Considerettes

Homespun Bloggers Radio, program #2, is on the air. Click on the HBR button in the left column to hear it. Actually, it’s a loop of both programs 1 and 2, so hang in there, and you’ll hear the whole thing.

This program includes a commentary on Christmas intolerance, the first half of an “audio fisking” of John Kerry’s final video to his supporters, and a musical segment in honor and thanks to our troops overseas. I think you’ll enjoy it.

UPDATE: Murphy’s Law is alive and well. Just as I went out of town for Christmas, the audio stream server siezed up. It’s back now, and HBR is back on the air.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Administrative note: Christmas time is upon us (or, for those of you with the ACLU, Winter Solstice Season). As such, I’m taking a couple weeks of vacation from both work and the blog. While those of you who do the blogging thing know that it can be addictive, and thus I may not be entirely gone during this time, blogging will be light to non-existent until the new year.

(One thing I’m hoping to get out the door during this time is Homespun Bloggers Radio program #2. Stay tuned.)

So have a Merry Christmas (even you ACLU folks), and a very prosperous New Year. See you again soon!

Popularity: 3% [?]

I’ve said it many times before, that to liberals it’s more important what you feel than what you actually do. With that in mind, read this.

After a relentless attack on the United States for opposing the Kyoto Protocol, environmental groups concede the international treaty will have no impact on what they believe to be impending catastrophic global warming.

Despite the fact that green groups at the U.N. climate summit in Buenos Aires called President George Bush “immoral” and “illegitimate” for not supporting the Kyoto Protocol, the groups themselves concede the Protocol will only have “symbolic” effect on climate because they believe it is too weak. Kyoto is an international treaty that seeks to limit greenhouse gases of the developed countries by 2012.

“I think that everybody agrees that Kyoto is really, really hopeless in terms of delivering what the planet needs,” Peter Roderick of Friends of the Earth International told CNSNews.com.

All this sound and fury over a treaty that signifies nothing? Why then all the ruckus?

While Roderick dismisses the potential impact of the Kyoto Protocol, he believes the treaty is vital for a reason that has nothing to do with climate change.

“[The Protocol] is important more in the political message and the inspiration it is giving people around the world. People can say ‘yeah, our politicians do care — they are not just interested in power and their own greed and in their own money. They do care about the future of the planet,’” Roderick explained.

And there you have it. It matters more what you feel, or even just what you appear to feel. Kyoto will have virtually no impact at all, but that’s what conferees at the climate summit choose to spend so much time, effort and emotion over.

It’s time to spend a little brainpower on it, instead.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Here’s a follow-up to yesterday’s post about a Texas school district outlawing red and green. Why does it take a judge to dump this ridiculous rule?

A federal district court judge today granted a temporary restraining order to students and parents suing their Texas school district, thus allowing them to exchange religious cards and bring red and green party supplies to a school “Winter Break” party scheduled for tomorrow.

The only problem with this solution is that it depends on a reasonable judge. What if this had happened in Massachusetts?

Popularity: 3% [?]

Stifling of dissent by the United Nations:

Buenos Aires, Argentina (CNSNews.com) - The moderator of a panel discussion at the United Nations climate change conference here shut down questioning by a reporter who asked about disputed scientific claims regarding global warming, calling such questions “silly.”

The panel discussion featured representatives of the Inuit people, who were announcing their intention to seek a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States “for causing global warming and its devastating impacts.”

But when asked by CNSNews.com to defend the science behind the group’s legal challenge, the moderator of the event cut off the reporter’s questions and threatened “to put a stop to this.”

And what exactly was this dangerous question? What would cause allegedly open-minded scientists–ones who should be encouraging debate–to smack down a reporter?

CNSNews.com had asked the panelists about the scientific certainty that any potential warming in the Arctic is the fault of humans and specifically the fault of the United States.

The questions were predicated on temperature charts from a recently released report on Arctic warming and other data showing that surface temperatures in the Arctic in the early half of the 20th century were similar to present-day temperatures.

CNSNews.com asked Inuit panelists if these warmer Arctic temperatures in the first part of the 20th century had any disastrous impacts on the Arctic people.

“No it wasn’t, [a disaster] no it wasn’t at all,” said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, a United Nations-recognized, quasi-governmental group that is seeking a human rights declaration against the U.S.

Watt-Cloutier said the weather did not impact the Inuit people in any way in the 1930s, and she disputed the notion that today’s Arctic weather is similar to that of the 1930s — even though the data shows that surface temperatures back then were similar to today’s Arctic temperatures.

Also asked by CNSNews.com how any potential melt of Greenland’s ice shelf could create devastating climate and sea-level consequences when, according to multiple sources of available climate data, Greenland was warmer and had less ice during the Middle Ages than it currently has.

Watt-Cloutier responded, “I am not a scientist, so I can’t give you any scientific responses to your question.” But earlier in her presentation, Watt-Cloutier did present scientific analysis to bolster her group’s legal complaint against the U.S.

“Melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet can cause catastrophic interference with major ocean currents. Even moderate global warming scenarios are already having devastating impacts on the Inuit in the Arctic,” Watt-Cloutier claimed earlier.

So, armed with scientific data, a reporter asked for details about claims and about contradictory findings. This showed the shortcomings of the presenters, who had to backpedal all of a sudden.

CNSNews.com asked again whether the panelists would acknowledge scientific reports that Greenland was warmer during the Middle Ages and had less ice cover than it has currently.

But Goldberg interrupted, saying, “This is not a scientific event…as the moderator, I am going to put a stop to this.

“I have already put an end to this discussion, it is silly and it has nothing to do with what we are here to talk about,” he added.

Goldberg then called for more “productive” questions.

So never mind the man behind the curtain, just continue on addressing me as “The Wizard of Oz”.

A woman later took to the microphone and declared that the Inuit people’s complaint against the U.S. was “not about the science, but it’s about what is happening to human beings, and I think the U.S. has to start taking off its blinders.”

Well if it’s not about the science, why are you using science to blame the U.S.? If it’s not about the science, you don’t have a case against anybody.

And then came exposure of the herd mentality among reporters, as well as its liberal bias.

After the panel discussion, several audience members angrily approached this reporter and accused him of acting “disrespectful” to the Inuit people.

Never mind that they were using bad information to make their claims, just don’t disrespect ‘em. The conclusion is more important than the means by which you came to that conclusion. How you feel about something is more important that the reasons you feel it.

And that’s the core of liberal “thought”. How you feel about something trumps all. (Well, as long as what you feel fits in with what leftists think you should feel.) And they want to enforce public policy based on these feelings. Sorry, no can do.

Popularity: 3% [?]

First they took away Christmas carols. Then they wouldn’t even allow the instrumental versions to be played. And now?

Now a school district has banned the colors red and green from a “Winter Break Party,” requiring parents to bring only white plates and napkins.

In response to the party policy, as well as many other rules a group of parents and students believe to be rank censorship, a lawsuit has been filed against the Plano Independent School District in Texas to fight back against its “religious hostility,” as one attorney puts it.

Other policies cited in the suit, filed today in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, include a ban on candy cane distribution when a religious card is attached, a ban on parents giving religious-oriented items to one another on school property and a ban on criticizing school board members or administrators on campus.

“This lawsuit includes a large amount of evidence that demonstrates the pervasive religious hostility in Plano ISD,” said Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute, which, along with Alliance Defense Fund, is representing about 20 clients in the suit.

The paranoia is reaching fever pitch. The First Amendment permits the free exercise of religion, not making government schools religion-free zones.

One item included in the suit is the case of a girl student who was forbidden to invite her friends to an Easter event at her church, according to the law firm.

“We’ve even got a mom who went to the school asking if her daughter at her birthday party could hand out a pencil with ‘Jesus’ on it,” Shackelford told WND, “and the principal got so upset with her that he called the police.

“It’s just unbelievable stuff. We’ve been collecting these things for a year or two. This is a pervasive, district-wide problem of political correctness in the extreme.”

Freedom of speech stops at the school doors. Yes, the school system has the right to regulate speech to a point–especially if it is disruptive to the learning environment–but pencils with “Jesus” on them?

Said Shackelford: “There’s a huge difference between the school putting a sign out that says, ‘We endorse Jesus,’ and telling students and parents that they can’t live out their faith.”

Commenting on the white-only policy for party supplies, Shackelford quipped, “I guess nobody has told them white could symbolize the purity of Christ. They’d probably ban white!”

For a lighter look at Christmas colors, check out this graphic.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Today’s odd “Considerettes” search term: “*bowling*fer*fire*09*” (#12 on MSN Search).

Popularity: 3% [?]

Redstate.org is now an official 527 group, like MoveOn.org only…sane. >grin< The announcement is here.

Popularity: 3% [?]

With a nod to James Taranto comes this inane headline:

Women more at risk from climate change: Canadian at UN conference

You know that joke about the Washington Post headline, “God says world to end tomorrow; women and minorities hardest hit”? It’s not so far off the mark. The CBC’s headline wouldn’t be much different.

And how exactly would women be hurt worse by a global climate change?

“For instance, often women don’t know how to swim, so in a flood situation that can lead to a higher instance of death or injury,” Angie Daze, a program manager with a Canadian group called Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Change, said.

If he were a Republican, this would be hate speech at worst and sexist at best. Since he is advancing the liberal agenda, he gets a pass. Here’s another attempt at explaining the headline:

Other speakers on the sidelines of the Dec. 6-17 conference said women in poor countries are particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, which has been blamed for causing more violent storms and rising sea levels, among other problems.

“Women are highly dependent on the environment for their family responsibilities” in developing countries, said one environmental worker based in Bangladesh.

“Any type of environmental degradation impacts them more severely than men.”

Nope, sorry. Whatever those unnamed “family responsibilities” are, if they don’t get done, the whole family feels it. This is just political correctness run amok.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Another reason why global warming predictions are not something we want to base public policy on.

SYDNEY (AFP) - Coral reefs around the world could expand in size by up to a third because of increased ocean warming, according to a new Australian study which contradicts the long-held belief that global warming is destroying the reefs.

Previous research has predicted a decline of between 20 and 60 percent in the size of coral reefs by 2100 relative to pre-industrial levels because of increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels caused by the greenhouse effect in ocean surface waters.

But the newly published research, by a team led by oceanographer Ben McNeil of Sydney’s University of New South Wales, suggests that present coral reef calcification rates are not in decline and are equivalent to late 19th century levels.

“Our analysis suggests that ocean warming will foster considerably faster future rates of coral reef growth that will eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by as much as 35 percent by 2100,” McNeil said in a statement Monday.

“Our finding stands in stark contrast to previous predictions that coral reef growth will suffer large, potentially catastrophic, decreases in the future.”

Even when warming does happen, the predictions of what will happen due to it seem to be more what these folks want to happen (so they can get more funding an alter public policy) than an honest look into what is happening.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The Dead Arafat Dividend:

JERUSALEM (AP) - The armed uprising against Israel is a mistake and must end, interim Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview published Tuesday, signaling his determination to change direction after Yasser Arafat’s death.

Palestinian militants have enjoyed broad support among Palestinians during more than four years of conflict with Israel. Abbas’ affirmation of a somewhat unpopular view comes at the height of his campaign for Palestinian Authority president.

Abbas is the frontrunner in the Jan. 9 election to succeed Arafat as Palestinian Authority president. Abbas, a pragmatist, has the support of Israel and the international community.

While Arafat was still alive, Abbas told associates in closed-door meetings that he felt the uprising was a mistake, but rarely spoke out in public. When Abbas criticized the armed uprising during the launch of the U.S.-backed “road map” peace plan in 2003, he drew sharp condemnation at home.

In an interview with the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat published Tuesday, Abbas said Palestinians should resist Israeli occupation without resorting to violence.

It is important to “keep the uprising away from arms because the uprising is a legitimate right of the people to express their rejection of the occupation by popular and social means,” Abbas said.

“Using the weapons was harmful and has got to stop,” Abbas said, referring to shootings and bombings by Palestinian militants that have killed hundreds of Israelis since the outbreak of fighting in September 2000.

Those looking for peaceful means to deal with this problem are now able to speak openly. Just another upside to the demise of Arafat.

Popularity: 3% [?]

On his blog yesterday, Hugh Hewitt noted a Washington Post article about the Senate’s “nuclear option”; changing the filibuster rules to get Bush’s judicial nominees more easily through the Senate confirmation process, with an eye to potential Supreme Court nominees. Hugh comment is:

Bill Frist’s finger is on the button. Push it, Senator.

My comment would be, “he who lives by the nuke will die by the nuke”. I’m no Sun Tzu, but I see this as a short term tactic that, while it might get the current job done, is a poor long term strategy that could come back to bite us someday. And I don’t think we really want to give up the weapon of the filibuster just yet. The Post article backs me up on both points.

“One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end,” [Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist] said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a “formula for tyranny by the minority.”

Given the turn the culture war has taken–the fear of Christ in Christmas, same-sex marriage by judicial fiat, even going back to when the right to an abortion was “found” in the Constitution–do we really want to lose this tool to keep those kinds of judges out of the system? Democrats have been using it successfully to block conservatives, and now we want to take the ability of Republicans to use it? In the ebb and flow of national politics, in spite of all the talk of the death of liberalism, it’s not dead yet (apologies to Monty Python), and if a Hillary presidency is at all a possibility in the future, I think we’ll need to keep this weapon available instead of removing it entirely. Senator Reid’s blustering does make a point:

“If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it’s not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back,” incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said last week. “I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up.”

(Well, for lack of three better words, I guess.) Actually, while I think Republicans will rue the day, it will come later rather than sooner. For the moment, however, it may not be necessary.

Democrats, however, face several constraints. Democratic strategists said that some of the party’s senators from states Bush carried in the presidential election could be reluctant to support a filibuster for fear of being portrayed as obstructionist — a tactic the GOP used successfully in congressional elections this year and in 2002.

With a Supreme Court nomination, Democrats could be blamed for deadlocking the court at its current four conservatives and four liberals, making it impossible for the court to decide the toughest cases.

In addition to the sway Bush holds over blue senators from red states, this passage also points out the real way these problems should be resolved, and indeed has helped already in resolving this; elections. Not enough votes for ending filibusters? Take your case to the people. In this last election that’s what happened, and look at the results; more Republican senators, and more Democrats who may be willing to go along with the Republicans. And frankly, that’s the proper way to resolve political disputes in our republican system of government. You don’t give the majority, even if it’s “your” majority, more power by changing the rules. You give it to them by changing the minds of the voters.

If Frist doesn’t want tyranny, perhaps he should start by imagining what the rule change would look like from a Republican-minority point of view. I believe that conservative judges would be better ones than liberal judges because in general they’ll stick applying the Constitution and the law rather than creating new laws and rights out of whole cloth as many liberal judges have done. But even though I think that more conservatives judges would mean less judicial tyranny, that doesn’t mean I want to give Democrats this same power when they’re in the majority. Never mind “tyranny of the minority”, this would be the majority doing it to us. Then what could Frist say? Not much.

If filibustering judicial nominees is now fair game according to Democrats, I want it available in the Republican playbook for now. The “nuclear option” would just remove one check on the power of the majority, substituting what amounts to a club with a rifle. If no one has a rifle, we can deal with the other side’s club. But if we take up a rifle, someday we may be at the other end of the barrel.

I think the debate and the checks against power are good for us, even if I think they’re being used against the greater good, because there are remedies that are more in line with a republic. We just saw that remedy in action last month. If we believe in the process, we should let it run its course.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Looks like Yushchenko will be getting the sympathy vote in Ukraine in addition to the anti-Putin vote

UKRAINIAN prosecutors will today begin an investigation into allegations that state officials tried to assassinate opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, following weekend confirmation that he was poisoned in the run-up to presidential elections.

It is an inquiry that is expected to be hugely divisive because the prime suspect is the head of the Ukraine secret service, the SBU.

The official dined with Mr Yushchenko the night he was poisoned, and medical experts say the dioxin is likely to have been administered through the food and drink.

Mr Yushchenko, expected to be elected president in re-run elections on 26 December, yesterday promised a full investigation of the case.

Some are suggesting that the poisoning was never meant to kill him, but to scare him. But it doesn’t look like it has, at least outwardly. While professing to not want to dwell on it, the campaign, or at least his supporters, have made it part of the cause.

Mr Yushchenko yesterday insisted his poisoning would not be the key issue in campaigning ahead of the presidential run-off contest against prime minister Viktor Yanukovich. He said: “I don’t want this factor to influence the election in some way - either as a plus or a minus.”

In fact, the timing of the announcement means the issue can hardly be anything else. The poisoning allegations have been the central theme of this election battle ever since Mr Yushchenko was rushed to hospital with a mystery illness on 5 September this year.

The current government of Ukraine is busy wiping the self-inflicted egg off its face.

Sources in Kiev say the best hope of solving the mystery has been the recent defection to the opposition of several senior SBU officials, who may bring with them details of any “dirty tricks” operations by the service.

The government, meanwhile, has been issuing furious denials. “There is no logic to this accusation,” said Mr Yanukovich’s campaign manager, Taras Chornovyl.

Undercutting the government’s case has been their refusal, ever since the September attack, to admit the possibility of poisoning, or to investigate the allegation.

All this will now change. Last week a new chief prosecutor, Svyatoslav Piskun, was appointed as part of a deal between Mr Yushchenko and the current president Leonid Kuchma clearing the way for new elections.

Even if they had nothing to do with it, they’re really done the Wrong Thing with regards to ensuring a fair and honest election. They should be out on their ear if only for that.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Head on over to Homespun Bloggers and see this week’s “Best Of” postings.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Today’s odd “Considerettes” search phrase - “WHERE CAN I GET MY PAYCHECK FOR WORKING ON THE VOTING POLLS”. (#33 on Yahoo Search)

(Remember, these are actual search phrases used to get to this page. I can’t make this stuff up.)

Popularity: 3% [?]