Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, November 16, 2002

I read this putrid nonsense (via The Corner) and I sent this letter to the editor of MSNBC in response:

Editor

Oh good grief! Not another crazed conspiratorial leftist! What a pile of horse shit! I could spend considerable time formulating an argument against this sort of idiocy, but that is a complete and utter waste of time. Suffice it to say that Ms. Nelson's thesis is the exact reason the Democrats were repudiated at the polls recently. We understood exactly that Ms. Nelson's views are representative of the Democrat's positions and we rejected them.

I disagree with EVERYTHING the woman has said and I think that every word of it is nonsense....complete and utter nonsense unworthy of consideration. If it were written on paper I might use it to house train a puppy or to line a bird house, but otherwise it's completely worthless.

Let me make this clear. Nothing that Ms. Nelson believes and expressed here is rooted in anything resembling reality. She is living is some fantasy world where poor innocent regimes in nations like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and China are victims of the evil imperialistic US.

Ms. Nelson, I don't want to call you stupid because you obviously are not. But your conspiracy theories and left-wing ideas are ridiculous. You are completely unoriginal and, in fact, you are parroting almost verbatim what every other leftist has said the past year. And just because you are all reading from the same Democratic party talking points memo does not make one word of it true. It makes you a parrot. (Sqawk!.....Imperialism....Sqawk!...The US is the greatest evil the world has ever known....Sqawk!).

Sean Roper

Friday, November 15, 2002

The New Republic has a long piece on Nancy Pelosi that is very helpful to understand who this woman is what she is likely to do as a the minority leader.

Pelosi is already trying to remake herself as a centrist, but her past votes and positions are revealing:

"Pelosi's first foray into national politics left little doubt about her ideology. As a candidate in 1987, she emphasized the environment and arms control; she even backed local opposition to allowing the U.S. battleship Missouri dock in San Francisco with nuclear weapons aboard. After her election, she declared her top priorities to be cutting off aid to the Contras and dramatically boosting AIDS research. And she fought every conceivable battle for gay rights, even calling for legislation to mandate that the U.S. Olympic Committee allow gays to hold athletic competitions under the term "Gay Olympics." (It never happened.)

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Pelosi adamantly opposed military action, lamenting that George H.W. Bush was "resorting to militarization in order to solve a conflict." The war, she said, was an "ill-conceived policy of violence;" Bush, she argued, was acting "illegally." At one January 1991 peace rally, Pelosi turned the president's words against him, declaring, "It is so important that you are here tonight to draw a line in the sand for George Bush." She even delivered a floor speech devoted specifically to opposing the war on environmental grounds, claiming, "The war cloud that would result from exploding oil fields and large-scale bombing of Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the Middle East would doom the environment for many years to come."

But, even as Pelosi was repelled by America's foreign interventions, she took a keen interest in defending human rights worldwide. In a 1999 interview, Pelosi acknowledged that in San Francisco, "probably more so than in the rest of the country, there's a reluctance to use force. But there's a strong intolerance for human rights violations." And so, from her first years in the House, she became one of Washington's loudest critics of political repression in China. Since her arrival in the House, Pelosi has turned every vote on trade relations with China into a debate about the country's human rights record. When Bill Clinton sought congressional support for humanitarian military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, Pelosi supported him, citing her memories of Anne Frank's diary.

Pelosi staked out similar ground on domestic policy. Like most Democrats, she almost always advocated more spending and rarely supported tax cuts. Pelosi played little role in the realignment of fiscal policy that defined the Clinton years. In fact, she was not much of a policymaker at all, using her perch on the House Appropriations Committee mostly to fight funding battles for pet causes like the National Endowment for the Arts and family planning overseas. She occasionally defied her liberal label, primarily on trade (an issue of importance to many of her California business donors). Yet on one of the toughest domestic policy questions of the decade, welfare reform, Pelosi took a hard line. The law, she said, was aimed at "reduc[ing] the deficit at the cost of our poorest Americans," and would "thrust millions more into poverty."

It is necessary for me to note that Hu Jintao has, apparently, been elevated to the rank of General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and is now the leader of China. It will probably take many years to fully understand who this man is and what he believes because of the secretive nature of Chinese politics.

Lowell Ponte explains the Democratic strategy of electing Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

It makes sense for the long term to promote a left-wing extremist to party leader if to do nothing more than to ensure the survival of the party. At this point, that's all that Democrats are hoping to do. They have to survive and the best way to do that is to keep the progressive wing (the core of the Democratic party) loyal and stop them from joining the even more progressive Green party which is lead by Ralph Nader.

Here's how Ponte describes the strategy:

"A politician with a reliable base has the ability to move towards the center. Thus, to use the most commonly cited example, only an established liberal like John F. Kennedy would have dared put the first 16,000 armed troops into Vietnam; any Republican trying to do this would have faced liberal opposition, but as a liberal JFK faced no such opposition. On the other side, only a Republican with proven anti-Communist credentials such as Richard Nixon could have risked making the diplomatic opening to Communist China."

When I see Ann Coulter's name in the by-line of an article I become like a fan of some TV show who just heard the opening theme start playing.

Ann's latest is a series of suggestions on how the Democrats can improve their electoral chances. For instance:

"Second, the Democrats definitely need to speak out more forcefully against the Boy Scouts. So far, their hatred of the Boy Scouts has been frankly weak-kneed. Two years ago, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., introduced a bill to revoke the Boy Scouts' 84-year-old federal charter because they discriminate against gays. Despite the votes of several Democrats, the bill was narrowly rejected in a 362-12 vote."

I am curious to see what direction the Democrats do move in. Yesterday they elected Nancy Pelosi to be the next minority leader in the House of Representatives and if that is any indication then the Democrats have signalled that they are moving away from the American center to the fringe. That could be disastrous for them, but time will tell.

Thursday, November 14, 2002

Yesterday I mentioned that the left-wing media employed subtle word choices to portray Republicans as extremists or evil, among other things. Here's what I said exactly:

"These portrayals are already subliminally implanted in straight news stories by the subtle choice of words, but now that Republicans have control of the legislative and executive branches of our federal government the media can't afford to be so subtle anymore. They have to get the message out that Republican's are evil insensitive extremists."

At the time I did not give any examples because, well, I didn't have any handy. But in today's Impromptus, Jay Nordlinger has a perfect example of just this sort of subliminal message. Here's the excerpt:

"On the subject of the New York Times: A recent article on the snipers case had the following lead: “The Justice Department, influenced by Attorney General John Ashcroft’s fervent support for the death penalty, is considering a plan to let Virginia . . .” Interesting wording, that: fervent support for the death penalty. For all I know, Ashcroft’s support is fervent. But would the Times ever say, for example, “Nancy Pelosi’s fervent support for abortion on demand”?"

Hmm. Let's see what "fervent" means:

fer·vent Pronunciation Key (fûrvnt)
adj.
Having or showing great emotion or zeal; ardent: fervent protests; a fervent admirer.
Extremely hot; glowing.

I really should learn the proper use of quote marks, but I hope you get the point. Note that word fervent. Does that imply a certain extremism or what? And that is in a straight news story. I like the point that Nordlinger makes that the NY Times would probably not use that or similar word to characterize a Democrat. This sort of thing happens all the time and it's a perfect example of what people mean when they say that there is a liberal bias. It's a subtle and subliminal characterization that, when repeated thousands of times, becomes the truth for many people. People start believing that Republicans are extremists whether the perception is true or not. I am not saying that Republicans have never gone to extremes. I would never say that. But I would also argue that the Republicans are not always extremists.

The NY Times and other left-wing media outlets understand exactly what they are doing. It's called framing the debate. It's like the choice between saying "pro-life" and "anti-choice." The Democrats much prefer the phrase, "anti-choice" because it denotes a certain intolerance. Most of the media call them "anti-abortion protesters" because it's better than "pro-life supporters." Yes, conservatives are attempting to frame the debate as well, but the Democrats have been particularly successful at it. I would also say that Democrats deny that they do it. Conservative outlets at least admit that they lean right. Left-wing outlets deny that they have a bias and that is the most infuriating thing, especially when faced with word choices like "fervent."

It was only a matter of time before someone wrote a piece on Google, the search engine. It really is the best search engine out there. I especially love the way it highlights the search words within the cached piece. It's a great time saver when looking through a long document.

Many people on the right have said time and again that the UN is a corrupt organization and that the left completely ignores this because many of the leaders of the individual despotic nations that comprise the UN are people of color. And it is well known that people of color are given a pass by leftists. They could create mass famine and practice ethnic cleansing (Mugabe), exercise capital punishment without so much as a trial (Arafat), slaughter innocent women and children (Arafat again), imprison and torture their own people for demanding democracy (Castro) and the left would not make a peep. But let the US demand that Saddam Hussein keep his promises to disarm and abide by the cease fire terms he agreed to in 1991 and suddenly you get leftists coming from every direction to condemn President Bush as a dictator and leader of the most evil nation the world has ever seen.

It is just this sort of hypocritical and willful blindspot that is the topic of Jonah Goldberg's article for National Review.

Wednesday, November 13, 2002

Good grief, another Hollywood Democrat is voicing his political opinions. Of course he has every right. And I have every right to say that he's wrong in this letter to the people who published his opinion. Here's my letter:

Rush & Molloy

I hope you can find a way to get a copy of this letter to Mr. Spacey.

Kevin Spacey has his head up Bill Clinton's ass. I am not a bit surprised at his opinion. He's the typical Hollywood limousine leftist. If he and Streisand had had their way we would never have gotten this far with a UN resolution. The strong and forceful position that the president has taken is the reason Saddam has agreed to the UN resolution. It's the reason he will allow inspectors to return and allow them unfettered access.

If Streisand, Penn, Harrelson, Spacey and the rest of Hollywood had had their way the only consequence of September 11th, 2001 would have been that all US citizens would have been required to attend sensitivity and multicultural training sessions so we could understand what we had done to bring that brave attack on our evil society. We would not have rooted out the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan, we would have sent them money to alleviate their poverty. If Hollywood leftists had their way, we would have surrendered and cut our military spending by 90% so the rest of the world would not be so envious of this "rogue nation."

If Hollywood had their way, we would give the UN final say in all matters of our national security. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) would make all our decisions for us, bureaucrats would tell us how much to spend on welfare and the environment and they would set tax rates and would resolve all matters on race relations.

Hell, we wouldn't need no stinking democracy because all the bureaucrats would be left-wingers and, of course, they know what is best for everyone. We would never have to make another decision.

I thank God that George Bush is the President of the United States right now. He will defend us and the left would not. That's why they lost. We knew they would not defend us. We knew it by their statements and we knew it by their actions (think of the Baghdad Democrats). We saw and heard what they believed and that is why they lost.

Sean Roper

Just so you can prepare yourself, understand that no matter what the Republicans do, NO MATTER WHAT, the left-wing media is going to portray them as evil, extreme, heartless, or stupid. Not necessarily in that order. These portrayals are already subliminally implanted in straight news stories by the subtle choice of words, but now that Republicans have control of the legislative and executive branches of our federal government the media can't afford to be so subtle anymore. They have to get the message out that Republican's are evil insensitive extremists. For instance, when Reagan and Bush the First were Presidents, the media did story after story after story on the whole homeless problem. The message was that we had a homeless problem and the evil heartless cruel emotionless Republicans couldn't give a shit about it. Then Bill Clinton became president and, HALLELUJAH, the whole homeless problem went away. It was a miracle! Then when Bush the Second became president, the whole homeless problem cruelly returned. The connection by the media was clear: Democrats good, Republicans evil.

I mention all this because of something I read in Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column. Here it is:

"More déjà vu: The Times’s Bob Herbert wrote a column dedicated to the notion that the Bush-led Republican party is “slick,” whose synonyms, he notes, include “sly, shrewd, slippery, wily.” Well, well: I thought Bush was a dumb stumblebum! A klutz and an accident!

Herbert says, “Driven by its right wing and aided immeasurably by George W. Bush’s genial smile, the GOP is putting in place profoundly conservative policies . . .” Yup: Heard it all before. That’s exactly — verbatim — what they said about Reagan: “genial smile,” hiding a draconian, if not fascist, agenda.

The columnist goes on to say that it is the Republican party’s purpose to “destroy” Social Security. The GOP, it is true, is the only party with a plan to reform Social Security, which — almost everyone agrees — is headed toward doom. But that is not “destroying,” of course: It is saving, the opposite of destroying.

George W. Bush is, indeed, like Reagan. At first, he had to be brainless. But then he had to be wily, deceptive, and slick, masking dark purposes. Sam Donaldson used to say — over and over — “Reagan, personally, would give you the shirt off his back, but then he’d throw your grandmother out in the snow, through some budget cut, and never make the connection between the two.” (This is not really related to what I’m talking about, but I just remembered it, and wanted to throw it in there.)

It could be that one simply has to stop reading the papers: One feels that one reads the same news, and same columns, over and over (including — of course — mine!)."

Paul Sperry has an article about Chief Charles Moose at Frontpage Magazine. I was one of those people who was willing to give him credit for capturing the two snipers because I had no idea who the man was or what he believes. However, Sperry is portraying Chief Moose as being a racialist who took office with a determination to end profiling of black people, but who apparently couldn't resist profiling the snipers as being white men. A few other nuggets of information from Sperry's article:

"Even at that level, he couldn't shake the chip from his shoulder. In another controversy, he had to apologize for making racial slurs against whites. Even the liberal Portland Oregonian lamented his "explosive temper."

Some white Portland cops complain that Moose discriminated against them.

"I tried to be very open-minded and extend myself to him on many occasions while working with him, but he made it very apparent he has some very strong bias against white males, especially ones with blond hair and blue eyes," said a former Portland officer who served under Moose in the 1990s.

Moose has what some say is an annoying habit, as a public official, of putting his race in your face.

His corner office at police headquarters is a shrine to the black movement. Figurines of wild African elephants line a credenza. There's a plaque about black "pride." Pictures of black leaders line the walls. A poster reads: "Hatred thrives when bigotry is tolerated."

Moose came to Maryland vowing to end black criminal profiling as he had in Portland. Before taking the job in 1999, he met with the local NAACP.

When he arrived, he said he had reservations about moving to the area because he claimed the Ku Klux Klan was active there, and that it might be a "difficult" place for an interracial couple to live.

Huh? Montgomery County is one of the most liberal enclaves in the Beltway.

He quickly ended black profiling there – apparently only to replace it with white profiling.

A big fan of race-sensitive "community policing," Moose made Portland cops working the gang beat – during the crack wars, no less – carry blue pocketbooks filled with information about the city's social-service agencies.

Attorney General Janet Reno liked what she saw, and flew out to recognize him.

As her husband started his new job as Portland police chief in 1993, Sandra Herman Moose began law school in Tacoma, Wash., commuting home on weekends.

Her best pal at law school was a North African man, according to a classmate at University of Puget Sound School of Law.

She and Moose found time a couple of years later to teach a course on "multicultural communications" at Portland Community College.

Sandy Moose's ideas on race issues are downright scary.

She told CNN's Connie Chung the other night that she hit the roof when she heard a female newsie call her husband "hostile" after one of his hostile press conferences.

Sandy explained that whole discrimination law is built around that word, which she claims is racially charged and should never be used to describe a black man.

So, apparently we can't say Muhammad and Malvo are "hostile," either. Will she defend them if they sue?

If Moose's blond wife considers "hostile" to be a racial epithet, imagine what Moose considers discriminatory."

My opinion of Chief Moose has changed now that I know who this man is and what he believes. If he were white he would be a racist, but since he's black his ethnocentric views are honorable and righteous.

Tuesday, November 12, 2002

Last year President Bush told the American people that we were going to fight terror in both seen and unseen ways. So when I think about that speech, I wonder how much influence we are exerting in Iran. I mean it's clear that Iran is a major source of terror in the world and so I have to wonder if, given President Bush's "axis of evil" speech coupled with existent civil unrest in Iran, I have to wonder if the CIA isn't working it's magic in that nation right now.

I just read Michael Ledeen's latest piece on Iran and he is asking the US government to take a role in overthrowing that government. If I had to guess, and this is just a guess, I would say that the odds are very good that the protests in Iran are being covertly supported by the US. No one would admit it though.

Another piece in The Christian Science Monitor discusses the pros and cons of "light" and "heavy" US involvement in the post-Saddam Iraq.

Personally, I much prefer the "heavy" involvement even though left-wing critics would howl about US imperialism and even though if would cost us billions of dollars. It must be done.

I think we should divert troops from Europe, preferably Germany, and relocate them to Iraq. Iraq would be an excellent base of operations for going about the business of installing democratic regimes in the Middle East.

I hate to toot my own horn and no one but me can say that this actually happened, but I swear that it did. Last year, before the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, I was in the Excite chat room Soapbox as was my habit at that time discussing the various scenarios of military action in the Middle East against Afghanistan and eventually against Iraq. I put forth a theory that the US and Iran would cooperate to defeat the Taliban and Iraq. I suggested that Iran was going to help us because it was in their interests to help us, but at least one person ridiculed me and said that I had no idea what I was talking about because the Iranians HATED us and would never cooperate with us and that I should shut up before I made a further fool of myself.

Yes, I was the bug that day because I had dared to express an unsupported and unimaginable idea. Well, I wish I had this article from The Christian Science Monitor back then because I would rub that jerks face all in it. An excerpt:

"Iran was quietly very helpful to US forces during the Afghan campaign - secretly providing key targeting data on Taliban targets, while publicly agreeing to permit US pilots emergency landing rights in Iran. But Iran's reward - being branded part of the US "axis of evil" - was a slap in the face that still stings in Tehran. Despite the resulting "deep lack of trust, this could be another opportunity to get together," says an Iranian analyst who asked not to be named."

Students in Iran are protesting the death sentence of Hashem Aghajari. Aghajari was sentenced to death after he gave a speech in which he said that people should not blindly follow the words of religious leaders.

Iran is having a slow motion meltdown of it's theocratic form of government. The young people will ultimately prevail. The only question is when. It could be many years or it could be in just a few months, but the writing is on the wall, as the saying goes.

My schedule has been very screwed up this week so I haven't been able to post as frequently as I would like. I hope that things settle down soon so I can resume my normal schedule.

Sometime today I passed the 1,000 visitor mark. I have also had 96 visitors today which is new one day record for me. It looks like nearly everyone in the past six days have been looking for Peter Kirstein references. Man, I would hate to be him right now. He is an ass and he deserves all the negative attention he is getting, but I have to be honest and say that his rude treatment of that Air Force Academy cadet has been the cause of nearly all the recent traffic.

Monday, November 11, 2002

Roger Kimball has an excellent piece in The New Criterion that discusses the motives, mindset, and fundamentals of anti-Americanism. This anti-Americanism is often couched in pacifistic rhetoric, but the real reason for opposing the US can be best understood in the context of George Orwell's view of English pacifists:

"George Orwell noted something similar in his anatomy of the pacifism that was rampant in English intellectual circles before and during World War II. The “unadmitted motive” of pacifism, Orwell wrote, was “hatred of Western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism.”

I think that Kimball is exactly right. The people most opposed to US action are from the far left. These are the people who were probably most disappointed in the fall of communism. They would argue that communism never really failed, that it was the corrupt individual that caused the downfall of communism. They would love to try to make it work. Most every protest against the war has been organized or widely supported by communist front organizations. Don't be fooled. We are still fighting communism today, but it's much more disorganized now that the Soviet Union is no more. They've changed the names, but the philosophy and goals remain the same.

Sunday, November 10, 2002

I have been meaning to mention this. I had a huge spike in visits recently with the Peter Kirstein controversy. I had my biggest day yet on Thursday when 76 people visited and the traffic continued on through Friday. Nearly every visitor was looking for the Peter Kirstein controversy. It might not seem like a big deal to people like Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan or Matt Drudge who get 76 people in one second, but to me it was a big deal.

I am learning to walk here, metaphorically speaking of course. My writing is weak and I am not a highly educated person with a list of academic credentials so I can't expect people to put a high value on my opinions, but I am like every other person. I have an ego. Although I don't think it's as massive as some people who have blogs, the fact of the matter is that I enjoy measures of success like the recent spike in my traffic. It's affirming to me. It lets me delude myself, if even for a few days, that maybe I am doing a decent job here.

I hope readers will realize my sincerity when I say that I appreciate the traffic and words of encouragement that I receive. It's not just some empty thing that I feel obligated to say.

Peggy Noonan says that the Democrats need to take some time.....

"And ponder the big question: Why does the party exist? To do what? The simple act of defining will help you. Do it together sometimes--have a lot of people at the table, but don't invite academics and intellectuals. They got you into a lot of this mess, and they don't know anything about America. They think it's a place with a lot of people. They have no idea."

It appears that Nancy Pelosi will become the next Democratic leader in the House of Representatives. She will be taking over the role of minority leader replacing Dick Gephardt who is stepping aside after his leadership failed to win control of the House for Democrats.

John Miller says that Pelosi will be moving the Democrats hard left:

"Minority leader Pelosi will move her party to the left. In the wake of Tuesday's defeats, the Left will demand it — but she'll want to take it there on her own accord. By making her party more liberal, however, she risks making it even more of a minority, and soon. If Pelosi rises to the House Democrats' top job, look for moderates to defect to the GOP. Potential switchers include Ken Lucas of Kentucky, Colin Peterson of Minnesota, and Charlie Stenholm of Texas."

The Democrats are about to self-destruct. Pelosi is the model of an anti-American Democrat. Here's how Jeane Kirkpatrick described this type of "San Francisco Democrat" in 1984:

"When the Soviet Union walked out of arms-control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States. But then, they always blame America first."

San Francisco Democrats are about to take control of the Democratic party.

I haven't made my football picks yet. Here goes nothing:

Inside the NFL: BEAT THE EXPERTS
WELCOME YOUR SEASON RECORD 71-59
WEEK 10
Sunday November 10, 01:00 PM EST
Detroit at Green Bay
Houston at Tennessee
San Diego at St. Louis
NY Giants at Minnesota
Indianapolis at Philadelphia
Atlanta at Pittsburgh
New Orleans at Carolina
Cincinnati at Baltimore
Sunday November 10, 04:05 PM EST
Seattle at Arizona
Washington at Jacksonville
Sunday November 10, 04:15 PM EST
Kansas City at San Francisco
New England at Chicago
Sunday November 10, 08:30 PM EST
Miami at NY Jets
Monday November 11, 09:00 PM EST
Oakland at Denver
TIEBREAKER: total points scored in Monday Night game: 55

I volunteered to work at my job today, without pay, to prepare for the upcoming visit by the big wheels at Timken (the company that bought us out). It was hard work, but I left with a feeling of accomplishment. I know that the people I work with were wondering why I would work, hard, for free. All I can say is that I am a loyal person. I am thankful that Torrington hired me and this was the best way I can show that I am grateful.

My cousin Rodney spent the entire evening showing me how to maximize my blog experience. I am pathetically uneducated in comparison.

I meant to post something each day no matter what, but I was unavoidably delayed. This is my attempt at making amends.