Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

I haven't mentioned Terry Schiavo because the issue seemed to complex for me. It's a heartwrenching situation and I feel deeply conflicted.

I may be wrong about this, but I think I read somewhere that Terry hadn't received any form of rehabilitation since 1993 and that is a major consideration in light of what I just read at The Weekly Standard:
In her article Provocative Snapshots of a Many-Layered Issue in today's New York Times, Virginia Heffernan writes:

William Kristol, the founder of The Weekly Standard, ventured to assert with conviction on Fox News, "She can recover substantially if she gets the proper rehabilitation."

Heffernan is incorrect on two counts. First, the statement on Fox News Sunday was made by Fred Barnes, not William Kristol. Second, Barnes was not, as Heffernan suggests, offering his own judgment. Here is what Barnes said:

And thirdly, Majority Leader Bill Frist did do one thing that was important. He talked to one of the neurologists who has examined her who says she can recover substantially if she gets the proper rehabilitation.
As many people know, Bill Frist was a respected surgeon before joining the senate and here he is saying that when he talked to Terry's neurologist the doctor indicated that Terry can recover substantially if she gets the proper rehab.

I don't think most people know about the neurologists opinion. I bet most people simply think she would never improve because that's the main talking point Terry's husband and the MSM keep stressing. I think the neurologist's opinion should make it to CNN's Headline News at least as often as Michael Schiavo's assertion.

Via Instapundit.

Apparently, a newspaper called "India Daily" is reporting that the U.S. navy will soon have 3 carrier groups in the Middle East region:
U.S. military air bases in Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia and the three carrier groups will create a formidable force far superior to any military in the region.

In addition more than 100,000 battle hardened force in Iraq will be another major force in case US has to use force against Iran and Syria.

It seems American are preparing to deal with Syria and Iran in the next several months. The first priority right now is diplomacy in association with the Europeans and the rest of the world. But the leadership in Teheran and Damascus are taking notice of the power build up in the region.
Syria and Iran know for certain that George W. Bush is not a man to toy with. Our army may be stressed a bit, but our navy is rested and well prepared.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Mexican President Vicente Fox really pisses me off. He is opposed to any form of controls on illegal Mexican immigration to the U.S.

It's time we did something about illegal immigration. I'm open to fences, more border patrol agents, and private citizens organizing to help patrol our southern border. We should not allow Mexico to use the U.S. as a pressure relief valve so they don't have to make economic and political reforms.

Mark Steyn's latest is a brilliant must read. I would paste the whole thing here, but the Chicago Sun-Times deserves the traffic. Here's a small bit, but the whole thing is an absolute must read:
The New York Times wondered what Bush's next appointment would be:

"Donald Rumsfeld to negotiate a new set of Geneva conventions? Martha Stewart to run the Securities and Exchange Commission?"

OK, I get the hang of this game. Sending Bolton to be U.N. ambassador is like . . . putting Sudan and Zimbabwe on the Human Rights Commission. Or letting Saddam's Iraq chair the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Or sending a bunch of child-sex fiends to man U.N. operations in the Congo. And the Central African Republic. And Sierra Leone, and Burundi, Liberia, Haiti, Kosovo, and pretty much everywhere else.
Did I mention that you must read the whole thing?

After many, many years leftists finally win a significant election. Sadly, this is an election they shouldn't have wanted to win because it was a vote between leftists. That is, Harvard's faculty voted no confidence in the (former high ranking Clinton administration official) school's president, Larry Summers.

The reason for the vote? Apparently President Larry Summers said men and women were different during a meeting where he was asked to give any explanation, however unlikely, why women didn't excel at science.

Yep, in PC circles it's considered damnably bad form to suggest, even in theory, that men and women are different. That's why the state of Georgia had a lone 5 foot tall grandmother guarding a 200 pound former athlete in a courthouse. As you'll recall, the 200 pound man punched the little old lady in the face, killed her, stole her keys, unlocked her gun, and then went on a murderous rampage.

But we must never suggest that their may be differences between men and women, physically or otherwise. Heaven forbid.

From Charles Krauthammer's Friday column:
After all, going back at least to the Spanish Civil War, the left has always prided itself on being the great international champion of freedom and human rights. And yet, when America proposed to remove the man responsible for torturing, gassing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, the left suddenly turned into a champion of Westphalian sovereign inviolability.

A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile Gen. Augusto Pinochet eight years after he's left office, and becomes a human rights hero -- a classic example of the left morally grandstanding in the name of victims of dictatorships long gone. Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing -- Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria and, until yesterday, Hussein and his sons -- nothing. No sympathy. No action. Indeed, virulent hostility to America's courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.

The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel -- an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.
Actually, we didn't get silence. We got massive protests that were mostly likely quite noisy against our attempts to free Arabs and Muslims.

No, there was no silence.

Oh. And I love the title to this piece by Krauthammer: "What's Left? Shame". As in, "What emotion should Europeans feel for what they tried to do?"