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 
|
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
When CBS chairman Les Moonves decided not to show the miniseries "The Reagans", his reasoning what that he had determined it was biased. One might think that this would be the death knell for those who thought that the media was liberal, when in fact it made a supposedly principled decision to remove a one-sided look at a political figure. However, the president of Showtime, where the miniseries will eventually run and which is owned by CBS, doesn't think it's that simple: "If [CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves] didn't know what movie he was getting, that's not the fault of the producers, the director or anyone associated with the film," said Robert Greenblatt, president of entertainment for Showtime Networks, in a telephone news conference yesterday with TV critics. So Moonves knew, or should have known, how slanted this show was far earlier than when he feigned surprise over it. So no, principle hasn't come to CBS. It's just that this bit of bias was finally, successfully, fought back against. Next time, Les will just be less obvious about it. Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Every time there's a high-profile personality accused of something, as with the recent accusations against singer Michael Jackson, inevitably people start to form opinions. And, just as inevitably, other complain "What about 'innocent until proven guilty'?" I saw that sentiment on Fox & Friends this morning (a viewer E-mail), as well as from Elizabeth Taylor, and I thought I'd weigh in on why I think that's a non-sequiter (somewhat akin to asking, "But what about the price of tea in China?"). I'll start with the standard disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, but this is not so much a legal brief as it is an opinion as to why this isn't so much a legal issue. Let's start with a hypothetical situation. A burglar comes into your house to steal something. While doing this, you catch him in action and get a clear look at him. He escapes with something of yours, but at some point he is arrested. He goes to trial, and during the trial his defense attorney presents a convincing argument to the jury that this fellow actually has an airtight alibi for the time of the burglary. You know this is the guy, and you know for sure that he's guilty. He did come into your house and steal your things. However, the jury returns a "not guilty" verdict. The question now is; is this man guilty or not? The legal system has said he isn't, but what about reality? I believe our legal system gets it right far more often than it gets it wrong, but nonetheless the verdict of that system does not always reflect reality. Is this man guilty? Yes, he is, even though the legal system has said he is innocent. So the distinction here is that legally he is innocent, while in reality he is guilty. And that is why asking "What about 'innocent until proven guilty'" is not applicable to people's opinions. That tenet is a legal policy. The legal system must treat the accused as innocent unless there is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to declare the person guilty (as opposed to assuming the accused is guilty and must prove his innocence). This obviously does not mean that the person really is innocent of the crime until a verdict is reached, only that the legal system starts from the position that they must be treated as such until the evidence says otherwise. People's opinions are not subject to this tenet unless they happen to be serving on a jury. Otherwise, we can form our own opinions about someone's guilt or innocence with as much (or as little) information as we like. Telling someone that they can't form an opinion because the verdict hasn't come in yet is really an apples-to-oranges comparison. Suggesting that people must apply that legal tenet to their own opinions is like saying that I'm not allowed to insist my 3-year-old tell me if he broke his brother's toy because that would violate the legal tenet of not incriminating oneself. Legal policy is for the legal system. It seems rather silly to me that this even has to be explained, but as I said I see this every time there's a celebrity or some other high-profile person accused of something. I'm sure this thought will continue to come up in the future, but maybe, just maybe, some will find this entry in their favorite web search engine (Liz, are you reading this?) and we can put this idea to rest, one page hit at a time. When the results don't meet your preconceived notions, chuck the report. That's what the European Union has done with a report on anti-Semitism. A European Union study conducted amid an upsurge in anti-Semitic violence was blocked from publication because it concluded Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were responsible for many of the incidents. And to seal the fact that the UN is not only extremely liberal, but extremely unfair... The EUMC has published three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes in Europe since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Financial Times said. This ought to shatter any illusions UN supporters still have about the validity and moral authority of the organization, but of course it won't. Update to the update to my fisking of Robert Kuttner's dissing of the Bush economy: The 3rd quarter number for economic growth has been adjusted from 7.2%...adjusted up, that is. If 7.2 was "blistering", what's 8.2%? Monday, November 24, 2003
Requiring firearms in the home: GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan. — Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition. Of course, this ordinance won't be proactively enforced, hence the minimal fine. The point is that the bad guys now know that it's more likely that a home they invade will have a gun ready to be pointed at them. For those who think this won't solve anything, first read the gun law ordinances for Kennesaw, Georgia which were passed in 1982 (and which read very much like Geuda Springs ordinance). Then read this article by Chuck Baldwin, written back in 1999, which quotes The New American Magazine, showing that crimes against persons dropped 74% in 1982 and another 45% in 1983. Baldwin correctly notes: With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. A mention in the newsletter The Federalist by Brian Janiskee of The Claremont Institute brought to my attention the article "The Legend of the Social Liberal-Fiscal Conservative". In it, Janiskee makes this statement: The more socially liberal the politician, the more fiscally liberal is the politician. For the most part, a conservative is a conservative and a liberal is a liberal. This is the hard truth. He backs this up with a comparison of the ratings members of Congress get from the National Right to Life Committee (what he calls a "proxy measure of social conservatism") with ratings from the National Tax Payers Union ("a proxy measure of fiscal conservatism"). He's wondering out loud how Arnold Schwartzenegger will govern, since Arnold claims to be this social-liberal-fiscal-conservative animal, but in general I think this is very instructive when it comes to those who claim to be "moderates". Added a new reciprocal link to the blog deskmerc. He's added a link to "Considerable Quotes", so back atcha. :) Thursday, November 20, 2003
It'll be interesting to hear how the mainstream media covers this: The seasonal ozone hole over the South Pole has disappeared again after reaching record size earlier this year. If they cover it at all, I'm betting they don't give it nearly the air time they give to when it gets bigger. Tuesday, November 18, 2003
A bit of underreported good news while Bush visits Great Britain: The [November Guardian/ICM] survey shows that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American with 62% of voters believing that the US is "generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world". It explodes the conventional political wisdom at Westminster that Mr Bush's visit will prove damaging to Tony Blair. Only 15% of British voters agree with the idea that America is the "evil empire" in the world. However, it appears that the Mayor of London hasn't gotten the memo. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen". No, I'd say it's his own embarrassment. With all the true evil out there in the world, threatening us all, the Mayor and his ilk think that George W. Bush is evil for routing the Taliban and removing a brutal dictator who's contribution to the landscape included lavish palaces and mass graves. Talk about Newspeak... Tuesday, November 11, 2003
What the author of Saudi Arabia's religious curriculum believes certainly resounds throughout that country, if not the entire Middle East. Here's what he's saying these days: "Slavery is a part of Islam," says Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan, according to the independent Saudi Information Agency, or SIA. And somehow Israel is more of threat to world peace? Richard Mellon Scaife was considered the bankroller of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy". Now that George Soros is giving millions to liberal activists, can we now start talking about a vast left-wing conspiracy? Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush. It's a "conspiracy" when conservatives are well-financed, but liberals get really quiet when their groups get cash. Oh, by the way, thanks for nothing, Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold. Soros's contributions are filling a gap in Democratic Party finances that opened after the restrictions in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law took effect. In the past, political parties paid a large share of television and get-out-the-vote costs with unregulated "soft money" contributions from corporations, unions and rich individuals. The parties are now barred from accepting such money. But non-party groups in both camps are stepping in, accepting soft money and taking over voter mobilization. The best take on this is from the RNC. "It's incredibly ironic that George Soros is trying to create a more open society by using an unregulated, under-the-radar-screen, shadowy, soft-money group to do it," Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said. "George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party." You don't reform anything by regulating it. Campaign finance "reform" has failed. Big donors just route around the regulations, just as it was predicted they would. This true freedom of speech issue ought to be "regulated" by the Constitution; people should be free to support who they please however they please. All the regulations have done is give the small donor less of a voice, and the big donor just has to use a different back door. I missed this post yesterday on Little Green Footballs, but I'm catching up today. Apparently, according to the Associated Press, terrorism isn't terrorism if it's directed at Jews. They list attacks going back to August of 1998, but, according to the AP, Israel's been pretty quite this whole time. "Intifadah? You mean there's one going on? Now??" Monday, November 10, 2003
For Veteran's Day, November 11th: "Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of perserving peace." -- George Washington, in his first annual message to Congress I put up a bunch of new quotes on my other blog, "Considerable Quotes", late last week. John Hawkins of Right Wing News put up his favorites quotes from past interviews he's done, and I put on my blog my favorites from his favorites. (I'm sure that had nothing to do with the fact that he mentioned "Considerable Quotes" in one of his posts on Friday. >smile<) Friday, November 07, 2003
Can homosexuals change? The man who led the charge in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from a list of mental disorders now says that those claiming to be "ex-gay" are telling the truth. The article goes on to say that this man, Robert Spitzer, was skeptical of "reparative therapy" before starting the study, but has come to agree that it is quite possible (which sounds like those who are willing to look for the truth just might find it). While he agrees that his study is just a first look, further study is probably not going to happen due to institutional bias. Spitzer, who said he was skeptical of reparative therapy before beginning the study, said more studies need to be done. <insert image of doctor with hands over ears yelling "La, la, la, la!"> Thursday, November 06, 2003
Homeschoolers getting public money? It's happening in Florida. Hundreds of Florida students are using more than $2.3 million in tax-supported vouchers to get home-schooling or attend part-time private schools -- something state lawmakers insist they never intended. According to the article, it wasn't until the Education Commissioner was criticized about lax oversight that his department actually looked into this. (Par for the course in government.) So how will they deal with it? Senate President Jim King, for one, has vowed to try to stop that trend. If homeschoolers shouldn't get public money to pay for education, then they shouldn't be taxed for the public schools facilities they aren't using, either. Let us keep our own money and spend it as we see fit. That really isn't much to ask; it avoids the problem of government waste, keeps folks from whining over religious homeschoolers getting government money, and is >gasp< fair. I know all this efficiency is completely at odds with the way governments work, but that's a feature, not a bug. Bill Clinton has a great idea on how to end the North Korea arms crisis: Former US President Bill Clinton yesterday said Washington should offer food and energy supplies to North Korea in return for access to its laboratories to help resolve a crisis over the North's nuclear program. Oh yeah, that really worked well last time. In 1994, Jimmy Carter got them to say they'd freeze their nuclear program in exchange for aid like this. And of course we can take the word of a tyrant, can't we? Now they're back, holding a bomb in the air, threatening to drop it, unless we do the Jimmy Carter Tango again (but this time, it sounds like Bill wants to lead). And, for some reason, Bill thinks that doing the same thing will really work this time. Given the same situation, he wants to do the same thing, and somehow he expects a different outcome. This is patently insane, but it is how government works (This new program didn't work? Give it more money!) and may explain why Bill was such the consummate politician. Clinton continued, "I don't believe that North Korea wants to drop a bomb on South Korea or Japan. I think what they want to do is eat and stay warm." Well yeah, that and continue to coerce it out of us until such time as we won't take it anymore. Too much communism, not enough (or any) capitalism. That's the problem in North Korea. Giving into their demands like some spoiled brat will not break them of their bad behavior. Instead, it will reinforce it, and then we become their enablers. Some voting advice from Howard Dean: Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean told a Tallahassee audience today that southerners have to quit basing their votes on "race, guns, God and gays." Not basing a vote on race is a good thing, but the rest is probably best translated, "Please leave your Constitution, your religion and your morality at home before coming to the voting booth." Even the mention of race is most likely a call for Southerners to abandon any push to treat people the same regardless of race, and instead just let the policy of reverse discrimination continue. Thanks, but no thanks, Howard. Close my eyes, plug my ears, hold my nose and vote Democrat? What sage advice. Wednesday, November 05, 2003
In celebrating the amazing GDP growth last week, I said that Robert Kuttner's lament that the states weren't getting more federal money was probably premature, since a growing economy means more tax revenue without having to raise rates. Here's one sign that it's happening. [Georgia] State tax collections rose 6.1 percent in October, the third consecutive month of improvement for the first time in two and a half years, since early 2001. The economy was in a slide when Bush took office, and once his tax cuts hit, they not only helped the consumer, but the states as well. You may have heard the big news in Republican circles that Democrat Senator Zell Miller of Georgia has said he's going to vote for George W. Bush in 2004, bucking his half-century-plus voting trend. Read why in his own words. You can't tell me that homosexuals just want to be left alone and do what they want to in private when this sort of thing is happening: A Christian mother is appealing a judge's decision that prohibits her from teaching her daughter that homosexuality is wrong. Religious freedom in the home is being made subordinate to the promotion of homosexuality. Oh, and those of you who say that religious freedom is OK as long as it's in private (the "freedom from religion" crowd), I expect you to be opposing this just as forcefully. Thanks to Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy for pointing this out. He is correct in noting, "This is a troubling story, and it supports the arguments of some that the pursuit of gay rights is now sometimes suppressing the rights of others -- free speech rights, religious rights, associational rights, and so on." Homosexual groups have always hand-waved away the idea of some sort of social & political "homosexual agenda". Individually, perhaps not, but as a group, it's certainly looking like there's an agenda here, and it's making way too much headway. Eugene's a law professor, so it's worth reading his whole initial analysis of this. It's quite balanced for & against both sides. About this time every year, I get a bunch of visitors coming here who've Googled for search terms like "christmas origins" or "origin of thanksgiving". What they find is "Thanksgiving & Christmas Origins", an essay I wrote about those holidays as they relate to the separation of church and state. You might want to check it out. Link to me, and I notice. :) "Pat's World", in a diatribe against those who think partial-birth abortions are an inherently good thing, linked to my "Lessons Learned from Impeachment" essay. The phrase she hyperlinks to it is "dung heap", but no, not because that's his description of the essay, but because he's referring to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin who used those words to describe Ken Starr's impeachment evidence even before he saw the evidence. Pat now refers to him as Tom "Dung Heap" Harkin, which is, no doubt, an editorial statement. Thanks for the link, Pat! (Oh, and I only now noticed it because someone clicked on it just yesterday. But hey, I'll take what I can get, eh?) Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Scott Ott of ScrappleFace, once again, has satire (as they say on TV) "ripped from the headlines": CBS Evening News Moved to Showtime Of course, the italic comments are what Moonves said about "The Reagans", but they could work in this context too, eh? Spinsanity has a good treatment of the whole "imminent threat" brouhaha. They examine the evidence from both sides (when the Bush administration specifically avoided calling Iraq an "imminent threat", as well as what it calls "extremely few instances" when they suggested that it might be), and this is their conclusion: As we have pointed out before, many of the arguments for war made by the Bush administration were deceptive or false. However, critics who make it appear that the Bush administration's case relied primarily on claims of an imminent threat distort a more complex argument that painted Iraq as an intolerable, but not imminent, threat. Those unfair attacks do not make it legitimate for Bush supporters to jump on any critic who uses the phrase, however, or claim that nobody in the administration ever suggested Iraq could pose an "imminent threat." Complexity is not an excuse for cheap shots from either side. Basically, the administration, with precious few slips, did not portray Iraq as an imminent threat, and that distorted attacks by either side are inexcusable. Would you prefer a review of the miniseries "The Reagans" by someone who was there? How about Reagan daughter Patty Davis? With regards to the AIDS "They who live in sin..." line: CBS execs say the line about AIDS victims has now been deleted. I asked Bert Fields, one of America’s best known entertainment attorneys, who is not my lawyer but is a friend, to call CBS head Les Moonves and point out how painful the line was. My mother, through her attorney Ira Revitch, also wrote to Mr. Moonves asking for its removal. Not only did my father never say such a thing, he never would have. If you have any doubts, read the recently published book of his letters. They reveal a man whose compassion for other people is deep and earnest, and whose spiritual life is based on faith in a loving God, not a vengeful one. How about characterizations? Reading the script actually made me feel better in some ways. It is, quite simply, idiotic. Everyone is a caricature, manufactured and inauthentic. But what about all the steps that were taken to ensure that the major events were true? You should know this story because it’s something the producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron won’t tell you. They have exhibited astounding carelessness and cruelty in their depiction of my father and my entire family. They never consulted any family member, nor did they speak to anyone who has known us throughout the years. In the New York Times on October 21st, one of the writers admitted that the line about AIDS victims was completely fabricated. Read the whole thing for more events that were also made up out of whole cloth. This is a work of fiction and should be labeled as such. "How can you think about building a better future, no matter what your political views, if you indoctrinate your children to a culture of death?" The Palestinians have been teaching their children how to kill, and only now is Hillary Clinton realizing this. Hey, better late than never. However, WorldNetDaily, the news site often derided by liberals a some sort of right-wing nutcase, has been all over the Palestinian indoctrination story on August 12, June 13, June 4, February 5, and November 5, 2002. In addition, David Kupelian has put together these three reports. This is not news to those who have been paying attention. AP is now reporting that CBS is, in fact, pulling the miniseries: CBS insisted it was not bowing to pressure about portions of the script, but that the decision was made after seeing the finished film. Two words: Yeah. Right. Moonves himself was taking control of the project, and they still aren't airing it on the broadcast network. Is he saying that even he couldn't make it a fair portrayal? Apparently not, and yet... The network said it was licensing the completed film to Showtime, a pay cable network that, like CBS, is owned by Viacom. Why? As a broadcast network, CBS has different standards than a pay cable network, CBS said. Ah, so Showtime can show movies that are presented as "fair" while the network president won't air it on broadcast television. If it's unfair, why is it being made? Why is it not being sold as "loosely based on events that may or may not have happened", which is apparently what it is? Air it, but be honest about it, even if it is on cable. Still no link to a news report or press release, but this morning Drudge is saying the CBS will air the miniseries "The Reagans" on Showtime rather on their network. I've recently started listening to the nationally syndicated radio show "Good Day, with Doug Stefan" (there's a show web site, but it's apparently not working at this moment). They covered this topic yesterday, and his co-host Nancy (sorry, don't recall her last name...I've only just started listening) insisted that if CBS didn't air the miniseries, then that was censorship. However, Doug had a bit more sense about it, saying that CBS ought to pull it because the movie was in bad taste and attributed some serious lines to Reagan that he never said. Nancy was wrong; censorship is not the voluntary refraining from speech, it's the legislated prohibition of it. So if CBS does move the movie to Showtime, that's not censorship; it's responding to pressure, which we, as free citizens, are all allowed to exert. At the same time, I agree with Bill O'Reilly's take on this. We haven't seen the movie and so it's hard to really judge it completely. CBS, if they really want to, ought to show it, and let the ratings speak for themselves. I suspect that if they did, they'd be in a world of hurt soon after, since advertising rates are set based on Sweeps Week ratings, when the miniseries would air, and their budget would be curtailed due to their own poor choices and their lack of understanding of the feeling much of this country has for Ronald Reagan. In the liberal bubble they live in, there was probably nary a hand raised when the AIDS line ("They that live in sin shall die in sin") was put into the script or reviewed later on. No one wondered if he actually said this because they all figured he probably could have. It would be those kinds of decisions and that sort of lack of understanding that would hurt CBS's advertising income. (Although I would wonder if they'd really understand why it happened had there not been this sort of uproar in the weeks leading up to its airing.) So yeah, I think they should air it, if they have the guts to, but I wouldn't watch it. Some might say, "Well how could you truly judge it if you haven't watched it?" That's a fair question. Let me answer it this way. Person 1: "No, I don't want to be hit in the head with that club." Person 2: "Why not? Have you ever been hit by one before?" 1: "No, not really." 2: "Well then how can you really judge whether or not you'll like it?" 1: "Well, because I've talked to people that you've hit with things before, and they didn't like it." 2: "But no one's been hit by a club before. Are you going to judge this based on what others tell you about being hit by a metal pole? Or are you going to judge for yourself?" 1: "That's easy for you to say. You get paid for every person whom you club!" 2: "That's not the point. You're judging something based on what others think instead of trying it out for yourself." 1: "Hmmm, you do have a point. OK, let's try it." >club< 1: "Ouch! I didn't like that!" Person 3 (in marketing exec outfit): "Well, they do like it, don't they?" 2: "Yup. So that mean your brand name on this club is worth more." 3: "OK, here's my check." [Time passes] 2: "Excuse me." Person 4: "Yes?" 2: "Would you like to be hit with this club?" Let CBS walk around with its club, but let me decide whether or not to be hit by it. Monday, November 03, 2003
CNN is reporting that CBS may cancel the miniseries "The Reagans", but Drudge says (at this hour) they've already made the decision to cancel it (but he has no link to a news story...might be a phone call or E-mail he got). Stay tuned... Linda Tripp got some justice. It was pretty obvious that the leak of her personal information, timed as it was, was orchestrated to (try to) discredit her. Well, the lawsuit, while it is an out-of-court settlement, does give Tripp some of her honor back and will hopefully discourage future leaks like this. The "politics of personal destruction" was practiced over and over by the administration that preached against it over and over. The only downside is that the guys who ordered this information dump most likely will not be the one's paying the fine. Nat Hentoff is reporting on all the support Judge Charles Pickering has in the black communities where he has served (including a former NAACP local chapter president), and on the hypocrisy evident when Democrats filibuster his nomination. This isn't so much an opinion piece as it is a collection of evidence, and the evidence is that Pickering would make an eminently fair judge. John Hawkins has a fascinating interview with Bernard Goldberg. Bernard, complete with liberal and some libertarian credentials, wrote the hugely successful "Bias", about the liberal slant in news coverage. His follow-up "Arrogance" hits the streets today, and he discusses some of the additional bias he's seen since then. |
|
