Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, August 10, 2002

Frederick Turner suggests this vison for the redevelopment of the World Trade Center. Turner is able to show that capitalism is not the enemy of goodness. Many leftists believe the only government can lift people from poverty, but Turner explains that capitalism, not charity or welfare, is more efficient for relieving hunger and despair. See what I mean:

"The solution to the problem that the American framers found was simple and radical: make Mammon serve God, and then to serve Mammon is to serve God. The free market democratic republic that resulted has spent two hundred years of fine-tuning the market so that it has become almost impossible to get rich without in the process enriching everyone else. Probably the best thing I could do in practical charity for my fellow humans across the globe would be to buy a brand new Lexus. The stimulus to the world economy would be efficient, and would lead to the creation of wealth, technological and scientific progress, the ability of employees to buy educational and medical services, the opening up of trade relationships between countries which might otherwise prefer to go to war, the demand for a better natural environment, and the emancipation of women. More real human benefit would likely accrue per dollar from my purchase than any contribution of an equal amount of money to hunger relief, humanitarian aid, or third world national development efforts."

I am sure this would drive leftists crazy. The idea that capitalism is actually good for mankind is completely unpalatable to those leftwing socialists who see government as the cure for all the worlds ills.

Friday, August 09, 2002

Here's more on a US and British military capability at Aviation Week's Aviation Now. This story is about high powered microwaves (HPM) and it says that this technology is ready for any action against Iraq.

I read this opinion by Adrian Hamilton and this is my letter to him:

Adrian

You must be campaigning for high priest of the moral equivalence church. To compare the US to other rogue states is ridiculous. Not many people are listening to you left-wing extremists so maybe it's about time you started the burnings, assaults, and killings that you fascists/socialist/nazis/communists are so famous for. History is full of examples of how you leftists have slaughtered millions of people to enforce your view of the "progressive" agenda. Even liberals are abandoning you idiots by the score because they see where your progressive ideas have lead us. That is, you have lead us down the road of a multiculturalism that pretends that no culture is better than any other, even when that culture is a suicidal/homicidal culture that kills humans with the ease of killing a goldfish.

You are fringe. Way fringe. You are so marginalized in the present worldwide political debate that you are a laughingstock. You are not taken seriously because all your beliefs have been proven wrong. You and all that you believe are footnotes to history. You are a dinosaur. Now, lay down and make us some oil.

Sean Roper

One more article in The Spectator that I felt I had to read and link to. It's by Fergal Keane and it's a story about the ethnic cleansing that is taking place in Zimbabwe. Where is the UN? Where is Human Rights Watch?

While reading that last article I was reminded of another piece by Robert Kagan that I had completely forgotten about. Kagan's piece is titled, Power and Weakness and it discusses the new relationship between Europe and America with an examination of both sides point of view. It's rather long, but it's also a brilliant analysis. I found out that the Europe we have right now is more or less a grand design. Here's an excerpt:

"Americans who came of age during the Cold War have always thought of Europe almost exclusively in Achesonian terms — as the essential bulwark of freedom in the struggle against Soviet tyranny. But Americans of Roosevelt’s era had a different view. In the late 1930s the common conviction of Americans was that “the European system was basically rotten, that war was endemic on that continent, and the Europeans had only themselves to blame for their plight.” By the early 1940s Europe appeared to be nothing more than the overheated incubator of world wars that cost America dearly. During World War II Americans like Roosevelt, looking backward rather than forward, believed no greater service could be performed than to take Europe out of the global strategic picture once and for all. “After Germany is disarmed,” fdr pointedly asked, “what is the reason for France having a big military establishment?” Charles DeGaulle found such questions “disquieting for Europe and for France.” Even though the United States pursued Acheson’s vision during the Cold War, there was always a part of American policy that reflected Roosevelt’s vision, too. Eisenhower undermining Britain and France at Suez was only the most blatant of many American efforts to cut Europe down to size and reduce its already weakened global influence."

What an great analysis of European-American history since WWll.


While I was at the UK paper, The Spectator, I read another outstanding article that discusses the problems of the European-American relationship. This piece goes a long way towards describing America's feelings to the British public in regards to the new American foreign policy. Bruce Anderson wrote the piece and I think he does an outstanding job of describing America's new outlook on the world.

This article by Mark Steyn is a good example of the sort of thing that I love to read. It's a great argument for attacking Iraq and taking out Saddam. Steyn is saying, perhaps a bit too optimisticly, that getting rid of Saddam would create a domino effect. That a regime change in Iraq would do much to destablize the entire region, and destabilization is preferable to the present death cult that has such a grip on the people of that region. It's time for democracy to come to the Middle East. Perhaps then we can have a resolution to the Palestinian issue.

I was trying to find a story about a new laser that the US military recently introduced when I came across a story at Jane's Defence Weekly that says that Boeing is working on anti-gravity propulsion. Here's the first paragraph:

"Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on
experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional
aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be
engineered into hardware."

Later the writer of the article makes it clear that the anti-gravity project could yield a new weapon:

"But it is also apparent that Podkletnov’s work could be engineered into a
radical new weapon. The GRASP paper focuses on Podkletnov’s claims that his
high-power experiments, using a device called an ‘impulse gravity generator’,
are capable of producing a beam of ‘gravity-like’ energy that can exert an
instantaneous force of 1,000g on any object — enough, in principle, to vaporise
it, especially if the object is moving at high speed."

Wow.



Thursday, August 08, 2002

I noticed this almost as soon as George Bush became president.

Homelessness Rediscovery Watch

"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000

"A Homeless Problem Is Back: Overnight in a City Office"--headline, New York Times, Aug. 7, 2002

As soon as Bill Clinton became president, the homeless problem vanished from newspaper headlines. We had solved the whole homeless problem! Hallelujah! It was a miracle! Then, as soon as Bush became president, the problem mysteriously returned. It's no accident. Too often newspapers will take a talking points memo from special interest groups and.... .presto chango....it becomes news.

I found a link to this story at the Boston Globe via Opinion Journal. If anyone has ever wondered what the term moral equivalence means, this is a perfect example. The writer of this piece is saying that the American use of the atomic bomb against Japan was a crime. That we are no different than Saddam Hussein. Unbelievable. We used the bomb to end a war that we didn't start and also to prevent, according to all estimates, as many as one million US casualties if we had to invade. That doesn't include Japanese civilian deaths. Saddam used poison gas against his own people. He attacked Iran and caused the deaths of millions of Iraqis and Iranians. He also attacked Kuwait. The writer of this piece is a leftwing fruitcake who obviously has swallowed the whole notion of postmodern theory. According to postmodernists, there is no truth, no right or wrong, no good or evil, just perspective. According to the postmodern theorists, Hitler wasn't evil, we just needed to see things from his point of view. He was misunderstood. Good lord. I actually had to hold my nose to read this drivel. The writer of the Boston Globe piece is an example of the person that the left holds up as a brilliant intellectual. Since President Bush doesn't subscribe to such unbelievably stupid ideas the left casts him as dumb. It's just that simple. It's the same thing the left has been doing to almost every republican US president since Eisenhower, except for Nixon. The idea seems to be that if you aren't a liberal, if you don't believe that a few elites inside and outside the government know what is best for you, then you must be stupid. Please.

The Christian Science Monitor has this article that says that plans for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein are narrowing into focus. The first plan that was leaked to the press was a 250,000 man invasion force much like the Gulf War. Then we heard another plan that was more like the Afghan War in that the American forces involved were mostly special operations forces and the air force. Now, it looks like something in between is being considered. A force somewhere in the 100,000 soldier force combined with Iraqi opposition forces. If anyone doubts that the US has serious plans to attack Iraq, there are satellite photos that show a considerable buildup in the middle eastern nation of Qatar. It's coming. I just wonder what Saddam will do when the time arrives. He very well might launch another attack on Israel as he did during the Gulf War and many people are saying that Israel will respond with nuclear weapons if the Iraqi attack is in the form of chemical or biological attacks. It is a given that Israel would nuke them if an Iraqi attack was nuclear.

This article at the Fox News site downplays it, but Vice-President Cheney was heckled at a speech he gave in San Francisco. I am only guessing here, but I bet the odds are very good that the hecklers were leftwing demonstrators. This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that the left actively works to silence free speech. They have been doing this for many years. Accusations of bigotry or racism are favorite tools of leftists, but the most effective means of silencing any speech you disagree with is to shout down the speaker. If the shout down doesn't work, they have other ways of silencing the opposition. For example, David Horowitz has to have bodyguards when he speaks on campuses because tolerant liberals threaten him with harm. Ann Coulter literally had a lemon thrown at her while speaking at Princeton. Christina Hoff Sommers was told by a university professor to "shut the fuck up bitch" for daring to argue against a leftwing position. Other means are used to silence speech. There are many examples of leftists stealing the entire run of a campus newspaper. Leftists also demand and usually receive huge increases in funding for their causes, especially if they have had their feelings hurt by something someone has said. It is my hope that America is rejecting this leftwing extremism. Before 9-11 this was widely accepted behaviour, but now, as I keep hearing, things have changed. I can only hope. The elections this fall will tell the tale.

Wednesday, August 07, 2002

There is a growing realization in Washington that Saudi Arabia is not a very good friend. This piece from the Washington Post makes that abundantly clear. The report suggests that we give the Saudis an ultimatum. Either they stop supporting terror or we take over their oil fields. The hawkish, kickass and take names side of me pumps my fist in the air and says, "Hell yea," but the more reasonable side of me doesn't think that would be the thing to do because we do not have the right to do that. I think a regime change in Saudi Arabia is desirable, but an American invasion and takeover of Saudi oil fields would bring massive outrage from the rest of the world. And maybe rightly so. A more subtle approach is best. I can't help but wonder if the US has a hand in the current unrest in Iran. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

We are going to be hearing about massive starvation in Zimbabwe in the next few months. That's the summary of this piece in an article at Frontpage Magazine.

There seems to be a revolt under way in Iran. I have not read a word of this in print or seen a story on tv. What's going on? This is very big news, but the major media outlets are not reporting these events. Thank goodness that Michael Ledeen has the story. I wonder if this is part of our bigger Mideast policy? It looks like Iran could implode very soon.

Tuesday, August 06, 2002

I have been reading a lot of stories like this one from the BBC. The article is titled, "Soldier Toy Disarmed At Airport." I don't have any reason to fly and if this is what is happening at our nations airport I am glad. This is simply insane and it seems like I read something like this everyday.

I just read this editorial (short registration required) at the WSJ's OpinionJournal that describes the events and repercussions of the failed attempt to capture Somalian warlord Mohammad Farrah Adid that is the basis for the movie, "Black Hawk Down." The repercussions of having failed to capture Adid and to leave in the way we did signaled to Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists that the US was spineless and weak. It should be noted that former President Reagan didn't help this image either when he pulled the marines out of Lebanon in 1983 after the terrorist attack on the barracks there killed hundreds. The WSJ details the history of the Somalia mission because of comments Bill Clinton made recently.

Tammy Bruce is the epitome of a neoconservative. She is the former head of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization of Women and she is openly gay. But she had a split with NOW and the left over the OJ Simpson trial, because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and because the left suppresses free speech with speech codes. Indeed, they have become the thought police.

As you may recall, NOW did not condemn OJ and it was because to do so would have created a split with the NAACP. Also, NOW did not condemn Bill Clinton as they did former senator Bob Packwood (R-WA) and supreme court justice Clarance Thomas because Bill Clinton was a democrat.

The point to all this is that Tammy Bruce sounds like a conservative although her point of view has remained the same. I think she is just disgusted at what the left has become. Here is her latest piece for Frontpage Magazine. I can almost feel the contempt that is bottled up inside her.

To paraphrase Homer Simpson, it's funny how alcohol can be the cause of and solution to so many of lifes problems.

Sunday, August 04, 2002

I have registered with HBO to make the football picks this year. I have never done this and I will probably have a miserable record, but I will do my homework to try to make it respectable. I have a friend that creates a football pool each week and he usually does exceptionally well on his picks so I will be under pressure to keep up with him. I will post my picks here each week by Friday for the regular season games. I might be getting in over my head because I could do miserably, but what the hell. It's not like I will have any money on the games.

I just found out about the European Union Savings Tax Directive from this piece at Fox News Channel. Apparently a lot of money is leaving Europe because of the very high tax rates and is flowing to countries like the US and Switzerland where the rates are much lower. The tax burden of the average European economy consumes 45 percent of the Gross National Product. That is very high. This has the effect of discouraging job creation and is the reason why per capita income is so much lower in Europe than in the US. I can't see why the US should do this. The article didn't make clear one good reason why we should go along with this plan except that the French and Germans want us to do it. Apparently the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury are prepared to go along. There must be a reason why we would do this, but it's not clear to me at all

I have often wondered why the left has so much support among intellectuals. I mean left wing ideas including nazism, communism, socialism and facism have a long history of slaughtering and imprisoning people in the name of political progression. Think about how many millions of people the leftwing regimes of Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and Pol Pot killed. But for some reason the left is considered enlightened and many people have some romantic idea of leftwing politics as forward thinking. I found this piece in The National Post via Arts and Letters Daily that discusses a couple of French philosophers, one in particular, Michel Foucault. The man advocated revolution, apparently the bloodier the better, and for some reason the man is held up as an example to be admired among French intellectuals in university classrooms. This piece also discusses another French philosopher, Raymond Aron, who pointed out that intellectuals considered mass murder to be justified when it was in the name of the appropriate (leftwing) ideology. By the way, Aron is more or less forgotten while Foucault is studied and praised. Wow. I just can't believe how much support the left enjoys, especially in Europe. I mean, don't people remember history? Aren't they aware of what leftwing ideas have done? I guess not

I found this piece by Andrew Kenny on global warming a few weeks ago in the British paper,
The Spectator
. The fact is that the global climate is constantly changing. Just 25 years ago scientists were telling us that we were headed towards a new ice age.

Also featured in this column is a discussion of why predictions of man-made global warming are so prominent. It's big business. Here's a quote from the article that makes the point very well:

"When the global warmers tell us that the stakes are very high, they are quite right. Global warming has become an immense international gravy train worth billions of dollars. It is now one of the largest recipients of government research money in the world. It finances jobs, grants, conferences, international travel and journals. It not only keeps a huge army of people in comfortable employment but also fills them with self-righteousness and moral superiority, and satisfies those deep instincts in the Green movement for meddling, hectoring, controlling and censuring. It enables them to say, ‘The end is nigh unless you give us more funding, repent, and do what we say.’ Behind these exhortations is the vision of Rousseau, of a retreat from the evil industrialised world of motor cars and electricity back to the simpler, nobler world of nature (except for the Green priesthood who will still be allowed to fly in jet planes to attend conferences)."

The greens are a highly emotional lot who use incendiary language to inflame passions in support of the Kyoto treaty. An issue as important as our environment should not be controlled by one side of the debate, but that is exactly what has been happening. The media has been complicit in the global warming scare and has failed miserably to educate the people on what the environmental record has been over the past 5 to 10 thousand years. Kenny's piece does just that.

Whew! It took me awhile, but I finally figured out how to add mail and how to create line breaks to separate my email link and my favorites links. The echoecho.com site was very helpful. It had a lot of information and I will probably use it again. Thanks to them I can now go to bed.

Andrew Sullivan is passionate in his belief that The New York Times is a horribly biased leftwing newspaper that will do anything to distort and slant the news to fit their leftist agenda. I agree with him. For the record Andrew was recently fired by the NY Times possibly for his criticism of the paper and some of its writers. Andrew provides yet another example of what the Times has been doing with this piece. I am a great fan of Andrew's. I am glad that he has taken up this cause and I hope he continues.