Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, June 28, 2003

Joshua Muravchik takes on three different "prophets of gloom" who are predicting American decline.

I love this sort of article because I get to see "experts" have the foundations of their arguments knocked out from under them.

The Opinion Journal has a piece that makes it clear that Saddam is counting on leftists, Democrats, and the others who opposed the war to help restore him to power:

"There's also a message here for the U.S. political class: Saddam is counting on the media and politicians to continue their bureaucratic navel-gazing since the main fighting ended. He wants them to re-parse every Pentagon word, and to interview every CIA analyst, to somehow show that liberating Iraq was a mistake. While the Beltway spins, he and his Baathists can plot their return."

Wow. Canada has the second largest oil reserve in the world. It's been officially recognized. The problem is that it's not just waiting to be pumped out of the ground. Canada's oil reserves are found in tar sands and it's only now become economically viable to separate the oil from the "clay, sand and other unwanted stuff."

It's still easier to get oil from the Middle East, but maybe someday technology will allow Canada to tap into this vast reserve.

I've been reading the National Security Agency's Venona project to understand for myself the context of the McCarthy hearings and Ann Coulter's defense of McCarthy. Here's an interesting tidbit:

"The 1944 and 1945 messages mainly involve U.S. individuals and organizations caught up in a massive Soviet espionage effort--over 100 Americans, most of them Communists, are mentioned in the translations of this release. Some of the organizations infilitrated by these include the following:

U.S. Agency Some of the Relevant VENONA Translations

Department of the Treasury NY No. 1119-1121, 4-5 Aug 44 NY No. 1634, 20 Nov 44
Office of Strategic Services (OSS) NY No. 954, 20 Sep 44
War Department NY No. 1721-28, 8 Dec 44
Department of State Wash. No. 1822, 30 Mar 45
Department of Justice NY No. 27, 8 Jan 45


The translations disclose agents with access to the White House, Congress, and political parties, as well as agents in the media and in high tech defense industries. New York messages no. 1635, 21 Nov 1944 and no. 12-16, 4 Jan 1945 reveal assets and in-fighting relating to ROBERT's (Greg Silvermaster) large KGB net in government departments and agencies in Washington."

Soviet communist espionage within the U.S. government was very real. It wasn't some figment of McCarthy's imagination.

Friday, June 27, 2003

I've said this before, but I'm going to take this opportunity to make the point again.

Leftists, or democrats or liberals if you prefer, love government. To them, government spending is the best measure of compassion. Ben Johnson sums it up in his piece titled, "The Death Knell of the Democratic Party"

"At last, one sees how the Democratic Left can claim that Iraqis were “better off” before their enthusiastic liberation. For the Left, morality is best expressed in terms of government spending."

Thursday, June 26, 2003

Ann Coulter's latest touches on Joseph McCarthy's hearings in the 1950's.

Ann is arguing, as she did last night on Hannity and Colmes, that McCarthy was right and she cites decrypted Soviet cables from the period to support her view. The decrypted cables were part of the Venona Project and this is how the NSA describes the project:

"In July 1995 the Intelligence Community ended a 50-year silence regarding one of cryptology's most splendid successes - the VENONA Project. VENONA was the codename used for the U.S. Signals Intelligence effort to collect and decrypt the text of Soviet KGB and GRU messages from the 1940's. These messages provided extraordinary insight into Soviet attempts to infiltrate the highest levels of the United States Goverment.

Today, we are proud to offer these exceptional documents on the NSA home page and we invite you to study and interpret them in the context of history. NSA has declassified over 3000 messages related to VENONA. We believe they will not only provide a window into Soviet espionage during the 1940's, but will also give you a glimpse of the important contributions signals intelligence and cryptographic expertise make to our nation's security."

Coulter is arguing that McCarthy was absolutely correct; that there was a concerted effort by the Soviet Union to infiltrate the highest levels of our government and that the Venona Project makes this perfectly clear.

In truth I haven't studied the NSA's documents just yet so I can only relate what Coulter is saying. I will check out the NSA's site later on and make my comments on what can be found there.

But anyway, Coulter is saying that liberals were sympathetic to the Soviet Union and this makes good sense to me. At the time, many liberals supported communism and socialism as the wave of the future. It was not clear at all that capitalism was superior to socialism. The debate was very heated. Prominent leftwing intellectuals such as Lincoln Steffens, Louis Fischer, John Strachey, Maurice Hindus, Malcolm Cowley, Granville Hicks, Theodore Dreiser, Dashiell Hammett, Paul de Kruif, James Weldon Johnson, Archibald MacLeish, George Soule, Langston Hughes, George Seldes, Richard Wright, Newton Arvin, Van Wyck Brooks, Kenneth Burke, Erskine Caldwell, Dorothy Parker, S.J. Perelman, Irwin Shaw, Irving Stone, Vincent Sheean, Upton Sinclair, Carl Van Doren, Louis Untermeyer, William Carlos Williams, Lillian Hellman, Henry Roth, Max Lerner, Heywood Broun, Ring Lardner Jr., and Nathaniel West all defended the Soviet Union. Newspapers columnists such as Walter Duranty also publicly defended the Soviet Union. In fact, Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for "for [his] dispatches on Russia especially the working out of the Five Year Plan." They were, said the Pulitzer Board "marked by scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment and exceptional clarity…."

So the record from that era is clear. Liberals and Democrats defended the Soviet Union and Joseph McCarthy was not paranoid. There were Soviet spies within the U.S. government.

What made this a controversy was the fact that Democrats could not admit to the American people what they had done. What they had done was to defend a murderous regime that had slaughtered tens of millions of people. Therefore, it was necessary to shriek and scream and divert attention away from their own disgusting behavior. Thus, as Coulter explained last night, the Democrats were the ones who forced McCarthy to name the people he suspected of being communists. Coulter went on to explain that McCarthy was reluctant to name his suspects because some of the people may have been innocent. But the Democrats wouldn't let it go and as soon as they won, and forced McCarthy to name his suspects, they pounced on him. This began the hysterical, foaming-at-the-mouth accusation of McCarthyism.

I have got to get Coulter's new book. No matter how tight money is. I gotta have it.

Finally. It took me long enough, but I now have comments. Feel free.

Man, talk about appeasing evil. It was revealed yesterday that former South Korean president, Kim Dae-jung, paid North Korean $100 million to take part in a reconciliation summit. Here's the link to the story and here's the first line from the report:

"THE 2000 Nobel Peace Prize won by former South Korean president Kim Dae-jung was under a cloud yesterday after an independent investigator found his government had secretly paid communist North Korea $US100 million ($151 million) to take part in a reconciliation summit."

No wonder North Korean has been trying to blackmail the world. It worked before so they've coming back to see if it will work again.

Good grief. South Korea is stupid beyond belief.

Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Iraqi soldiers are already surrendering:

"The Paras are a tough, battle-hardened lot but were moved by the plight of the Iraqis. There was nothing they could do other than send them back.

"They were a motley bunch and you could barely describe them as soldiers - they were poorly equipped and didn't even have proper boots. Their physical condition was dreadful and they had obviously not had a square meal for ages."

So, now we have another group of people to fight for. The average Iraqi soldier is a conscripted victim in Saddam's games They don't want to fight and hopefully they will be freed from their bondage soon.

This report reinforces my belief that we are doing the right thing.

Here's my letter to the Screen Actors Guild's webmaster. I know, letters are supposed to be about technical issues or the website itself, but I sent the webmaster this letter because the SAG doesn't have an email address. They know better. Anyway, here's the letter:

I hope Hollywood pays a steep price for their anti-Americanism. I call it anti-Americanism because their was no attempt by Hollywood to pressure Saddam Hussein to disarm. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None.

Where were the protests in front of the Iraqi embassies? The peace protesters were not interested in getting Saddam to comply with U.N. resolutions. The only thing they were interested in was establishing their anti-American and leftwing credentials.

I will remember the leftwing entertainers who sided with Saddam against the U.S. and President Bush. I hope they aren't allowed to forget that they never asked Saddam to disarm. Not once did Martin Sheen, Danny Glover, Sean Penn, Woody Harrelson, Barbra Streisand, Janeane Garofalo or Sheryl Crow demand that Saddam disarm. All of their protests were aimed at the U.S. The effect was to choose Saddam over the U.S. I'll never forget.

Sean Roper

More articles are appearing in response to the Washington Post's recent piece about Whiteness Studies. Chris Weinkopf has a good piece. Here are some excerpts:

"There is plenty to blame whiteness for,” says CSWAC co-founder and executive director Jeff Hitchcock “There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of color. There is no crime that we have not committed even against ourselves. … We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today that deny the rights of those outside of whiteness and which damage and pervert the humanity of those of us within it.”

Hitchcock is making all the same stupid accusations against white people as if we are the only ones throughout history who have ever committed crimes against other people. This was the way of mankind for thousands and thousands of years.

I love Weinkopf's response in this excerpt:

"The stated goal of Whiteness Studies enthusiasts is to make race-consciousness a permanent part of American life for white people. “Historically,” the Washington Post quotes Howard Winant, a sociology professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, as saying, “it has been common to see whites as a people who don’t have a race, to see racial identity as something others have. It’s a great advance to start looking at whiteness as a group.” Winant echoes a recurring theme in the WS curriculum, that whites can happily live a “raceless” existence, while for minorities, evidence of their difference is ubiquitous.

But who’s fault is that? Ever since the triumph of the American civil-rights movement nearly four decades ago, it’s left-wing racial agitators and academics who have most bitterly resisted the transition to a color-blind society through hyphenated-Americanism, affirmative action, and—ironically—multiculturalism.

Nowhere is this more clearly the case than on modern-day college campuses, which, under the left’s design, have become thoroughly balkanized, with racial minorities confined to their own dorms, culture clubs, and academic departments. The process of segregation begins with separate but unequal orientation programs, and extends all the way to racially segregated graduation ceremonies.

Having spent decades erecting what they thought would be race-coded utopias, academics are slowly coming to realize that, instead, they’ve created racial ghettoes. When African-American students are nudged into their own campus centers, the main campus center becomes the de facto white student center—one much larger and more prominent. Ditto for the “white” orientation programs and graduation ceremonies, or the “white” fields of academic study which are, presumably, all those not designated as belonging to some other race or ethnicity. As one UMass student complained in the Washington Post, “other classes, like economics, politics and history, are about whiteness.”

Tuesday, June 24, 2003

I like this by Andrew Sullivan (emphasis mine):

"The premise is that after 9/11, only rock-solid evidence of illicit weapons prgrams and proven ties to terrorists could justify a pre-emptive war to depose Saddam. But the point of 9/11 was surely the opposite: that the burden of proof now lay on people denying such a threat, not those fearing it. Would I rather we had an administration that remained Solomon-like in the face of inevitably limited and muddled intelligence and sought the kind of rock-solid consensus on everything that would satisfy Jacques Chirac or the BBC (or John Kerry)? Or would I rather we had a president who realized that post-9/11 it was prudent to be highly concerned about such weapons and connections and better, by and large, to be safe than sorry? Condi was clear about this distinction: "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." I don't think that's hype. I think it's prudence. Do I wish in retrospect that the Bushies - and more pertinently, the Blairites - had been doubly careful in not saying things that couldn't be proven? Yes. Does this prove them to be liars and irresponsible leaders? Nope, as even the New York Times concedes. It simply shows that they used all sorts of inevitably hazy pieces of intelligence in order to remove what was clearly a potential danger to the region and the world. They screwed up in a few small ways. They triumphed in the one big way that mattered. No historical revisionism will change that."

My letter to the editor follows in response to this letter in the SF Chronicle by Purvi Patel who's complaining about what it took for her to become a U.S. citizen. Here's my letter:

Editor

Fuck Purvi Patel.

She is free to leave at any time.

Oh, and don't give me any crap about her right to free speech and how I'm infringing that right. I'm going to practice my right to free speech too and tell her that she's a goddamn idiot. She can leave if she doesn't like the United States of America.

No one is making her stay and if she can find a better life anywhere on the planet then I encourage her to take advantage of that opportunity. Purvi, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Coming soon: CoulterGeist. That would be Ann Coulter's weblog. Oh man. I can't wait.

Monday, June 23, 2003

President Bush will go down in history as a great president. Perhaps one of the five greatest for his presidency during the immediate post 9/11 U.S. He has rooted out evil in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now it appears that the terror masters in Iran will also fall.

What an extraordinary turns of events we have all witnessed these past two years. I hope we will all remember that European and American leftists, or liberals if you prefer, opposed President Bush nearly every step of the way. Their sniping went on and on. Their hysterical ravings and conspiracy theories were aimed at thwarting President Bush at every turn. They wanted power and control more than they wanted the U.S. to win this war against terror. They wanted to see President Bush fail (which would have meant that the U.S. failed disastrously) more than anything else. They want to rule and whatever has to happen for them to realize that dream is ok. It would serve the left's purpose if the U.S. were catastrophically attacked with WMD's.

Many leftists opposed our attack on Afghanistan, many more opposed our attack on Iraq, and many many more warned Bush against any attack on Syria and Iran even though those were never a real possibility. From the beginning they screamed about "never ending war" or "perpetual war." The idea was to escalate the anti-war protests with each threat to their ideological cousins. They made wild accusations of civilian and military deaths to whip up support for their cause. They made wild accusations of secret plots by Jews and neo-conservatives to take over the world's oil supply and to use war against terror as the excuse. They made wild predictions that the Arab street would explode in revolt against the U.S. Thousands and thousands of Osama-lites were also predicted. They said if we invaded Iraq, we would watch thousands of American soldiers die in a fruitless attempt to take fortress Baghdad. They said our soldiers would be gassed or exposed to biological agents if we attacked Saddam.

President Bush heard the protests, he knew the risks involved, and he knew that he alone had to choose the best course of action to protect American lives. He made the right choice in nearly every single instance. Now, as a result of his extraordinary leadership, we may finally find a solution to the Middle East impasse.

The dominoes are falling. State supporters of terrorism are being wiped out and overthrown. The greatest threats to world peace are being eliminated. Europe and the American left were wrong. They did everything they could do to stop President Bush from defending the U.S. They did everything they could to stop these amazing turn of events. We should never forget what they did; the protests, the hysteria, and the insane conspiracies they imagined.

The left hates America and these past couple of years has exposed them for what they are. They never protested and demanded that Saddam disarm or allow the weapons inspectors unfettered access for the 12 years he played cat and mouse. Not once. Not once was there a march on the U.N. to demand that Saddam disarm or otherwise prove that he had disarmed. But damn they sure protested the U.S. That, more than anything else, exposed their hatred of the U.S. It was never a war protest. They had anti-American rallies. We should never forget that.

It delights me to be on the right side of history. Furthermore it delights me to see that the Democrats have lost their collective minds in the wake of these amazing turn of events:

"This republic is at its greatest danger in its history because of this administration," says Democratic senator Robert Byrd.

"I think this is deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America," says liberal commentator Bill Moyers.

George Bush's economic policy is the "most radical and dangerous economic theory to hit our shores since socialism," says Senator John Edwards.

"The Most Dangerous President Ever" is the title of an essay in the American Prospect by Harold Meyerson, in which it is argued that the president Bush most closely resembles is Jefferson Davis."

Yes, they've lost it and it may take years for them to recover.

Michael Ledeen is floating on an emotional high.

I've read a lot of his work the past couple of years and I can tell that he is walking on clouds over developments in Iran. Here's what he says in his latest piece:

"Win or lose, democratic revolution has broken out in Iran. Even the fragmentary reports from journalists operating under tight regime control in very limited areas of the country show that the mass demonstrations now involve all classes and regions. This is no longer purely or even primarily a "student" movement, as it has been for the past four years -- although many of its leaders come from student ranks. People of all ages, from all walks of life, in every major city in the country, have taken to the streets every night for more than a week to demand an end to the Islamic Republic and the free election of a secular, democratic government."

"I believe we are at the beginning of the end of the mullahcracy that has oppressed and robbed the Iranian people and supported violent terrorists, from Hezbollah to Islamic Jihad, from Hamas to al Qaeda, all over the world."

I get the sense that Ledeen wrote these words with tears welling. I'm almost as happy for him as I am the Iranian and American people.

Sunday, June 22, 2003

I've thought about this all day. I don't know if I want to go here or not, but here goes nothing.

The Washington Post featured a story yesterday about the emergence of "whiteness studies" courses on college campuses.

There are two schools of thought on this. According to the Washington Post, "Advocates of whiteness studies -- most of whom are white liberals who hope to dismantle notions of race -- believe that white Americans are so accustomed to being part of a privileged majority they do not see themselves as part of a race."

On the other hand:

"David Horowitz, a conservative social critic who is white, said whiteness studies is leftist philosophy spiraling out of control. "Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women's studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil," Horowitz said."

Here are my thoughts on the subject.


It appears that, indeed, whiteness studies are being taught to demonize white people because we have been successful as a race.

Personally, I'm proud that my people, yes MY PEOPLE, have been so successful. In much the same way black people feel pride at the success of black athletes, I am proud that white people dominate the world.

We have created a successful form of government and civil society that, no matter how flawed it may be, has come to dominate the world. The white man dominates the world. There I said it. Minorities would no doubt accuse me of being a racist, but if the tables were turned, as they surely are in other ways (such as the athletic example) black people would feel proud. I can imagine a black studies professor telling his or her students why they should be proud to be black while listing black achievement. Why is it wrong for me to be proud of my race?

Who can deny that black people feel a certain pride at Tiger Woods' domination of golf? Black participation exploded in response. I remember telling a black friend about Tiger Woods before he won his first Masters tournament. The young man had never heard of him. But just two days later this friend was telling me that he and his mother had watched as Tiger won the first major tournament of his career. He was beaming. He was so proud that a black man had won that tournament. His racial pride was simply radiating from him.

The bottom line is that the white man has dominated history to this point and I'm not the least bit ashamed of it. In fact, I'm proud as hell. We played the game the way it had been played for thousands, tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of years, and had come to dominate the world. Yes, the white man used slavery, genocide, and imperial aggression to reach this point, but the fact is that every race was playing this same game.

The black man is still enslaving people in parts of Africa. We didn't invent it regardless of what the race industry would have you and me believe. Aboriginal Americans (Indians, natives of this hemisphere, whatever you want to call them) fought, murdered, enslaved, and committed the same crimes against humanity that white people did. We didn't invent that either. But the fact of the matter is that we elevated society better than anyone else. We played the game of Darwinian evolution better than any other race. In fact, we've been so successful that we're now being told we have to feel guilty and apologize. It seems we've been too successful.

The white man ended slavery. The white man is largely responsible for the current state of the world. Our technology, achievements in medicine and philosophy, the democratic form of government that allows unprecedented levels of freedom and knowledge, achievements in the arts, and the basic diffusement of what constitutes human rights are all owed to the white man. We have created the most advanced nation and nations the world has ever seen. Yes, we have been the cause of much human suffering such as Hitler and Stalin's holocausts, but we also fought to eradicate those evils just as we are now attempting to make right the years of racism and injustice that was so common just 40 years ago.

Whiteness studies have been created to make the white man feel guilty for being successful as a race. I'm not sorry one bit. I'm proud that MY PEOPLE have elevated the world in a rising white tide. Let's celebrate our whiteness just like all other races celebrate their race. I'm tired of being told I'm supposed to feel guilty for being part of a successful race. Screw that. I'm proud of my whiteness.

Wow. I hadn't thought of it this way.

The Opinion Journal is making a very persuasive case that the Democratic party is actually the conservative party in the sense that they are the ones who are opposed to change. That's the usual definition of the conservatives. Here's how the Opinion Journal puts it:

".......today's Democrats are intellectually stagnant. They are the conservative party--not in the ideological sense, but in the sense of being opposed to change: Leave Social Security alone. Don't cut taxes (but don't raise them either). Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct, and anyone who questions it is unqualified for the federal bench. Affirmative action? Defend it, don't end it. And on foreign policy, the top liberal priority is the maintenance of Cold War-era institutions and alliances."

In many ways, that is true. The battles for those issues were fought many years ago when the American people and American media were a different lot than they are today. The Democrats are not proposing anything new. They are fighting tooth and nail to maintain what they won all those years ago. That's a definition of conservatism. A desire to maintain the status quo and to seek change only very slowly.

That's a revolutionary way of thinking to my mind. I hadn't considered it. Well, I have, but not in this context. I'd realized this is how our own nation began. Our founding fathers were considered radicals.

Before the revolution, the leaders of the opposition were radicals or liberals seeking extraordinary change. When they had effected change they became conservatives in that they went from fighting for radical change to then maintaining the new government they had created with their radical ideas.