De-friended for political reasons...

A friend of mine on Facebook ceased to be yesterday evening.  He also ceased to be the friend of some of our mutual friends at the same time.  Coincidentally, mine and their political viewpoints align on a great many fronts.  Were we de-friended because we don't think Barack Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread?  Quite possibly.

I recently glanced at the info page of this friend and former co-worker.  He explains why he is a Democrat:

Why I am a Democrat.

When I was born the Republican party stood for individual responsibility, states’ rights and financial conservatism. After many years of being in the minority in Congress, the Republicans decided that they needed to find a new set of voters. They found their calling in being anti-communist. Anti-communism united the free marketers and the religious conservatives under the Republican banner. Being anti-communist worked for the Republicans, they did everything they could think of to bring down the Soviet Union and it worked. That is where things started going wrong.

National Debt:
President Bush promised "Read my lips, no new taxes" on the campaign trail in 1988. In 1991, he was the most popular President in history, and then his economic advisers came to him and said that taxes needed to be raised if we were going to get the deficits under control. George Bush remembered what he said, but decided to do the right thing and raise taxes, resulting in the longest economic expansion in US history. The American people burned him for it, and he lost the election. Since that election, the financial conservatives in the Republican Party have basically been silenced. We used to have "tax and spend Democrats". Now we have "borrow and spend Republicans". China now owns half a Trillion dollars of the US federal debt. The whole world owns 2.6 trillion dollars of the US federal debt. The impacts of this massive debt on the US economy are going to be felt for years to come.



How dare the American people punish the man for going back on his word!  This is the same mindset that villifies Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty for signing a no new taxes pledge.  What my friend glosses over here with regards to George H.W. Bush is that the country was hit by recession in 1991.  Bush was not on-board with Reagananomics, calling it "Voodoo Economics" when running against Reagan in 1980.  Eight years later, he uttered the infamous "no new taxes" phrase.  Some people think he was paying supply-side economic theory lip service just to secure the nomination.  And the reason why Bush lost the election in 1992?  Try the same reason Bob Dole lost in 1996.  A billionaire name H. Ross Perot who understood 25 years ago that tax-and-spend and borrow-and-spend weren't the only options when it comes to fiscal policy.  In a nutshell, Perot espoused "tax-less-and-spend-less" as a means of getting the countries finances back in order.  Perot was the reason why Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote, merely a plurality.  Speaking of Clinton, my friend claims we used to have "tax and spend Democrats".  Uh no, they're still here.  They didn't go anywhere.  And my friend ignores the close relationship between the Clinton administration and Red China.  Remember Al Gore at the fundraiser at the Buddhist temple, who later claimed he didn't know he was at a fundraiser?

Spreading Freedom:
When we were fighting the communists, the most successful strategy we had was convincing the world that the United States was a force of good, by spreading freedom to areas that had been denied it, predominantly in Eastern Europe. With the end of Soviet Communism, this policy abruptly stopped. While the goal of spreading freedom is shared by both Republicans and Democrats, it appears that for Republicans it was just a tactic to beat Communism rather than a strategy for a better world. The current President Bush paid lip service to democracy in Palestine, but when the Palestinians elected people we don't like, we did everything in our power to force them out of power.






Ironic that Democrats were always against this so-called "nation-building."  And with the end of Soviet communism, stopping the spread of communism ceased to be as much in our national interest, not to mention politicians would have a hard time justifying "priming the pump" when the pressure was off.  This led to the aforementioned economic prosperity:  The USSR came in second place in the Cold War.  The US could start paying more attention to domestic issues.


Culture of Fear:
When Communism was the big problem, Republicans stood for strength. Now all that I seem to hear from Republicans is to be afraid. No matter what the problem is, the Republicans are selling fear of it. Fear the Islamists; they are trying to destroy our government. I don't think Ronald Reagan was afraid of a few thousand guys, no matter who they are. The best thing the US can do is project an atmosphere of strength and calm throughout the world. Fear the Muslims, they want to make you wear a veil and pray 5 times a day. Fear the Democrats; they want to take away your guns. Fear the homosexuals, they want to convert you.




This is his viewpoint.  I agree that paralyzing fear isn't useful, but fear that motivates vigilance is quite useful.  Only a fool fears nothing.  What a person does in response to their fears is what matters.  If they allow themselves to be controlled by fear, then yes, he's right.  But I prefer to control my fear and act with vigilance.  Muslims?  I got a couple of acquaintances who are Muslim, and I doubt they're going to slit my throat anytime soon.  But there have been over 10,000 terrorist attacks committed by radical Muslims since 9/11, and countless attacks before then.  And let's not forget that Osama bin Laden, in an open letter to the USA, declared that the attacks against Americans and American interests around the world would continue until we convert.  These dirt-bags envision a global Islamic Caliphate.  They've said so.

I won't dignify the Fear the Democrats meme with a lengthy analysis.  I'll just point out the Democrat meme of Fear the Republicans; they want to see blacks back in slavery and women out of the workplace and back in the kitchen!

I don't fear homosexuals, but I am wary of the guilt trip they try to lay on us straights in order to further their agenda.  Were it not for "straight guilt", they wouldn't wield nearly as much power as a minority.  My former colleague also neglects the evidence regarding the blacks and latinos who voted for Prop 8 in California, two groups that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.  I have no problem with gays joining in a civil union and getting all the tax benefits as a straight couple.  But marriage is a religious sacrament, and I feel there's a legitimate concern about a religious or religiously-motivated group being forced to acknowledge a couple's secularly-ordained status.  We've already seen this, with Catholic Charities being harassed by the state of California because they refused to allow an employee designate her lesbian partner as a health insurance dependent.  Where are all the "Separation of Church and State" folks when stuff like this happens?

Black and White:
Under communism, all shades of gray were available to the Republicans ( think Nixon going to China). R

Um, no, an oppressive Communist regime is an oppressive Communist regime.  That doesn't mean we can't establish diplomatic and trade relations with them.  When it comes to terrorism, to fanatical devotion to a belief system, be it religious, ideological, or some combination thereof, there is no middle ground.  Such enemies already see things in black and white.  Remember Obama's comment about the moderate members of Taliban?


 To summarize, my friend, while a nice guy, sees some things not as how they are, but as he would like them to be.  It's sad that if I and fellow conservatives have been de-friended simply for disagreeing with him, then he's not really as open-minded as he likes to think he is.  By the way, in all the above paragraphs, he only tells us why he's not a Republican, yet it's supposed to be about why he's a Democrat.  Well, perhaps he can delve into that some other time...

Bumper stickers and leadership

Within 5 minutes, I both saw and heard two of the most patently stupid things.

The first was listening to the ABC news brief while driving away from work.  The "journalist" stated something about the Obama administration's thwarting of the car-bombing in Times Square.

Stop.  Right.  There.


If the bomber's incompetence is the only reason that dozens of people in Times Square were not maimed or killed that day, how can anyone credit the Obama administration with stopping it?  The bomber was thwarted only by himself.


Second, I had the pleasure of passing a suspected femi-Nazi, as Rush Limbaugh calls them, on the highway.  The back of her car was adorned with bumper stickers that didn't just espouse the left-wing point of view, but mocked the right-wing point-of-view.  Nothing wrong with that, mind you, she's entitled to her moronic, head-up-her-ass views, but I thought it deliciously ironic that she had bumper stickers like "Evolution is only a theory (you know, like gravity)" next to "Celebrate Diversity".

As an aside, I should say that matters of faith shouldn't be presented as gospel truth.  You know, like the Theory of Evolution. That's right, it's a theory.  It happens to fit the available data, but at its core, it's still just a hypothesis.  Gravity on the other hand, is a scientific law for a reason.  It's a Newtonian force that obeys Newtonian Laws.  Leave it to a smug liberal to screw up an analogy.

I've never understood the logic in plastering your car's rear end with your views on life.  Frankly, I think my fellow motorists don't give a shit how I feel about life, nor do I want them to know.  It's nobody's business.  In the case of the lady in the Subaru (Didn't I mention that), I suspect she thinks those stickers are telling people how enlightened she is.  That's the pattern I've noticed with libs.  They're very insecure.  It's not enough to know things.  Other people have to be shown how smart you are.  Take our current president.  He's not very skilled at hiding his emotions in political disagreements.  You can see he views people who dispute his knowledge of things as personally attacking him.  An unfortunate reality in this country is that the voters will sometimes elect the know-it-all.  The problem with know-it-alls is that they don't know it all.  They just think they do.  The best kind of leaders are the ones who will acknowledge they don't have all the answers.  They don't necessarily make this kind of acknowledgment public, but you can see the humility in whom they choose to advise them.  A good leader doesn't want a yes-man, he/she wants someone who will challenge mistaken beliefs and offer alternatives, yet still respect the chain of command when the final decision is made.  How do I know this?  Because I have more leadership experience that the sitting President of the United States of America.  Former President Bill Clinton's recent comments about Obama being the "guy who would be bringing us coffee", or whatever it was, as racist as it sounds on the surface, has an element of wisdom to it (Let me check The Weather Channel for icy condition in Hell, I just said Bill Clinton was smart!):  Mr. Obama lacks the maturity and leadership skill necessary for his office.  I understand on-the-job training is sometimes necessary, but that's why the guy in the mail room doesn't get promoted to CEO.

I really do try, people...

As I grow older, it becomes important to me that I make informed decisions, both as a person and in a leadership role in my jobs.

So when I see an article on The Huffington Post about how there still exists pay inequity between men and women, I read it.  My skeptic's radar may go on full blast, but I'll hear what the author has to say.

Unfortunately, it was nothing but a lot of bluster with no supporting factual evidence.  So I had to go and find something to support the author's argument.  What I found was this.  How did they calculate this inequity?  Just as I suspected:  Take the number of men and women in this country, take their wages, and average them on a general gender basis.  Yeah, that's accurate.  What about the relatively new entry by a majority of women into the marketplace?  What about the fact that women remain a minority in many high-paying jobs in engineering, computers, and science?  Or high-risk jobs?

The pay inequity debate often ignores a question I have:  If women are paid less for the same work, why are more women unemployed than men?  A shrewd business owner would employ women if they were cheaper.

Crossroads

My girlfriend's brother, Fernando, has apparently separated from yet another wife.  Personally, I don't care, except as far as Fernando's marital problems affect Tawny.  But they don't bother her either, so I will say only this on the subject:  There comes a point where one wonders how much of it is Fernando's fault.

My own relationship with Tawny is ... uncertain.  It seems at times like she's pushing me away.  Is the fire gone from the relationship?  Will ours die slowly and quietly?  I almost envy Fernando:  At least he knows the exact moment that "it" was over.

BHO has a point: Health insurance should be more like auto insurance

Picture this:  While driving down the highway, you glance up at the reminder sticker on the windshield.  It's time for an oil change.

You pull into the oil-change service's garage.  They drain the old oil, replace the filter, refill the engine with fresh oil, check it out, and tell you how much today's service will cost.

Try handing them your proof of auto insurance and see what happens.

The point is, what we call "health insurance" is more of a service plan.  Go to the doctor for a physical?  Bill the insurance company.

The origin of health insurance companies, euphemistically called health maintenance organizations (HMOs), big surprise, has its foundations in government.  What a surprise.  Know what else?  They were crafted to improve the quality of health care while keeping costs down.  With the backing of the federal government, HMOs were able to strong-arm doctors into signing up, lest the HMOs used their collective bargaining power to steer patients away from "scab" doctors and to doctors who were part of the network.

Notice anything troubling about such a system?  Doctors, once part of the network, were now partly owned by the HMOs.  To keep costs down, HMOs could nickel-and-dime not only patients, but doctors and hospitals.  What do you think happened when doctors and hospitals started to realize they were forced to operate their businesses at a loss?  They had to raise prices where they could.

Factor this in with multi-million dollar jury awards against doctors and hospitals for making "mistakes", causing malpractice insurance premiums to rise, and it's easy to see how costs have gotten out of control.  All because the government thought they were being compassionate by introducing the concept of collective bargaining to patients.  Yeah, look how well it worked for factories with unionized employees:  Increased costs, the supplanting of meritocracy with seniority-based advancement, etc.

Now, years after their conception, HMOs are demonized by the very government that created them.

Let's visit the oil-change shop.  How much does an oil change cost?  Depends on the quantity and quality of the oil.  Consider if the shop had to deal with a penny-pinching insurance company.  Insurance companies are motivated by profit.  While customer-retention is key to making a profit, eliminating costs is another key.  Let's say you wanted to replace the oil in your car with a high-performance synthetic, the theory being that engine parts would age and deteriorate at a slower rate, ultimately leading you saving money and not having to buy another car for a longer time.  The insurance company is motivated by profit, and they've thought of this too.  They'll run the numbers and opt to cover the cheap motor oil.  Why?  Because when repairs outweigh the value of the car, you'll buy another, most likely more expensive car, which will enhance the insurance company's bottom-line.

Additionally, oil changes are a fixed, periodic cost.  Drive the car long enough, and you're going to need an oil change.  Insurance guards us against the unforeseen, like the pickup that is going to T-bone you during your morning commute tomorrow.  Auto insurance uses a number of variables to calculate how much you might cost them one bad day, and uses that to determine how much to charge you and others to prepare for that bad day.  If you're a good driver with a clean driving record, you're less likely to cost the insurance company a shitload of money, so they'll reward your continued business by giving you incentives to keep paying them premiums, such as lower premiums.  On an individual scale, that doesn't make economic sense, but if the insurance company attract ten drivers like you with the lower premium, they make up the cost of your discount in volume.

But oil changes?  Tire rotation?  Those are periodic maintenance tasks.  Doesn't matter how good a driver you are, you're going to need to pay for them.  Does it make sense to have the insurance company essentially act as intermediary with your money, just so they can turn around and give it back you to pay for oil changes and other periodic maintenance costs, or does it make more sense to just pay for this out of your pocket and not give the insurance company a cut for holding your money?

What ever happened to "allegedly"?

You know the one thing missing from all of these reports of death threats and violence against Congressmen? 

Proof.

Yet the news media, by and large, has seen fit to report on how Tea Partiers "hurled racial epithets" and "anti-gay slurs" at the Congressmen, absent the word "allegedly".

How far has the quality of journalism sunk in this country that a politician is taken at his or her word? 

Leftist gloating

On the way home from work, I listened to the Fallon Forum for thirty seconds.  That's all it took for the hosts to say something incredibly stupid.

The Fallons had a guest on who was describing what exactly was in the bill passed last night.  The guest mentioned how the so-called "public option" was not in the bill, and how the insurance companies fought hard against it.  Ed Fallon made the obligatory snarky comment, about how the insurance companies feared competition from the government in their free-market business model.

Moron.

Insurance companies, like most if not all private, for-profit entities, get their panties in a twist when confronted with unfair competition.  You know, like government organizations that don't have to earn a profit, that can run at a loss, and that in this case, are not subject to state regulations.  Or taxes.

You know, for all the talk of how these liberals are nuanced thinkers, they are incredibly short-sighted.  Might be because they make decisions and push policies based on emotion rather than logic.