Yep, parity
Does The Guardian's invitation to the uninformed, drooling, socialist Eurotwinks who comprise their readership to pester swing state voters summon as much bile to your gorge as it does mine? (Via Cranky Neocon) Tim Blair offers up Operation Guardian, which is a perfectly reasonable response.
If foreign nationals have a right to badger US voters because US elections affect their countries, then US citizens must surely have a right to badger Guardian functionaries, whose bigoted portrayals of the US routinely inspire splenetic ranting from the Guardian's ovine flock targeting US citizens. Our policies affect Britain's policies? Fine. The Guardian's incessant ideological harangues affect my ability to simply travel, or engage in civil online conversation - this should entitle me to bedevil Guardian staff and management alike.
Beyond that though, doesn't the electoral issue work both ways as well? Don't Britain's policy decisions affect our country? Doesn't that entitle the 300 or so million citizens of the US to intrude on the electoral machinery of the 60 millionish Brits? For that matter, the policies of the EU affect our country also - I think it's fundamentally unjust that the US does not have a seat in Brussels! We deserve representation!
Oh, wait, I'm remembering now - the US is our country, and the UK is their country. I'd forgotten. Our affairs are our own, their affairs are their own. If they want to indulge in populist demogoguery in their broadsheets, it's their business - who we choose to elect is ours. The only thing that might sicken me more than the relativist contortions the editorial staff must have gone through to convince themselves that this was anywhere near ethical is the fact that their deadbeat rag apparently hasn't even seen fit to cough up the $25 for the voter list they aquired to launch this puerile publicity stunt.
Remember, folks - the strength of democracy lies in an informed electorate. As the Guardian is inclined to dispense only that information which supports it's side of the ideological debate (often ignoring as much contrary information as necessary to do so), it is an enemy of democracy in this country. Regard it as such.
Update: No, I haven't actually pestered any the staff of the Guardian. As much as I'd like to, that still crosses a personal line for me. If you're so disposed, however, don't adopt my scruples as your own; in fact, if you feel inclined to, say, make inquiries to Russian mail order brides on behalf of any Guardian staff, I'm certain they would appreciate the possibilities that your attentions open for them. They might also like low rate mortgage offers, discount software, fast diplomas, herbal penis enhancement, cheap pharmaceuticals and stock tips to their inbox - who's to say?
If foreign nationals have a right to badger US voters because US elections affect their countries, then US citizens must surely have a right to badger Guardian functionaries, whose bigoted portrayals of the US routinely inspire splenetic ranting from the Guardian's ovine flock targeting US citizens. Our policies affect Britain's policies? Fine. The Guardian's incessant ideological harangues affect my ability to simply travel, or engage in civil online conversation - this should entitle me to bedevil Guardian staff and management alike.
Beyond that though, doesn't the electoral issue work both ways as well? Don't Britain's policy decisions affect our country? Doesn't that entitle the 300 or so million citizens of the US to intrude on the electoral machinery of the 60 millionish Brits? For that matter, the policies of the EU affect our country also - I think it's fundamentally unjust that the US does not have a seat in Brussels! We deserve representation!
Oh, wait, I'm remembering now - the US is our country, and the UK is their country. I'd forgotten. Our affairs are our own, their affairs are their own. If they want to indulge in populist demogoguery in their broadsheets, it's their business - who we choose to elect is ours. The only thing that might sicken me more than the relativist contortions the editorial staff must have gone through to convince themselves that this was anywhere near ethical is the fact that their deadbeat rag apparently hasn't even seen fit to cough up the $25 for the voter list they aquired to launch this puerile publicity stunt.
Remember, folks - the strength of democracy lies in an informed electorate. As the Guardian is inclined to dispense only that information which supports it's side of the ideological debate (often ignoring as much contrary information as necessary to do so), it is an enemy of democracy in this country. Regard it as such.
Update: No, I haven't actually pestered any the staff of the Guardian. As much as I'd like to, that still crosses a personal line for me. If you're so disposed, however, don't adopt my scruples as your own; in fact, if you feel inclined to, say, make inquiries to Russian mail order brides on behalf of any Guardian staff, I'm certain they would appreciate the possibilities that your attentions open for them. They might also like low rate mortgage offers, discount software, fast diplomas, herbal penis enhancement, cheap pharmaceuticals and stock tips to their inbox - who's to say?
posted by Doug at 4:21 PM
++ New Post
7 Comments:
andy said...
Doug, I am not as virtuous as you, my friend. Must admit that I did my share of harrassment, and a share for you as well. Thanks for the link. I enjoyed that!
The NYT isn't as bad here as The Guardian is there. There is still some diversity in the NYT, and while it may print brazenly distorted or inaccurate grist for the socialist masses on a rather regualr basis, it isn't every single article of every single issue. The Guardian on the other hand is about as partisan as I am.
I went a few weeks at one point checking the Guardian every single day - I didn't find a day that there wasn't an article (usually in the international section) excoriating the US for one evil or another. It's a blog with a budget and staff.
Could it be that the Brits have given up on, or don't care about,their own problems? The way things seemed to be going here, I would think that the Brits or any "concerned" Euro could ask for and quickly receive an absentee ballot, no questions asked.
timh,
Only it if were a dead or black brit could they vote absentee.
Doug,
I was doing a little reconiassance and noticed that there's a push to get Puerto Rico voting power. How stupid can these people be? The vote has been put to them several times before and they've always refused to become a state. (For those out there that don't know, in order to vote in the U.S. you have to be a tax paying CITIZEN of the U.S....my wife can't even vote.)
Agreed Jeremy. I'll cheerfully greet Puerto Ricans as fellow voters when they choose to be fellow citizens. Until then, accepting US protection and entitlements just doesn't qualify them as voters.
I believe that the last time the PR decided against statehood, the Federal Govt breathed a sigh of relief, not wanting to absorb the economic problems and transforming it into a state issue. Yet Mississippi and Louisiana would have loved to be elevated in stature with the PR as a state.
Maybe Clinton could brag that Arkansas was now the third worst in education, rather than second. I can't help but think that Puerto Rico's education is probably better than that, though.
As long as Puerto Rico keeps getting a sweet deal, they don't have any motivation to either become a state or independant. But who knows, maybe one of these days...
Post a Comment
<< Home