Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, January 04, 2003

This is infuriating.

"Deliverymen from a neighboring Wimpy's had been robbed at gunpoint three times the previous week - once in the same building. In all three instances, the caller asked the deliveryman to bring a large amount of change.

When a fourth call came on Thursday specifying that the deliveryman cash a $50 bill, a police detective dressed as a Wimpy's employee went instead. He was immediately jumped by a 17-year-old who put a gun to his head. The detective's backup killed the robber.

So what do friends and neighbors do? They go down to Wimpy's and start harassing employees, breaking furniture and charging the restaurant with "setting up" the killing. There's even talk of starting a boycott."

This is unbelievable, but it's not surprising when you consider the utter failure and complicity of black leaders in these types of "protests." People such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton rarely if ever show the same concern for the black victims of these crimes. It's a well-known fact that the victim of black crimes are other black people:

"This reflects the national trend, where blacks commit more than half the murders in the country, despite being only 13 percent of the population. In 2000, the murder rate among blacks (25.8 per 100,000) was more than seven times the rate among whites (3.2 per 100,000). (The murder rate for Hispanics usually falls almost exactly between the white and black rates, about three times the white rate but only half the black rate.)"

What happened in Cincinnati is a good example. When Sharpton and Jackson protested the police shootings in that city (many of those shootings were done by black cops), the police became much less willing go after black criminals for fear of being labeled as a racist. The effect? Blacks were helpless and defenseless. The criminals were running free and honest black citizens were at their mercy.

This is what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done. They not only endanger the lives of honest hardworking black citizens, they condemn these same people to a life of fear. And they do this to protect black criminals who murder, rape, rob, and generally brutalize the black community. It's one thing to fight for innocent victims of police brutality, but Sharpton and Jackson have rarely, if ever, distinguished between the innocent and the clearly guilty.

Friday, January 03, 2003

Victor Davis Hanson gives a more intellectual response to Senator Patty Murray's idiocy than I can. All I can say is that she is stupid beyond belief. Hanson explains why she is stupid beyond belief without using that phrase.

I completely missed the pardons President Bush recently issued. From Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column:

"At the end of the year, Bush pardoned seven people. According to the AP, they were: a Mississippi man who tampered with a car odometer; a postal employee who stole $10.90 worth of mail; a Tennessee man sentenced in 1962 for making untaxed whiskey; an Oregon man convicted in 1966 in a grain-theft conspiracy; an Iowa man sentenced in 1989 for lying to the Social Security Administration; a Washington State man sentenced in 1972 for stealing $38,000 worth of copper wire; and a Wisconsin minister who refused to be inducted into the military, sentenced in 1957."

Do I really have to tell you who Bush's predecessor pardoned?

Read the whole column. Nordlinger makes some excellent point in summary form. Such as:

"A friend of mine pointed out recently — when Carter received his Nobel — that anti-Americans everywhere, but particularly in Europe, love Jimmy Carter. This should bother the former president; but it doesn’t. In fact, he openly glories in the exception that these anti-Americans carve out for him. It’s one of the things he’s least embarrassed about!"

This is too good to let pass. The writer is referring to Ann Landers:

"The writer toasts her as 'a defender of reproductive rights.' Hmm: reproductive rights. What could those be again? Oh, yeah: I remember.

It seems to me that people who think that abortion is no big deal — or not a big enough deal to outlaw — should have less trouble speaking plainly."

David Horowitz exposes (yes, again) The Los Angeles Times for the leftwing rag that it is:

"The author of the piece, Carol J. Williams demonstrates early that she is an ignoramus of Pulitzer proportions it comes to this pathetic island prison. 'Life in Cuba, once one of Latin America’s most prosperous countries has deteriorated over the past decade, putting the tropical island on a level with the region’s most hopeless and destitute nations.'

...... Cuba’s descent from the second most prosperous nation in Latin America to the third or fourth poorest was an accomplished fact 30 years ago not ten."

Williams follows up this noxious lie with an equally mendacious proposition: 'Abandoned by Soviet mentors and isolated by more than 40 years of U.S. embargo, Cubans wanting to put food on the table now must navigate shortages, ....' In reality, Cuba is not at all isolated, since every country in the world trades with Cuba but the United States, including all of Latin America. The problem is that a sadistic dictator has ruined Cuba’s economy and Cuba has nothing to trade but its women (which it does with socialist enthusiasm)."

John Perazzo has many facts that show how stupid Senator Patty Murray's comments were. In case anyone has forgotten, Senator Murray took the opportunity during a visit to a high school to spread lies about America's charitable and humanitarian spending.

Here are some of the facts:

"Indeed she said nothing about the $848 million the US has already spent for humanitarian relief and reconstruction in Afghanistan – including the rebuilding of schools, roads, and irrigation systems that were destroyed in conflicts long predating any American presence in that country. Nor did Murray mention that thanks to America’s provision of more efficient seeds, Afghans this year reaped the benefits of an 82 percent increase in wheat production – meaning that an extra 843,000 tons of that vital grain helped feed millions of people. Neither did she utter a word about another US project that spurred a 400 percent increase in Afghan cotton production.

The aforementioned initiatives comprise but a small fraction of our country’s efforts to help resurrect Afghanistan from the rubble left behind by the Soviet war and the Taliban’s brutal reign of terror. Andrew Natsios of the US Agency for International Development reports that American money and technological assistance have already rebuilt sixteen of the country’s government ministry buildings that were in virtual ruins. The US has distributed some 30,000 transistor radios to Afghan villagers, thereby giving them some access to world and national news. American dollars have rebuilt the Afghan Teacher’s College, where two-thirds of those being trained to teach are women – the very people whose human rights were virtually nonexistent under bin Laden’s former protectors, the Taliban. The US has also provided 1,300 teacher trainers to help improve the quality of Afghan education, and produced 97 million textbooks for the children there to use. One wonders why Senator Murray chose to mention none of this.

American money has refurbished many bakeries run by Afghanistan’s widows and indigent women – bakeries that were closed by the Taliban, who deemed it improper for women to be involved in any ventures that might provide them with the barest shred of dignity or self-sufficiency. Further, the US has funded 6,100 water projects in Afghanistan, and has rebuilt 4,000 kilometers of roads, 70,000 homes, 72 health clinics, 31 bridges, and 142 schools and day-care centers. In the coming months, several hundred more Afghan schools will be built with American money. Our government is also financing the vital task of locating and disabling the millions of land mines that still imperil the lives of Afghan civilians – mines that are exceeded in number only by those in Cambodia and Angola."

Senator Murray is not some aberration within the Democratic party. We've all seen this time and time again since September 11, 2001. The list of the people who blamed, and still blame, America for the attacks of September 11 grows longer each day and the main accusers are prominent Democrats. They make me sick, but I am no longer surprised when I hear the sort of lies that Senator Murray spreads. It just pisses me off.

Thursday, January 02, 2003

The Media Research Center has, literally, pages of examples of liberal bias in the media.

I will be the first to admit that their are definitely conservative outlets. No doubt about that. The problem with most liberal bias is that people like Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings vehemently deny any such bias. There are runners-up to these awards (follow the main link above), but let's check some of the winning examples of liberal bias:

Media Hero Award
"'For Castro, freedom starts with education. And if literacy alone were the yardstick, Cuba would rank as one of the freest nations on Earth. The literacy rate is 96 percent.'
– Barbara Walters narrating her interview with Fidel Castro on ABC’s 20/20, October 11. [73 points]"

Begala & Carville War Room Award for Bush Bashing
"Rolling Stone’s Will Dana: 'Some people on the Left have said that the war on terrorism is actually about making sure the Middle East keeps pumping oil on our terms. In your book, you refer to ‘Mr. Bush and his oil-industry paymasters.’ What do you mean?'
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman: 'I think these guys are bought and paid by Big Oil in America, and they are going to do nothing that will in any way go against the demands and interests of the big oil companies. I mean, let’s face it. ExxonMobil – I think this is a real group of bad guys, considering that they have funded all the anti-global-warming propaganda out there in the world. And Bush is just not going to go against guys like that. They are bad, bad guys – because of what they are doing in fighting the science of global warming.'
– Interview published in the October 17 Rolling Stone. [68 points]"

Blame America First Award
“'I think very definitely that foreign policy could have caused what has happened [last September 11th]....It certainly should be apparent now – it should be, for goodness sakes understood now, but it is not – that the problem is this great division between the rich and the poor in the world. We represent the rich....Most of these other nations of Africa, Asia and South America and Central America are very, very poor....This is a revolution in effect around the world. A revolution is in place today. We are suffering from a revolution of the poor and have-nots against the rich and haves and that’s us.'
– Former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite on CNN’s Larry King Live, September 9. [77 points]"

Barbra Streisand Political IQ Award for Celebrity Pontificating
"'I despise him [President George W. Bush]. I despise his administration and everything they stand for....To my mind the election was stolen by George Bush and we have been suffering ever since under this man’s leadership....And I think this latest thing with Iraq is absolute madness and I’m stunned that there is not opposition on a much more global scale to what he’s talking about....There has to be a movement now to really oppose what he is proposing because it’s unconstitutional, it’s immoral and basically illegal....It is an embarrassing time to be an American. It really is. It’s humiliating.'
– Actress Jessica Lange at a September 25 press conference at an international film festival in San Sebastian, Spain where she was given a lifetime achievement award. Her remarks were shown in the U.S. on the syndicated show Inside Edition on October 4. [79 points]"

Good Morning Morons Award
“'Iraqi citizens are preparing to go to the polls to decide whether Hussein stays in office.'
– Preview of an October 14 segment on CNN’s American Morning with Paula Zahn posted on CNN’s Web site. [83]"

Politics of Meaninglessness Award for the Silliest Analysis
“'Seven years ago, when the last referendum took place, Saddam Hussein won 99.96 percent of the vote. Of course, it is impossible to say whether that’s a true measure of the Iraqi people’s feelings.'
– ABC’s David Wright, World News Tonight, Oct. 15. [50]"

See No Liberal Media Bias Award
“'If I were biased, I don’t believe I would have gotten the job.'
– George Stephanopoulos to Newsday’s Verne Gay as quoted in a June 19 story after he was named host of ABC’s This Week. [64 points]"

Quote of the Year
“'The entire federal government – the Congress, the executive, the courts – is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That agenda includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives. It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine.
“Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you like the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what’s coming. And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture....
“So it’s a heady time in Washington, a heady time for piety, profits and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money. Don’t forget the money....Republicans out-raised Democrats by $184 million and they came up with the big prize: monopoly control of the American government and the power of the state to turn their radical ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.'
– Bill Moyers’ commentary at the end of his PBS show Now on November 8, the Friday after Republicans won control of the Senate in midterm elections."

A brilliant excerpt from Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column:

"Some Democrats have tried to tag Bill Frist — the new majority leader — as a racist because, in his campaign against Sen. Jim Sasser, he referred to Washington, D.C., as the home of Marion Barry — and why should dollars flow to him and his crooked band and not to Murfreesboro (or something like that)?

Barry, you see, is black — and that is mainly what liberals care about. That he was a thief, a liar, a druggie, and a divisive demagogue is of little importance. Even so, establishment Democrats never liked to embrace him much (although the Clinton administration had to issue formal endorsements of him). I used to delight in referring to Barry, to my Democratic friends or interlocutors, as “the four-time nominee of your party.” That would bring them up a little short — for a second or two.

Anyway, Mark Steyn should have the last word on this little Frist flap: 'If Democrats really want to take the view that an incompetent crackhead is beyond criticism because of his race, then feel free.'"

That's hilarious!

Chilling words from a top Zimbabwe official:

"And Didymus Mutasa, ZANU-PF's administrative secretary and senior bureaucrat, recently admitted that whittling down Zimbabwe's population from its current twelve million is his government's explicit plan. 'We would be better off,' he said, 'with only six million people ... who support the liberation struggle. ... We don't want all these extra people.' In the wake of the Rwandan genocide, Washington witnessed an impassioned round of never-agains. It's time for the Bush administration, in conjunction with the world's other great powers, to show that it was listening."

This man is talking about getting rid of six million people! President Robert Mugabe has created an economic mess that is leading to the starvation of the Matabele minority and now it seems clear that the plan is to get rid of half the population through starvation.

The Christian Science Monitor is praising President Bush's war threats:

".....Bush has carved out an approach to war and terrorism marked by discipline, simplicity, and directness - and none of Mr. Clinton's reluctance to put American troops in danger. The result, on one level, is an Arab and Muslim world that now takes American power seriously and, so far, is producing results in Iraq."

"While Bill Clinton was not taken seriously by leaders in the world of Islam, George W. Bush is taken very seriously, and his words - unequivocally - are seen as quite decisive,' says Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East scholar at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, N.Y., who travels frequently to the region."

Wednesday, January 01, 2003

The New York Times has a piece titled, "Outflanked Democrats Wonder How to Catch Up in Media Wars." Democrats desperately need a counter-point to Rush Limbaugh and others, but that may be impossible.

The Democrats biggest problem is that they are severely limited by political correctness. There are some issues where the Democratic party must be inflexible and totalitarian. One issue is affirmative action. At the moment, the most important constituency of the Democrats insist that affirmative action in it's present form remains an untouchable plank in their platform. There can be no discussion of reform or elimination of this race based preference system. In fact, in some instances many Democrats virtually oppose free speech on many Democratic issues. This opposition to free speech is cloaked in attempts to silence "hate speech." Many college campuses have speech codes that are wildly supported by the Democrats. These codes allow politically correct speech while almost brutally suppressing other ideas. For instance, it's considered hate speech on many campuses to oppose affirmative action. This and other forms of hate speech are dealt with in officially and unofficially sanctioned ways. From the theft of student newspaper to the defunding of conservative groups, the left has many ways of silencing speech they disagree with. This extremism does not go unnoticed.

Another issue where the Democrats are dictated to is abortion. All attempts at any reform must be fought or else the Democrats risk losing significant numbers of voters to Ralph Nader or other far left candidates. These are examples of the way the Democrats have their hands tied. I believe that many American's see this inflexibility and become hesitant to give them the reins of power. In other words, there are far more extremists on the left than on the right.

The Democrats might argue that Republicans are dictated to by groups such as the NRA, but the problem with that argument is that the NRA is a proponent of a right that is plainly spelled out in the Constitution of the US. It's plain for all to see that gun ownership is guaranteed in that document. The left attempts to spin that fact away like Michael Bellesiles did in his book, but the fact remains that the Republicans have staked out a reasonable position based on what the Constitution explicitly says. The words abortion and affirmative action are not found in the Constitution while the document explicitly speaks about gun rights.

Democrats might also argue that Republicans are puppets of big business. That is the sort of language excess that further drives people away from the Democratic party. It's widely understood that both parties are deeply beholden to business. Also, Republicans grudgingly admit that Democrats are the reason for the labor laws we have today. They are directly responsible for limiting the abuse that corporations use to heap on the workers. In short, the bigger labor problems have been solved thanks to Democratic leadership.

The Democrats will not have a counter point to Rush Limbaugh and others until fundamental changes take place within their party. In many cases they are prevented from honestly discussing the issues because to do so would create a devastating rift within their party. I don't see anyway out for Democrats. They can't logically and reasonably address many issues. Many of the things that Democrats believe are emotion based like affirmative action and hate crime legislation. Hate crime legislation is an emotional response to crime against minorities and gays. It's always devastating for anyone who is a victim of a crime, but hate crime legislation implies that it's more outrageous to commit crimes against minorities or gay people. The justification of hate crime laws is nearly always framed in emotional terms. If you oppose hate crime legislation, just as with affirmative action, you will be vilified as a racist or bigot. These are usually not logical responses to opposition, but are deeply emotional responses. That's to say, proponents of these policies get their feelings hurt when you oppose them. That's a terrible way to win an argument, but sadly the Democrats got away with it for years.

Happily, the worm has turned. What worked in the past is no longer working. More and more people started to understand that opposition to Democratic beliefs did not make them a racist or bigot. In fact, people are openly rejecting those charges instead of prostrating themselves before the gods of political correctness and begging forgiveness. We still have a ways go to, but the fact that the Democrats are losing the media wars is very encouraging.

I was holding my breath as we approached the New Year. I thought that would be a prime opportunity for some crazy bastard to kill a million of us at one fell swoop on international television.

You've got admire the people who were at Times Square last night. It was an act of bravery to celebrate the New Year in NYC. I am so proud to call those people my fellow Americans. They knew they were particularly at risk, but they still showed up to have fun while at the same time showing the world a defiant face.

Happy New Year! May the new year bring me and you happiness and joy.

Tuesday, December 31, 2002

I was reading this piece at Frontpage Magazine about how obsessed Hollywood is with Fidel Castro when I came across this quote from Emmy-award winning director Saul Landau:

"Landau did not deny that Castro's rule has included suppression of a free press and multi-party electoral process, but said like in any revolution, 'they broke a lot of eggs' to achieve their goals."

That's unbelievable to me, but it's typical of the left. To them, Stalin was forced to murder tens of millions of people to achieve his goals of social and economic justice. He was breaking a few eggs.

In the wake of revelations that five men of Middle Eastern origin had been smuggled into the US from Canada, Canada.com releases a poll that shows that 67% of Canadians think the US is acting like a bully.

This poll tells me that Canadians don't care about America and American lives. You know what I say to that? I say, FUCK CANADA.

Monday, December 30, 2002

Victor Davis Hanson has a brilliant and optimistic (for the US) piece on the coming war against Iraq. Some excerpts:

"In the post-Saddam chaos, a daily staple of news reports will be tours of Saddam's Ceausescu-like palaces and exposés of material excesses that would make Imelda Marcos blush — along with horrific tales from survivors of his gulag and glimpses into his labyrinth of torture. It won't be a pretty picture."

"Their faux ministers (in Arab nations) and bought intellectuals talk of anti-Americanism ad nauseam, failing to realize that the American people have had it with all of them."

"Europeans can forgive hating the Jews or odium toward the United States, but cannot so easily swallow subsidized ingratitude. Blowing up the World Trade Center is one thing; talk of attacks on the Vatican by foreign welfare recipients are quite another.

Most privately confess that the American military, far from being an agency of empire, more or less defends them from those against whom they wish to be protected — and that neither collectively nor individually could European states respond forcefully to a 9/11-type assault. Should the pope be targeted or the Acropolis toppled, they know the Americans will be hunting the perpetrators whom they themselves have for so long placated."

It's coming. And soon.

Sunday, December 29, 2002

Phillip Richards (via Arts and Letters Daily) has an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education about black students at Colgate. The reason Professor Richards wrote this article is because of an event that happened last year:

"The uproar began when Barry Shain, a tenured white political scientist at Colgate, wrote in an e-mail message to a female black student that minority students were often seduced into unchallenging courses where liberal professors, who were "sensitive" to their needs, gave them inflated grades. That practice, Shain continued, harmed black students, who were generally less well prepared academically than their white peers. He further complained that a growing number of courses encouraged students to examine their feelings as a way to explore racial issues. The message was widely disseminated to other students without his knowledge."

The resulting furor was/is exactly what one would expect in our supercharged PC nation:

"At a campus meeting about the incident, black students broke down and cried. During a collegewide panel discussion on diversity, a male black student, incoherent with rage, publicly denounced Shain. Angry black students began a sit-in in the main administration building.

Some black students told me that the incident had intensified the academic and social anxieties that they had already experienced at Colgate. They observed that few, if any, Colgate faculty members had stood up to contest Shain's assertion that black students were less well prepared and educated than their white counterparts."

As painful and hurtful as it is, what Shain said is the truth and Professor Richards seems to reluctantly agree although he blames it all on the whiteness of the university:

"The most thoughtful black students remarked, however, that Shain had simply aired a long-hidden truth about life at the college, that they were just being confronted with the reality of their stigma as black students at Colgate and in a predominantly white society.

Unfortunately, I had to agree with them. As one of the only tenured black professors who has lived in Hamilton and taught at Colgate for more than a few years, I have found that it is difficult to avoid the fact of African-American marginality at Colgate, where the tone is set by an upper-class white culture. A little less than 4 percent of the student body is African-American."

I might be wrong, but it sounds like Richards is saying that if only Colgate would change and become a radical leftwing self-esteem based multicultural university, if only there were more black students and black professors, many many more, then the problem would go away. Of course! How about some African studies courses? Then come the gender issue courses. Women's studies. Tranvestite studies. All that's needed are the usual multicultural and politically correct leftists and courses to make Colgate a better school. If only Colgate would add more useless self-esteem courses and questionably qualified affirmative action faculty members then black students would do better! Of course! It's all so clear! Good grief.

The black man's academic problems are blamed on whitey, but the problem is an inherent belief within the black community that scholastic achievement is too close to "acting white." Smart black people are ridiculed by other black people. "You're trying to be white" they say. The fact of the matter is that the academic shortcomings of blacks occur way before they get to universities such as Colgate. Professor Richards is loathe to admit it, but black academic underachievement begins at home.

Glenn Reynolds the Instapundit has an excellent piece on weblogs and bloggers. He calls 2002 "The Year of the Blog." Reynolds' piece has many links to various types of weblogs.

I wish someone I knew would start a weblog.

This piece in Tech Central Station on Global Warming is prime Soapbox material. When the leftists in that room start talking about Kyoto and how evil the US is for ignoring that deeply flawed, yet Euro-friendly, treaty I'll whip this link out.

Too easy, hehehe.

I have been following the harassment of conservatives at Arizona State University for several months and now Oubai Shahbandar tells the whole story. I have followed the story and know well how suppressive the university administration has become towards conservatives on that campus. This is how it started:

"It all began last year when, immediately following the terror attacks of 9-11, a slew of "teach-ins" were held – sponsored in part by university funds – imploring fellow ASU students to "understand the reasoning behind 9-11." This, in turn, became a series of hour-long sessions dedicated to "educating" the students on how "imperialism" and America's lack of concern for "international social justice" led to the horrific attacks.

In essence, we were being sold the seditious lie that it was "America's fault," that the terrorists were merely reacting to far greater atrocities on our part."

We are all familiar with this. The left all over the world said it was our foreign policy that caused the attacks as if those Arab Muslims were freedom fighters striking back at us over our Central America policy of 15 years ago. The truth is that Osama declared war on us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. He didn't give a shit about the Palestinians or Central America. He was pissed because we were in Saudi Arabia. Why were we in Saudi Arabia? We were there because Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. If that crazy bastard had cornered the oil market he would have used that money to buy even greater weapons and larger armies. He had to be stopped and we were the only ones who could do it.

Back to Arizona State. I have written a few letters to that university. This page has an email link to President Michael Crow. Send him an email, but keep it civil. If you call him names and cuss him he will probably ignore what you say as the ravings of a lunatic. Here's my letter:

Dr. Crow

I have been following events at Arizona State University for many months now. Whether it's accurate to say it or not, the fact is that your university appears to be a hotbed of leftwing extremism. Ordinarily varied opinions on a university campuses are desired and should be encouraged, but this article http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30101 by Oubai Shahbandar makes it clear that leftists on your campus are highly intolerant of dissenting opinions. It's also clear that the administration is an active participant in the suppression of conservative opinion. In short, your university has runaway PC and only one opinion is being allowed to be heard. Your administration is directly responsible because it has done such idiotic things as to remove an American flag from Sonora Hall because it might "offend" people. That's insane. You can't continue to be big brother and protect students from every little thing that makes them cry. To be sure there has to be a line, but the American flag is hardly the place to draw that line.

I am disgusted by your university. I will continue to follow the leftwing extremism on your university campus and I will report these events on my personal weblog.

Sean Roper