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:

2004
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
2005
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

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

Join Fair Tax Fans

Rod Dreher of the National Review points out, with plenty of examples to back it all up, that liberals and their lap-dogs in the press don't consider hate directed towards Christians as hate at all. The "hate crime" laws only work one way (which, I'm thinking more and more, was the point in the first place). 'Straights' kill 'gay'...makes the national news for a year. 'Gays' kill 'straight'...virtual silence. If the 'straight' killed was a Christian, ignore that angle. Rod's article makes great points showing both the incredible double standard that is "hate crime legislation", as well as demonstrating big media's complicity in towing the liberal line.

Al Gore ripped into Fox News, the Washington Times and Rush Limbaugh for being lap-dogs for the Republicans. Well, there's no denying that Rush certainly prefers them to Democrats, but he doesn't present himself as a non-partisan anyway. However, consider the TV & newspaper businesses. Al's complaints about how Fox & the Times cover Republican side of the day's stories make no sense. If you've ever watched the former or read the latter, you know that both sides are represented when it comes to the hard news stories. The problem lies in virtually every other major media outlet, where the conservative side is diminished or ignored, as we saw above with the disparity in coverage of "gay v straight" crimes. Fox & the Times aren't the problem, they're the solution! The problem is people like Al who think that liberal-bias in the news is OK while balance is evil.

(For a daily dose of liberal bias in the news media, subscribe to the Media Research Center's daily CyberAlert. I think that sometimes Brent Baker's a bit over-sensitive to things, but there's still plenty of good examples of how the press slants by how they report, what they report, or what they ignore. The best bits they do compare coverage of similar events when the target was a Democrat vs. when it's a Republican. Very eye-opening.)
posted at 5:19 PM

Suicide bombers tied to Al-Qaida who planned on bombing Western embassies were arrested in Singapore. We've been sharing intelligence with Singapore in order to thwart plans like these.

Remember this when folks like Daschle suggest that we're doing little to nothing in the war on terror. There have been loads of stories like these, and the Democrats know that it makes Bush look better every time.

So, of course, they lie about it, and the media never challenges their statements. How convenient.
posted at 1:51 PM

UN Weapons Inspections: Day 1: Iraq is surprising folks by wanting to grant the press more access to covering the inspections than the UN would like. This from a country that has, according to the AP article, one of the most restrictive press policies in the Middle East.

This could mean that either Iraq really doesn't have any WMDs, or that they do and either they hope the UN will be reluctant to have it shown on live TV that their trust of Iraq since 1998 was misplaced, or Iraq believes it's hidden their WMDs pretty darn well and can trust the UN not to balk when Iraq tells them where they aren't allowed to inspect. There may be other reasons, but the point is that the possibility that Iraq is being completely open and honest is, given their history, highly unlikely. This gives one pause to question their motives in giving press freedoms that they never have before.

Keep watching.
posted at 1:23 PM

Oh, I love this new slogan (or new take on an old slogan) from The Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Smokers don't impose health care costs on society; governments that insist on paying for smokers' health care impose health care costs on society.

It's just brilliant. And it points out that much of the remedies liberals are trying to exact from folks like tobacco companies are the results of failed liberal policies. The result of universal health care would be the destruction of any industry not deemed worthy enough by the liberal ideologues, when in fact if they'd just let people pay for their own choices, the rest of us wouldn't have to.
posted at 5:12 PM

Iraqis firing on coalition forces' jets is not the way to win friends (anti-war activists) and influence people (the UN). Wonder what UN resolutions they broke in doing that?
posted at 6:19 PM

The anti-war crowd complained that we were planning on going to war with Iraq unilaterally, without consulting our allies or acting through the UN. "Hussein's a madman, to be sure", went the argument, "but we shouldn't go in like a cowboy with guns blazing." So Bush gave them what they wanted; a UN resolution, unanimously approved, that said Iraq should disarm and allow inspections with no conditions. Today, Hussein accepted the resolution with "no conditions".

Now given his track record, it's simply a matter of time before Hussein starts adding conditions or roadblocks to inspections. He has done it every single time. The only question remaining is how will the anti-war crowd respond when this happens. The safe bet is that they too will do what they've done every single time for the past decade; become apologists for a madman.

If Saddam's parents had treated him like the anti-war crowd does--excusing his disobedience regardless of how often it happened, giving him more and more chances without any real consequences--he'd have turned into a spoiled brat, expecting everyone to give him his own way.

Wait a minute....
posted at 1:47 PM

As I type this, President Bush is announcing that the UN has unanimously passed a resolution telling Iraq to disarm or face the "serious consequences". It is nice to know that the UN, after 10 or so years, has decided that perhaps their words actually have meaning. Of course, if/when Iraq goes against this new resolution (and given their track record, "when" is quite likely), then we'll see exactly how much meaning. But until then, the crowd that said we should only go to war if we get UN backing should pipe down and watch things unfold. (I imagine, though, that they'll pipe right back up should Hussein limit the inspections. They're his best allies.)

Some have asked why we're going after Hussein, when other countries have weapons of mass destruction, like North Korea's nukes. The answer is simple, and should be obvious, especially to the aforementioned UN-backing crowd: Hussein had been officially given notice after our coalition pushed him back inside his borders that he had to disarm. Part of the terms of surrender was disarmament, and he hasn't followed through. When terrorism ties were found, it gave us even more reason to want to insure he didn't get into the WMD-export biz. Those who suggest that George Jr. is getting revenge for his dad are conveniently ignoring the agreement Saddam signed, which is why their whole position on the war question can and should be dismissed; they hand-wave the important facts and replace them with glib catch-phrases. Intellectual dishonesty has no place in a debate about so serious a subject.
posted at 11:14 AM

A great night for Republicans. Many Democrats framed this election in a number of different ways; referendum on Bush, revenge for Florida 2000, yadda yadda yadda. However, some, like the DNC's Terry McAulliffe, don't even have the good sense or courtesy to eat their words. Quoted by Drudge, Terry said on Larry King last night, "Tonight was a good night for Democrats." Yeah, right. If you can't be truthful with yourself, you can't fix the problem.

I wonder if the Nobel organization, who gave the 2002 Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter as a political message to Bush, were paying any attention. Hey fellas; Carter's no longer president (and imagine the interest rates we'd have if he still were). And don't forget how well his olive branch to North Korea went over (i.e. it didn't, they still built nukes). Yup, those Nobel guys really showed us, didn't they?

For my take on some of the races and issues, let me start in my home state of Georgia.

Democrat Governor Roy Barnes, the incumbent, outspent Republican Sonny Perdue by at least 6-to-1 (and some reports said up to 10-to-1) and yet he lost. Consider that statistic when you hear the Democrat pundits saying that the boatloads of special interest group money in the Republicans' pockets were why they won. In some places, yes, the Republicans had more money, but in Georgia that was certainly not the case, and yet the Georgia got its first Republican governor in 130 years. You can't hand-wave that away by citing war chests. To be sure, I can't find a single soul who actually thought Perdue had a snowball's chance in Havana of winning, but when you look at the 1994 race for governor, the Republicans had their best showing to date then, so perhaps there was a trend in the making at least as far back as that.

War veterans were jumping ship and voting Republican as well, against Vietnam vet Senator Max Cleland (who lost 3 limbs in that conflict). Instead, they voted based on ideas, not affiliation, and put Republican Saxby Chambliss in his spot. Again, this was another race few thought Max could lose.

There was even an upset in the State House. The man who's been Speaker of the House in Georgia for 28 years, Tom Murphy was defeated for re-election. Murphy was a fixture in Georgia politics having first been elected to public office in 1960. It does sound to me as if the trend I referred to is far more real than hoped for.

Moving to Florida, a race I didn't hear much about last night was a House of Representatives seat in Florida that went to Katherine Harris. Yes, that Katherine Harris; the one demonized so unfairly by Democrats in the Florida 2000 election nuttiness. Just as she did in that situation, I'm betting she'll be one to abide by the law, and not make it up as she goes along (as opposed to the Florida and New Jersey Supreme Court justices, to name just a few).

A 30-year-old bilingual education program in Massachusetts was eliminated in favor of English immersion. This has proven a boon to education in California, completely contrary to claims by multiculturism theorists. Once it works in Massachusetts, hopefully it'll be the last nail in that segragationist "seperate but equal" coffin.

Liberal ideas were shot down all over. Nevada and Arizona both rejected measure that would decriminalize possesion of small amounts of marijuana, and Nevada rejected 'gay' marriages. Oregon, at the same time, soundly turned back universal health care for the state. Seems to me that when it's issues being debated, and not spin and image, conservatives generally win. Wish more folks would realize what their real political leanings are.

An exception to that, but only a minor one, was in Florida where constitutional protection was given to pregnant pigs. Yes folks, pigs are people, too. Actually, the special interest groups involved in this chose Florida as a testing ground because they have such a tiny hog raising industry. (In fact, just a couple of farms will be affected.) The idea was that since most folks in Florida wouldn't care much about this, since it didn't impact the state much, the (liberal) special interests could get an easy win and use it as a precedent in other states. (And remember, Democrats complained about conservative special interests holding sway in the election.)

Overall, a great night for America, a great night for Republicans, and, most importantly, for policies that will give more power back to people and removed from government. At least that's my hope. I'll be watching, and I hope you will, too.
posted at 3:38 PM

Whoops...stop the presses! Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, has lost his spine again. Apparently, there's some confusion over what the word "no" means. The New York Times is reporting that he's gone back to saying that if Iraq doesn't comply with the UN resolutions, "Saudi Arabia would be obliged to 'cooperate' with the United Nations."

With friends like these, who need Yemenis?
posted at 4:18 PM

I pointed out earlier that the Saudis, who'd originally said we couldn't use their bases in an attack on Iraq, changed their tune and said that if the UN passed a resolution authorizing the use of force then they'd be "obliged to follow through" and allow the use of their bases. I noted the utter lack of spine in taking that position (i.e. hiding behind a UN resolution instead of standing up for your prinicples), but it appears that spine has reappeared. Prince Saud al-Faisal now says that, while they are with us against Al-Qaeda, they won't participate in any action against Iraq.

While it's nice to see folks stand up for what they believe in (even if waffling at one point), one has to wonder how long the memories of the Saudis are. They very willingly let us in to their country to defend it when it looked like Iraq was poised to go after them after Kuwait was overrun. But for the US military, and forces under a US-led coalition, the Saudis were convinced they were next.

Our "allies" the Saudis still need a spine. But they really need to know who their friends (and their enemies) are.
posted at 3:22 PM

Another clear indication of how Democrats run their campaigns based on the here-and-now, hoping their constituents forget the past, is this article in USA Today. Most Democrats around the country are either not using that "D" word, aligning themselves with Bush, keeping Clinton and Daschle away from the state, or some combination of the above. Democrats can trust their core voter base to ignore their legislative records and vote on emotion and imagery come Election Day. Hopefully, those who have voted Democrat in the past and who consider the issues (sadly, a shrinking population) will see through this.

I think Ann Coulter said it best when she responded to the New Jersey switcharoo, "If Democrats could get away with it, they'd claim to be running 'Ronald Reagan' in all elections and then fill the seats with the equivalent of James Carville." And apparently the New Jersey Supreme Court would find nothing wrong with that.
posted at 10:10 AM