Sean LaFreniere

Independent News And Political Commentary
Welcome to Sean's Blog blog | home | contact
The Blogger
Blogger Bio 
The Archives
Search This Site

Site search Web search

powered by FreeFind

Support This Site
Favorite Links
World Trade Center Attacks
Bali Nightclub Attacks
Beslan School Attack
London Underground Attacks
Raddison Hotel Bombing
Katrina Hits New Orleans
Defend Denmark's Free Speach
The Anglosphere
Support Democracy In Iraq
Democracy Whisky Sexy
Chief Wiggles
Anderson Cooper's 360
The Command Post, making CNN look like the school newspaper.
Andrew Sullivan Dot Com
The Argus, Central Asian news.
Winds Of Change Dot Net
Free The Chief's Iraqi Generals
Michael J Totten
Blog Iran
Moderate Risk
Roger L Simon
free iran petition
victor davis hansen
Save Angel
Oregon Trip Check
iraq's election news
The Hitch
Game Of Life
Sponsored Links
Find info on VA loans and watch this video on the VA loan process.
News Links
Arab News Portal
Belfast Telegraph
BBC News
Dublin News
Edinburgh News
French News
German News
Iran Daily
Iran News
Iraq News
Irish Abroad
Irish Emigrant News
Irish News
Irish Quarterly
Israeli News
Jerusalem Post
London Local
London Times
Los Angeles Times
New York Times
Pakistan News
Persian News
Roman News
Scottish News
Translated News
World Wire
Magazine Links
The Atlantic Monthly
The American Prospect
The Economist
Foreign Affairs
Front Page Magazine
Mother Jones
The National Review
New Republic
New Yorker
NY Review Of Books
Policy Review
Tech Central Station
Washington Monthly
Weekly Standard
Movie Links
Film Jerk
McMenamins Theatres
Movie News - Trailers
Rotten Tomatoes
Sean's Political Dictionary
So that YOU know what SEAN is talking about when he opens his big mouth:



Date: 1831. From Latin conservare, for "to keep", "guard", or "observe". A Conservative relies upon family traditions and figures of authority to establish and maintain values. 

A Conservative puts group security above personal freedoms. 

A Conservative believes that successful use and maintenance of power proves God's favor for the government. 

A Conservative believes that social values, religious rules, and forms of governments may only be altered gradually. 

Stability and continuity are the goals of government.



Date: 1820. From Latin liberalis for "free". A Liberal uses reason and logic to set personal, social, and religious values. 

A Liberal places personal freedom above group security. 

A Liberal believes that governments rule by the consent of the governed. 

A liberal believes that governments may be changed or removed at the will of the people.  

A Liberal supports rapid change in the pursuit of progress and reform.

Freedom and Justice are the goals of government.


Note: a nation, and an individual, may move back and forth between these positions often. They rarely sum up a personality completely. And they should never be permanent blinders for anyone to view the world.

When a people succeed in a Liberal revolution, for instance, they often find themselves in the Conservative position protecting these gains. Similarly a person might have a Liberal view on public financial assistance and then move into a conservative position once these demands are met.

One might say that Affirmative Action is a prime example. At one point instituting Affirmative Action was a Liberal position, it was needed to reverse decades of discrimination following the end of Slavery. However, today the Liberal position might well be the ending of Affirmative Action, as it has largely completed its task and now stands as a stumbling block to truly moving the nation beyond race as a discriminatory trait. Meanwhile, the position of defending AA is now actually a Conservative stance (whether its so-called "liberal" defenders realize it or not).

Another way to think about this is that these terms describe a way of thinking about issues, not the positions on those issues. That is a Conservative might support a war because politicians they respect urge it, because the enemy scares them, and ultimately because it just "feels right". A Liberal might also come to support the war in spite of the position of authority figures and celebrities, not because it feels right, but because hours of research and consideration support the cause.

Neither is a "better way" of coming to a position, necessarily. Sometimes too much thinking interferes with a solid moral judgment, such as on the Abortion issue. And then other times only rational examination can skip over the emotional baggage and come to the most reasonable decision, as we see in the Abortion issue.

I realize this might be difficult for some people to accept after a long time of hearing party dogma on the issue. Personally I find value in BOTH positions. On some issues I am myself rather Conservative and on others I am quite Liberal. The same with the terms Radical and Reactionary, noted below. I found that stepping beyond these labels opened up my thoughts and cleared my head of a lot of bs.



Date: 1840. From Latin reagere for "to act". A Reactionary uses government pressure as a means of containing and responding to changes in society.



Date: 14th century. From Latin radicalis from radix for "root". A Radical supports social movements and political pressure groups as a means of affecting change in government.


The Right:

Date: early modern. The term comes from  English Parliamentary Rules; which place the party in power on the right of the Speaker. As the Conservatives held sway for a long time, the term Right came to be associated with the "Establishment" and thus with Conservative politics.


The Left:

Date: early modern. The party in Opposition sits on the Speaker's left. The Left came to be associated with labor movements, the lower classes, and socialist politics. It has also come to be associated with Liberalism. This was useful for Conservative politicians, and Socialists as well, during the 60's. But I find this to be a big intellectual and political mistake.


Capitol Goods:

Date: circa 1639. From the French from Latin capitalis for "top", used in French for "principal" or "chief". (1) : a stock of accumulated goods; especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period (2) : accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods (3) : accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income



Date: 1877. An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market



Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or "associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private property; in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage between capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.



Date: 1840. From French communisme, from Latin communis for "common". A doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. It is the final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably. In its only examples of practical application, in the USSR, China, and Cuba it became a totalitarian system where a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production and the people are enslaved in production geared to support the power of this party.


Note: in Marxist theory these three systems represent a sliding scale, with Capitalism on the Right, Socialism in the middle, and Communism on the Left. A nation was supposed to move from one to the other over time. However, in practice few systems in the world have ever been purely one or the other. Most national economic models employ some of all three.

While the US and Europe are considered the paragons of Capitalism, they both retain many Socialist elements. Both the US and Europe offer state sanctioned monopolies of public utilities. The American Postal Service is a state owned enterprise, as are the European aerospace entities. Europe offers state run healthcare, as do many American states, and both regulate the health industry heavily.

Through out history Europe and the US have also held some Communist elements. The common grazing lands of town centers and the great unfenced Western plains were both representative of these traditions. One might say that Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and the Dole are also holdovers from our more communal days.

On the other hand, while China has long been a paragon of Socialism / Communism, it still has many elements of free enterprise. They allow small farmers and craftsmen to sell excess production on the open market, they have private telecoms and industrial companies, and now they have a stock market, the ultimate symbol and apparatus of Capitalism.

When one system or the other fails to serve a nation, many proponents argue that actually the system simply was not implemented purely enough. However, attempts to purify these systems require a heavy hand in government, education, and economic practice. And this has led to oppressive regimes and brutalized citizens.



Date: 1576. From Greek dEmokrati, from demos "people" + kracy "rule". A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections; usually accompanied by the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.



Date: 1604. From Latin respublica; from res "thing" + publica "of the people". A government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who is elected by popular vote.


Note: that the root of the word Democracy is Greek, while the root of the word Republic is Latin. These terms are NOT antithetical, they do not even derive from the same language.

In common use they both have come to describe types of Liberal governments, specifically the one is a type of the other. It is possible for a nation to be a Democracy, but NOT also a Republic. However, a nation that is a Republic is ALWAYS also a Democracy. A Republic is a TYPE of Democracy.

The UK is a Democracy, but not a Republic, because of the Queen. Ireland became a Republic only after it dropped from the Commonwealth and replaced the Queen with an elected President



Date: 1921 From Latin fascis for "bundle" or group. Last, but not least, is this term, which actually combines the economic system and the political system entirely. In this system the state and large corporations merge, the rights of the individual are subordinated to the glory of the State, and all dissent is suppressed. It often utilizes a racial or religious cause to motivate the people into giving up their rights in the first place. These states usually rise out of an economic collapse or hardship with high inflation and unemployment.

Blogging Resources
Technocrati Link Cosmos
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by
Site Meter
Blogroll This Site
(Copy image and hyperlink)
Sean LaFreniere
Support This Site

Friday, June 30, 2006

Israel Bombs Gaza

As the new war between Israel and Hamas led Palestine heats up, bombs have struck the Interior Ministry building in Gaza City.

This is what we should expect when a terrorist organization wins election to government... war.

Hezbollah Wants In

In a bid not to be left out of any war with Israel, Hezbollah has offered to lob mortars and missiles over the border.

Since Hezbollah claims to be responding to the recent flyover of Syria by Israeli jets we can now easily determine who they are working for.

So the sides appear to have been determined, Israel vs. Syria and Palestine.

Sean: Friday, June 30, 2006 [+] |
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
The Palestinians Have WMD's

Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades claims to have fired one of 20 biological warhead tipped rockets from the Gaza Strip into an Israeli town today.

The Israelis have not detected either a rocket launch or impact inside Israel, but these rockets are smallish and it might still have happened.

More interesting, however, is that the Brigade is the armed wing of Fatah, not Hamas. This would suggest that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah, has lost control of his followers and that now both Palestinian power groups, and both branches of their government, are now at war with Israel.

The Israelis Buz Syria

Meanwhile... Two Israeli warplanes flew over Syrian "President" Bashar Assad's coastal residence in Latakia as a warning against continued Syrian support of Palestinian terrorist group (and now governing body) Hamas.

Sean: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 [+] |
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Israel's New War On Terror Hamas

Israel was left with defacto responsibility for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank after Egypt and Jordan retreated after the Six Days War.

Israel has long waited for an Arab state to take responsibility for these lands and negotiate a final settlement.

In the meantime the territories themselves have flirted with outright war and booming economic cooperation with Israel.

Following the failure of the Oslo Accords they seemed to have settled into simmering hostility and a slow crawl to independent statehood.

However, both statehood and prosperity were greatly threatened when the Islamist group Hamas swept elections this year and took over the government of these territories.

Now Israel is set to go to war against Hamas over a border incursion and the abduction of an Israeli IDF soldier.

The Hamas allied militants claim that the abduction is in response to the Israeli bombing of a beach in Gaza.

Hamas claims that 14 civilians were killed by an errant Israeli bomb.

The Israelis say they were bombing the beach in an attempt to stop Hamas allied militants from launching rockets from that beach into Israeli towns.

Israel has examined the scene and determined that the blast damage radiated out from a ground based explosive such as a mine (the area has been heavily mined by Hamas allied militants, meanwhile Israel has often (unapologetically) admitted to errant fatalities in its efforts to target militants, so this might be true).

Unfortunately the region looks to go through even more pain and suffering on its way to the fate that everyone (on both sides) now admits will be a "two state solution".

Sean: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 [+] |
Thursday, June 22, 2006

Sometimes politics and naivete can truly trump sound thinking. In this case the US invited China to "observe" its largest Pacific training exercise since Nam. Back in the day this was called "spying" and we tried to keep people from doing it, we didn't issue invitations and cater the event!

Sean: Thursday, June 22, 2006 [+] |
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Guantanamo Shutdown

For years I have said that the Guantanamo prison compound should be shutdown. I don't think that the US benefits enough from the security and information resources to balance the negative publicity of the facility. Now it looks like the President himself agrees.

Sean: Thursday, June 15, 2006 [+] |
Monday, June 12, 2006
Haditha Stories

Was the killing in Haditha, Iraq collateral damage or a massacre? The media has relied upon the testimony of locals to assert a military cover-up and to drive public outrage. And the opinion of the world might matter more than actual events on the ground.

These witnesses live "deep in the heart of the Sunni Triangle", a place described as an "insurgent citadel" by the Guardian last year. They are "deeply suspicious" of the Shia government in Baghdad and support the insurgency - whose gunmen ban alcohol and music, and enforce their rule with public executions recorded and circulated on DVD.

The Washington Post, faithfully gives their account of the events...

On May 19th at 7:15am a roadside bomb struck a US Marine humvee and killed the company commander. The Marines took cover around the wreckage and regrouped. Then they entered a row of three houses near the blast.

In the first house were two elder parents, three adult male relatives, an adult daughter, and four children aged 8, 5, and 2 months. In the second house were two adults and six children between 1 and 8 years old. And in the third house were four adult brothers.

Neighbors said the Marines "entered shooting" and threw grenades into several rooms before entering them, despite pleas for mercy from the occupants.

Sometime during the day Marines in an armored convoy brought 24 bodies to the local hospital. Doctors who examined the bodies said that they were shot at close range with wounds to the stomach and head, even the infants.

The next day the US military reported that one Marine and 15 Iraqi civilians were killed by the blast and that "gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire," prompting the Marines to return fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding one other.

After the attack a video was circulated to Arab news stations, a human rights group, and TIME magazine. This video shows the victims in their night clothes with grisly wounds. It also shows the interior damage from bullets and shrapnel inside the homes, but no marks of a firefight on the exterior.

When locals complained of these civilian deaths they were paid compensation for some, however the military refused to pay compensation for those it was certain were terrorists. Later review by US military officials prompted an internal investigation.

Currently the US military confirms that those who died inside the house died of small arms fire and secondary explosions, not from the initial IED blast. The question of whether the civilians who died were "collateral damage" or a blatant massacre is being seriously examined.

If the soldiers actually knowingly murdered civilians this would be a horrible personal crime. It should prompt grave concern within the ranks. Ultimately, soldiers up and down the line of command should be punished.

However, knowing some US soldiers myself I find the account of the locals hard to believe. I might be more worried if the wounds were reported as indiscriminate and long range.

The soldiers might indeed have opened up on some nearby houses and killed civilians, that kind of over-reaction certainly happens during a firefight. But these guys are often new fathers or uncles and I find it hard to imagine them shooting an infant between the eyes.

What may be more believable given what has been reported about life in Haditha is that insurgents themselves set up the physical evidence to implicate the Marines in a massacre.

Unfortunately, no matter if the soldiers are cleared of wrongdoing, stories of collateral damage and civilian deaths are always a defeat for the US military.

Sean: Monday, June 12, 2006 [+] |
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Canadian Terrorists

The NY Times reports that the 17 Canadian terrorist suspects will be charged with multiple crimes, including trying to blow up the CN Tower and behead the Prime Minister.

The suspects are all Muslims and mostly young people around 20 years old. Some were born in Canada, while others are immigrants from N. Africa, the Middle East, and S. Asia. Most come from the middle-class and were either reasonably employed or students.

Their supposed complaint was the presence of Canadian soldiers in the multi-national force protecting Afghanistan and hunting for Al-Queda.

Major terror attacks on such structures and nations as Paris and the Eiffel Tower, London and Big Ben, and Canada and the CN Tower will most likely be hit within 20 years. Technology greatly enables the attackers, while law enforcement cannot deter a killer who is willing to die.

The attackers care nothing for national borders or differences in foreign policy. Therefore all the nations of the Free World are in this fight together. And so long as borders are open and society remains free, the attack can even come from inside.

This is what is meant by the Global War on Terror and anyone who wants to make an ironic joke denigrating their neighbors for being so stupid as to actually believe it exists should read the papers this week. Remember, there will be no sneaking off to Canada in this war.

Sean: Thursday, June 08, 2006 [+] |
Monday, June 05, 2006
Tiananmen Revisited

Every year June 4th should be remembered around the free world. This is the date of China's crackdown on democracy advocates in Tiananmen Square. The success with which the PRC has managed to suppress even the memory of this great tragedy should give pause to those who think that liberalism and democracy are inevitable; in fact, a sufficiently brutal and successful tyranny can hold [political] modernism at bay for more than half a century.

On May 4th, 1987 around 100,000 students and workers gathered in Beijing's main square to protest government corruption and economic hardships and ask for democratic reforms. The government refused to negotiate, the protest was eventually crushed, and the student leaders arrested.

Two years later in May of 1989 students from several Beijing universities began a hunger strike to protest the government treatment of the student leaders. This protest gained widespread support among the people and grew into marches of many thousands using Tiananmen Square as a staging area for more than a month. The protests culminated in the erection of a 7 meter tall statue of the Goddess of Democracy on May 30th.

On May 20th the PRC ordered the army to end the protests and arrest its leaders. However, the people of Beijing held them off with roadblocks and the army was ordered to withdraw. Afterwards several divisions mutinied, burning their vehicles and joining the students. The protesters held on for another two weeks.

Eventually a loyal army entered the city with heavy armor, tear gas, and flame throwers on June 4th. They set up defensive positions through out the city to ward off any rebellious soldiers and then assaulted the square. The fighting lasted for two days, including the famous non-violent standoff between an unknown man and a column of tanks.

By June 6th The Red Cross reported more than 2600 dead and tens of thousands injured in the crackdown, hundreds and even thousands of students were arrested. However, the violence did not end the protests. Hundreds of thousands marched in Hong Kong and Shanghai.

Government suppression continued to dampen the flames of rebellion. Television news coverage by international press such as CNN was blocked and student leaders were intimidated into silence. Today most Chinese do not even know what happened at Tiananmen Square from May until June of 1989 (Google blocks searches of these events inside China).

Although elements within the PRC actually considered accepting the student demands for reform back in 1989, the hardliners won the debate. The violent crackdown was followed by the sidelining of existing reforms and the retrenching of government authority. US and EU diplomatic and economic censure of the PRC has quietly ended. The PRC now enjoys the financial gain of market reforms with out giving up one ounce of power and intimidation over the people.

Today on the cutesy NPR segment "This I Believe" a well-meaning man read his essay on the "Tinkerbell Effect" of the Rule of Law. This fellow believes that people live in ordered and free societies because they want to live that way. He thinks that it is this general feeling of the people that gives him his rights and freedoms.

I used to think this way as well. I grew up post-60's scoffing at the very concept of patriotism and refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance or stand for the National Anthem. We thought the nation state was dead and waited for the internet to usher in the global village.

Although it makes me sad to admit this, we were wrong. It is really the coercive power of the state that holds the world together. That power can be used for good or bad, but the people only retain the power of suggestion.

Today in Turkey the military keeps a tight lid on democracy in order to ensure that Islamist elements cannot take over and then end democracy. In 1991 Russia the people demanded reforms, the government sent in the tanks, the people successfully won the soldiers to their side and reform won. In China in 1989 the government fought a see-saw battle with the people and some soldiers, but eventually the government won and reform lost.

The power of the people... is limited by technological, economic, and military power. This doesn't mean we should give up on protests or doubt democracy. Rather it means that we should not take reform for granted. And we should use the coercive power of our state to push other states along. In 1989 the governments of the free world let the Chinese people down. We should all remember this.

Sean: Monday, June 05, 2006 [+] |

Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Sean LaFreniere


Copyright 2003-2009 by Sean LaFreniere