Created with Sketch.
Consider This! | Conservative political commentary in 10 minutes or less
8 minutes | 17 days ago
Episode 315: The Crush of Illegal Immigrants / Jack Phillips Still a Target
The Surge Why is there suddenly a massive surge of immigrants rushing to the southern border? Well, it turns out that the answer is pretty simple; people respond to incentives. You may have thought that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop was back to business as usual after his Supreme Court decision. Not so fast. Mentioned links: Biden Explains Why He’s ‘Flattered’ Illegal Immigrants are Pouring Across the Border Migrant Tells ABC: I Came To The Border Because Biden Is President Now Instead Of Trump Once Again, Colorado Baker Jack Phillips Is on Trial for Being Christian Christian Baker Under Fire Again—This Time for Refusing to Bake a Transgender Cake Air Force One Now Equipped With Handicap Parking Pass [satire] Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript Well, they couldn’t soft-pedal it anymore, especially since they were being shut out from viewing it, so the mainstream media is covering the crisis on the southern border. If it was Trump restricting the press access in this way he would be literally Hitler, again. It took a Congressman from Texas (Henry Cuellar, a Democrat), to get some pictures out from where unaccompanied children were being kept. Now, it’s not kids in cages actually, because instead they’re using soft plastic sheets between rooms. But otherwise, it’s the same thing that Trump was doing and Obama before him. So where are the Congressional Democrats on this? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex notably had a photo-op somewhat near one of these facilities looking distraught, almost in tears, during the Trump administration. These days, not so much. When Kamala Harris was running her disastrous campaign for President, she said she’d close these down. Instead, more have opened and their still massively overcrowded. But why this huge surge of, not just children, but adults and families trying to sneak into the country? Or why all these asylum seekers at the border right now rather than using the procedures to apply for it? One reason: Joe Biden. According to this guy, that’s the truth. [ABC migrant audio] And, according to his first press conference (finally), Biden said that he is “flattered” that they’re coming because, as he likes to believe, they think he’s a nice guy. No, you don’t make a perilous journey like that because you think the Head of State is nice; you do it because you think the Head of State is soft on immigration and will let you get away with breaking the law. The Trump-era requirement was that, for asylum seekers, they would remain outside our border (you know, like we do everywhere else). Biden removed that, and the asylum camps emptied out. Now who could have anticipated that? So we have an actual crisis at the border with more kids in cages than ever before. I guess those unaccompanied minors thought Biden was such a nice guy that they ran away from home to start a new life here. Right. Instead it’s more like the parents are hoping some nice guy will find them and let them in to be with their kids. Look, there is a proper way to request asylum, and jumping the fence, so to speak, is not the way to do it. Nice guy or tough guy, that has always been the case. But when you telegraph that you’re willing to let things slide, don’t be taken by surprise when the border gets overrun. I’m circling back around to the story of Jack Phillips as we Reconsider This. Phillips, as listeners to this show and/or people keeping up with the news may remember, was taken to task for not decorating a wedding cake in accordance with the wishes of a same-sex couple. The Colorado Human Rights Commission wanted him to be re-educated as to the orthodox ways of the world. When his case hit the Supreme Court, they didn’t rule on the religious freedom issue; they only ruled that the commission didn’t give his religious beliefs the attention they deserved, so they punted on the larger question. Meanwhile, Phillips has been hounded by an activist targeting him. On the same day that the High Court agreed to hear the case, Autumn Scardina called to ask to have a gender transition cake made. Autumn is a transgender woman, so the cake was to be blue on the outside (representing Autumn’s biological gender) and pink on the inside. Phillips declined. Scardina hauled Phillips back to the state human rights commission. Having been slapped down by the Supreme Court for “religious hostility”, you’d think the commission wouldn’t take the bait again. You’d be wrong. So in response to being investigated by them again, Phillips went on the offensive and sued the commission itself for its harassment. That is still making its way through the court system, but I thought you’d want to be up-to-date with that. Y’know, based on all this attention, you’d think that Masterpiece Cakeshop was the only place in Lakewood, CO to buy a cake. You’d be wrong. And no, didn’t get into the whole bit about Joe Biden tripping up the stairs to Air Force One. But you know who had the best take on it? The Babylon Bee. Their headline was, “Air Force One Now Equipped With Handicap Parking Pass” Maybe they’ll let him use the Skyway now. The post Episode 315: The Crush of Illegal Immigrants / Jack Phillips Still a Target appeared first on Consider This!.
9 minutes | a month ago
Episode 314: New Definition of “Terrorism” / Kids in Cages / “Equality Act” Observation
Kids in cages, or something else? Did you know terrorists keep office hours? No? Well just ask Merrick Garland, former Supreme Court nominee and current Attorney General nominee. He’ll set you straight. The Washington Post has turned on a dime when describing detention facilities at the border. What a difference an administration makes! And a cousin of mine had a great observation regarding the track women’s sports have been on in her lifetime. Mentioned links: Biden AG Pick Merrick Garland: Far-Left Rioters Attacking Federal Courthouse Not Domestic Terrorism Because It’s At Night When Court Is Closed WaPo called out for report on Biden’s ‘migrant facility for children’ after hitting Trump’s ‘kids in cages’ House passes so-called Equality Act, threatening religious liberty New Jersey man explains how he made 14-foot Lincoln snow sculpture Chicago Lists Lincoln Statues Among Monuments to Review Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript Here’s a question that was asked of former Supreme Court nominee and current Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland. Senator Josh Hawley asked, “Let me ask you about assaults on federal property in places other than Washington, D.C. Portland for instance, Seattle. Do you regard assaults on federal courthouses or other federal property as acts of domestic extremism, domestic terrorism? Senator Hawley was referring to the US courthouse in downtown Portland, Oregon. For weeks, BLM protesters tried to get into it in order to set fire to it, like they had so many other buildings. And this was a US government building, remember. So the question was now to Mr. Garland; would that be domestic terrorism? I’ve called the attack on the Capitol “domestic terrorists” because they fit the definition. What would Mr. Garland say about BLM doing essentially the same thing? Well, he tried to split hairs to avoid angering the Woke constituency. Basically he said that both acts were criminal, but the attacks in Portland happened when the building was closed for the night so it wouldn’t have disrupted the democratic process and therefore it wasn’t terrorism. Really? Burning the building wouldn’t have disrupted what was going on in the building? OK, not until morning when all the rioters had left, but disruption is disruption. So as long as Iran bombs the Pentagon after hours, maybe they won’t get a stay at Guantanamo. They aren’t terrorists; they’re just really bad guys. A few hours earlier or later, then they’d be terrorists. Wow, we sure dodged a bullet not putting this guy on the Supreme Court, but as Attorney General, he can still do some damage if he is going to continue to bow to Woke pressure. And right now, that looks exactly like what he’s going to do. The Washington Post, 2018: “The American tradition of caging children” The Washington Post, also 2018: “The real reason we’re locking children in cages” The Washington Post, 2019: “Viewing US border cells derided as ‘cages,’ Central American officials pledge more immigration cooperation.” The Washington Post, editorializing in 2020: “The tableaux of caged migrant children, torn from their parents’ arms, should be among the most enduring images produced by the president’s policies” The Washington Post, 2021: “First migrant facility for children opens under Biden” The Post has turned on a dime, going from “kids in cages” to “children in migrant facilities” as fast as you can say, “A Democrat is President”. Now, the article, linked to in the show notes, mentions comments from both sides of the aisle, including some liberal activists who say, among other things, that this is “Concentration camp expansion under a Democrat administration.” It is great to hear that these liberals are being consistent. But here’s the problem. Most people won’t hear them, or me, or you. What they’ll hear is the media, and the media is covering for Joe Biden, plain and simple. Unless people read more than the headline and a couple paragraphs, this will slide past the general public faster than a stream of illegals under a Democrat administration. The monumentally misnamed “Equality Act” passed the House recently. That’s the bill that will, among other things, make the First Amendment protection of religious freedom a 3rd class citizen when it comes up against the sexual orthodoxy of the day. It now goes to the Senate where I hope saner heads prevail. I’ll have more to say about it in a future episode, but right now, I want read a quote from the Facebook group by a cousin of mine. She was speaking to how the “Equality Act” will increase the speed of the destruction of women’s sports by allowing men to participate in them (never mind President Joe  Biden’s executive orders). This is what she said: “In less than my lifetime female sports have gone from ignored, undervalued and under sponsored, fought hard for, achieved recognition, valued and sponsored, to now female athletes are again ignored, undervalued and cut from sponsorships/scholarships.” Wow, I had not thought of it that way until she said that. Relatively speaking, things have reversed course pretty quickly. And finally, Robert Schott of Cranford, New Jersey, is the talk of the town where he recreated the Lincoln Memorial statue in his front yard; a 14-foot replica…out of snow, and it was just in time for President’s Day. He did use some plywood to support the base and the chair, but the rest is all white stuff. As for how popular his sculpture is, Schott said, “This figure, leader, resonates for a lot of people. So I think that was emotional for a lot of people.” Meanwhile, in Chicago, a city commission, created after protests against racism last year, identified five statues of Abraham Lincoln among 41 monuments that should receive public scrutiny. So Lincoln saved the Union, freed the slaves, was killed for that, and a racism committee thinks honoring him requires “scrutiny”. Well Mr. Schott, let’s hope the temperatures in Cranford stay below freezing for a little bit longer. The post Episode 314: New Definition of “Terrorism” / Kids in Cages / “Equality Act” Observation appeared first on Consider This!.
10 minutes | 2 months ago
Episode 313: Impeachment Season 2 Review / RIP Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh, RIP “Impeachment season 2” is now behind us. I give my review of this shortened season (short due to no investigation episodes and because no witnesses were called). And one of the greats of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, has passed away. He was a pioneer in his field, bringing conservative views and explaining them in a way that we could all understand them. Mentioned links: Senate Impeachment Trial: January 6 Video Montage Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk radio pioneer, dead at 70 New Jersey man explains how he made 14-foot Lincoln snow sculpture Chicago Lists Lincoln Statues Among Monuments to Review Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript Impeachment season 2 has come and gone. It ended the same way but there was a little more drama this time. They had to include that because, as I said a few weeks ago, they shortened the season by skipping the episodes about the actual investigation to determine if a crime had even been committed. Essentially the grand jury met and immediately voted to indict the defendant. I give it two and a half stars. This was no Perry Mason. OK, enough of the TV analogy. Here’s what happened. The Democrats in the House of Representatives wanted this fast-tracked, presumably to try to get Donald Trump out of office before he brokered another Middle East peace deal. So without a single shred of forethought or due process, they got a majority in the House to quickly vote to impeach Trump a second time. But instead of quick-marching the one article of impeachment over to the Senate, instead of bringing it on Wednesday afternoon, they waited until the following Monday, postponing the Senate trial by 6 days. (Since they brought them over on Monday, the Constitution requires that the trial begin at 1pm the following day, Tuesday, 6 days after the impeachment vote.) Yeah, so much for the supposed urgency. And in the meantime, Trump’s term ended. When the Senate trial started, one of the big things they led off with was a montage – one might call it a “heavily edited video” – that cut between Trump using the word “fight” in a sentence and shots of the horrific Capitol riot. Now, I went back and watched it while preparing for this episode and it was gut-wrenching all over again. But it was what I see a lot of arguments from the Left are; a 13-minute appeal to emotion, not to be confused with an appeal to the law. You know what they didn’t show? Donald Trump saying to go to the Capitol and cheer on those Republicans doing what Trump wanted. They didn’t show Trump telling them to peacefully and patriotically protest at the Capitol. If he intended to incite, he was doing it wrong. If reciting the same rhetoric about a stolen election (that he had been claiming for 2 months) was incitement, the word has changed meaning recently (which, I guess, is quite possible as many other words have like “racist”, “tolerance”, and “woman”). Oh, and no witnesses were called, I guess to go with no investigation. A year ago, Chuck Shumer said an impeachment trial without witnesses was a sham. So, was Chuck even trying this time? Trump was ultimately acquitted, but since he was acquitted for something who’s legal definition wouldn’t be enough to convict him in court, the concerning thing is how many would vote for conviction, especially since he wasn’t, as I said, given due process. And to those who say that impeachment doesn’t require that a law be broken, you’re right, but maybe refrain from using legal terms in the future. If you want to impeach a President because he’s a poo-poo head and doesn’t do what you want him to do, just come out and say it. But I don’t think you can say that Trump got away with something because, well, he didn’t. The voice that reinvigorated the AM band and the talk radio genre has left the building. Rush Limbaugh lost his battle with lung cancer and died on February 17th at age 70. Love him or hate him, there’s no doubt that he left a mark on the media and conservative thought that was historic. I believe that his show took off for two reasons. One is that he was unafraid to mock those he disagreed with. Conservatives have been mocked in popular culture for decades and he was very willing to take an irreverent look at ideas he thought deserved it. In Limbaugh parlance, he was “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd”. A classic example from the early days of Rush was regarding the issue of abortion. One day, while a caller was talking, Rush hung up on him while playing the sound effect of a vacuum cleaner. He called it a “caller abortion”; a viable phone call was interrupted and disposed of. Hey, it’s his show, his choice, right? Rush played this for laughs. Pretty soon, people were calling in and asking to be aborted. But also, people started calling in very mad that he was making light of abortion, and he should stop these caller abortions because they were crude and upsetting. After a couple days of this, Rush got to the point. He made the observation that people were getting very upset over what was, admittedly, a crude comedy bit. But he also observed that those same people, all in knots about callers being cut off to the sound of a vacuum, did not have that same level of concern for the deaths of millions of babies who were sucked out of their mothers’ wombs, though they hadn’t done anything wrong. He demonstrated the absurdity of the pro-abortion position by being absurd. But Rush was a lot more than his comedy, whatever you thought of it. If you listened regularly, his analysis of the day’s events was often spot-on. It was slanted and insightful but it was not something you’d hear too much of, especially in the 80s and 90s. And that’s the second reason I think his show was a huge hit from the beginning; conservative opinions were scarce at that time and so he was a breath of fresh air to those who the media had convinced were outliers and outcasts . Other national conservatives came along – on the radio and cable news – and the Internet with all its choices, but Rush kept going and going. He’s been the #1 or #2 most listened to national talk show host for as far back as they’ve been keeping track of the numbers. When Air America came on to try to elbow out conservatives with a liberal network of hosts, Limbaugh (and actually most of conservative talk in general) outlasted them. I have one personal story about Rush; not that I ever met him, but this is about my dad. He listened to Rush every chance he got and I remember one time we were sitting out on the back patio of our house with the radio on. Rush was getting upset about Democrats wasting time with meaningless resolutions that did nothing but make Republicans vote for or against them. These votes might make them look bad, but my dad said he disagreed with stopping that. He said that when the time came, he wanted Republicans to be able to do it. So, this isn’t so much about what Rush himself said, but how, while listening to him, I got a lesson from my dad about putting the shoe on the other foot. In a way, he was teaching me to consider this. So thanks dad for the lesson, and thanks Rush Limbaugh for making it happen. The post Episode 313: Impeachment Season 2 Review / RIP Rush Limbaugh appeared first on Consider This!.
9 minutes | 2 months ago
Episode 312: COVID Restrictions Lifting (Now) / Problematic School Names
Too problematic for San Francisco So many restrictions that were enforced because of COVID-19 are being lifted, seemingly all at once. Is it a miracle, or is there something else going on? The San Francisco Board of Education has decided to rename 44 of its schools. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are among those problematic school names, but there are many more that you would not think are a problem (especially when you hear one example of why one of those names is on the list). Mentioned links: All Hail The Reopening! Andrew Cuomo Announces Indoor Dining Can Resume Despite Coronavirus Being Worse Than When He Banned It San Francisco to strip Washington, Lincoln from school names Statues of Washington, Jefferson Aren’t ‘Next,’ But It’s Complicated, Historians Say Protesters tore down a George Washington statue and set a fire on its head Portland protesters tear down ‘racist’ statue of Thomas Jefferson The Holier-Than-Thou Crusade in San Francisco Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript All hail the reopening! That’s the headline on a blog post at ZeroHedge that notices an interesting coincidence. Now that Donald Trump is gone and Joe Biden has come, the sun has once again come out, the birds are singing, and we can all of a sudden reopen our businesses. Can I get an amen? [Amen and awomen] This is a list, incomplete as it might be, of reopenings that have come on the heels of Biden’s inauguration: Washington, D.C. will resume indoor dining. I’m sure the National Guard will appreciate that. Maryland’s governor has decided that the state needs to reopen schools now and no later than March 1. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan says Michigan restaurants reopened for indoor dining on February 1. Chicago’s mayor is now demanding an immediate opening of restaurants and bars. Chicago is also threatening teachers unions that they must return to work. New York Governor Cuomo has dramatically reversed his rhetorical course and demanded a reopening of the city. He said that indoor dining can resume on Valentine’s Day, even though nearly every COVID metric is worse now than it was when he banned it. California Governor Gavin Newsom, incredibly, has lifted all stay-at-home orders across the state and is permitting dining to open up. Montana’s new governor has lifted some COVID restrictions. Coincidence? Hey, I’m sure all of this just evolved naturally rather than being created all at once. I will also note that Gov. Newsom of California is very close to getting a recall election and would really hope people liked him in time for that. The Babylon Bee has an animation with the good governor going all over telling people it’s time to reopen, but in the background are boarded up restaurants, smoldering buildings, and no people. [Babylon Bee clip] It’s truly amazing how following the science is looking more and more like following the politics. The World Health Organization said to stop using lockdowns as a primary means of virus control back in October, but that was before the election and before Biden took office. In October, cases were still on the rise, and now they’re going down, but we’re still at the same number of new cases per day as we were in November. Now we’ve got new strains that are even more infectious coming into the country. But hey, we’re good flinging open the doors. Now. I’m all for opening up, personally. Protect the elderly and at-risk, use those masks and keep that distance, but let’s not shut down people’s livelihoods. Take precautions but don’t destroy the economy. We didn’t know some of this in early summer, but we sure did in late fall. Welcome to mid-winter. What a difference an administration makes. When the frenzy was on to pull down statues, I recall that being all about Confederate generals and soldiers. I disagreed with the mob violence and thought that, if cities and towns wanted to remove them, it should be put to a vote, either a referendum to the people or at least a city council. Trump tweeted the question, “Who’s next? Washington? Jefferson?” NBC News, for one, said they weren’t next, but at least one of Washington and one of Jefferson came down, in Portland, Oregon (because of course). No votes there, just mob rule. Trump saw it coming. But recently there were votes taken, not to remove statues, but names off of schools. The San Francisco Board of Education voted to change the names of 44 schools using names like, of course, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, but also including Abraham Lincoln, Francis Scott key (who wrote our national anthem), the Alamo (which I guess we’re not going to remember), Robert Louis Stevenson, Daniel Webster, Paul Revere, and many other presidents. Gone, apparently, are the days when we could honor men and women for their achievements in spite of their sins or their failing to live up to the standards of the future. There’s a link in the show notes to an article that you would think was a Saturday Night Live script were it not actually a description of the various ways that the committee decided which names would go. Paul Revere Elementary School ended up on the renaming list because, during the discussion, a committee member misread a History.com article as claiming that Revere had taken part in an expedition that stole the lands of the Penobscot Indians. In fact, the article described Revere’s role in the Penobscot Expedition, a disastrous American military campaign against the British during the Revolutionary War. (That expedition was named after a bay in Maine.) But no one bothered to check, the committee voted to rename the school, and by order of the San Francisco school board Paul Revere will now ride into oblivion. More hilarity ensues in the article. To what shall they be renamed? Well, probably some Democrat in government, you’d think, but not so fast. Also on the chopping block is Dianne Feinstein Elementary. I’m not sure where that came from, but she hasn’t owned slaves or has been cruel to Native Americans so your guess is as good as mine. We’re getting to the point where we can’t acknowledge good that has been done by people without cancelling them because they don’t live up to standards we have set. Imagine in a future where abortion is considered unthinkable. If they did the same sort of thing then, there would hardly be a post-1980s Democrat whose name you would be allowed to use on a bridge or school or federal building. Take some time to consider this. I will note that this list includes the renaming of James Lick Middle School, which was probably a good idea regardless of who Mr. Lick is or was. Impeachment season 2 is upon us. Once again, it’s a limited event season, and it’ll be even shorter than last time, because this time they skipped all the up-front investigation episodes and jumped right to the trial, so catch it while you can. The post Episode 312: COVID Restrictions Lifting (Now) / Problematic School Names appeared first on Consider This!.
10 minutes | 3 months ago
Episode 311: Executive Orders Are the Order of the Day
Executive Orders are too powerful Presidents like to tell what they will do in their first 100 days in office, but executive orders make just the first hundred minutes very powerful. Sending out edicts is not what representative government should be, for any political party. And Joe Biden is no different. I take a look at just a few of his EOs in this episode. Mentioned links: Biden to sign 17 executive actions, orders to reverse Trump policies, restore Obama-era programs on first day Biden to kick off presidency by signing 17 executive actions Heritage Foundation Experts Respond to Ill-Advised Biden Executive Orders Biden orders biological males be permitted in women’s sport U.S. Funds World Health Organization That Boot-Licks China, With Deadly Results Current treatment period may be too short to remove competitive advantage of transgender athletes Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript Welcome to first episode of Consider This made during the Joe Biden administration. According to his inauguration speech, this will be a time where we come together in unity and healing, with cats and dogs living together, and men and women in the same locker room. Well, not so much the former, but definitely the latter. And how will that be accomplished? By executive order, of course! Now, I have been consistent in noting that if you live by the EO, you die by the EO. More and more of the functioning of our government has been given over to edicts signed by the President such that anytime the party at the top switches, so do dozens of laws; not in the first 100 days, but the first 100 minutes. It shouldn’t be this way, but here we are. Trump spent his early time in the job reversing Obama EOs, and now Biden, in turn, re-reverses them. The President should not have that much power, period. Having said all that, let’s look at some of the EOs that President Biden has signed. This one I could see coming 400 miles away; stopping construction of the border wall. [Iago – Not surprise] First of all, I have to make an obvious observation, one I’ve made before; walls work. Just like the wall around Biden’s inauguration ceremony, walls work. The new administration says that they’ll be doing things differently. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan put it this way, “The Biden administration is going to have a very different approach to regional migration.” He added that there was going to be a special emphasis on dealing with the “root causes of migration in the region.” No, that doesn’t mean they will be getting rid of, or reforming, any government programs that give free stuff to illegal immigrants. That would be too easy and effective. Instead it means that we will be increasing security within places like Guatemala. We’ll aid in rooting out governmental corruption there, and boost their economy to reduce the need that citizens feel to leave there and come here. You know, things we’ve been doing for a long time, in Guatemala and Honduras and many other countries in Central and South America. If people from there have legitimate reasons to want to come here (and you can’t blame them for wanting to), there is, is fact, a legal way to do so. But in the intervening years before all that reform takes hold, no more wall. Brilliant. Speaking of immigration, another reversal from President Biden is one of Trump’s which mandated the use of “all available systems and resources” to enforce US immigration laws inside the country. Biden will instead call for enforcement policies “in line with our values and priorities.” So Trump said to use our law enforcement resources to enforce our laws, while Biden said…what? What values and whose priorities are we talking about? How is enforcing the laws on the books problematic? If you don’t like the laws, change the laws, don’t send out edicts about what laws you will and won’t enforce. And again, as I said before, no President from any party should be doing that. Another EO for Joe was one that preserved and strengthened the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – or DACA – program. This is the program that Obama said Congress needed to create, and that it was unconstitutional to do it by EO. And then he did it by EO. And now Joe is reinforcing it the same way. Should Congress pass DACA? On the merits, I can see why they should. But ours is a system of representative governing and compromise, and a single man or woman with a single signature is neither representative nor does it hammer out compromise. It is force without dissent, and when that force goes against our founding documents, it is tyranny. Joe Biden also made sure that we rejoined that branch of the Chinese Communist Party that Trump had removed us from; the World Health Organization. You remember them, right? They are the folks who parroted whatever China said regarding COVID-19, and both the WHO and the CCP were found to have not moved quickly enough as the disease was getting a foothold. The ties between the Director-General of the WHO (whose name I will not butcher here) and the CCP are enough to see why China has been able to use the WHO to cover for it as they botched things early on. Sure, let’s rejoin that. And should you be under the impression that virtue signaling only happens on social media, Joe put us back into the Paris Climate Accords. We’ve been outperforming most countries that are signatories because of a big switch to natural gas, so the purpose of rejoining, or even having joined in the first place, was just for show. We don’t lead by signing a piece of paper, we lead by doing, and we are. Then there’s the Keystone XL pipeline. Joe wants to halt construction of it. First of all, our very close trading partner Canada is a little peeved about this since this is shipping their oil to our refineries. So instead, we’ll have to send it by truck or train; transportation methods that send out carbon emissions. I’m sorry, what exactly was the goal here? On the discrimination front, Biden will sign an executive order mandating that the federal government extend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin — to also cover sexual orientation and gender identity. As I’ve mentioned on the show before, my prediction is that this will spill over into Title IX of the Education amendments, which gave us, among other things, women’s sports. Now I will also say that this is such an easy prediction to make because it’s already happening in certain pockets of the country. Men identifying as women are smashing women’s records in track, for instance, and being allowed to even before they go on hormone treatments. Merely saying you’re a woman gets you to the starting line. And even if they are on a hormone treatment, a new study shows that after the recommended 1 year of that treatment, biological men still retain an athletic advantage over women, and on average even after 2 years. Women, the game is up. Men have figured out how to elbow themselves into your sports. The hashtag #BidenErasedWomen was trending on Twitter recently when people realized this. These executive orders are all based on promises that Biden made during the campaign. They are either unconstitutional, poorly thought out, discriminatory, bad for national security, or some combination thereof. Congress has abdicated its responsibilities, so this is what we get. The post Episode 311: Executive Orders Are the Order of the Day appeared first on Consider This!.
13 minutes | 3 months ago
Episode 310: Mob Violence is Always Wrong
Mob violence at the US Capitol The attack on the Capitol building in Washington, DC was wrong and anyone involved with it should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Vast majorities of both Democrats and Republicans agree with that statement. But if we distill it down to it’s base argument — mob violence is always wrong — the opinions diverge. In this episode, I talk about why that is, and suggest who might be to blame for normalizing mob violence. Mentioned links: US Capitol secured, 4 dead after rioters stormed the halls of Congress to block Biden’s win Whataboutism [Wikipedia] Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript It was January 6th, 2021, and I was in the middle of my workday when I got a Facebook message from Listener Barb. “You watching this!?!? Unacceptable.” All that I knew that was going on politically that day was that the Electoral College votes were to be certified in the Senate, and there were Republicans that were going to request that there be a commission to review the results in some of the close states. So I replied, “Is it the Electoral College thing?” Her reply didn’t seem possible. “Protesters have broken into the Capitol building. Congress being evacuated. Turn on your TV.” Well, it turned out that on that particular day I was working at the home of a friend who does not get broadcast TV but has a great Internet connection. What I found out made it one of those days where I believe I will remember where I was when I heard the news. It was January 6th, 2021, and terrorism entered the halls of our nation’s Capitol. It was at once unthinkable, horrifying, sickening, un-American, evil, heartbreaking, and insane. Feel free to add any adjectives of your own. Make no mistake; this was, at the very least, terrorism; violence committed in pursuit of a political goal. In this case, it was a goal almost guaranteed to not be arrived at. It may have temporarily stopped the procedure that would ultimately declare Joe Biden and Kamala Harris President-elect and Vice-President-elect, but the violence did not stop it, partially because the American system of government is so very resilient, and partially because it is so very stubborn. But not achieving their goal is beside the point. What their goal was or why they were pursuing it is beside the point. It doesn’t matter. What matters is what they did, and what they did were acts of violence. The place that they committed these acts was uniquely dangerous to our constitutional system of government, and may likely result in stiffer penalties, but their violence was the core of what they did wrong. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for what they did. Some are calling what they did “insurrection” or “sedition”. Technically there might be a case for that, but guys taking selfies in the Senate chamber with horns on their head, or with their feet up on Nancy Pelosi’s desk, don’t come across as those trying to usurp the government; more like rebels without a clue. Maybe that’s just me. But there were some other consequences of their actions that they do need to answer for. At least one person that I heard about died of a heart attack during the event, and a Capitol police officer was killed. Those must be a component of their prosecution. So now let’s zoom out a little from the protesters, and as we do that we see Donald Trump. I’ve been so dismayed at President Trump for fanning these flames of the idea of a stolen election, and that it was really a landslide for him. I hear people talking about evidence for it, but his legal team either didn’t present that evidence in court or presented it and then withdrew it. Some suits have been thrown out, many by Trump-appointed judges. We’ve heard people talk about what they saw, but never in court. At this point, I’ve decided I have no dog in this race. I said in the show for November 9th that I was resigned to a Biden/Harris administration, though not in despair of it, and that’s where I’ve been since then. But it really doesn’t help to have the President personally address supporters who came to DC to protest the Electoral College vote certification and fan those flames for an hour. Now he didn’t tell them to get violent, and in fact, he specifically said to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, but his rhetoric was definitely pushing the narrative. He deserves some blame for that, but calling it “incitement” is really taking liberties with the meaning of that word. Now let’s zoom out a lot farther. As we do, we start to see the burned-out buildings and looted stores that were part of the riots during the summer. Now before I get into this, I know some will say that I’m about to engage in “whataboutism”. Did you know that this term goes back to the 1970s, and was a tactic often used by the Soviet Union? When criticized for the gulags and massacres that were going on at the time, the Soviets would respond with “What about…” and bring up our past history of slavery, for instance. Basically, it’s a deflection of criticism by pointing out the bad behavior of the critic. So “whataboutism” is where you or your tribe (be it a political group or social group or whatever) ignores criticism by claiming hypocrisy of the opposing tribe. There is no admission of guilt; that’s the key. This is different than what I will be doing. I will admit guilt on the part of my tribe, and request consistency of the other tribe by asking that they similarly admit guilt for the same or similar action on their part. I’d like to have a catchy name for it, but I haven’t spent time any time on that. If you’ve got an idea, let me know. For now, I’ll call it “consistent-ism”. And the “consistentism” in this case goes like this; mob violence is always wrong. It’s as simple as that. Mob violence is always wrong. You probably know where I’m going with this. I’m going to compare the BLM riots this summer with the right-wing extremist riot we saw in DC. You might suggest that what the right-wingers did at the Capitol was insurrection, which is far worse than burning buildings or looting stores. Well, I guess that depends on if you’re the store owner or a building tenant or not. But consider this; what was the insurrection? What action did people take that made them insurrectionists? It was the violence. From the storming of the barricades outside to the vandalism of the building inside to the disruption of the government, these were all violent actions. Again, where it happened and to whom it happened should be considered when the charges are drawn up and sentences are given. They may pay a bigger penalty but the penalty is beside the point. Instead, I want to repeat; mob violence is always wrong. From a moral point of view, that is, or should be, self-evident. And for the hundreds or thousands of business owners whose livelihoods were destroyed, consider that the violence during the summer had a far greater impact on them than the violence in DC. Another objection to a comparison between the two was the motivations for each. Since one had to do with racial justice and the other to do with the belief in a conspiracy theory, they were clearly different. I will go back to the base principle about mob violence because it should give us some perspective relative to any comparisons. As I said (consistently) this summer, I thought the American people were united behind the BLM cause right after the George Floyd incident, but as the rioting, looting, and burning continued, that support faded. Polls bore that out. For many who were sympathetic to the cause, mob violence was not the answer. But here’s the problem with excusing mob violence in pursuit of a lofty goal. One man’s lofty goal is another man’s conspiracy theory. While a majority of the country may have agreed with the ultimate goal of the protests about the treatment of George Floyd, that does not excuse the riots. Well, it shouldn’t. I have a video in the show notes of media figures and politicians doing just that; excusing or downplaying mob violence. But when you spend months normalizing that behavior, don’t be surprised that, when another group thinks that their cause is a lofty goal, mob violence breaks out again. When you chant “No justice, no peace”, don’t be surprised when anyone who feels they’ve been given “no justice” implements their version of “no peace”. When you quote an out-of-context phrase from Martin Luther King that “riots are the voice of the unheard” to downplay mob violence, don’t be surprised when others who feel unheard follow that example. When you excuse mob violence with the observation that “buildings can be rebuilt”, don’t be surprised when it’s your building, or even the people’s building – the nation’s Capitol – that is the next target. Again the mob is responsible for their actions, but if you hold up Trump’s speech at the rally against literally months of dismissing or in some cases outright approving of mob violence, and fund-raising to get rioters out on bail, you tell me which is more inciting? Mob violence is always wrong. It shouldn’t be excused, downplayed, or mischaracterized. It doesn’t matter the goal, or what other people think of the goal, or what law the violence is breaking. Mob violence is always wrong. On this point, I have been consistent, as well as most conservatives. It is conservatives who have spoken out against mob violence no matter who was doing it. But for so many on the Left, the ends justify or excuse the means. If you get accused of “whataboutism”, it may be that the accuser just doesn’t want to be consistent. As for you, be consistent and expect consistency. Keep that in mind as you continue to consider this. The post Episode 310: Mob Violence is Always Wrong appeared first on Consider This!.
10 minutes | 4 months ago
Episode 309: Boycott Backfire / A Personal Gift / Listener News Site Suggestion
A “personal’ gift? A boycott turned into a “buy-cot” when what was meant to punish became a way to reward a company. How about giving a very “personal” gift this year? I’ve got an idea, but just know that I will absolutely not be giving this. And listener Ryan called 267-CALL-CT-0 and let me know of another news site that gives all sides of an issue. Mentioned links: After AOC Calls for Boycott of Pro-Trump GOYA, Sales Skyrocket and CEO Names Her ‘Employee of the Month’ The Michael Berry Show with guest Bob Unanue Grow-your-own human steaks meal kit is not ‘technically’ cannibalism, makers say AOC selling $60 ‘Tax the rich’ sweatshirt, other merch on her site AllSides Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript You may remember back in July, the CEO of Goya Foods, Robert Unanue, made remarks at the White House. He was there to pledge one million cans of Goya chickpeas to food banks, and his remarks included this sentence, “Americans are truly blessed…to have a leader like President Trump.” Well, the Left certainly could not have the CEO of a billion-and-half dollar company say anything nice about Trump, even if he was a minority. Especially if he’s a minority, I guess. He was expressing thoughts outside of what all minorities are supposed to express, according to the Left. (All minorities should think the same. No stereotyping there, right?) The most notable of this crowd to dis him was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who implied a boycott when she approvingly retweeted someone else’s suggestion to “make your shopping decisions accordingly”. Some on the Left did that. But then a lot of people on the Right did that as well. A few days ago, Unanue said on a radio interview that the “buycott” from those on the Right caused “our sales actually increased 1,000 percent”. Hyperbole or not, clearly the boycott failed. And it failed so spectacularly that Mr. Unanue said this. [Unanue audio, employee of the month] If anyone ever thought that major corporation CEOs had no sense of humor, naming AOC the Employee of the Month should disabuse you of that notion. Here’s an idea for the holidays. Give the gift of meat. No, this isn’t going to be an ad for a subscription to Omaha Steaks (although I wouldn’t mind the sponsorship). This is instead a story about a company selling the lab-grown Ouroboros Steak. Without getting into all the details of how the process is done, I will simply highlight the main ingredient; you. With a swab of your cheek, off go those cells to the lab and in 3 months, what results is a steak. “Do you mean it’s…?” Yes, it’s the most personal of gifts. Now think about eating this yourself. It’s you eating you. Kind of like that picture of a snake eating its own tail, which is called…an Ouroboros. Hence the name of the steak. The jury’s out on whether that’s cannibalism (the company says it’s technically not) but that’s a hard no from me. Still, it does give new meaning to the phrase, “You are what you eat.” Having mentioned AOC earlier, did you know she has her own store of clothing and other gear? She does, and on that site you can buy all sorts of apparel for yourself or a collar for your dog, extolling thoughts like “Tax the Rich”, “The Green New Deal”, “Drink Water & Don’t Be Racist”, “Medicare For All”, and “Abolish Ice”. Aside from some of the foolish ideas like “Tax the Rich” (as if we aren’t) and “Medicare for All” (which is the stereotypical government program that is one budget overrun after another), she should be able to sell what she wants for whatever she wants. See, in a free-market economy you are free to do that, unlike the socialist economy she extolls. So she does. She’s even got campaign messages like “AOC+ME”, or just her name emblazoned across your chest. She sells what she wants, and indeed for whatever she wants, but that’s where the irony meter starts clicking very fast. A “Green New Deal” pin is $10. An AOC onesie for your baby is $25. T-shirts are $25-27. A mug is $27. And get this; a sweater is $58 and a hoodie is $65. Just think of it; a sweatshirt with the words “Tax the Rich” on it costs $58, and when I visited the site that sweatshirt was sold out. Look, even if you buy one because profits from the sale go to AOC’s campaign, if you can toss $58 away for a sweatshirt, you are the rich. Don’t let AOC or any other Democrat tell you differently. Socialism is all about a product for a fair price, though it’s the government that decides what fair is. So you can’t really blame AOC for trying to make some money before she can’t. Listener Ryan called in to the voicemail feedback hotline at 267-CALL-CT-0 after listening to last week’s episode where I suggested Ground.News as a place to look for all sides of a story. And speaking of “all sides”, here’s Ryan’s recommendation. [Ryan Stein audio] There’s a link in the show notes to AllSides.com. Ryan suggested a call back to talk about that so I did. After looking at the site, I said that I still liked the way Ground.News made all the stories from different sides easily accessible, but clearly it was yet another great place to get all sides of the issues. And Ryan, after we hung up, I found out that one of the places where Ground.News gets its bias rating of news sources is…AllSides.com. So clearly they like it too. Thanks for the recommendation. Thanks so much for listening. This is going to be my last episode of the year because of Christmas preparations, and, well, this is 2020; wouldn’t you quit early? It’s actually been a wonderful year here at the podcast. We’ve heard from some of you how you’ve been handling the pandemic; both the good and the bad, and I think it may have been cathartic for some to hear that they were not alone in what they were experiencing. And I hope I’ve been here keeping you informed with a chuckle or two to break things up along the way. The new year will bring its own challenges, its own worries, and its own victories, too. But for now, never mind all of that for now. Just enjoy whatever holiday you do. Until next year, thanks for your time and as always consider this. The post Episode 309: Boycott Backfire / A Personal Gift / Listener News Site Suggestion appeared first on Consider This!.
9 minutes | 4 months ago
Episode 308: Illegal Immigration Trends / Political Gaffes / A New News Source
Illegal immigration trends When Trump started his term, illegal immigration started to trend down. With Joe Biden the presumptive President-elect, what do you think that trend is doing now? Politicians make verbal gaffes; it happens all the time. But watch how the media coverage changes depending on the party of the politician. I’ve found a news source that lets you see how various other sources cover a story based on their bias. Mentioned links: Episode 175: Enforce The Laws We Have Illegal border crossings are surging as migrants anticipate Biden changes, DHS says Media Ignore ‘Devoutly Religious’ Biden’s Embarrassing Bible Gaffe After Freaking Out About Trump’s ‘Two Corinthians’ Remark Ground News Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript Back in April of 2017, just a few months after Donald Trump had been inaugurated, I noted that the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country had dropped like a rock. My explanation for it was that, since Trump ran heavily on enforcing our border, fewer people were willing to take the chance that they might get actually prosecuted rather than just get released into the country. Threatening to actually enforce our existing border laws caused, I believe, a drop in those trying to cross it illegally And today, this: Border Patrol agents are already seeing a Biden surge in illegal immigration at the southwest border, officials said Thursday, with the numbers surging 21% over the last month alone. Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan said worsening economic conditions south of the border are largely responsible for the uptick, but he also blamed “perceived and or anticipated shifts in policies” here in the U.S. Indeed, if you are having your own economic troubles, and the guy coming into the Presidency here is all about open borders, you’re more willing to take the chance and get forgiveness rather than permission. And all this while COVID-19 is still making the rounds. Oh yeah, this is just what we need. All politicians make verbal gaffes from time to time. For some of them, the time between those times is somewhat shorter than others. Here, for example, is candidate Donald Trump, calling a book of the Bible by the wrong name. [Trump audio, Two Corinthians] Now for the vast majority of Christians, the name of the book is Second Corinthians. I say for the “vast majority” because, in some places and based on age, some actually say Two Corinthians, but that’s a rare exception, and Trump doesn’t fit into any of those categories, so it’s a gaffe. And of course Trump got raked over the coals in the press. There’s a link in the show notes to a bunch of examples, some as recently as last year, over 3 years post-gaffe. The media would not let this go. I don’t think that Trump ever claimed to be particularly devout in his religion, but the media certainly like to remind us that Joe *** Biden is a devout Catholic. He’d never mispronounce something like…well… [Biden audio, Palmist] Yes, another gaffe, from this gaffe-o-matic guy. Anyway, the issue here for me is not about mispronunciations of Biblical proportions, it’s how the media will cover these things. Here we have two fairly similar situations. But I searched for “palmist” on Politico, CNN, and NPR, all of whom reported on the Trump version of the gaffe, and found absolutely nothing about Biden; surprise, surprise. Or not. Will Biden get a honeymoon from the press? Yes, and I predict it’ll last about 4 years. Well, unless he tries to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans. Then put down your drinks and get ready to fight. Speaking of drinks, that reminds me of a joke. Two Corinthians…walk into a bar… I put up a post in the Facebook group specifically for feedback from episode 307. I need to do that more often. Mark Havener, who runs the website TheConservativeZone.com, said this in regard to the issue of choosing your news channel. “On my website, when I quote news sources, I generally try to go with Liberal sources, the farther Left the better. This is a form of Word Judo, where I use their own words and positions against them.” Indeed, if you cite an openly conservative site, often it’ll be ignored, no matter the truthfulness of the article. Point them to a left-of-center source and you can get past that first barrier. One source that was recently pointed out to me was ground.news; that’s the URL. They also have an app by the same name. What they do is highlight news stories and show you all the sites that covered that story and where they sit on the political spectrum. One thing I did notice, though, is that in all the stories I’ve looked at so far, I’ve seen some categorized as Far Right but only 1 as Far Left, and it was one I’d never heard of. They let you know what 3rd party groups they use to classify news sources, so take a look, though your mileage may vary. There are a few things you can learn from that. One is how much one side or the other is emphasizing a particular story, or in fact whether one side or the other has what they call a blindspot. Another use is for guys like Mark and I who like to cite our sources. You can find the story you’re interested in, then find the leftmost source, make sure they have the same information you’re looking for, and cite them. So give it a look and see what you might be missing The post Episode 308: Illegal Immigration Trends / Political Gaffes / A New News Source appeared first on Consider This!.
9 minutes | 5 months ago
Episode 307: A Wider View of Election Night / Choosing Your News Channel
How do you choose? While the presidential race is still in litigation, things look quite good for Republicans down-ballot. At the very least (assuming good turnout in Georgia for the 2 Senate seat runoffs), Democrats’ more radical agenda items may be stopped. How do you choose your news channel? Is it that it shows you the slant you want? If so, maybe “news” isn’t what you’re looking for. Mentioned links: Not Yet Called Races and State Elections Here’s What You Need to Know About Georgia Companies Are Preparing to Cut Jobs and Automate if Biden Gets $15 Minimum Wage Hike, Reporting Shows Friday, Nov. 13 Scoreboard: Morning Joe Finishes Week as No. 1 Cable News Morning Show For First Time Since 2001 Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript So where do we stand regarding the election? Well, the presidential one is still being litigated, but I still think this is going to be a Joe Biden win. We’ve heard a lot of sound and fury from Rudi Giuliani. There are many affidavits that allege irregularities or fraud. But I haven’t heard evidence of big vote swings or enough fraud / error in enough states to turn this one around. Listener Ken, a college buddy of mine, disagrees with that assessment and has been writing in the Facebook group about why he thinks so. Join all of us there, especially you who are still only on the Facebook page. There’s a link in the show notes to a post written back on the 16th from the blog The New Reformed Club. Some of the races have likely been called since then (I know a Utah House one has, at least), but it give more of a wider look at the election in general. First off, we all know that the majority in the Senate rests on the outcome of the 2 seats headed to a runoff in my neck of the woods; Georgia. I have another link in the show notes to an analysis by Georgia native Erick Erickson as to why the Republicans should be fine in the runoff. I would add they’ll be fine if Georgia Republicans turn out as they did on Election Day. Don’t get lazy. But moving on to the House, there were, at the time the blog post was written, 11 uncalled House races—the Republicans lead in 8 and the Democrats lead in 3. Those races were not final, but if the numbers hold up, the House will be 222 Democrats to 213 Republicans. That would be a loss of 13 seats for the Democrats in a year where they expected to gain. Regarding governorships, of the 8 up for re-election, 7 of the incumbents won. In Montana, however, it flipped from Democrat to Republican, giving that state complete Republican control of its government. Regarding state legislatures, both legislative houses of New Hampshire went from Democrat to Republican. The governor is Republican, so New Hampshire is now a Republican-controlled state. So overall, all the way down the ballot, the Republicans had a good night, and after the Georgia runoffs for the US Senate, a Biden administration should be neutered enough to keep some of its more radical agenda items away from the desk of the Oval Office. For a guy who likely lost the election, Trump certainly had coattails. On November 12th, the Wall Street Journal reported that Chief Financial Officers at top American companies are considering raising prices, cutting workers’ hours and investing in automation. Is this in anticipation of more COVID issues? Nope, this is in anticipation of Joe Biden pushing for a $15 minimum wage. Yeah I know that I’ve hit this topic a lot over the years, but I think it’s worth a reminder once in a while that increasing the price of something, in this case labor, means that people (or corporations, or small businesses) buy less of it and try to figure out how to do with less. Anyway, had to check in with this. One of the big news stories about the news this week was that Morning Joe, the morning show on MSNBC, was the #1 cable news morning show for the first time since 2001. This is part of the big move away from the Fox News Channel ever since election night. And it’s something I don’t quite understand. Yes, FNC was always a bit right-of-center in what it covered and how it covered the news, to say nothing of its opinion shows (and I’m not). Some studies I saw, though, put it less far to the right than most other mainstream news outlets were to the left. If you balanced out your viewing of any other broadcast or cable news with Fox, you were, in general, getting all the news. But is all it took to drag down Fox’s ratings was to call Arizona as early as it did on election night? Really? And now there’s a move to switch over to One America News. Now, I’ve been aware of OAN for about a year now, by cruising up and down the news channels in the 200s from my cable provider, and was interested in OAN. For example, when others were running their opinion shows, often OAN was still just running the day’s news, including international. I liked that. So I would often turn to them when I was tired of the opinionators. The thing I noticed over the long haul is that OAN was like FNC only more so; their editorial voice was further to the right than Fox and more obvious. So I found myself turning less and less to OAN. But people who are now saying that FNC has found its place with the mainstream media on the left are sliding over a few channels to OAN, which has made a name for itself in the past 6 months or so. So my question is, are those people just looking for the slant they want? You could say that Fox viewers were doing the same thing, but I would argue that, as I said, Fox did cover the stories fairer than most of the mainstream media did, often showing both sides when the MSM often didn’t even acknowledge there was another side. But OAN is the MSNBC of the Right, which isn’t a compliment. To be honest, I get most of my news online these days. I’m an avid watcher of Tucker Carlson, which apparently a whole bunch of people are, but I go to him for stories to watch out for. He’s an opinion guy doing an opinion show, just like I am, so that grain of salt is a requirement. But if you’re going to watch OAN, keep that salt handy. But again, why? If all you want from your news channel is adulation of your side, whatever side that is, maybe news isn’t for you. The post Episode 307: A Wider View of Election Night / Choosing Your News Channel appeared first on Consider This!.
10 minutes | 5 months ago
Episode 306: 2020 Election Thoughts
At the time I took notes for this episode, there was no definitive answer to the question, “Who will be our next President?” But there’s still plenty of election news to give my thoughts on. Mentioned links: Centrist House Democrats lash out at liberal colleagues, blame far-left views for costing the party seats Newly elected House Republican women break record in ‘stunning blow to Nancy Pelosi’ Biggest Election Story: Despite Constant ‘Racist’ Accusations, Trump GREW Minority Vote The “Trump Is a Racist” Narrative Dies a Nasty Death as Numbers Reveal Amazing Minority Turnout for Him Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript First off, I want to let you know that I put my notes together for this episode on Friday the 6th, so by the time you hear this, who knows what might have changed. Just keep that in mind as you listen. OK, so it feels to me like we’re in for a Biden / Harris presidency and at this point I’m resigned to that but I’m not in despair about it. I’d prefer Trump, but with all signs pointing to the Republicans holding the Senate we do have a firewall against some of the more radical ideas that the Democrats have. And holding a Republican majority in the Senate means that Supreme Court Justice openings still have to run past Mitch McConnell. I’m feeling OK about that, and since the party of the sitting President tends to lose Congressional seats during mid-terms, I’m feeling even better. So where do we stand at the moment on other races and stats? Well, as I said, the Senate looks like Republicans will hold the Senate. Democrats have flipped 1 seat, but I think the rest are safe. Here in Georgia, we have the rule that a Senator must get 50% or more of the vote to win, otherwise there will be a runoff of the top 2 candidates in January. I think we hold those pretty easily, but it does mean we’ll have to endure political ads and robocalls for a few more months. In the House, against all expectation, Republicans have picked up a net gain of 6 seats so far, and some pundits are suggesting it could be a dozen before Election Month is over. We’ve also got 13 newly elected Republican women joining the House this next session, most of whom are pro-life. You probably won’t hear much about them on the legacy media because…narrative. How did this happen when the pollsters predicted a Biden landslide? Well speaking of narrative, there was another one that bit the dust, or should have. Trump was allegedly a white supremacist, and yet his share of the vote of white men dropped 5 percentage points. Trump was allegedly a misogynist, and yet his share of the vote of white women went up 2 points. And combine that alleged misogyny with his alleged racism you have to wonder why his share of the vote of black men went up 4 points, and black women up 4 points, and Latino men up 3 points, and Latino women up 3 points, and other minorities up 5 points. In fact, preliminary numbers showed that 26 percent of Trump’s national voting share came from non-white voters — the highest percentage for a Republican presidential candidate since 1960. Some have predicted that we are witnessing the start of a major realignment of the two parties. Maybe, maybe not, but would anyone have predicted that a Trump presidency would bring over more minorities? Perhaps they are getting tired of the paternalistic Democrats telling them what they should and shouldn’t be offended by. Is identity politics starting to fall out of favor? We can certainly hope so. So then, what do Democrats think of this election? Turns out, even if Biden eventually is sworn in as President, Congressional Democrats are very upset that this was not entirely the outcome they had hoped for. The finger-pointing has started and mostly those fingers point to the left. On a 3-hour call last Thursday moderated by Nancy Pelosi, she said to the House Democrats, “We held the House. Joe Biden is on a clear path to be the next president of the United States. We did not win every battle, but we did win the war.” Well I guess it all depends on what you consider “the war”. Putting your guy in the Oval Office but having the opposition party hold the Senate and make nice gains in the House doesn’t seem like winning a war. At best, it’s winning a major battle, but generally losing everywhere else. But those House members were having none of that. Some were downright furious. Representative Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) gave poor Nancy an earful. “We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. .?.?. We lost good members because of that. If we are classifying Tuesday as a success .?.?. we will get f—ing torn apart in 2022.” Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), at least understands that their voters, and voters in general aren’t so far left. He cautioned that if Democrats run on socialized medicine and defunding the police, “we’re not going to win”. Others said that Pelosi should have compromised with Trump to get a Coronavirus aid package passed before the election. I’ve got a link in the show notes to a rather detailed article from the Washington Post about all the other ideas that those Democrats considered losing issues or big mistakes. Listener Tom, who hails from Australia (which, if I may add, I find cool that I have someone listening from there), asked this question in the Facebook group. “The Dems have cast Trump as the debasement of politics, as a refutation of debate based on issues rather than rhetoric, and character giving way to the lowest common denominator. Given that, what would his re-election mean for the Democratic party?” Listener Mark thought that this would lead to, “An exponential increase of radicalism.” I agreed with him though I also said what they should do is moderate. Sounds like that’s what the rank-and-file representatives also want to do as a result of what is clearly not much of a ringing endorsement of their policies. I have a feeling that AOC and her squad will have a somewhat different opinion about that. Let’s put another popcorn packet in the microwave and keep watching this show. Two final thoughts. First of all, the skill of political polling may go the way of the “skill” of astrology. I don’t want to totally disrespect the entire industry, because I don’t think this necessarily applies to the entire industry. When quality control guys select a random sample of product to be tested for quality, how many they test out of a batch is based on a long history of statistical theory and real-world application. Same goes for pollsters; it’s the same principle. But when it comes to political polling, it just seems that bias has infected this specific profession. There have been lessons learned over the years (such as those from “Dewey Defeats Truman”), and either there are more to learn from failures in 2016 and 2020, or it’s time to turn predictions over to Miss Cleo or the Psychic Friends network. And secondly, if Biden does indeed win the Presidency, we just have to admit we lost. Now, we lost in one of the closest elections ever. We lost while we got many important wins elsewhere. We won a moral victory showing how much minorities are beginning to reject intersectionality. But that moral victory is still an election loss. And while the Democrats bicker over whether to moderate or radicalize, Republicans need to do the same thing. I think Trump pointed the way. He got things done. Presidents for decades said they wanted to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, but the intelligence community said it would blow up the Middle East. Trump looked at the lay of the land, and decided to move it. Nothing blew up. Trump went ahead with many conservative principles regarding the number of regulation or economic policy or Middle East peace deals or so many other issues and he proved to Republicans that you can get things done, and they work. If we had a nominee unafraid to keep that up, and unapologetic about conservatism, but without the Twitter proclivities, same message but different messenger, I think we’d have a winner. We can certainly hope so. The post Episode 306: 2020 Election Thoughts appeared first on Consider This!.
9 minutes | 5 months ago
Episode 305: The Last 4 Years
The solution A shortened episode to mention just some of the good news of the last four years, and what to do in order to keep it going. Mentioned links: The massive early vote U.S. Marshals largest operation results in recovery of 45 missing children and 177 arrests in Ohio Hundred Plus Miles Of New Border Wall Seeing Positive Results In Western Arizona Trump Administration Accomplishments One-Hundred-Twenty-Five Amazing Accomplishments of President Donald J. Trump Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been sworn in. I guess Democrats in this country are going to have to grin and … Barrett. Three Muslim countries in the Middle East – Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Sudan – have all normalized relations and signed peace deals with Israel. This after moving the US embassy to Jerusalem didn’t start World War 3, as predicted by the intelligence community. These are big deals. If Obama had made these peace deals, he’d have actually earned that Nobel Peace Prize and the press would be fawning all over him. If he’d replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a much younger but just as partisan SCOTUS justice, well the press would be just ecstatic. Recently, US Marshals recovered 45 missing children and arrested 177 alleged child traffickers in Ohio using the largest operation in the state’s history. But hey, defund the police. In Arizona, where 126 miles of the new border wall has been completed in that state, border patrol agents are getting a break. Since walls keep people from crossing, in one area they are able to concentrate on a 5-mile stretch where a wall couldn’t be built because the land belongs to a Cocopah Reservation. Of course, now that’s where all the illegals are coming through, but it’s much easier to patrol. Walls indeed work. Back in the day, before the pandemic lockdowns destroyed the economy, we had the lowest unemployment in at least half a century and for most demographics it was the lowest on record; women, youth, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, and those without a high-school diploma. Poverty rates for African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans reached their lowest levels ever recorded. Manufacturing jobs, which Obama said would only come back with some magic wand, grew faster than they had for 30 years. The median household income was its highest ever recorded. But remember, Democrat politicians and left-leaning economists told you that all these indicators would all get worse during these past 4 years. Regarding health care, hospitals are now required to post their standard prices for services including the discounted price they’re willing to accept. Gotta’ love transparency. VA employees are being held accountable for their actions, y’know, like other health care workers are. Thousands have been demoted, fired, or suspended so far. Also, these days, small businesses can group together to get better deals on employee health insurance, and people are allowed to try experimental treatments for their health issues without violating the law anymore. Did you know that the US is now the largest producer of crude oil, larger than Russia and Saudi Arabia? Yup, now it’s true. And we are a natural gas exporter now for the first time in over 60 years. And there are so many other good things that have happened in the current Presidential term. Recall that most of this happened while Democrats pushed a false “Russian collusion” narrative and investigation for over 2 years and tried a politicized impeachment. And now people are trying to tell you that you shouldn’t re-elect the President and instead hand over the reins to a guy who positions on the issues change depending who he’s talking to? Is he for fracking and the oil industry or is he against them? Is he for the Green New Deal or against it? He’s certainly against Supreme Court justices who will apply the law and leave their politics aside when making judgements. Will we go back to the useless Middle East policy that gave us no new peace deals for 30 years? What disastrous economic policies will be implemented? This is the only thing I have to say for this episode; re-elect Donald Trump. You may not like his demeanor. Neither do I. You may not like his Tweets. Neither do I. You may not like some of his morals. Neither do I. I really, really wish I didn’t have to dislike these things about my President, and I hope a future Republican nominee has none of these issues. However, neither do I like abandoning policies that have had such good results for all Americans. Donald Trump has been what we always claimed we wanted; a President for all Americans. Right now we have one. Let’s re-elect him. I’m Doug Payton and I approve this message. The post Episode 305: The Last 4 Years appeared first on Consider This!.
11 minutes | 6 months ago
Episode 304: Un-locking Down / Judging Amy / Twitter Blockage
So intelligent she doesn’t need notes Yet another YouTube video was create of some guy claiming to be a doctor and claiming that lockdowns should not be the way we deal with this virus. But this is not just another crank. The nomination hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett went on last week and they demonstrated the stark difference between how Democrats and Republicans view the role of the courts. When Facebook and Twitter block posting of an article, there’s clearly something going wrong with social media (and clearly it’s an article worth reading). Mentioned links: WHO official: Stop using lockdowns as primary virus control method Twitter changes guidelines following Post censorship controversy Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript If you’ve tried to tweet or write a Facebook post or create a YouTube video these past months trying to get you thoughts out about how lockdown aren’t useful for stemming the tide of COVID-19, you’ve often found your opinion slapped down because of “misinformation” or “false news” or something like that. It’s been something of a badge of honor to get that particular action taken against you. Good thing we live in a country with free speech. Now I’ve been on the record that I would not have wanted to be anyone in power having to make that decision; to lockdown or not. There was too much we didn’t know at the start of this to be sure that leaving the status quo would be OK. Nope, don’t put me in that position; I’ll just snipe from the bleachers. After a while, though, there were a number of people deciding that these lockdown were, in some cases, a cure worse than the literal disease. Shutting down the economy and losing jobs was a major hit to the poor and the not-so-poor. Even now major store and restaurant chains, to say nothing of the local shops and eateries, are declaring bankruptcy to either reshuffle debt or go out of business altogether. Those disagreeing with this course of action saw this and said, and have been saying, stay home if you’re sick, quarantine the vulnerable, but let those who wish out of lockdown and keep the economy from crashing. But that was not the conventional wisdom. And now some other guy with a degree in front of his name (as if that means anything) has come out with another one of those videos telling all world leaders to “stop using lockdown as your primary control method”. Who is this crank? It’s Dr. David Nabarro, the World Health Organization’s Special Envoy on COVID-19; y’know, just another guy. OK, so what I hear people saying in objection to the way I’m characterizing this is, “We’ve learned a lot about this virus in the past 7 months, you can’t blame him for not knowing.” I understand that, but two things. One, a lot of other people (and not just little guys sniping from the bleachers) have been saying this for months and I just can’t believe all of them just got lucky making that prediction. And two, what will we see now in states and cities that are still on lockdown whose governors and mayors have said they were “following the science”? The science now says to open up, so keep track of those places that either remain or move back to lockdown and we’ll see how much science is in their decision-making. Of course, so much damage has been done already, it’s rather pointless at this point. But do we really think it took 7 months to figure this out? I’ve been listening to some of the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett and I have to say, I like a lot of this new season of “Judging Amy” but I have some issues with some of the writing. During opening statements and then the questioning of Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearings, it really showed how Democrats had the talking points all lined up. They said the same things over and over. Senator after Senator had examples of people who have benefited from the Affordable Care Act, many times with big pictures on easels behind them. The clear idea is that they are openly worried that, with Barrett on the Supreme Court, that the ACA would get overturned or picked apart. There were a few other cases that got brought up but they were clearly upset that Barrett might not vote like Ginsburg to uphold this specific piece of legislation. This is precisely the misuse of the court that Democrats have been perpetrating for decades. They pay lip service to the (proper) view that the Supreme Court is to only apply the law – compare a law to the Constitution to see if it lines up with those principles – but what they are really interested in is having what has been called a “super-legislature” where Democrats can change the law whenever they want. If the ACA, or some part of it, is unconstitutional, applying the law means to honestly declare it so. What Democrats want is to ignore the Constitution and have the judiciary to defend and protect, not the Constitution, but their legislation, regardless of whether or not it tramples our rights. Republicans want law treated as what it is; a legal document that means precisely what it says. Democrats do not care about constitutionality; they just want a particular outcome by whatever means necessary. Regarding the courts and how they are to be properly used, this is a major difference between the two parties. I am so glad that we are replacing one Justice who was decidedly partisan with one who will hold up a law against the Constitution and do a fair comparison. For Democrats, upholding the Constitution is what they consider “radical”. Keep that in mind. I’ve posted a video in the show notes about two actual scandals that hit this week. The first, by itself, is bad enough but the second is arguably worse. The New York Post was given data from a hard drive containing emails to and from Hunter Biden which allegedly show that Joe Biden actually did know about Hunter’s dealings in the Ukraine, contrary to his previous statements. Further, Hunter sold access to Joe while he was VP as part of these dealings. There’s more to this to unpack, and that video does a great job of doing it, but I want to focus more on what happened in reaction to that. During the day of October 15th, both Twitter and Facebook blocked references to this story. You could post it on Facebook but it reduced its distribution. Twitter blocked it entirely. In fact if you tried to post the link to that story you could also have your account suspended. Just ask Kayleigh McEnany, the President’s press secretary; it happened to her and many others. Further, they suspended the account of the NY Post itself! And all this before their armies of fact checkers had even started their work. They did it preemptively! Twitter argued that its terms of service said you couldn’t post any content that was hacked or stolen. Ah so no stories with leaked aka stolen information, huh? Like, a hypothetical story about Trump’s leaked tax returns? Or a hypothetical story about how Trump called vets “losers” that was (hypothetically) denied by everyone who was there? Or so many media hit pieces with entirely anonymous sources? Hypothetically? The mask has slipped, and social media platforms are showing that they’re not just platforms for free speech; they are more and more becoming partisan publishers working for one side of the aisle in this election. Never mind Russia buying a couple ads on Facebook; look at Facebook itself for election interference. And actually Republicans are calling for an investigation into this. Hope we’ll be able to tweet about it. And finally, Bruce Springsteen says that if Donald Trump wins re-election, he’ll move to Australia. Yeah, we’ve heard this song before. If he does, he’ll be the first celebrity to follow through. If he doesn’t, he’ll just be the latest in a long line of celebs that like to say politically correct stuff just to appeal to voters of a particular persuasion. Those voters don’t really expect him to do it; just saying it, just voicing the intention, is all they need. Yes, Bruce may have been born in the USA, but baby, he was born to run. The post Episode 304: Un-locking Down / Judging Amy / Twitter Blockage appeared first on Consider This!.
9 minutes | 6 months ago
Episode 303: Listener Contributions; Pandemic, Police, and Election Prep
Defund the Police? I have 3 topics this time, all suggested by listeners. First, a description of how the pandemic has affected one listener. Second, an email wonders what “defunding the police” will do to taxes; will they go down or will the government find somewhere else to spend the money? And third, another email alerted me to a group on the Left that is planning to react to any election shenanigans of violence from the Right over the election. At least, that’s what they claim. Mentioned links: Minneapolis officials said they would defund the police. Some now regret that pledge. The Left Is Setting The Stage For A Coup If Trump Wins The Left Secretly Preps for MAGA Violence After Election Day Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript First off, I have a message from listener Linda who commented on the post where I asked what you’d learned or enjoyed or missed or lost during this pandemic. Here’s her take. Thankfully I was able to work from home for a month before returning to the office. Also, I was asked to move offices last October and my new one happens to be in a quiet part of the building and has its own bathroom. I have felt quite safe at work. I have missed the ease of just being out and about eating and shopping, but, I have a bit more in my savings acct. now. My church was able to reopen, w/precautions, in late June. I am grateful for this, but, miss physically hugging my friends. Because Sunday School was cancelled and still is not able to be done, I record 1-2 Bible studies in both English and Spanish, for my church, each week. It has been a great outlet for me. As an introvert, being alone isn’t as bad as it has been for others, and I am well aware of this. I am getting ready to fly up to my aunt’s memorial service in a couple weeks. Because my parents and aunts and uncles are all in their 80’s I am self physical distancing even more, for the 2 weeks before heading there; just as a precaution. Oh, and … masks are hot and fog my glasses! But, I now have some cute masks; even one with a picture of my family, and another with my favorite game board. The picture she attached to the comment showed one with her extended family, and one with part of the board for the game Clue. (That’s “Cluedo” for those of you who speak British English.) I’ve heard folks who don’t like the phrase “social distancing” because it sounds like you can’t or won’t be social. They prefer the phrase “physical distancing”. I do too, but when you hear “social distancing” over and over, it’s a tough habit to break. And Linda, you certainly won’t be social distancing at the memorial service; just physical distancing I’m sure. And I completely understand the desire to hug your friends. I have a feeling that when that time comes, it’ll be like a bottle of water after crossing the desert; for a little while we won’t be able to get enough. Thanks, Linda, for leaving that comment. And if you have any thoughts about your time during the pandemic, feel free to do the same. Listener Brad had a few questions about the whole “defund the police” thing that seems to be going around. He wrote to email@example.com with his thoughts. Thanks for an always informative and entertaining podcast. I wanted to get your thoughts on the defund the police movement. Specifically, my town recently cut the police budget by a third! The claim is that this funding is going to other services such as social workers who can better respond to the types of crimes that warrant that type of response (which I assume is most crimes). However, I’ve seen no indication that this is, in fact, the case. My thought is that, as with most liberal policies, this movement is about more control, not less: defund the police now while it has some kind of support, use that money to grow new or existing government services, wait until crime is bad enough in the future to raise taxes in order to better fund the police… because who can argue with that??? Has there ever been an instance where a city has defunded the police only to give that money back to the citizens (or rather lower the tax rates)? I think not. Let’s wait a few years and see if these same liberal cities defunding the police now will have liberal politicians running on a platform of funding the police and raising taxes in the future. Keep up the good work! Best of luck on the podcast awards! Thanks Brad! He wrote this before the award ceremony, so thanks for the well wishes. And by the way, thanks to all of you who nominated my show, but the judges awarded the trophy to the show “True Crime DEADLINE”. Wait ‘til next year! In any event, there’s a link in the show notes to a story where a significant number of supporters of defunding the police on the Minneapolis City Council are backing off and essentially want a do-over. Think of it as “voter’s remorse”. One councilor says he meant the words only “in spirit”, not by the letter. What does that even mean? You wanted to virtue signal but not actually do anything? When asked if this created uncertainty in the city, the City Council president paused for 16 seconds before saying, “I think our pledge created confusion in the community and in our wards.” Ya’ think? Let’s wait a few years and see if, in some places, the police even got defunded or if this was just more useless virtue signaling. Listener Barb alerted me to a group that calls themselves the Transition Integrity Project, referring to the election transition. So many articles have been written wargaming about how the Right could get violent and Trump might stage a coup if Biden wins. Or perhaps Trump might file lawsuits in various states contesting the vote count. Yet it’s Hillary Clinton that told Biden to not concede the night of the election “under any circumstances” It was Biden himself who said that if he won that “the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.” Liberals have setup what they are calling the “Democracy Defense Nerve Center” so they can plan for all sorts of contingencies. They are the ones looking to hold us in stasis for days or weeks. They are allegedly worried about right-wing violence, but y’know the only violence I’ve seen on a medium or large scale for years has been left-wing violence. And so my thought is that, while this is ostensibly a defensive maneuver against what Trump might do if he loses, it is actually prep for what they plan to do if Trump wins in enough of a close election that they think they can use these tactics themselves. It will be the ultimate expression of #Resist. Get to the polls and vote. If they lose big, they can’t litigate. The post Episode 303: Listener Contributions; Pandemic, Police, and Election Prep appeared first on Consider This!.
10 minutes | 7 months ago
Episode 302: RBG to ACB on SCOTUS
From Ginsburg to Barrett The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to take her place has turned DC more upside down than it already was. How does Trump’s choice really change the makeup of the Court? And should the seating of a new Justice really be this big of a deal? Mentioned links: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87 The Supreme Court’s real bloc is liberal Try to Understand the Fight What Mitch McConnell Actually Said in 2016 Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript On the evening of September 18th, 2020, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died at age 87 from complications from pancreatic cancer. It’s been something of a long road for the family, I imagine. She’s had it for a while so this was not unexpected. My prayers are with her family. Years ago, I asked my dad how he felt after his dad died. He said that everyone knew he had health issues for quite some time, so when he did die it wasn’t unexpected, but it still was emotional. It still hurt, so I imagine that’s how the Ginsburg family feels. Outside of her loss from a human perspective, the loss of her from her career position is going to turn DC even more on its head than it already is. It shouldn’t, because if justices do their job as intended, they merely settle disputes on how existing law, as written by the legislature, should be applied in specific cases. What we have instead are litmus tests and activists justices. When RBG was confirmed, the Senate voted 97 to 3 for her. This was back when supposedly the only thought was whether he or she was a well-qualified judge. The question was not whether she would rule the way one party or another wanted her to. But with Ginsburg’s nomination, and others, that was the game. Republicans held to the “well-qualified” standard as they did with RBG but even before her confirmation, and ever since, Democrats have had 1 question; will you rule the way we want you to? The game was exposed when Judge Robert Bork was destroyed by Democrats because they didn’t want him to rule against their wishes. Their decision was based on power, not fairness or competence. Liberal justices can be activists – they can rule based on what they want the law to be – but a conservative justice may not, according to the Democrats, because it gets in the way of their power grab. What they can’t get passed in the legislature, they just punt to the courts, and the liberal bloc of the justices can be reliably counted on to vote together, much more than the conservatives. The conservative justices are more likely to actually have diverse opinions on how the law should be applied, and that’s how the liberals get their power; vote in lockstep and hope for 1 conservative to waver. Republicans have since had to get into the mud-pit created by Democrats in order to get their nominees through, and now the votes are reliably along party lines with crossovers consisting mostly of senators who are in purple states. All this because the Supreme Court is now a “super legislature” and one vote here or there can change the meaning of a law, or just the meaning of a word or two, rather than doing this through our elected representatives. Anyone who cheers the misuse of the courts in this way is cheering against representative government. If later they claim to be for “1 person, 1 vote”, remind them of their love of 1 vote on the Supreme Court rather than in Congress, and then ask them to choose which side they want to be on. Otherwise, they’re just a walking, talking oxymoron. I would not want to be in the place of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s pick for Ginsburg’s replacement. The mud that she’ll be dragged through by desperate Democrats is going to be awful. Although they might back off just a bit in order not to create more Trump voters. This particular situation seems analogous to the death of Justice Scalia in the waning days of the Obama presidency. At that time, the majority-Republican Senate rejected Merrick Garland as a nominee by not bringing a vote to the floor. Democrats today are claiming that Mitch McConnell is being hypocritical because now he will move forward with Trump’s nominee in the waning days of his term. They claim the so-called “McConnell Rule” is not being followed by the guy who created it. Well, no. There’s a link in the show notes that shows what McConnell actually said. In short, he made it very clear that when the government is divided (that is, the Senate and the Presidency are controlled by different parties) and a seat on the Supreme Court open up at this late a date, then the Senate can, if they want to, leave the seat open until after the election. He actually reiterated this point 2 more times in that speech to be perfectly clear; well, to anyone who was giving him a fair hearing, that is. So no, they’re misquoting him to create a charge of hypocrisy. Then later this week, 3 Democrats in the House will introduce a bill to set term limits on Supreme Court justices. Yeah, I’m sure the timing is totally coincidental. The bill would limit the terms of Justices to 18 years. It would be staggered so that each President would be able to nominate 2 Justices per 4-year term. California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who will introduce this, said that, “It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric.” Dude, it will only save the country agony if your compatriots in the Senate will quit with the uncorroborated accusations and the presumption of guilt. That’s all it would take. If not, then going through this twice every 4 years would be even more painful. One of the reasons that Democrats are yelling so much about this vacancy is because of a rule they created as another power grab. In 2013 they changed the rule that required 60 Senate votes – a supermajority – to just a simple majority; 51 votes. At the time, Republicans went to the floor one after the other, including Mitch McConnell, to caution that they’d be sorry someday for doing this. Well today is that someday, and the chickens have come home to roost, they are reaping what they sowed, and about 8 other clichés. So now they want to change the rules and limit terms, and insist on following a rule that they misquoted. You know, it’s interesting. To Democrats, the Constitution is a “living document” to be reinterpreted as they see fit, but apparently, the alleged “McConnell Rule” came down from on High and may not be altered. Funny how that works. The post Episode 302: RBG to ACB on SCOTUS appeared first on Consider This!.
9 minutes | 7 months ago
Episode 301: Systemic Racism
What is “systemic racism”? We are hearing more and more about the “systemic racism” inherent in this institution or that occupation or in America as a whole. But what does this mean? If you ask for a definition, you might just be called part of the problem (and/or a racist, because of course). You might get some generalization, but specifics seem hard to come by. Matthew Franck wrote an article about systemic racism that had some interesting thoughts on the subject, and gave me some ideas as well. That’s what this episode is about. Mentioned links: Racism Is Real. But Is “Systemic Racism”? 2 L.A. deputies shot in ‘ambush’ attack recovering after surgery List of police reforms related to the George Floyd protests Shooting of Breonna Taylor Black Americans Want Police to Retain Local Presence Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript We are told these days that the problem with America is “systemic racism”. But that phrase, “systemic racism”, is so broadly defined, or actually mostly undefined, that anything can be blamed on it. If you don’t like the outcome, blame “The System”. When people like George Floyd or Eric Garner die in police custody, blame The System for racism. Even if most of the cops involved are black and the victim is black, you can still blame “systemic racism” because, you see, it’s The System, regardless of who’s involved, that is to blame. And if The System is to blame, then everyone in The System is to blame. What this leads to is the mantra behind the ACAB signs at Black Lives Matter protests; all cops are bast…er, bad. What this leads to is two cops getting shot while sitting in their cruiser by a gunman who just walked up and shot them. This leads to people cheering on the gunman. Because it’s The System, and those cops are part of the “systemic racism” even if they’ve never done anything racist. I read an article this week (link is in the show notes) that really put this into perspective, comparing a racist system vs racist people or laws that are in a system. The author, Matthew Franck, lays it out by noting that “systemic” means that something (like racism) is a feature of a particular system. There is no person to blame, it was not designed that way. Instead the entire system is affected by it. He contrasts this with “systematic racism”. In this case, it refers to something that is being carried out according to a plan. Slavery was systematic racism. It was purposely designed to keep down a particular race and treat them like property. Jim Crow laws were systematic racism. They disadvantaged black people in various ways according to plan. If you want to get rid of systematic racism, you know who to target. Those who created those laws, or perpetuated them, have to be removed in favor of those who wish to make positive changes. Those who have said racist words or done those actions should be called out. You don’t tear down the agricultural system to get rid of slavery. If there is systemic racism, however, the entire system must be removed, according to its detractors. Policing does not exist to be racist (despite what some might claim), but if you claim that it has “systemic racism” you are freed from having to point to anyone or any standard operating procedure as the problem; you may instead consider anything and anyone related to the system to be part of the problem (a problem, as I said, you don’t need to define). Are there racists among police? Given how many of them there are, undoubtedly yes. But instead of dealing with those within the system that are racist, claiming “systemic racism” means that you can punish or re-educate or defund all of them. Or, at the extreme end, shoot them where they are, cheer that, and then block the entrance of the emergency room to try to keep them from getting help. That particular area of LA must be teeming with extremists. Hmmm. Claiming “systemic racism” also means you can say that all white people are racist without having to prove that anyone has done anything to deserve that label. I’m old enough to remember when making a blanket statement about a particular race was the very definition of racism. Franck describes another problem with this type of thinking. There are people who have done racist things or had racist thoughts, but if you tell them that all whites are racist, then their particular words, actions, and ideas don’t seem that bad. “Hey, everyone does it, so they must all be like me. I must not be that bad after all.” Watering down the definition of racism doesn’t do anything to help get rid of it. Speaking of not helping get rid of racism, neither does burning down minority communities help to stop racism, though polls suggest that it does create new Trump voters. In the meantime, there are peaceful protests going on all over and they are getting results. There’s a Wikipedia page dedicated just to a list of police reform legislation related to the George Floyd incident. It’s quite a long list. There are also bills that were introduced over the Breonna Taylor shooting. Things are indeed changing. You may or may not agree with the specifics of some of these initiatives, but the point is that government is taking action. There seems to be a limit, though, to how much influence the government has over some of this. For example, welfare spending has been skyrocketing for a very long time but it has had little effect on the poverty rate. But as has been said before, the best anti-poverty program is a job, and before the pandemic, this country was doing just that for minorities and women with the lowest unemployment rate in history for these groups. Rather than handouts, the government stepping back and making these jobs easier to create is a much better idea. Democrats will tell you that your compassion for the poor is directly proportional to how much wealth you want directly transferred to them, and even if you have an idea that you think would get the job done better, well you’re just a racist. Because that’s their insult of last resort. I’m with those peaceful protesters, and what they want done is getting done. And as I’ve said here many times, I think most of America agrees. So can we stop using this moment of unity to call all white people racists? Is that what the protests are for? Are the peaceful protesters in agreement with the rioters that all cops are bad and should be defunded? If not, then it is the rioters that are controlling the narrative and getting their agenda passed as well. A Gallup poll done last month found that 81% of blacks would like the same or more police presence in their neighborhood, so it sounds like the peaceful protesters need to make more noise, particularly against the rioters. In that respect, I am more on their side than ever. The post Episode 301: Systemic Racism appeared first on Consider This!.
18 minutes | 7 months ago
Episode 300: Listener Questions, and the Guy Behind the Mic
Episode 300! For episode 300, I asked for questions about the podcast and me. I got a response with many good questions, and I’ll be answering them in this episode. Then I go on to answer questions about me that I didn’t get asked but that I thought might be interesting to you. Mentioned links: Episode 15: Decoding DC, Romney’s Taxes, and Some Speech is More Free Than Others Episode 22: Listener Feedback – Calling Me Out on Ban Ki Moon Geocaching What’s neXt? Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript For this special episode, I had said that I was going to revisit some past episodes and update you on the people and policies from those stories. But you know what? That takes a long time, so I’m going to put off that idea for later, maybe episode 400. I also put out a request for you to ask me some questions about me or the show. I got one listener to take me up on that, and they are some good questions she asked. You’ll hear those, plus my wife had a good ideas to expand on that and answer some other questions I didn’t get asked. I figured I’d make this episode one where you get to know this guy behind the mic a little more. It should come as no surprise that, for this special episode, the time limit will go out the window. So here we go. Listener Barb is a long-time listener to the podcast, and I’ve actually met her once when she and a bunch of other podcasters from the Golden Spiral Media network came down my way. She sent me some good questions to think about and answer. First question: When you began Consider This, did you expect to hit episode 300? Well, I hoped I’d at least get past episode 100, so when I started naming the podcast files I left 3 digits for the episode number. But 300? Well, I think a better question would be did I expect to be still doing this 8 years later. If you’d asked me back when I started this I would have said, “No.” I wanted to have some staying power, but I didn’t think I’d still be at it for this long. This is basically my creative outlet so I’m sticking with it. But a lot has changed during those 8 years, and I don’t just mean politically. Some of you know (and now all of you will) that I have Multiple Sclerosis. I’ve had it since 1986, but I had the kind that would come and go. Later I started having the progressive kind that’s been taking out my legs. In 2012, I could still go downstairs to my office, produce the podcast, and get back upstairs. Since then I went to using a cane to get around, these days I use a walker (and the office was moved upstairs), and in a few weeks I’m getting fitted for a motorized wheelchair for when I’m out and about. Fortunately, podcasting is a hobby that you can do entirely seated if you want to. So yes, changes. The next question from Barb is what story has surprised you the most over the years? That’s an easy one, actually. Of all the events and stories I’ve mentioned, the one that got an actual surprised reaction from me was the election of Donald Trump as President. I believed the polls that said Hillary Clinton was a guaranteed the win that night. Trump was my last choice in the Republican primary, and yet he beat Clinton against all odds. The next morning I asked, “What have we done?” This was a guy that spoke conservative values, but really hadn’t demonstrated them before. I had no idea what the next 4 years would bring. I will say that I was both pleasantly surprised at how he’s governed while being unpleasantly dismayed at his personality and his tweets. So yes, surprised. Next up, she asked is there anything you didn’t cover that you wish you had, and is there anything you did cover that you wished you hadn’t? In terms of the stories themselves, I can’t say that I wish I hadn’t covered anything that I did. I will say, though, that there was an instance very early on where I didn’t do a good job with how I covered something. Way back in episode 15, I was talking about then-UN-General-Secretary Ban Ki Moon and how he said that freedom of expression should be protected. However, I claimed that while he was outspoken about how Muslims should be protected, he never said anything about Christians having that same right. My exact words were that “I’m not guessing” and allegedly proved my point by noting that I couldn’t find such a statement. I was taken to task by someone who had listened to that one episode and got turned off by that flimsy evidence. As he noted, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I responded with an entire episode where I acknowledged that he was right, and I was wrong. I did try to find a statement where Moon did speak out against anti-Christian or anti-Jewish rhetoric, but my Googling was in vain. Still doesn’t mean he never did, but that was my meager attempt to save face. That’s really stuck with me, and I’ve tried not to make that mistake again. But if I make that one or any other, I want to make it right in public. Barb then asked what types of stories have had the most coverage? She said that pro-life/abortion would be one of her guesses. I tag my podcast entries on the website with categories, and WordPress keeps a count of them so I do have some stats for that. Ignoring the large categories that have many sub-categories, and keeping in mind that I often tag episodes with more than one category, my top one is Religion with 55 followed by Health Care with 54. Then there’s Elections with 45, Media with 44 and Partisanship with 43. (“Partisanship” is my category for issues where one side or the other seems blind to the arguments from the other side.) This is followed by Human Sexuality with 40, with sub-categories like homosexuality and transgender. Then Race Issues with 39 and we finally get to Abortion with 34. I’ve got 90 or so categories, so this list suggests that in any given episode, you’re likely to hear about one of those. I try not to hit on the same topics each episode, and current events do drive the scripts, but so do some of my interests in particular topics. The last question she asked was, “As you review how the stories have changed over the years, what discourages you the most? Encourages you the most?” As I said in the intro, I’ve decided to hold off on the story follow-ups until a later date. However, in a general sense, I’ve been a bit discouraged in the resurgence of the idea of socialism, which of course is simply the economic arm of communism. It seems like in every generation, the idea has to be slapped back because it has never worked. Ever. It winds up consolidating power to the central government, and don’t forget Lord Acton’s saying, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That’s a guy who understood human nature. As the government gets more corrupt, those in that government enrich themselves such that they get rich, and those outside that government are equally poor. And yet we have politicians in our own government calling for socialism. Y’know, maybe those politicians are counting on that same thing happening here. Consider this. As far as being encouraged, I had to think about this a bit longer. Sometimes I think that following politics is the art of being encouraged by small things and discouraged only by big things. I guess I’ll say that I’ve really been encouraged by how President Trump has made conservatism great again. Not that those who hated it before love it now, but more that someone can govern much more conservatively than many Republicans of the past, and get those things done. This has been the most pro-life, pro-Israel, and pro-growth President we’ve had in a long time. Now, a lot rests on the parties in power in Congress, but the predictions from all over the Left side of the aisle was that he was going to tank the economy and the stock market. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman said that and President Obama said it. Of course, when the economy continued to grow, and by some measures grew even faster once he was in office, Obama wanted to take credit for it. But anyway, that has given me some encouragement that future Republicans will continue that trend. Oh, and what’s also very encouraging is feedback from listeners! So thanks, Barb, for writing in with those questions. And now, if you’re interested, a little more about me. If you’re not interested, just move on to the next podcast in your player. In my very first episode, I wanted to set expectations properly. I said right up front that I was a conservative, but so what? These questions, from that first recording, seemed to naturally follow. [[W]ho am I, and why should you take my word on any of the issues? The answers are, of course, nobody, and you shouldn’t. But then, those are the answers for most other pundits. This is why I’m going to try to present the issues, and my thoughts on them, in a way that perhaps will get you to see them in a slightly different way. You may not agree with me, but I hope to give you some more ideas to consider.] I certainly hope I’ve done that. Over the years I’ve also mentioned that I’m an evangelical Christian. I was a sound guy at our church for over 20 years, and was one of the coaches for Bible Quizzing for about 10. My faith is important to me, and that faith informs my politics. I’m not one of those who say you should keep your faith and politics separate, because if you really believe your faith is true, how can it not affect every area of your life including politics? At the same time, I don’t believe I should use the law to force everyone to do exactly as I think my religion says they should. There are some things, such as abortion, that I believe are worth mandating because they are that important. However as a conservative, there are some things that I think should be left to the conscience of each person. Where that line is drawn is certainly a point of contention between conservatives and libertarians, and even among conservatives themselves. As for me, I hope that this podcast has given you an idea of where I stand on many of these issues. It certainly has forced me to clarify for myself where I stand. One of my interests outside of politics is board games. Growing up we played a few different ones, not just your standard Monopoly although there were plenty of games of that. But there are also ones like masterpiece where you bought and sold famous paintings not knowing their value until the very end, so it was more than a bit of luck. Not surprisingly, I enjoyed the game Landslide where you tried to get the most electoral votes to win. Seems that 1971 classic could use a reprint for the education of some folks. In high school, I really got into Avalon Hill war games. You might have seen pictures of them, where the board is laid out in a hex grid with terrain on it and your playing pieces are small square cardboard counters that represent an individual tank, a platoon of soldiers, or perhaps an entire division, depending on the game. Or perhaps you were trying to survive out in the wilderness, or maybe you were a faction of nobles in England during the War of the Roses. I spent a lot of time playing those games and loved the strategic and diplomatic elements to them. Playing board games was ingrained in me. As I started having kids of my own I got them into some simpler games like that, until they were ready for some more strategy. We had friends that introduced us 2 modern games, Settlers of Catan and Killer Bunnies (don’t ask), and they turned us into a gaming family. Other favorites of ours are Carcasonne and Ticket to Ride. So if you ever visit, we can pull something out. And if you want something really wild, we’ll play Pit. Look it up. Another big interest of mine while I could still get around was geocaching. You go to the website geocaching.com and you can find out where actual treasure boxes are hid all around the world. Now usually what we mean by treasure are happy meal toys, although we’ve seen things like DVDs in one, but the real pleasure is in the finding, and also getting out of the house. With a free account on the website, you can track all the caches you’ve found. If you’ve got a smart phone, you can use it to start right now. There’s a video at the website to help you understand how it all works. Give it a look and see if it’s something you’d enjoy, even in this time of pandemic. When I’m sitting on the couch, the thing I like to watch most is science fiction. I’m into Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, and others like that. When I found out on September 28th, 1987 that the premier of ST:TNG was that evening, I immediately went out and bought my first VCR and programmed it to record it. When the new incarnation of Doctor Who premiered in 2005, I made sure I watched it with my kids. Since the Netflix era, many of them have binge watched some or all of the Star Trek incarnations. That interest is the reason I’ll be podcasting about the TV show “Next” airing on Fox this October. You can look for “What’s neXt” right now where you find podcasts for the first two introductory episodes or go to next.ctpodcasting.com to find all the ways to subscribe. But enough of the free plug. Enough to say that I like sci-fi. The post Episode 300: Listener Questions, and the Guy Behind the Mic appeared first on Consider This!.
10 minutes | 8 months ago
Episode 299: Reversal of Transgender Study / Last of a Political Type / Mailing Your Ballots
Nope, they’re not the same The largest study of transgender people, and how gender surgery affects their mental health, has reversed it’s results. The original study said that such surgery was helpful to their mental health. That was covered by the news media. But 10 months later, it turns out that the results were not as they were sold. Has that been covered? Dan was the last of his kind, but now he’s been cast aside. What was it that caused his demise? Many of my friends on Facebook have been conflating absentee ballots with all-mail (or universal mail-in) ballots. They are not the same, and yes they do have serious fraud risks. That’s not just me saying it. Mentioned links: American Journal of Psychiatry retracts claim that sex-change surgery helps patients’ mental health Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’ Episode 192: The Transgender Suicide Epidemic [Consider This] Google News search for “Bränström Pachankis” Farewell to the Pro-Life Democrats 8 Key Points to Distinguish Absentee and All-Mail Voting Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript Last fall, the American Journal of Psychiatry published a study using the largest data set up to that point that looked into whether “gender-affirming surgeries” were beneficial to transgender people. The study showed that it was, and thus this was cited and reported all over. Those “transphobic” conservatives got put in their place. And now, 10 months later, now that everyone who cited this and reported on this has moved on to other things, now the AJP has released a correction to the data After some people didn’t think the numbers added up, they’ve been reviewed and a correction was issued. So now that we have good data, it turns out that the largest study of its kind shows that “gender-reassignment” surgery has no appreciable benefit to mental health. As I reported back in episode 192, Dr. Paul R. McHugh, who used to do “gender reassignment” surgery for John Hopkins Hospital, knew this as early as 2015. Further, he reported back then on a study that showed that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery was 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. This new, corrected study once again lines up with his experience and other studies that preceded it. Will that be reported? Will news outlets issue a correction? Heh, take a wild guess. When I did a search for the two authors of the study on Google News, I got a few hits from right-of-center websites and a couple from Australia. All the bigger names were from the time that the study first came out. So if you aren’t reading any right-leaning sites, you won’t get the whole story. Even WebMD reported on the study the day it came out, but is silent on the correction 16 days later. Keep that in mind when you go looking for medical advice on a politically-charged topic. Ten months on the Internet is an eternity, so the damage has been done and the misinformation will continue to inform decisions to have these surgeries and medical treatments for some time to come. But before we start 6-year-olds on transitioning meds or before adults start mutilating their bodies, it might be good to take a step back and consider the permanent nature of some of these changes. Trading in body parts for inclusion in a group that has a huge suicide rate had better be really worth it. Dan was the last of his kind. His breed had been disappearing for quite some time, and by all appearances had been extinct for quite a while. But Dan was the last holdout. See Dan held to an idea that his tribe had since left behind. It’s not that he changed his mind; it’s just that he got, as it were, voted off the island. Well the island is Washington, DC, and Dan Lipinski was the last pro-life Democrat in Congress. He recently lost his primary to a challenger who is pro-abortion thus quietly putting an end to any whiff of concern by Democrats at the national level for pre-born human life. But consider this; only 18% of Democrat voters agree with 3rd trimester abortions, and 30% consider themselves pro-life. So now voters need to decide what their priorities are. If matters of life and death matter to you, and you normally vote for the Democrat, it’s time to reconsider your vote. Actually it was time a long time ago. But yeah, you may disagree with Republicans on a variety of policies, but none of that matters – none of it is relevant to the unborn – if they never get a chance to live. Your view on education doesn’t matter unless they get to take advantage of it. Your view on tax rates don’t matter unless they get to grow up and pay them. Your view on Social Security doesn’t matter if they never grow old to use them. Nothing matter if they don’t get a chance to live. And so if no other rights matter if you never get a chance to live, I have a thought as to where to cast your next vote. Republicans would certainly like to represent you. If life or death matters, consider this. There’s a link in the show notes to an article that I posted to my personal Facebook profile which I did as a sort of public service announcement. What I had noticed is that quite a number of friends of mine didn’t understand the difference between a state offering absentee ballots and just mailing out ballots to all registered voters, a practice with the unfortunate-sounding name “all-mail voting”. With absentee voting, one person requests one ballot. There’s usually a form to fill out and a signature. In some states they validate the information against their database, and others validate the signature, or both. With all-mail voting, the state just sends out ballots to every person on the rolls. This includes people who have died and people who have moved. Think about it; when’s the last time you let your state or county elections board know that you left the precinct? So no, when Trump applied for an absentee ballot, it’s not the same as his criticism of all-mail voting. The claim from the Right is that this all-mail voting is just asking for fraud. Well, it’s not just from the Right. In 2005, the Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican (who served under Reagan and H. W. Bush), concluded that absentee ballots “remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” In 2008, the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project recommended: “First, restrict or abolish on-demand absentee voting in favor of in-person early voting. The convenience that on-demand absentees produces is bought at a significant cost to the real and perceived integrity of the voting process.” Remember that these are finding about absentee ballots, specifically requested by voters, never mind the even more error-prone all-mail voting. Further, the 2005 Carter-Baker commission recommended that states “prohibit a person from handling absentee ballots other than the voter, an acknowledged family member, the U.S. Postal Service or other legitimate shipper, or election officials.” Yet 15 states and DC place no restrictions on who can handle ballots, in a practice called “ballot harvesting” where political operatives may collect absentee ballots from voters and even be present when a voter makes selections. California just legalized it last year, and Democrats want to expand it nationwide. So no, when Trump applied for an absentee ballot, it’s not the same as his criticism of all-mail voting. There’s a lot more at the link in the show notes in case you have friends that are confusing the two, or who don’t know there are two. The post Episode 299: Reversal of Transgender Study / Last of a Political Type / Mailing Your Ballots appeared first on Consider This!.
10 minutes | 8 months ago
Episode 298: Demands of Black Lives Matter / Demands of History
The Black Lives Matter organization is starting to make demands of businesses. Also, getting history books out of school until they are "fair". The post Episode 298: Demands of Black Lives Matter / Demands of History appeared first on Consider This!.
9 minutes | 9 months ago
Episode 297: That Honest Conversation / The Price of Media Accountability
Can we have that honest conversation about race? And what is the price of an accountable media? The post Episode 297: That Honest Conversation / The Price of Media Accountability appeared first on Consider This!.
20 minutes | 9 months ago
Episode 296: Stories and Data; One Black Man’s Journey
Coleman Hughes looks at the stories and data behind police shootings as a black man. The post Episode 296: Stories and Data; One Black Man’s Journey appeared first on Consider This!.
Terms of Service
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
© Stitcher 2021