NY Slimes

01/02/05 - UPDATE:A great deal of apparent fraud is coming to light.

From the Seattle Times

As has been the case since Election Day, much of the attention is focused on King County. Republicans are asking questions about why the county's list of registered voters who cast valid ballots in the election shows about 3,500 fewer people than the total number of votes certified in the race.

The NYT should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring the need for a fair vote in favor of the outcome that meets their approval.

***

The New York Times is sporting an op-ed about insidious Republican attempts to block hundreds of votes that were "found" in a Democratic county in Washington. They lament the fact that the desire for all votes to be counted is not automatic. Hmmm...perhaps could it be because of a little something called...fraud? Third time is a charm for Ms. Gregoire as she lost the election for governor, then lost the more reliable machine recount, but won the much less reliable hand recount. Machines don't make errors, so obviously the Democrats had to get the election into the hands of people so they could "discern voter intent" a little more in the Rats' favor.

Discerning voter intent any time it is not 100% clear should never be done. I mean look at Florida in 2k. If a ballot was spoiled, they could easily determine it to be a vote for Gore because Republicans were smart enough to know how to vote. While that sounds like a logical argument to me, it is bad for democracy.

And why does it seem like whenever there is a close race, Democrat votes are suddenly "found" in Democrat counties? Remember the ridiculous calls for a re-vote in 2000 because evidently the idiot Democrats couldn't figure out how to vote? Luckily that silly talk died down, but Al Gore didn't need/want a re-vote, anyway. All he needed was hand recounts in a few Democrat counties so that votes could be "found" by Democrat operatives. Why do voters who are found to be dead tend to be Democrats? Why are the double dippers voting in more than one state overwhelmingly Democrat (the ones registered in NY and Florida were 68% Democrat vs. 12% Republican)? And yet the Times doesn't get why Republicans are suspicious when Democrat votes are "found" by Democrats in a Democratic county. If Democrat poll workers are so incompetent that they lose hundreds of votes so often, maybe they should be barred from running polling places.

We should get more Democrats working in law enforcement as they are becoming master detectives when it comes to "finding" long-lost Democrat votes. We could also throw out juries and lawyers, as we don't need proof of guilt. For Democrats have also become masters at discerning intent.

The Times apparently doesn't get why a fair election is more important than counting fudged votes. Perhaps they think the votes that were "found" are okay and should be counted, but I would be suspicious any time votes are "found" by the losing party (or the winning party, for that matter)in a very tight election. What would the Times say if a bag of Republican votes were suddenly found by Republicans in a Republican county in Washington, and the election swung back to the Republican?

Womb baby!

Drudge Report headline: STOLEN WOMB BABY FOUND ALIVE. The headline is referring to the inhuman fetus that was cut from the dead mother's womb.

My question is, if this non-baby baby were killed would it be abortion or murder? Why would the thing be a "choice" if it were inside the womb, but a human if it were outside? I know, I know, damn me for trying to use logic in talking about abortion.

Assuming you believe a fetus is a human being, should someone have the right to kill it just for being inside them? Is it ever okay to kill an innocent human being that poses no threat to your life, or that of anyone else?

If you believe a late-term fetus is not a human being, how do rationalize the fact that, generally speaking, the difference between murder and "choice" is only the location of the fetus/baby as it relates to the mother? Of course, mind-bogglingly, in some states the difference between murder and choice is nothing more than whether or not the mother consented. Scott Peterson was on trial for the murder of his unborn child (and convicted of second degree, if memory serves). Had Laci killed the baby in the womb via abortion, it would have only been a choice.

Assuming you are a rational person, you can see the absurdity in abortion laws. But, what about mid-term and early-term abortion? Is there anyone who can prove, with medical/scientific certainty, when a fetus becomes a human life? If the answer is "no", would a moral and compassionate society not necessarily have to be biased on the side of life?

If criminals are must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in order to be executed, shouldn't children be afforded the same level of protection? Shouldn't the burden be on those who wish to abort to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they aren't killing a human being?

Recommended reading

I would whole-heartedly recommend that everyone read this article from SFGate.com by a liberal who is giving "the view from the left." Deserters Are Heroes. After reading, I would invite those who agree with the author to buy a "go Canada" travel kit and get the hell out of America.

I know, liberals would argue that people who disagree with the author should be the ones to leave. I just figure that since the author and his supporters favor desertion, they could just desert their way to Canada or Europe. I would prefer they go to Europe to make it harder for them to cross back to the US when they need jobs and realize socialism is not job-creation friendly.

I won't go into the absurdities of the numerous cliches in the article, but I would just like to point out that "Red America" honors our brave fighting men and women, and "Blue America" honors the deserters. I wouldn't blame liberals for being so sensitive to any notion that they love their country less than conservatives do if only they'd put out just a little effort to make those notions appear a little less obviously accurate.

***

I meant to spend more time on this before, but better late than never.

"You know what? Just let me make one point. You were talking about the map before. If indeed all those blue states all got together and seceded from the union, think what would be left for those red states, nothing. There would be no educational system. You would have nothing. What would be left to you? I mean, where is all of this talent in this country? It's on both sides, the Northeast corridor."

This bit of brilliance from Geraldine Ferraro (former Dem. VP candidate) on Hannity and Colmes early last month. I'm sure she was referring to a state-by-state map of the election outcome, rather than this county-by-county map:



All the talent, eh? Tell ya what, Gerry. I'll take the conservative farmers, soldiers and business men, and keep the red counties, and you take all of the "talent", presumably actors and singers (we won't have to do without them for long... where will they be without a broad audience?) and the blue counties and we'll see who comes out on top. As for education, well they've done a bang-up job with primary ed., haven't they? Education suffers when the government (and I'm talking Democrat, here) pays more attention to the wants of teachers unions than to the needs of students. The Democrat solution to education problems? Throw money at it (Washington DC schools are among the highest-funded, and lowest-performing schools in the nation). As for our universities, it is true that liberals are teaching while conservatives are doing. But I'd love to see more conservative professors.

Only a liberal would think that education cannot exist without union-pandering, big-government beneficence, but I think I'd take my chances without your educational system, Geraldine.

Going Canadian = going douche bag?

"Don't hate us, we're useless douches who depend on America for everything, too!" That is the message some Americans are sending to Europe by dressing as Canadians as they travel abroad. According to this insightful article by Herman Goodden, some Canadians are flattered by this as a result of their insecurity, and others are annoyed in their smugness.

A company in New Mexico makes a kit complete with a shirt and luggage stickers and other items indicative of Canadian origin. According to the article, possibly 70% of the purchases are made by Republicans to give to their less-patriotic counterparts of Democratic persuasion, and the rest are purchased directly by the less-patriotic types who are about to be traveling overseas.

Were I to travel to Europe, I'd be more inclined to wear a backpack with two poles rising from it supporting an American flag between them, and with flags proudly displaying the middle finger off to either side. Depending, of course, on which country I am visiting.

The article suggests that Canada stands for nothing, but I think those who have worked so hard to achieve lax drug laws, piss-poor national health care, and pathetic immigration laws and enforcement (and that's saying something coming from an American) would be insulted by the suggestion that Canada stands for nothing. Add to that Canada's complete dependency on America for...well everything, and you can see how it would be so hard not to be proud to be Canadian.

Bottom line is that Canada is a trivial nation. To quote the song "Blame Canada" from the South Park movie, "they're not even a real country, anyway."

Indignation

I would compare those who enjoy engaging in the sport of America-bashing to viewers (and guests) of the Jerry Springer show. It is so much rubbish, and those who enjoy it are usually either human trash or insecure fools desperate to feel better about themselves.

A National Review Online (NRO) column by Roger Bate goes into some detail about bashing America over contributions in fighting AIDS:

To confirm the massive international bias (especially within the media) against the United States, one has only to examine the headlines about the recent major AIDS meeting in Tanzania. Most nations have failed to live up to their international obligations, whereas the U.S. has delivered on them. Yet, by some odd twist, the U.S. is criticized and the rest are not. It's time for Americans to consider ignoring international forums (such as the Global Fund), partner with those who want to work with the U.S. (as they did in Iraq), and just save lives.
...

The fund finished its board meeting in Tanzania just before Thanksgiving. Attended by four African presidents, with abundant smiles and large begging bowls, the meeting was supposed to announce a $3 billion anti-AIDS program for 2005. Instead, it has received pledges of only $900 million, and the fifth round of funding may be delayed by several months until the rest of the money is procured. Additionally, under congressionally imposed rules, the U.S. cannot commit more funds until the other parties also pledge more.

The current chairman of the Global Fund board is the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. When he announced that the fifth round of funding might be delayed by “five months,” the U.S. was immediately attacked by pressure groups for not doing enough. The Global AIDS Alliance accused President George W. Bush of crippling the fund by harboring “an irrational hatred toward all things U.N.-related.” European newspapers reported these attacks gleefully.
...

The G-8 group of nations declared last year that the fund should get $3 billion a year, with French President Jacques Chirac proposing $1 billion from Europe, $1 billion from the United States, and $1 billion from other countries.

But since European nations have not donated their share, the U.S. has so far paid more than its share — its support has been as high as 37 percent and is currently at 35 percent, exceeding the originally proposed 33 percent. When Congress agreed to the funding, it capped U.S. support at a third of the total level, not wanting to end up funding the vast majority of a supposedly global effort. As Thompson says: “If other countries were as generous as [the U.S.], we would not be in the situation we are in right now.”

Europeans have defended their stinginess mainly by complaining about America’s faith-based approach. U.S. policymakers insist that abstinence and education are as important a part of disease control as condom delivery, and the evidence shows this to be true. But the truth has not stopped European activists from excusing their governments’ refusals to grant funding on the grounds that they object to American policies.

Such carping at American largesse and annoyance at U.S. demands for accountability demonstrate that the rest of the world is happy to pay lip service to AIDS relief, but is neither serious about funding it nor about making sure that the funded interventions work.

The entire column is a good read, and well worth the time. Additionally, This is London has an article that details similar problems.

Britain attacks EU over Aids

Britain today rounded on the European Union for its paltry contribution to fighting Aids.

Speaking on World Aids Day, International Development Minister Gareth Thomas said the EU spent only £13.5 million on research into the disease last year compared with £224 million spent by the US.

While Americans give generously in the fight against AIDS, we are criticized. The Europeans get a free pass.

It is not unlike Iraq. Americans are giving copious amounts of blood and treasure to secure democracy, prosperity and freedom in Iraq, and are roundly criticized by populations and governments that have, in the entirety of their history, done next to nothing to secure the spread of such things.