Considerettes

One of the topics on “Bill Bennett’s Morning in America” this morning was how to handle relations with China, where in spite of all the effort into economic engagement we’ve put in, human rights haven’t changed much. I called to voice my concern that increased economic involvement would keep us from having the guts to hold their feet to the fire if the time were to come that we’d want to insist on improvement. How many business lobbyists would be there to defend their Chinese business connections over human rights violations? Good people that I respect have opinions on both sides of this issue, but I wonder if the ends can even be achieved by the means.

“Considerettes Radio” on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America (WGKA, Atlanta, GA) 2/28/05 8:25am EST (310K)

Popularity: 3% [?]

What does this sound like?

When Bush confronted his Russian counterpart about the freedom of the press in Russia, Putin shot back with an attack of his own: “We didn’t criticize you when you fired those reporters at CBS.”

It’s not clear how well Putin understands the controversy that led to the dismissal of four CBS journalists over the discredited report on Bush’s National Guard service. Yet it’s all too clear how Putin sees the relationship between Bush and the American media—just like his own. Bush’s aides have long feared that former KGB officers in Putin’s inner circle are painting a twisted picture of U.S. policy. So Bush explained how he had no power to fire American journalists. It made little difference. When the two presidents emerged for their joint press conference, one Russian reporter repeated Putin’s language about journalists getting fired. Bush (already hot after an earlier question about his spying on U.S. citizens) asked the reporter if he felt free. “They obviously planted the question,” said one of Bush’s senior aides.

Sounds a lot to me about the old Soviet-era paranoia coming back in vogue. Or did it ever really leave?

Popularity: 3% [?]

The Blogger News Network has really taken off; the number of stories exploded last week, and the number of writers & contributors has increased. They’re looking for more writers in general, but more from the liberal side to keep things balanced. If you’re interested, give it a look.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The fifth Homespun Bloggers Radio program is on the air! This is a special edition edition of HBR on the topic of Social Security. Here’s the list of contributors:

• Jay has a couple of segments. One (representing his blog The Radical Centrist) notes that to have a reasonable and honest discussion about Social Security, we have to understand the program as it really is and how it was intended to be. Representing his other blog (The Bird’s Eye View), he gives us a bird’s eye view of the Homespun Bloggers group and reports on how some of us are covering this topic.
• Derek (Weapon of Mass Distraction) asks how people lived before Social Security existed, and wonders if we dare consider how senior citizens managed before the New Deal?
• Doug (Considerettes) gives the history of the politicization of this issue among Democrats who now say there is no crisis.

To listen, click here or on the “Homespun Bloggers Radio” button to the left. The current audio feed is a loop of shows #4 & #5. Also, you can click here to download a CD-quality version of the show. The 3 previous shows can also be heard by clicking here.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Another week of training to conduct, and thusly another week of light blogging.

However, within the next few hours I plan on releasing the next Homespun Bloggers Radio program. Show #5 will be a themed show, featuring commentary on the Social Security issue. When it’s released, you can click on the HBR button to the left and listen to the audio stream. (You could click there now, of course, and hear the most recent program.)

Popularity: 3% [?]

The UN’s negatives, as well as Kofi Annan’s in particular, are growing.

Americans’ opinion of the United Nations is sinking, with just 37 percent polled saying they are favorably inclined to the global body.

According to a poll by Rassmussen Reports, the favorability rate has declined from 44 percent in a November survey.

The poll also shows 37 percent of Americans believe U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan should resign. Just 26 percent said he should not resign and another 37 percent are undecided.

Among those polled who follow news coverage of Annan’s troubles “very” or “somewhat” closely, which was 54 percent, 63 percent say Annan should call it quits. Twenty-eight percent say he should not.

The more you pay attention to the UN and Kofi, the more you realize what a mess they are both in.

For full disclosure:

Rassmussen Reports noted the current survey is not directly comparable to last November’s results, because the current poll sampled American adults, whereas November’s survey interviewed likely voters.

Nonetheless, a single datapoint of 37% is nothing to brag about.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The Gannon/Guckert issue, still a bigger issue to lefty bloggers than CNN or CBS, get the debunking treatment at WizBang. Stop there after you’ve read all the hand-wringing.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Lefty Blogger Eason Jordan Update: Jordan resigned one week ago today, and so this is the last day I’m going to check Kos, Marshall or Atrios on this. And that’s a good thing for Atrios, because he slips in under the wire, leaving the “silent” categorization and move into “sort of”. The only mention he did wind up giving it was an extended quote from Frank Rich of the NY Times, which itself was just a part of a larger gathering up of more Gannon news. Rich mentioned Jordan, but Atrios didn’t have anything to say himself. So the best we can say is that Atrios has Eason’s name on the page but he still can’t bother to comment, other than to, by inclusion, agree with Rich that the Talon News Service is a bigger deal than CNN.

Popularity: 3% [?]

George Washington on religion & enlightenment:

Observe good faith & justice towds all Nations. Cultivate peace & harmony with all–Religion & morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice & benevolence.

The religion and morality of a free and enlightened people will encourage them to observe good faith & justice to all nations, itself guided by an exalted justice.

Bill Maher, on the same subject (hat tip to Backcountry Conservative):

We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies.

Maher represents a thinking in our nation today that is truly upside-down from that of the founding fathers. Liberals of his ilk have utterly lost their way, and have no idea that that they’re wandering aimlessly. All the things he would acknowledge that have made this country great were instituted by religious folks who, contrary to Maher’s insistence later on in the article, did believe in science and rationality. We still do. That may come as a surprise to him, but it shouldn’t.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The Christians in Philadelphia who protested outside of the homosexual gathering “Outfest” have been exhonorated.

In what is being hailed as a victory for free speech, a judge in Philadelphia today dismissed all criminal charges against four Christians who were arrested for evangelizing at an outdoor homosexual event.

Judge Pamela Dembe of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the charges, saying that she found no basis whatsoever for any of them.

“We are one of the very few countries that protects unpopular speech,” Dembe said after viewing a videotape of the arrests.

As WorldNetDaily reported, on Oct. 10, a group of 11 Christians was “preaching God’s Word” to a crowd of people attending the Philadelphia “OutFest” event and displaying banners with biblical messages.

After a confrontation with a group called the Pink Angels, described by protesters as “a militant mob of homosexuals,” the Christians were arrested and spent a night in jail.

Eight charges were filed: criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways.

None of the Pink Angels was cited or arrested.

That things went this far is a testament to how deep political correctness has permeated our society.

“The judge saw this case for what it is,” Joe Infranco, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a statement. “This was the right response to an outrageous abuse of power to silence speech that some people didn’t like.

“What took place here was a government crackdown on disfavored speech. The OutFest participants staged a national coming-out day on a public street using public funds, and then they tried to say it’s a private event. That didn’t make any sense, and neither did the actions of the police. …”

At least the judge wasn’t fooled. Sounds like the police need some sensitivity training such that they’re sensitive to both sides of the issue.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Professor Bainbridge takes on Joe Conason’s assertion that the media reaction to the Gannon/Guckert is muted and that therefore put the lie to the charge of a liberal media. Kos quoted Conason, remarking “Exactly”, and the comment section followed suit. Atrios mentioned it and simply added “Indeed”. However, the Prof demonstrates (with numbers rather than one-word follow-ups) that Conason’s got it wrong.

Since I have access to Lexis/Nexis, I went into Nexis’ “News, Most Recent Two Years” database, which covers a wide swath of English language newspapers and magazines. I ran the following searches:

1. “Eason Jordan” with dates restricted to the last month: 151 hits
2. “Jeff Gannon” with dates restricted to the last month: 107 hits
3. “James Guckert” and “Jeff Gannon” with dates restricted to the last month: 42 hits

I then reran the same three searches in Nexis “Major Papers” database:

1. “Eason Jordan” with dates restricted to the last month: 40 hits
2. “Jeff Gannon” with dates restricted to the last month: 24 hits
3. “James Guckert” and “Jeff Gannon” with dates restricted to the last month: 12 hits

So the idea that the MSM isn’t covering the story is absurd and has no basis in fact. While the lefty blogs may then take issue with the slight disparity in the amount of coverage of the two stories, the Prof echoes something I’ve been saying about this.

The story is being covered by the MSM, albeit at a lower rate than the Jordan story. Query, however, whether legitimate news judgment wouldn’t regard Jordan as the bigger story?

To this I could say “Indeed” or “Exactly” myself. I’ve been chronicling the muted (or total lack) of notice three of the major left-leaning bloggers–Kos, Atrios & Marshall–have given to the Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, and “columnist payola” stories. You’d think, if you read only those Tier A blogs, that the Talon News Service was somehow a bigger deal than CBS or CNN, or that having a friendly reporter throwing softball questions is a bigger deal than passing off faked memos as real or accusing US troops of targeting journalists. Even if those 3 weren’t the sum total of most folks blog-reading experiences, they still have a huge readership that, apparently, doesn’t care that these stories are ignored or barely touched on, while suppositions about MSM coverage that aren’t backed up by reality are trumpeted far and wide.

Again, you independents who don’t like to be labelled, and who try to see both sides of the story, please keep this in mind. Generally speaking, on the major conservative blogs you’ll hear about all of these stories. On liberal blogs, you won’t, or you’ll really have to go digging to find them. Who’s being more intellectually honest with you? Who’s more committed to the truth, even if it puts folks from their political stripe in a negative light? You can find examples both good and bad on both sides, but in the overall picture I think you’ll find that conservatives are being far more upfront with you.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Did a little surfing of the blogosphere this evening, and found these wonderful bits at SmarterCop. Good job Pietro.

In another example of Democrats doing a 180 on Social Security comes this quote:

Social Security’s trustees reported in March that Social Security’s tax income will fall short of Social Security’s benefit payments beginning in 2016. Medicare’s tax income will fall short of Medicare spending the same year. Social Security and Medicare’s problems are related to the aging of the labor force. In the not-to-distant future, there will be too few workers in the workforce to maintain Social Security and Medicare as pay-as-you-go programs. These are not small problems.

In the case of Social Security, Congress will have to either reduce Social Security benefits, raise Social Security taxes, or find a third alternative.

Some of those on the left have noted that the “Save Social Security First” mantra that the Clintonites repeated was in vogue 7 years ago, and since then, from their (rather convenient) point of view, everything’s fixed itself. Well apparently, that miracle of recovery actually happened in merely the last four years, since this quote, from John Kerry, is from May of 2001.

This is basically the same thing I’ve noted here before; that the view of the Democrats on any particular issue is primarly determined by the political party of the man warming the chair in the Oval Office. Pietro gives us yet another example of this in the arena of the environment.

QUICK QUIZ - Which Presidential candidate, past or present, proposed a law which would do the following: cut pollution from power plants by 70%, including sulfur dioxide and mercury; discourage lawsuits that prevent the enforcement of clean air standards; permanently cap emissions nationwide to a level that is 90% less than the amounts emitted in 1970; and require operators of old plants to modify their systems to add pollution controls to adhere to the 70% pollution reduction? Was it A) Al Gore, B) John Kerry, or C) George W. Bush?

The answer is actually both A and C; Al Gore and George W. Bush proposed the same environmental pollution reductions, yet the same Democrats who naturally applauded the Gore plan have given the Bush Administration nothing but grief, even though the National Research Council is fully behind it. Go figure, right?

No figuring required. It’s simply a matter of the same people acting in the same way, even if that means contradicting themselves at a moment’s notice.

Popularity: 3% [?]

This week’s Homespun Bloggers Symposium question asks:

Do you believe there is a downside to encouraging nations to move toward being free societies? Can all nations benefit from the move from dicatorship to freedom, or are some cultures simply incapable of it and why? Might they end up worse off? Also, do you believe these shifts are always in America and the West’s interests, or will we simply create democratic enemies that are worse for us than the dictators they replace?

First of all, I have to start in agreement with this country’s founders when they said that all men are created equal, and are therefore equally given the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So in a sense I see this question as a no-brainer. I don’t see a big-picture downside for a country to going from an oppressed to free society. Yes, there may be initial hurdles to clear and the changes may be painful at times, but in the end government of, by and for the people is better than if it’s of, by and for the government.

While some cultures–the sum of a people group’s traditions and values–may not be conducive to individual freedom, I don’t think the people themselves are forever lost to it. While some anthropologists may not like the idea of changing a culture so that freedom is more acceptable (and believe me, there are those that would rather preserve cannibalistic, warlike cultures as museum pieces rather than see it changed), the freer a society is, the better life is for all involved. Again, I don’t think that, in the long-run, they will be worse off, though the process of change can be difficult.

Given my position, then the question of whether or not the shifts in these societies to freedom is good for our interests is rather beside the point, although I find it more likely than not that should a society remain free and open, the more likely it is that they will be allies with us. Consider the world situation as it is now. We have our allies of the free nations of the world, but the more they tend toward socialism or oppression (France & Germany in the former case, Russia as it is becoming in the latter case), the less they see themselves on the same page as the U.S. While they may not be military powerhouses, the new democracies in Eastern Europe, who’ve seen the benefits of a free society, were very much with us in the Iraq war. The more oppression–Iran, North Korea, China–the more they see us as an enemy.

While I wouldn’t discount entirely the chance that a democratically elected government might see us the same way, I believe that free societies lose the paranoia found under oppressive ones and are far less likely to consider us an enemy. That paranoia tends to come from those in power, and if it’s found in the people it’s because it came down from a dictator or government that only allows its positions to be known and doesn’t allow for the free exchange of ideas. Again, free societies mean more information exchange and thus more education and a more realistic view of the world.

I just don’t see a real downside to any of this. Freedom is transcendantly good.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Today’s Odd Considerettes Search Phrase - “I want a play where I’m firing my employee for being late all the time” [#7 on Yahoo! Search, in company with Roger L. Simon (#2), Michael Moore (#3) and Dean’s World (#5)]

Popularity: 3% [?]

One of the Homespun Bloggers, Robert Hayes Jr., has begun a project called the Blogger News Network. His idea is to have a common location where bloggers can write news and analysis. The sections currently include Politics, National/World News, Culture and Art, Editorials, Analysis, Humor, Sports, Human Interest, Local News, Short Notes and Science & Religion. (Weather’s included, but for now it’s just a search box for the Weather Channel site.) I’ve signed up as a reporter and have my first analysis up (a blog post from here about the lefty blogs ignoring big stories unfavorable to liberals).

Though Hayes’ politics are “right-of-center/libertarian”, he wants (and is getting) a true diversity of viewpoints on the staff, and he wants those viewpoints disclosed for all to see. The pages listing the editors and reporters have, at the bare minimum, political leaning or affiliation. Reporting on religious topics will require disclosure of religious affiliation and reporting on anything you have a financial interest in would also have to have that disclosed.

It’s really just getting off the ground, but I love the concept, and wonder if perhaps this sort of thing is the future (if only the near future) of blogging journalism. It’s worth a look.

Popularity: 3% [?]