Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, February 07, 2004


I used to smoke. Five years ago I gave up the habit and I'm very happy that I did. However, I understand that people like to smoke. The little high they get helps them get through their day.

Some people are obsessed with ending smoking in public places. The mayor of New York City is one such person. Mayor Bloomberg has made it a feature of his aministration to end smoking in restaurants and bars in NYC. People are being fined for having ashtrays in their offices. I shit you not.

Now the New York Post has a story about an event for the rich and powerful in New York City where the whole room was filled with cigar smoke. Mayor Bloomberg was at the event.

As usual it appears that the rules don't apply to certain people.

Leftists don't understand why Janet Jackson's boob was so outrageous.


Why is that so hard to understand?

I know I'm obsessing on Bill Maher, but he too was dumbfounded and embarrassed at the American reaction to this episode. He doesn't seem to understand that many people care what their young children see on television.

How about this then? The reaction is due to the fact that parents weren't given a choice. They were denied the choice as to what was appropriate for their young children to see. How's that? Surely the left can understand it when it's explained that way. I'm advocating pro-viewing choices for parents. Surely the left can understand a pro-choice argument. It's about choice. Parents have the right to choose for their young children what they see and Boobgate (I didn't make that word up) took away their choice.

The problem is that the left wants to take control those sorts of issues They don't seem to think that parents should have the right to censor what their young children should see. This was the Super Bowl! In prime time! No one expected to see that. Parents were blindsided and their choice was taken away from them.

How hard is this to understand?

More proof that President Bush is doing the right things to defend America:

Abdul Qadeer Khan's TV tell-all on Wednesday established links among Islamabad, Tripoli, Tehran and Pyongyang, and showed how the fall of Baghdad damaged this network. Mr. Khan disclosed that he had traded nuclear know-how with North Korea, Iran and Libya in exchange for money and missile technology. His testimony will be invaluable in upsetting these channels of proliferation and putting further pressure on these would-be nuclear states.

These WMD dominoes began to fall last year at about the time Saddam's statue in Baghdad did. Libya's Moammar Gadhafi suddenly got serious about pledging to halt his burgeoning weapons program. Gadhafi's decision followed an interception of nuclear centrifuge parts under Mr. Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, a post-9/11 policy that seeks to disrupt weapons transfers on the oceans and in the air. The PSI has been derided by the same Clinton-era proliferation experts under whose noses Mr. Khan spread his technology.

A few weeks after Gadhafi cried uncle, Iran's mullahs invited the International Atomic Energy Agency to send scientists to inspect their nuclear facilities. Tehran needs to do much more, but its decision to at least pay lip service to IAEA inspections speaks volumes about how much the international security environment has changed.

No, Iraq under Saddam was no threat at all. Was it Bill Maher?

Attention Bill Maher! Attention Bill Maher! You jerk. Sky News is reporting on a video that was looted from one of Saddam's palaces that shows the mass murdering dictator paying large sums of cash to terrorists.

New footage has been released purporting to show Saddam Hussein paying large sums of money to a terrorist group.

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Nicholson says the footage is "incontrovertible proof" of the former Iraqi dictator's links to international terrorism.

It appears to show the former Iraqi President plotting crimes and paying money to members of an international terrorist group.

Baroness Nicholson says the group of men in the footage looked after Saddam's chemical and biological warfare.

The footage given to Sky News was reportedly looted from one of Saddam's palaces.

There has been no independent confirmation of the tapes and Sky News cannot verify their veracity.

However, Baroness Nicholson says there is no doubt the footage highlights Saddam's links to terrorism and chemical weapons.

"This is incontrovertible proof of Saddam Hussein's involvement in international terrorism," she said.

Well, well, well. I can't stand Bill Maher. He distorts the facts and the realities of the Iraq war with his humor (he is a very funny comedian) and works to create the impression that Saddam was in no way a threat at all to the world or the U.S.

I hope this video makes it way to the U.S. very soon and Maher plays it on his HBO show. I wonder if he will.

Thursday, February 05, 2004

It really is amazing how 9/11 changed so many things. Pre-9/11, we were all so nicely politically correct. Nations all over the world were allowing fund raising by the "peaceful" branches of terrorist groups. In many of the more moronically politically correct countries (Canada) such fundraising and indulgences of those "peaceful" branches of terrorist organizations are still allowed political cover.

It was about the time that President Bush started attacking the funding of terror groups that the left went ape shit. They started comparing Bush to Hitler and the U.S. to the Soviet Union. Our civil liberties had been abolished, a police state had taken over the United States of America, and the U.S. became the greatest threat to world peace.

What really happened is that the left's natural allies against the U.S. were being decimated. The political left's convenient allies in the terror community, the people who also sought to destroy the U.S. although by violent means instead of by the political means, were being wiped out one by one. The left was seeing their goal of transforming the U.S. into something resembling Europe circa 1994 imploding before their eyes and they were apoplectic. President Bush had thrown water on the wicked witch of the west and she was melting. The fury was impotent, but it was loud.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the political left advocated violence to transform the U.S. The majority didn't anyway. But the fact is that both the political left and the terrorists sought to change the U.S. in drastic ways. They had the same goal, but used different methods to achieve their goals. The overwhelming majority of the left does not advocate violence. They just hate the U.S. and want to change it so that it resembles a type of government that America's enemies approve. A state where the people are dictated to by a small minority of their betters. Betters who can tell the masses what is best for them.

I mention all this because of piece by Mark Steyn in the Jerusalem Post. He crystallized my thoughts in his excellent piece.

Steyn makes the point that terror groups are surrendering all over the world and it wouldn't have happened if President Bush hadn't went to the root of the terror problem. President Bush will be remembered for his leadership in the war on terror. Many years from now people will recognize that the man did the best thing for the U.S. and the world. And I will remember that the left fought him tooth and nail.

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

I don't link to Opinion Journal nearly enough. James Taranto's Best of the Web column is usually thought provoking and often very funny. It's among my daily reads.

Amir Taheri in the New York Post:

Our "Mother of All Inquiries" should establish a full list of companies that sold Saddam pieces of his death machine over three decades. Is it too much to ask who sold Saddam an estimated $100 billion in weapons and materiel between 1975 and 2000?

Who built Saddam's first atomic center, launching his nuclear weapons program?

Who were the estimated 6,000 Western and Russian technicians who, according to Tariq Aziz (one of Saddam's most faithful minions), worked in Iraqi military industries throughout the 1980s?

We also would like to know who financed Saddam between 1980 and 1988, when Iraq couldn't export oil because of the war with Iran.

Let us also not limit the inquiry into the WMDs that Saddam had or did not have on the eve of the war. It is possible that at that time he had destroyed or shipped abroad his remaining WMDs to weather the storm he faced. What is certain, however, is that he had the intention, the scientists and the resources to re-launch his programs once the storm had passed.

Let us establish the circumstances under which the 4,000 mass graves came about and who were the 300,000 skeletons found in them. And should we not find out who organized those gas attacks that killed tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Iranians in what is now regarded as the biggest use of chemical weapons since 1918?

Our inquiry should also take testimony from the estimated 5.5 million Iraqis who served prison terms of varying length under Saddam and, in many cases, were subjected to tortures unseen since the darkest days of Stalin.

And should we not hear from the former inhabitants of the 4,000 villages that Saddam torched and razed during his infamous Anfal campaign?

The inquiry will have to hear at least some of the 4 million plus Iraqis driven into exile during Saddam's reign of terror. It would also have to provide answers for families who are still searching for more than 10,000 people listed as "missing" after being arrested by Saddam's agents.

We may not find the "large quantities of WMDs" that Rolfe Ekeus, Richard Butler and Hans Blix reported as missing. But we have thousands of mass graves and millions of torture marks to prove that Saddam was evil and his removal an overdue act of human mercy.

Our "Mother of All Inquiries" would show one thing above all else: It was a shame that the so-called international community, ignoring its own resolutions, chose to appease Saddam and, in some cases, even prop up his murderous regime for more than a decade after the first Gulf War.

Yes, let's DO have an inquiry. A complete inquiry.

Monday, February 02, 2004

Did you see Janet Jackson's boob?

What can I say? I saw it and looked over at my buddy to see if what I had just seen was real or a fake boob. We both thought it was a fake boob, but the camera doesn't lie. That was her boob.

Now, I'm hardly a prude. Those who know me know that I can be very raunchy. But that stunt was uncalled for. It was just another attempt by the MTV crowd to push the envelope. I believe standards of decency on broadcast network, especially during prime time AND more especially during the Super Bowl, must be upheld.

My gut reaction when I found out that it was her boob: What a bunch of jerks that MTV crowd is. It wasn't cool, it wasn't necessary and more importantly it wasn't wanted. No one expected it. Many people, MANY PEOPLE, don't want their young children to see that sort of thing. Those parents should be able to let their children watch the Super Bowl without a sex ed class breaking out. Parents might expect a Britney-Madonna kiss at the MTV music awards, but doing that during the Super Bowl was the work of assholes and jerks who don't care about anyone but themselves. Massive egos planned it and massive egos performed it.

What a bunch of assholes.

I am so proud of the Carolina Panthers. They lost in the Super Bowl, but they played wonderfully and individually they represented their team with great honor.

I couldn't help but notice that the Patriots tried to intimidate the Panthers with after the play hits. It happened again and again until the referee finally stepped in. You could hear him say, "I'm going to put an end to that stuff." The Panthers displayed poise, but more importantly they weren't intimidated.

The Panthers played hard and they played very well. I am very proud to call myself a Carolina Panthers fan. They are a great team and they will be back. They won't quit.