Oh, enough already. I've had it -- I want washed-up cricket reporter Matthew Engel deported. Let him write his slanderous, absolutely non-researched, totally made up out of whole cloth, "reports" on America from a leaky flat in his own country. And I hope the walls are thin and both apartments on either side contain families on the dole with several cranky, squabbling brats who never go to school.
He famously once demonstrated that he has absolutely no idea how to look up a decent restaurant in the yellow pages ("All those different fonts and adverts confused me!"), now he demonstrates that he has absolutely no idea or intention of looking up the history or the procedures of the country that has been kind enough to host his flabby English arse. Let's pick the very first of his "points" that he slapped together in order to prove that the US is just like Iraq, only worse:
1. At present, according to the official website of the Iraqi National Assembly ("a major organ for the expression of democracy") the 250 members are elected by blocs of 50,000 voters throughout the country. This suggests the outline principle is the same as in the US. However, the American constitution demands that the 600,000 inhabitants of its own capital city should not be allowed to take part in this process. The reasons are so obvious that no one can remember what they are, but most of those affected are poor and black, anyway. To ensure true devotion to US principles, the same will have to apply in Iraq; doubtless the Americans will break the news to the people of Baghdad tactfully.
Yeah, the people of Washington D.C. are not allowed to vote for their representatives because they are poor and black, and have been so from perpetuity ever since the city was built! He doesn't have to look up the history of D.C. to read about anything boring like population shift, or look into any of the reasons why the government of the District was set up that way. Why, when he can just make shit up?
That's it, I've lost my patience. I refuse to go through any more of this crappy deadline filler. I hope he spends his wages from the Crappian well. Maybe he should buy himself a dinner at the Olive Garden. I'm sure they'll be glad to see him.
(Via alert reader Combustible Boy.)
Posted by Andrea Harris at March 19, 2003 12:03 PMhe lost my attention with the title.
i mean, surely someone who is so impressed with the sheer horror of American imperialism would have to admit the Puerto Rico is the 51st state...
and Israel the 52nd...
Iraq has to get in line.
Posted by: chris at March 19, 2003 at 12:48 PMSo, given a choice, Mr Engel really wouldn't have a preference as to whether he were to live in the US or in Iraq (pre- or post-invasion)? Really?
Perhaps we could chip in to get him airfare.
Posted by: *** Dave at March 19, 2003 at 01:00 PMAnd the Euro-Weenies prate endlessly about our colonial provincialism, don't they? Well, irony is where you look for it.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at March 19, 2003 at 01:08 PMand hey - almost forgot the Virgin Islands!
we're such bastards.
Posted by: chris at March 19, 2003 at 01:16 PMUgh...if there's one thing that can always make me loathe a leftist journalist even more than I already do, it's a rant for DC statehood. If the residents of the District want the benefits of statehood, they can always ask Congress to cede all or most of it back to Maryland, which I doubt they'd really object to. Arlington was, after all, retroceded to Virginia.
Three words on DC statehood: Senator Marion Barry. QED
Posted by: David Jaroslav at March 19, 2003 at 01:45 PM***Dave:
No, I don't think that we could get Engel to Iraq in time for him to live under the ancien regime.
However, I'm sure he'd find North Korea to be little different from Iraq OR the United States. And if not there, perhaps Zimbabwe, or Sudan?
Posted by: Dean at March 19, 2003 at 04:24 PMDavid Jaroslav: Then your argument for not allowing DC statehood is that the people of DC cannot be trusted to vote. Bad David, bad.
A more defensible argument might run as follows:
1. We wish to restrict the powers of the federal government.
2. Those who live in the vicinity of the federal capital are more likely to profit from that government, directly or otherwise.
It follows from (1) that we should, where possible, restrict the federal vote from those associated with that government. From (2) it follows that DC is disproportionately made up of such people.
The DC solution is: create an arbitrary district, declare that "DC", and keep it out of the Senate.
You can argue whether that is the correct solution to the problems posed by (1) and (2), but please, leave Barry out of this.
Personally I think there should be a better way, starting with the dismemberment of that wiggly worm Maryland, and its and DC's absorption into their more viable neighbours.
Posted by: David Ross at March 19, 2003 at 06:41 PMPlease don't tell me you took my tongue-in-cheek post seriously. I lived in DC for four years and, sorry, but it's impossible (or at least exceedingly difficult and not as amusing) NOT to mention His Dishonor Marion "the bitch set me up" Barry. ;-)
In some seriousness, of course, the main reason for DC was to ensure to that no one state had disproportionate influence or power over the federal government. The location was a compromise between north and south.
Dismembering Maryland might, in the abstract be a good idea, but I was trying to deal in what is actually within the bounds of realistic possibility: retroceding much of the District has a precedent (Arlington) and falls within those bounds, while carving up a small state among its neighbors is unprecedented and does not. Making the District a state on its own is barely less likely than that. Even if Congress approved it (which would never happen), I can see multiple reasons why it would lead to enormous litigation between the feds and Maryland, among others.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at March 19, 2003 at 08:46 PMShame on me, I did take your post seriously. hangs head in shame
Beyond that, I have no idea what to do with DC. Statehood's not the answer, but giving it to the "People's Republic of Maryland" would amount to the same thing.
Maybe we could move the capital to an offshore location, free from the machinations of neighbouring states. How about Blair's London? :^)
Posted by: David Ross at March 20, 2003 at 12:14 AMHanding it over to Maryland would at least keep DC from having two idiot Senators of its very own -- Hizzonorusness would have to try to take away Sarbanes' seat, or that other one. Seems like a fine compromise to me.
Posted by: Kevin McGehee at March 20, 2003 at 10:34 AMDavid Ross,
As with most Americans, in your admiration of Blair's foreign policy (which I share), you fail to recognize that he's a total schmuck domestically. Of course, he's well to the right of his party, but that's REALLY not saying much. I love London, but still.
Kevin,
Yeah, it would mean a permanently even more leftwing Maryland, just as Ehrlich starts to try turning the place around. Sorry, DC, but the status quo seems the least worst alternative. Perhaps Congress could give their Delegate in the House full voting privileges.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at March 20, 2003 at 06:44 PM