Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, September 28, 2002

I just read Jonah Goldberg's latest in his column for National Review and it's outstanding as usual. The piece is titled, "Democratic Fog of War" and it is an examination of the current state of the democratic party in regards to foreign policy. Here's how Goldberg explains it:

"But I take some solace that I don't understand the Democratic party's position on the war, because it is not understandable to the rational mind. Sure, if I spent a week as a taste-tester at a lead paint factory, I might find that the whole thing would click into a coherent whole, like one of those chaotic paintings which require an unfocused mind to see the pattern within it. But for those of us on the right and the left who take these issues seriously, it's hard to say that the Democratic party, taken as a whole, is a serious party. It wants to "raise questions" without even attempting to answer them itself. It consistently wants to be "troubled" by what Bush is doing without suggesting a course of action that might be less troubling. In short, it is a party of backseat drivers who don't have anything to say except that the current driver isn't good enough."

I loved the line about being a taste tester at a lead paint factory. Too funny.

It's time to make my football picks. It will be hard to equal last week's 14-0 record especially considering that I wasn't able to do my homework on this weeks games. I may make some changes if I read about an injury or a disciplinary action that might keep a player out of a game, but here are this week's picks. As usual, my picks are in boldface type. Good luck to me.


Sunday September 29, 01:00 PM EDT

New Orleans at Detroit

Carolina at Green Bay

Miami at Kansas City

Chicago at Buffalo

Dallas at St. Louis

Houston at Philadelphia

Cleveland at Pittsburgh

NY Jets at Jacksonville

Sunday September 29, 04:05 PM EDT

NY Giants at Arizona

Tampa Bay at Cincinnati

Tennessee at Oakland

New England at San Diego

Sunday September 29, 08:30 PM EDT

Minnesota at Seattle

Monday September 30, 09:00 PM EDT

Denver at Baltimore

TIEBREAKER: total points scored in Monday Night game: 45

Friday, September 27, 2002

To put things into perspective, remember that 47 out of 56 democratic senators voted to NOT authorize military action to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Democrats were voting for appeasement in that 1990 vote. They were voting to allow Hussein to stay in Kuwait. It was the republicans who understood the lessons from history and it was the democrats who voted to repeat that history. Who should we trust when it comes to decisions about the use of military force? Well, that depends on whether you believe we should appease dictators or stand up to them. I believe our only choice is clear. The democrats were proven wrong in 1991 and I believe they are on the wrong side of history again.

Barbara Streisand wrote a memo to Dick Gephardt urging him to oppose the war against Iraq. It's my opinion that Ms. Streisand is more interested in taking away a campaign issue from the republicans than anything else. Anyway, I sent her a letter when I found an email address in the above link to the story about the memo. It's not my best letter, but I meant every word of it. Here's my letter to Ms. Streisand:

Ms. Streisand

Winning elections is more important to democrats than defending the American people. Democrats are ready to gamble with my life and they are ready to forsake principles, morals, ethics, truth and honor to win elections.

In case you wonder, I am a blue collar worker and I make less than $30,000/year. I am not some rich limousine liberal like yourself who doesn't have to live with the consequences of the political choices I force on other people. I support regime change in Iraq because I believe that the threat that Saddam Hussein represents is real. The greatest threat he poses is that he will obtain a nuclear weapon and then give it to terrorist. That is not some unlikely scenario, it's very real. If I or my family and friends were nuked I would have to live the nightmare while you could jet off to Europe or Australia or some other destination with your family and friends in tow.

I understand why you said the things you did in your memo to Mr. Gephardt. You want him to oppose the war in the hopes that it can be avoided thus taking away a campaign issue for the republicans. The only thing you care about is democrats winning elections. I don't think you are especially opposed to war, I just think you have the same win-at-all-costs mentality that infects so many democrats.

I think you and most democrats are highly emotional (often to the point of wild hysteria), full of laughable conspiracy theories about oil companies, and totally lacking in reason and logic. I also believe that you want to make decisions for me that you don't have to live with because you can afford alternatives.

You are quite prepared to gamble with my life and I don't appreciate it one bit.

Thank God that George Bush is the president of the United States. I thank God everyday. He'll defend me and this nation. The democrats just want to win elections even if it means taking illegal campaign contributions from Asians.

Sean Roper

Thursday, September 26, 2002

I can't stand this! It seems that 33 professors of international relations have signed an ad that appears in The New York Times arguing against an attack on Iraq. These are supposed to be educated people, but they make the argument that a nuclear armed Saddam Hussein is not a threat to the US or Israel because of the deterrent effect of our own nuclear weapons. What unbelievable stupidity! Ok, I have to say this in caps so please forgive me: THE THREAT IS NOT THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WILL NUKE US DIRECTLY. THE THREAT IS THAT HE WILL GIVE THE WEAPON TO SOME TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, HIDE BEHIND A WALL OF DENIABILITY, AND WAIT FOR LEFTISTS SUCH AS THESE PROFESSORS TO DEFEND HIM.

I can't believe the stupidity I read from so-called educated people. These same professors would be arguing that it was not Saddam that nuked us, that it was a terror organization, that we can't very well nuke an organization, and that it would be morally outrageous to nuke an innocent nation such as Iraq for the actions of terrorists. What willful ignorance and blind stupidity.

Even if we knew for a fact that it was Saddam who nuked us, these same professors and many others would be saying that we cannot nuke Iraq because it would mean the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis So, given that, don't we have the responsibility to disarm this man to preempt the deaths of potentially millions of people? According to these idiots we are supposed to trust that Saddam will be nice. What unbelievable naivete from supposedly sophisticated people. These people are supposed to know better. They know what he has done, but they still defend this man. Unbelievable.

The old saying that we should take care of our teeth may because they have to last us our entire life may not be true for much longer according to this story at Fox News.

It seems that scientists are now able to grow teeth in a laboratory. We live in an amazing age where human organs will eventually be grown in a laboratory to be used to replace failing body parts. The significance of these discoveries will mean that the average life span, not to mention the quality of that life, will increase significantly as the costs for these procedures falls. We may not be able to take advantage of these technologies, but it is a virtual certainty that the next generation will.

Jay Nordlinger has his Impromptus column in consecutive days. Here's the column from yesterday and here's today's column.

Impromptus is a great column mostly because it is perfect for people with a short attention span, but it's also a great column because of it's information, humor, historical references, and perspectives. It's one of the most enjoyable columns I read.

An August poll in Britain showed that 54% of those polled viewed Tony Blair as President Bush's poodle. Andrew Sullivan explains that the British public fail to understand that their leader's opinion is valued above all others because Mr. Blair has offered unqualified and heroic solidarity with the United States. Mr. Blair's actions will reverberate among Americans for many years to come. We will remember who our friends were and Mr. Blair has solidified his nation as first and unparalled among all the others.

Wednesday, September 25, 2002

National Review features a "Cool Site" (I think they offer a new one each day, but I don't know) and today's site is Sand Art.

I have to post this. This shows what a lying and opportunistic piece of crap Al Gore is. This is directly out of the Bill Clinton playbook. Do and say anything to win support and elections.

I did amazingly well on my football picks this week. I picked the winner in all 14 games. The only thing is that it seems a that a lot of other people in HBO's "Make The Picks" did as well as I did and actually did better because of the tie-breaker. The tie-breaker is the total points in the Monday night game. I picked 30 and the total points was 40. Evidently there were a lot of other people who went 14-0 (who knew there would be so many!) and they picked closer to the total of 40 points in the Monday night game so they were included on the website and I wasn't.

A few weeks ago I posted a story on the "Transnational Progressive" movement which is a direct and very real threat to democracy. Daniel Pipes calls the idea "bureaucratic leftism," but whatever name it goes by it is still a threat to the Constitution of the United States of America and it is supported by many prominent democrats. Here is how Pipes explains bureaucratic leftism:

"In summary, unable to achieve their goals through the ballot box, law professors, political activists, foundation officers, NGO (non-governmental organization) bureaucrats, corporation executives, and practicing politicians now seek to achieve those goals by denigrating the two central pillars of modern liberal democracy, the individual citizen and the nation-state."

The left (liberals, democrats, socialists, and communists) are out to destroy democratic institutions. The European Union and the United Nations are prime examples of institutions of unelected bureaucrats who are working to erode democracy. This is a very real threat that has emerged as a result of the fall of communism.

I urge people to be careful and to not let this happen because the left has shown an amazing capacity for mass slaughter and gross human rights violations in the name of social order. Remember what the communists did. Remember how the 20th century was filled with examples of leftwing horrors. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.

Remember and understand that the Transnational Progressives or Bureaucratic Leftists are the new communists.

Thank God that Al Gore is not the President of the United States. I just read an article by Chris Weinkopf where he breaks down (in the blog world this is known as a "fisking") Gore's recent speech to reveal the absurdity of the words and ideas.

I didn't need Gore's speech to realize that it was a blessing that Gore lost the election, but it did serve as a reminder why I am not a democrat. I cannot believe the idiocy contained in his speech and which Weinkopf points out. I read that the people who attended Gore's speech received his words enthusiastically.

Thank God that the democrats are not running this nation at the critical time in history. They would have us all in multicultural sensitivity training to understand what we did to make those poor misguided brave men fly those evil instruments of capitalism into the even more evil symbols of US hegemony. That's what many democrats believe. To be fair I must say that many democrats don't feel that way, but I believe that the majority do feel exactly that way.

Tuesday, September 24, 2002

Here's the text of Tony Blair's speech to Parliament where he makes the case against Iraq. The Economist has more analysis of the speech including such details as the size of the presidential palaces that Saddam Hussein wants to exclude from searches. Here's how The Economist explains it:

"The British dossier includes an aerial photograph of one supposedly “presidential” site. To show its size, it has superimposed a plan of Buckingham Palace in London on to one tiny part of the photograph." And Saddam has many of these "presidential" sites that are most likely where he keeps his most secret weapons.

Today's speech by Blair allows me an opportunity to link to a story in Tech Central Station that quotes Scott Ritter at length about how deceitful Hussein has been. These quotes are mostly from the late 1990's when Ritter was apparently not bought by people close to Saddam Hussein. Here's a quote from Ritter in his 1998 resignation letter:

"The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed anywhere near the level required by Security Council resolutions," wrote Ritter. "Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years through systematic acts of concealment. It doesn't take long to recognize this."

I can't see how anyone can defend Saddam Hussein, but unbelievably there are people who are actively defending this man. Sure they characterize him as a murderer and a despot, but they do defend him. These people are the people who claim that President Bush is only using Saddam Hussein to divert attention from US domestic problem. These people are those who say that we should solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem first. These people are those who say that we shouldn't do anything unless the UN approves (that great spineless organization of appeasement and corruption). And these are the people (democrats) who supported military action in the late 1990's under President Clinton, but who have suddenly and inexplicably changed positions 180 degrees now that a popular republican president faces the same and worse threats.

It's surprising the amount of support Saddam Hussein has. Many prominent people have, in one way or another, come to his defense. I should be surprised, but I really I'm not.

An editorial by Andrew Gimson in The Telegraph makes it clear how the Germans feel. They want the US out of Germany and that was what the vote Sunday was all about. Maybe it is time we got out of Europe. Let them pay for their own defense. Here's an example of just how blind the Germans are:

"The other is that the Germans consider themselves, in most respects, to be far more modern than either the British or the Americans. They are shocked that America has no satisfactory system of health insurance for about 40 million of its citizens, and consider this the mark of a very backward country, where a primitive form of devil-take-the-hindmost capitalism prevails."

The only reason the Germans have such a great social welfare system is because they don't have to choose between defending themselves and providing health insurance. I live for the day when they are brought back to reality by the removal of US troops from German bases. How much welfare spending would they have to transfer to defense spending if we weren't defending them? The Germans, and much of Europe completely miss this point. They see themselves as superior because they spend their money on welfare and not on silly old defense spending. That is sheer ignorance and it's really starting to piss me off. Let them defend themselves so they can see how much they have been depending on us.

From The Wall Street Journal's Best Of The Web at Opinion Journal:

You Don't Say--I
"U.N. Hunt for Iraqi Weapons Could Take Time-Experts"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 22

You Don't Say--II
"U.S. Senators Warn of Possible 'Arab-Israeli' War"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 22

You Don't Say--III
"Mother in Videotaped Beating Says She Was Upset"--headline,, Sept. 23

You Don't Say--IV
"Prime, Subprime Borrowers Profiles Differ, Freddie Mac Study Suggests"--headline, Inside Mortgage Finance Publications (third item)

I just caught the tail end of a story on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel about how the Canadian military was falling apart (apparently this is why they pulled out of Afghanistan) when I heard that Canada has banned satellite dishes. Banned them! How is it possible the the Canadian people have allowed their socialist government to do this?! This is simply unbelievable that a supposedly free and democratic nation would BAN SATELLITE DISHES.

That's bad enough, but that's beside the main point to the story that Canada is down to a 55,000 man military (army, nation, air force, and coast guard). They are obviously another one of the nations of the world that is depending on the US to defend them while at the same time they call us barbaric and simplistic, and who generally refer to us as the source for all the evil in the world. This has got to stop. Considering this and the lecture that the Canadian PM recently gave the American people on how we brought the attacks of September 11 on ourselves, I have two words for Canada: F*** Canada.

Monday, September 23, 2002

The Christian Science Monitor also features a story on what looks to be the next big collectible fad. Celebriducks. Rubber ducks that look like celebrities. They are already wildly popular at sporting events and the fad looks like it will gain even more strength over the coming holiday season and beyond.

I just read about the upcoming court battle in Malibu, California over beach access versus property rights that is discussed in this article in The Christian Science Monitor.

My gut reaction is delight because many of the landowners are rich leftists who ordinarily would be on the side of the people if these properties were owned by large corporations. But they aren't owned by corporations. They are owned by the rich and famous of Hollywood elites who agreed to give easements when applying for building permits, but after a while they began to view the beach as their own private property. It's going to court and I hope that the Hollywood "limousine liberals" lose. I am so sick of outrageously rich and famous people telling the rest of us how we should live when they are not affected because their enormous wealth allows them to afford alternatives. These are the very people who support democratic and leftwing causes, but only because they are so super-rich that it doesn't matter to them. They make me want to scream.

The British paper The Telegraph features an editorial by it's editor Charles Moore that explains the reasons for the largerst protest in British history yesterday. More than 400,000 people turned out for the march to protest the government's treatment of rural folk. The biggest complaint seems to be a desire by urban citizens to ban hunting, but the ban on hunting is only part of the larger class war being waged all over the free and democratic world.

I am afraid that the rural voters will lose out in England because the urban voters are the larger voting bloc. Perhaps the rural voters can win the debate, but I am not encouraged. If the urban voters are the same as we have here then they are comprised of a broad coalition of leftwing groups and organizations like PETA, environmentalists, feminists who see hunting as a symbol of male oppression, labor activists, and the multiculturalists who are outright anti-British and would like nothing more than to stamp out anything that could remotely be seen as "typically British."

I hope the march achieved all that was hoped for.

I remember last April when I heard the news that the lawyer for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman had been arrested for aiding terrorists and lying to the government. I thought it was interesting and I was glad that people were being brought to justice for helping terrorists. After that I pretty much forgot about the whole thing until I read this piece by George Packer that was featured in Frontpage Magazine. I learned who the lawyer was. Her name is Lynne Stewart and she represents a dying breed of leftwing lawyer-activists.

Packer obviously speaks from the point of view of a person who knows and sympathizes with Stewart. He makes it clear that Stewart knew exactly what she was doing, but who did the things she did because she is a true believer. That's not to say that Packer spins Stewart as some sort target of a vengeful and deceitful government. Rather it seems that Packer deals honestly with Stewarts problems and the things she did, but he also explains who Stewart is, what she believes, where she comes from and why she believes the things that she does.

Packer is an excellent writer who is able to cast Stewart in a sympathetic light. I wouldn't want her to get away with what she has done, but it's also clear that she is not the same as the people she represented. I would say that Stewart was stupid, misguided, and blind to the repercussions of her actions, but I can't bring myself to condemn her as evil.

This is an excellent article that I strongly recommend.

Sunday, September 22, 2002

That's three in a row baby! The Carolina Panthers defeated the Minnesota Vikings 21-14 to remain undefeated and a co-leader in the new NFC South division in the NFL.

The Vikings need a better quarterback. Daunte Culpepper just ain't gettin' it done. He was picked four times and he looked downright bad. Actually, there were no bright spots for Minnesota on offense, not even Randy Moss.

The Panthers had quite a few bright spots. The most impressive play was by Lamar Smith who got stronger and stronger as the game wore on. He eventually wore down the Minnesota defense and finished with 154 rushing yards.

Next week the Panthers play at Green Bay. If they can win that game, they might just convince some people that they are for real. I am one of those people.

The Economist features an article on today's German election. The Economist says that Germany has many problems including a 0.6% economic growth rate last year (projected at 0.25% this year), 4 million umemployed, business investment that has fallen for seven quarters, flat consumer spending, retail and construction trade in crisis, bankruptcies (25% over last year) approaching a record 40,000 which would mean a loss of 600,000 jobs, a declining educational system, a tax-and-welfare burden that is one of the greatest in the world, the second costliest health care system in the world, and a massive public debt.

Now considering all these problems, how can the German justice minister, Herta Daubler-Gmelin, say with a straight face that President Bush is using Iraq "to divert attention from domestic difficulties." This, she says, is "a popular method. Hitler has done it before." It appears that the justice minister and her boss, Chancellor Gerhard Shroder, is attempting to divert attention from very serious domestic issues by focusing on the US president and Iraq.

This is one of those headlines that pretty much says it all. Fat Teens Sue McDonalds. What industry gets sued next? Whichever has the deepest pockets. It's always, ALWAYS about the money.