Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Friday, December 03, 2004

Victor Davis Hanson is already reminding us--those who supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein--to remember who it was who opposed us.

Never forget that it was France, Germany, Hollywood leftists, Michael Moore, the vast majority of the Democratic party, and the United Nations who coordinated their opposition to freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people for one reason or another.

Rememeber on January 30, 2005 who it was that attempted to stand in the way of that day ever coming about. They'll try to rationalize their opposition to freedom for the Iraqi people by insisting that they had decent reasons for opposing our actions. They'll try to say that it was war they opposed.

Ask the French people which is better: That they stayed occupied by Hitler or that they were freed by invasion and war to re-establish their own democratic government.

Why is it okay for the French to have freedom, liberty and democracy by means of invasion and war, but it's not okay for Arabs to have those same God given blessings? My guess is that many on the left will say, matter of factly, that the Iraqi people did not ask us for democracy and besides they've shown they aren't able to live democratically. I've heard Soapbox leftists say that. My astonishment at their blatant racism left me dumbfounded. They took it to mean that they'd won the argument, but what they failed to realize is that's why they keep losing elections.

Never forget who it was that opposed what we did in Iraq because they are freedom's worst enemies. Those same people and that same ideology would give you a dictator in the name of what's best for you. That point of view believes they know what's best and if they have to slaughter millions to make it work that's what they'll do.

That's exactly what Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Castro have done. They slaughtered millions of people in the name of doing what was best for their people.

That is the same ideology that opposed what we did for the Iraqi people.

Never forget.

I believe John Podhoretz makes a very reasonable connection between the U.S.'s promotion of democracy in the Middle East to the Ukrainian people's demonstrations against the attempted stolen election in Ukraine:
But President Bush's argument on behalf of democracy is universalist. "Liberty is not our gift to ourselves," he has said, "it is God's gift to humanity." No matter where or how they live, human beings are free down to their marrow. The problem is that in too many places, they can't make full use of their God-given liberty because of oppressive or hostile governments and ideologies.

When the world's only superpower stakes the future of the world on democracy, it's going to have ramifications — and we saw one intended ramification in the astonishing conduct of the Afghan people, who went to the polls in mass numbers two months ago.

And now, in Ukraine, we're seeing this new popular commitment — a commitment by Ukrainians to take charge of their own lives and their own politics.

The blogger Tulip Girl (, an American living in Kiev, published a beautiful letter from her Ukrainian friend Lena last week. Ignore the grammatical problems and revel in it:

"Quite recently I didn't believe that my people able to resist to violence and humiliation. Two months ago I guessed that I live in the worst country in the world. I was oppressed when I could not see a dignity in my fellow citizens, willingness to freedom and happiness. . . . Now I can see that they are not passive mammals who want just to dig [a] comfortable burrow, to generate they own posterity and to finish life in poverty, pretending that there is no another way.

"Since Nov. 22 there are not a crowd on the main square of my country. This is the PEOPLE. This is the NATION. Love, faith and hope filled up a whole space of capital of my country."

To what extent the Ukrainian revolution has been influenced by American evangelizing about the power of freedom and democracy is something we won't know for a while. But we can be sure it played some kind of role — and that's an unintended consequence of which we can all be deeply, deeply proud. And another reason to give thanks for the sacrifice of those who are fighting for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Amen to that.

Via Instapundit.

The Economist features an article about the lack of diversity at American universities. No. Not skin color diversity. The other kind of diversity. The real kind of diversity. Diversity of thought:
Academia is simultaneously both the part of America that is most obsessed with diversity, and the least diverse part of the country. On the one hand, colleges bend over backwards to hire minority professors and recruit minority students, aided by an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy of “diversity officers”. Yet, when it comes to politics, they are not just indifferent to diversity, but downright allergic to it.

Evidence of the atypical uniformity of American universities grows by the week. The Centre for Responsive Politics notes that this year two universities—the University of California and Harvard—occupied first and second place in the list of donations to the Kerry campaign by employee groups, ahead of Time Warner, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft et al. Employees at both universities gave 19 times as much to John Kerry as to George Bush. Meanwhile, a new national survey of more than 1,000 academics by Daniel Klein, of Santa Clara University, shows that Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. And things are likely to get less balanced, because younger professors are more liberal. For instance, at Berkeley and Stanford, where Democrats overall outnumber Republicans by a mere nine to one, the ratio rises above 30 to one among assistant and associate professors.
Leftists love to talk about diversity, but diversity is much more than skin color.

It's time for another entry in the, "You Gotta Be Shittin' Me? file.

It seems that Democrats and leftwingers in general believe that an American neocon conspiracy is behind the Ukrainian demonstrations. Leftists are spreading the insane conspiracy theory that White House neocons are responsible for the protests in Ukraine over the stolent election in that country.

Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post has the details:
Just in case anyone actually thought that all of those people waving flags on the streets of Kiev represent authentic Ukrainian sentiments, the London Guardian informed its readers otherwise last week. In an article titled "US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev," the newspaper described the events of the past 10 days as "an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing." In a separate article, the same paper described the whole episode as a "postmodern coup d'etat" and a "CIA-sponsored third world uprising of cold war days, adapted to post-Soviet conditions."

Neither author was a fringe journalist, and the Guardian is not a fringe newspaper. Nor have their views been ignored: In the international echo chamber that the Internet has become, these ideas have resonance. Both articles were liberally quoted, for example, in a Web log written by the editor of the Nation, who, while writing that she admired "citizens fighting corrupt regimes," just as in the United States, she also noted darkly that the wife of the Ukrainian opposition leader, a U.S. citizen of Ukrainian descent, "worked in the Reagan White House."
I'm sorry to say it this way, but you leftists are out of your goddamn minds. What is wrong with you people? Applebaum explains:
.....the "it's-all-an-American-plot" arguments circulating in cyberspace again demonstrate something that the writer Christopher Hitchens, himself a former Trotskyite, has been talking about for a long time: At least a part of the Western left -- or rather the Western far left -- is now so anti-American, or so anti-Bush, that it actually prefers authoritarian or totalitarian leaders to any government that would be friendly to the United States. Many of the same people who found it hard to say anything bad about Saddam Hussein find it equally difficult to say anything nice about pro-democracy demonstrators in Ukraine. Many of the same people who would refuse to condemn a dictator who is anti-American cannot bring themselves to admire democrats who admire, or at least don't hate, the United States. I certainly don't believe, as President Bush sometimes simplistically says, that everyone who disagrees with American policies in Iraq or elsewhere "hates freedom." That's why it's so shocking to discover that some of them do.
Damn. You leftists are unbelievable. This is simply the most unbelievable, wacky, INSANE (how ever typically leftwing), and laughable conspiracy theory yet.


Blogger is losing some of my posts. I just realized that it was happening. I knew I had posted something on Theo van Gogh earlier. Now one of latest posts has been lost.

Another reason I have to find myself another blog host.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Mary Laney of The Chicago Sun-Times relates the story of a Swift Boat Veteran who was fired from his job and destroyed economically because he spoke his mind about John Kerry:
Gardner told this story and others to radio stations and he wrote a piece for the local paper. Then, he says, he received a phone call from John Hurley, the veterans organizer for Kerry's campaign. Hurley, Gardner says, asked him to come out for Kerry. He told Hurley to leave him alone and that he'd never be for Kerry. It was then Gardner says, he was threatened with, "You better watch your step. We can look into your finances."

Next, Gardner said he received a call from Douglas Brinkley, the author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. Brinkley told Gardner he was calling only to "fact check" the book -- which was already in print. "I told him that the guy in the book is not the same guy I served with. I told him Kerry was a coward. He would patrol the middle of the river. The canals were dangerous. He wouldn't go there unless he had another boat pushing him."

Days later, Brinkley called again, warning Gardner to expect some calls. It seems Brinkley had used the "fact checking" conversation to write an inflammatory article about Gardner for The article, implying that Gardner was politically motivated, appeared under the headline "The 10th Brother."

Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position. Gardner doesn't have the money to sue to get the job back.

"I'm broke. I've been hurt every way I can be hurt. I have no money in the bank but am doing little bits here and there to pay the bills," he said.
Yep, sounds just like the tolerant Democrats I've come to know.

Sensei Reynolds reminded Bill O'Reilly that the internet is a "No-Weenie Zone." Hehehehe.

The second thing I wanted to post was a ridiculous editorial in The New York Daily News by Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly writes:
Dan Rather is guilty of not being skeptical enough about a story that was politically loaded. I believe Rather, along with Andy Rooney, Walter Cronkite and other guardsmen of the old CBS News, is liberal in his thinking. That is certainly a legitimate debate - how for years CBS News has taken a rather progressive outlook. But holding a political point of view is the right of every American, and it does not entitle people to practice character assassination or deny the presumption of innocence. Dan Rather was slimed. It was disgraceful.
Dan Rather was slimed. Give me a break.

Dan Rather forsook his journalistic integrity. He deemed a questionable, and ultimately proven fake, memo to be newsworthy and reported the story on his nightly news program. This after he refused to even report the Swift boat vets accusations about John Kerry and also after experts warned him that the memos were fake. No, Dan Rather did not get slimed. He got what any incompetent partisan deserves especially when he insists that he is non-partisan and that he presents an accurate view of the news.

Now if Rather at some point had said, "Look, I'm a partisan. I have liberal views and that clouds my viewpoint" then maybe people wouldn't take him so seriously. But when he hides by some veneer of objectivity then he deserves every bit of the skepticism and judgement he gets on his newscast.

Rather had to have known that the documents were at least problematic. The fact that he chose to run with them says a lot about the level of his integrity especially when that is balanced against his outright refusal to even report the Swift boat vets accusations.

Taken alone, this is enough to condemn Rather for his rank partisanship. Not because he is partisan, but because he tries to make his audience believe he is not. If he wanted to come clean and admit his biases then fine. But Rather held himself up as some sort of paragon of objectivity and the facts of the fake National Guard memo completely destroys that idea.

Slimed my ass.