the more it becomes clear that the state abrogated many of its responsibilities, and then proceeded to blame others. Yet we still hear from the media and the liberal pundits about problems with the federal response, as if that is the only place any failures occurred. To be sure, they could have done a lot better, but when the feds deferred to the state, that was their proper role. Would folks that are all up in arms about the feds listening in on Americans talking to terrorists, contrarily, yawn over the military barging in and taking over whenever the feds thought they knew better? If not, then more notice needs to be taken of Blanco's and Nagin's failure in responding. But you can bet that, in the future, the media will continue to try to Blame Bush(tm). (Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out. Comments welcome.) A private (for-profit) tutor did for a South Carolina high school senior that the public schools couldn't do in 12 years. John Stossel has the details. Just added the Fair Tax Fans blogroll in the left column. If you think the IRS is broken (and, really, who doesn't) give some thought to a real alternative. |
|
