Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Thursday, October 30, 2003

Ann Coulter versus the New York Times:

According to the Times, Brown has "declared war on the mainstream legal values that most Americans hold dear." What the Times means by "mainstream legal values" is: off-the-charts unpopular positions favored by NAMBLA, the ACLU and The New York Times editorial page.

Thus, for example, opposition to partial-birth abortion – opposed by 70 percent of the American people – is "out of the mainstream."

Support for the death penalty – supported by 70 percent of the American people – is "out of the mainstream."

Opposition to government-sanctioned race discrimination – which voters in the largest state in the nation put on an initiative titled Proposition 209 and enacted into law – is "out of the mainstream."

Opposition to gay marriage – opposed by 60 percent of the American people – is "out of the mainstream."

Failing to recognize that totally nude dancing is "speech" is "out of the mainstream."

Questioning whether gay Scoutmasters should be taking 14-year-old boys on overnight sleepovers in the woods is "out of the mainstream."

I guess if your "mainstream" includes Roman Polanski, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Jacques Chirac, then Brown really is "out of the mainstream." This proverbial "stream" they're constantly referring to is evidently located somewhere in France.

Liberals are always complaining that they haven't figured out how to distill their message to slogans and bumper stickers – as they allege Republicans have. Though it can't be easy to fit the entire Communist Manifesto on a bumper sticker, I beg to differ. (Bumper sticker version of the current Democratic platform: "Ask me about how I'm going to raise your taxes.")


I would say this is Coulter at her best.

Wow. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at 7.2% last quarter. That's astounding. That's the greatest jump since 1984. The Democrats are in deep doo doo.

Here's a longer report about the numbers just out.

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

From David Frum's Diary on NR:

Dissent for Me, but not for Thee

Seven Canadian Anglican priests face discipline--possibly up to excommunication--for their views on same-sex marriage. They're against it. After years of demanding tolerance for dissenting views, the former dissenters once in power are apparently determined to ensure that debate ends: forever.


Apparently it's only okay to dissent on issues the left opposes.

If this were 1944 and the Normandy invasions were ongoing this is probably how it would be reported. Max Boot in the LA Times:

"More than 8,000 Allied servicemen were wounded, 3,000 of them fatally, during an assault on Normandy beaches yesterday. Despite those heavy casualties, almost all of France remains under Nazi occupation. The supreme Allied commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, claimed that everything had gone according to plan, but a number of retired military officers suggested that the invasion is in grave danger of failing."

Wow. Brian Anderson in City Journal features a long examination of the groundbreaking changes in communications that marks a transformation in our political discourse.

This is a must read. It's also a fun read for conservatives and a deeply depressing read for liberals. My favorite part is the discussion of South Park, the Comedy Central tv show:

Andrew Sullivan dubs the fans of all this cable-nurtured satire “South Park Republicans”—people who “believe we need a hard-ass foreign policy and are extremely skeptical of political correctness” but also are socially liberal on many issues, Sullivan explains. Such South Park Republicanism is a real trend among younger Americans, he observes: South Park’s typical viewer, for instance, is an advertiser-ideal 28.

Talk to right-leaning college students, and it’s clear that Sullivan is onto something. Arizona State undergrad Eric Spratling says the definition fits him and his Republican pals perfectly. “The label is really about rejecting the image of conservatives as uptight squares—crusty old men or nerdy kids in blue blazers. We might have long hair, smoke cigarettes, get drunk on weekends, have sex before marriage, watch R-rated movies, cuss like sailors—and also happen to be conservative, or at least libertarian.” Recent Stanford grad Craig Albrecht says most of his young Bush-supporter friends “absolutely cherish” South Park–style comedy “for its illumination of hypocrisy and stupidity in all spheres of life.” It just so happens, he adds, “that most hypocrisy and stupidity take place within the liberal camp.”


There is so much from this article I would like to cut and paste here, but the best thing to do is to go read it yourself.

Monday, October 27, 2003

You think I may have been hasty to condemn Ashton Kutcher for supporting a point of view that I believe is disastrous to our country? Check out Byron York's latest piece in National Review. It's about a poll taken among Democratic voters. The bottom line?:


The bottom line is that if a Democrat wins the White House next year, and listens to his party's most ardent supporters, he will simply shut down the war on terrorism.

Of course, no president would do that — or at least do so as abruptly as his followers might want — but the Democracy Corps poll suggests that, whatever else it is about, the 2004 election will decide whether Americans want to keep fighting terrorism or not.


Democrats had this same attitude about the Cold War. Many of them were ready to end it in the 1970's as Mona Charen makes abundantly clear in her book, Useful Idiots. (I just bought that book on Amazon) Now history is repeating itself and Ashton Kutcher has chosen which side he's on.

I haven't linked to Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column in quite some time. Here are some tidbits from Friday's column:


I wanted to be sure that you caught the recent words of Andrew Cuomo, the former (Clinton) HUD secretary and New York gubernatorial candidate. They come in an essay published in a new book for which he is called editor: Crossroads: The Future of American Politics. Referring to 9/11 — and Democrats — Cuomo writes, "We fumbled the seminal moment of our lives." While President Bush "exemplified leadership at a time when America was desperate for a leader," the Democrats offered "chaos." Cuomo: "We handled 9/11 like it was a debate over a highway bill instead of a matter of people's lives. People wanted leadership and they didn't get it from the Democrats."


This is the perfect. It shows contemporary Democratic politics in all it's glory:


Who's the most objectionable congressmen of all? I wouldn't hazard a guess, but a promising candidate would be L.A. rep Xavier Becerra, for reasons I won't go into here. Anyway, he has proposed a National Museum of the American Latino for the Mall and Smithsonian. Someone once said in a different context — I believe it was Clarence Pendleton about "comparable worth" — "This is the looniest idea since Looney Tunes." But ours is a country, sadly, hospitable to loony ideas. And we are becoming ever more soaked in "identity politics." We are barely allowed to be Americans; we have to be all Balkanized up. It's amazing that the American social pot isn't boiling more than it is. (When it comes to American pots, I prefer melting.)

The realization of Becerra's museum would be a national tragedy. May I suggest that "we" — someone — start the campaign against it now?


Finally, there's this from Nordlinger's typically delightful column:

Last, we'll do a little language. My final item yesterday mentioned West Virginia — or rather, a reader of mine had written that a West Virginia co-worker had said "physical" in place of "fiscal." And then I signed off, "Bye, y'ounse."

That sign-off elicited a crush of mail saying, "That word [y'ounse, or yunz, or yinz, meaning "you ones"] is not West Virginian! It's Pittsburghese!" Ah, but hasty ones, remember that West Virginia's Northern Panhandle is very close to Pittsburgh, and that some West Virginia towns are virtual Pittsburgh suburbs.

About physical/fiscal, one exceedingly well-informed reader sent the following: "I can say this as a West Virginian, and wouldn't much care to hear it from anyone else, but physical instead of fiscal is a common mispronunciation in the southern part of the state (South of 60, as in U.S. 60, we say around here).

"I grew up in the state's Northern Panhandle, and never heard such a thing. But when I came to [City X] as a young reporter I heard an elected official say that the county was 'in good shape, physically speaking.' I spent the next hour or so calling around and researching trying to figure out how one could come to such a conclusion about a place where so many of the residents were obviously, um . . . quite robust.

"I ended up calling the official at home, to ask him about his comments. He had a good laugh at my expense — he didn't think he had been wrong, he just thought I was ignorant of good elocution.

"Since then I've heard it spoken that way almost universally and even read it a few times. I've realized that they aren't really misspeaking, but rather believe that this is the word. Sort of a localized 'irregardless.' It always gives me a little laugh."

Hey, what's wrong with "irregardless"??? Perfectly natural in my home state of Michigan: a mellifluous combination of "irrespective" and "regardless." It's in the dictionary too, I'll have you know.

And consider this: "Jay, I lived in West Virginia for twelve years. Even the very educated natives pronounce 'fiscal' as 'physical.' It seems to be a regional thing. It's akin to my friends from Pennsylvania (one of whom holds a Ph.D. in chemistry) who pronounce 'picture' as 'pitcher.'"

Yup, there's that too — all part of that great, multifaceted language we may think of as American.

So, Drudge is reporting that Ashton Kutcher has come out publicly in support of John Edwards for president. That is his right of course, but I wish a little bit more with each passing endorsement that Hollywood celebrities would refrain from publicly declaring their support. Here's my letter to Kutcher:

Mr. Kutcher

Since you decided to formally declare your political support I thought I would tell you that you have lost a fan. I won't be watching your show on Fox or MTV and I won't be seeing your movies.

When will Hollywood celebrities learn that people simply don't care what you Hollywood leftists believe? Of course you have every right to be politically active just I have every right to oppose you.

Your support for John Edwards (my senator BTW) means that you have joined the likes of Barbra Streisand, Woody Harrelson, Sean Penn, and other such Hollywood stars in this most critical time in our nations history. You have chosen sides and publicly declared your support for a point of view that I consider to be disastrous for our country if it were ever implemented.

I thank God for President Bush. He will defend the American people and you have joined the side who will not.

It may sound silly, but I imagine the Democrats response to 9/11 would have been to put us all into to sensitivity and diversity training so we could understand what we did to bring those brave attacks on our evil nation. That pretty much sums up the side you have joined.

I was a fan, but now you have lost me forever. It would have been better if you had kept your mouth shut. But, as I said, you have every right to express your opinion. As it so happens, so do I.

Sean Roper

Sunday, October 26, 2003

Americans are taking over Mexico's Baja Peninsula:

Americans living throughout Baja say their new neighbors include professionals in their 30's and 40's putting down roots, not just retirees in recreational vehicles. In Rosarito, the new home buyers include lawyers and members of the military who commute across the border to San Diego, where housing costs are about five times higher. A pleasant house by the Pacific in Rosarito can cost less than $150,000; property taxes are about $75 a year.

The Americans living in Rosarito set up a municipal office in April. Two members are Ed Jones, an entertainer, and Rita Gullicson, a teacher.

Americans "want to claim Baja as part of the United States, and they always have," Ms. Gullicson said. Mr. Jones finished her thought, saying, "And now they are doing it with money."

Baja's future, Mexican officials say, lies in American land investment. The government strongly promotes foreign direct investment, which is the only reliable source of economic growth in Mexico.

Here in the empty streets of Nopal, the future is coming on fast. A totally American town is about to be built.


Mexico is being overrun by Americans? Hmmm. That's almost surreal.

The Washington Times features a story about congressional delegations to Iraq and how the visits are convincing the skeptics that things are indeed going much better than is/was being reported.

A very short editorial in the New York Post:

"She is a conservative, African-American woman, and for some that alone disqualifies her nomination to the D.C. Circuit, widely considered a stepping stone to the United States Supreme Court."

- Orrin Hatch, chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, commenting last week on liberal opposition to the nomination to the federal bench of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown



I saw a large part of this lady's testimony to the Senate Judiciary committee the other day and I was impressed. She grew up a sharecropper's daughter in segregated Alabama. She knows what racism is.

The opposition this woman is facing from black Democrats only reinforces for me what Walter and Kamau told me: The only opinion they, and leftists like them, want to hear is from black Democrats. Preferably far leftwing Democrats. They don't want to hear anyone else's ideas. They want black thought to range from centrist Democrat to far leftwing Democrat and that's it.

Mrs. Brown threatens the near monolith that is black thought. She represents new thinking and that scares the crap out of the people at the top; the black elite who insist they know what is best for black people and who won't abide any deviation from the borg like collective. She must be stopped because her ideas threaten the people who make their living from the status quo.

The opposition this fine woman is facing is because she has the nerve to think for herself and express views that threatens the hold Democrats have on the black vote.

The Florida Marlins last night beat the New York Yankees to win the World Series.

I have been reading Rich Lowry's new book, Legacy.

The legacy in question Bill Clinton's. Remember how important that was to him and how he was scrambling around to get a Mideast settlement so that he could cement his "legacy"? Well, Lowry's book certainly discusses his legacy.

I have to say this isn't some smear job by a kook such as Al Franken. This is a serious, footnoted, attempt to document the Clinton years. It's pretty devastating to the Clinton legacy because Lowry uses quotes from Clinton administration officials, major newspapers and magazines, Hillary Clinton, and White House memos to remind the reader of the historical record of the Clinton years.

Lowry has written a great book that history will use to recall the Clinton legacy.

Nancy Pelosi is likening the arrest of criminals to "terrorism."

The "victims" in this case are illegal aliens in Wal-Mart stores. It's attitudes like this that created the current illegal immigration problem that our border states have right now. Did she ever think that if these people weren't here illegally that perhaps they wouldn't be subject to the enforcement of our laws? Pelosi would probably love to just throw open the borders if for no other reason than to have more Democratic voters.