Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Max Boot reminds me that Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize.

What sick, twisted, disgusting group of people gave Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace prize? If there was any reason to be disgusted at European sensibilities it is at this very moment.

Power Line features more on the evil life that was Yasser Arafat:
He personally ordered the assassination of American Ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel, Jr. and charge d'affaires Curtis Moore in Khartoum on March 2, 1973. (See my "Who murdered Cleo Noel?") Arafat himself presided over the Khartoum operation and ordered the assassination of Noel and Moore by short wave radio from PLO headquarters in Beirut. Moore and Noel were only the first of many Americans murdered by Arafat's terrorist thugs.

In a bizarre footnote to his assassination of American officials, Arafat became the foreign leader most frequently hosted by President Bill Clinton during his two terms in office. The many cold-blooded murders for which Arafat was responsible in the course of his life were politely passed over in silence as they remained entirely unavenged.
I thought it was a silly rumor, but apparently Arafat DID die from complications of AIDS. I had heard recently that he had sex with young boys and that his marriage to Suha was nothing more than window dressing for the Palestinians who hate homosexuality, but I thought it was nothing more than attempts to hurt him.

However, this is all true. Why am I just now hearing this? I suspect it's because it would have hurt a hero to leftists. They would have found a way to slip this little fact into an editorial about someone on the right.

Apparently the media has been protecting Arafat. I suspect they'd say his sexual orientation was irrelevant, but at the same time you'd think that people would at least know that he was homosexual. It may be irrelevant, but it would also be a well known fact about the man.

Yasser Arafat died yesterday. The Europeans loved the man even though he was the very definition of a terrorist because they considered him to be a freedom fighter. I wonder if this explains European opposition to our actions in Iraq. I mean, if they consider Yasser Arafat a freedom fighter no wonder they oppose what we're doing.

I can't get the link to work (perhaps the server is overloaded), but Drudge has a link to a Jerusalem Post article that purports to say that Arafat's wife, Suha, will receive $20 million a year from the Palestinian Authority. Boy, if I thought for one minute that Suha Arafat was going to get even one penny of my tax money (the European Union gives the Palestinians millions of dollars each year) I'd be madder than hell. I suspect the blogosphere would be all over the story. I wonder how Europeans feel about their tax money going to the wife of a evil mass murderer.

Americans wouldn't stand for it while I suspect the Europeans won't make a peep.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

The murder of Theo van Gogh is resonating all across Europe, but none so strongly as in his own country, The Netherlands:
For the Dutch, this murder is not only sinister: it is symbolic. Van Gogh - distantly related to Holland's most celebrated artist - was shot on his bicycle, another national emblem. As he writhed on the ground, the murderer cut his throat without mercy and left him with two knives protruding from his body: a method that is apparently common in North Africa, but unheard of here. Just in case there was any doubt about the symbolism of this butchery, a note was found pinned to his chest, containing death threats against three other public figures.
I've often wondered at leftwing hatred for Christianity. I mean, Islam is by far a much greater threat to mankind, yet leftists cannot bring themselves to utter even one word of condemnation. They love to criticize, ridicule, and openly express hatred for Christianity and Christians because they hate religion, but for some reason Islam is never subjected the same level of animosity.

I think the reason leftists can't bring themselves to utter condemnations for the intolerance of Muslims is because Islam is still subject to protections under the PC (politically correct) code. That is, it's mostly minorities in the west who worship as Muslims and for that reason alone the PC code dictates that it is forbidden to speak against Muslims, Islam, or the Prophet Mohammed.

However, as the murder of Theo van Gogh reveals there may be another reason. Muslims are so intolerant that if you dare speak against them or their religion they very well may kill you. Perhaps leftists are simply scared. Maybe they are frightened and intimidated. The more defenders of Islam slaughter and decapitate, the more I am inclined to believe that leftists don't criticize Islam because of a combination of a very real fear of death and political correctness.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Jonah Goldberg has a typically brilliant article for National Review. A must read I'd say. If you don't have time to read the whole thing then this excerpt will have to do:
There's no time here to dismantle fully the edifice of condescension and ignorance constructed by Maher and Smiley (I put Dowd in a different category). But what offends them so much about religion is that it is a source of authority outside — and prior to — politics. What has offended the Left since Marx, and American liberalism since Dewey, is the notion that moral authority should be derived from anyplace other than the state or "the people" (conveniently defined as citizens who vote liberal). Voting on values not sanctified by secular priests is how they define "ignorance." This was the real goal of Hillary Clinton's "politics of meaning" — to replace traditional religion with a secular one that derived its authority not from ancient texts and "superstitions" but from the good intentions of an activist state and its anointed priests. Shortly before the election, Howell Raines fretted that the worst outcome of a Bush victory would be the resurgence of "theologically based cultural norms" — without even acknowledging the fact that "theologically based cultural norms" gave us everything from the printing press and the newspaper to the First Amendment he claims to be such a defender of.
As I said the entire piece is a must read.

Sunday, November 07, 2004

I never ever pass up the chance to read Mark Steyn:
Well, they're British lefties: They can do without Americans. Whether an American political party can do without Americans is more doubtful. Nonetheless, MSNBC.com's Eric Alterman was mirroring the Mirror's sentiments: "Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the 'reality-based community' say or believe about anything." Over at Slate, Jane Smiley's analysis was headlined, "The Unteachable Ignorance Of The Red States.'' If you don't want to bother plowing your way through Alterman and Smiley, a placard prominently displayed by a fetching young lad at the post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco cut to the chase: "F--- MIDDLE AMERICA."

Almost right, man. It would be more accurate to say that "MIDDLE AMERICA" has "F---ed" you, and it will continue to do so every two years as long as Democrats insist that anyone who disagrees with them is, ipso facto, a simpleton -- or "Neanderthal," as Teresa Heinz Kerry described those unimpressed by her husband's foreign policy. In my time, I've known dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and other members of Britain's House of Lords and none of them had the contempt for the masses one routinely hears from America's coastal elites.
How dumb are the Democrats? I mean, they keep viciously insulting more than half the electorate. They don't even try to understand why these people vote against Democratic candidates. They just put it down as stupidity, ignorance, or worse, racism.

Insulting more than half the voters is stupidity squared and not a logical strategy for winning elections.

"Iraq to Begin Voter Registration Monday" was the headline of the Billings Gazette last Sunday.

I didn't see this reported anywhere. That doesn't mean it wasn't. I could easily have missed it. But, it was not big news in the run-up to the election, I suspect, because it might have helped President Bush.