Politics Claims Another Relationship

Kinda sad, really. An old friend from high school that I had reconnected with thanks to Facebook has just "unfriended" me. He was once a Republican but, according to him, the Bush administration changed everything. Now, I get that there are those for whom the Bush administration was a big problem. Dems, of course. Conservatives, less obvious, but again, of course.

Where this fellow fell in the political philosophy spectrum that made him a Republican I cannot say. What I do know is that by the time he and I became reacquainted, he was not just "no longer a Republican". No sir. He was an angry, MSNBC worshiping (yes, he was a Facebook fan of Rachel Maddow), Tea Party mocking, town-hall-meeting-protester-bashing, dyed-in-the-wool, full-blown lefty loon. I tolerated his angry Facebook posts. Sometimes responding back and enjoying the usual banter that those of us on the right can sometimes engage in with friends on the left if they are not too angry.

But then two things happened. First, he recommended that I become friends with Kim Jong Il (yes, THAT Kim Jong Il). Apparently a reference to my authoritarian right-wing ways. I ignored it and refrained from doing anything more than making a sarcastic general comment on his being quite the mensch. The next thing seems innocuous enough. He posted a comment about nuns appearing at a tea party rally, imploring his readers to "think about that". I simply responded that I had and didn't really think much of it...was I missing something? His point was that here we had yet another non-taxpayer rallying against healthcare for all. I called his comment ignorant and I was immediately unfriended after being told that my personal attack was immature and just too much for him to bear.

Now, here is the thing...I do believe it was an ignorant comment. It simplifies what they were protesting (lets see...nuns.... federal abortion funding....hmmmm, could it be?) as well as the idea that those that don't pay taxes don't get to participate in our political process. Of course, this is not how he tried to explain himself in a subsequent e-mail exchange outside of Facebook, likely the last between us.

That is what the political discourse of this nation has done to us. It has made everything personal. I did not insult him for the sake of insulting him. Just claimed his opinion was ill-informed. am I in the wrong here? After silently reading his insulting comments about those with my political views, is he in the right to claim that none of those was personal? At what point, when someone makes a generalization about the intelligence of en entire group, can they cease to claim that it is not "personal"? Why is it not? Because you did not mention me by name? That seems the coward's way out to me. If you believe I am stupid for my views, tell me to my face. Be a man. Don't hide behind generalizations. At least I could respect you a little more. Anything else is simply using weasal-words...which the left excels at. But that's another post.

Back At It

I can't believe we find ourselves here. There. I said it (wrote it....whatever). My last post was way back in November, stunned at what the Republicans were able to accomplish in New Jersey. Since then, we took TED KENNEDY'S f**kin' seat! And we still have a health care bill! How the hell did this happen?

As I was discussing with a co-worker at lunch today (who happens to be of the liberal stripe) this is what happens when a party runs on one thing and then goes the other direction and so abuses the power it has been handed that the backlash is enormous. Of course I am referring to congressional Republicans who became just as bad as the Dems with their "K-Street" project and Tom DeLay saying the budget had been cut to the bone and all other manner of garbage that Americans knew was BS. And what did it get us? An administration and a congress that I believe will legislate the United States as it once existed - vibrant, dynamic, a place where immigrants came to realize the dreams they could achieve nowhere else - out of existence.

I have worked with mid-sized businesses and their owners for 15 years now in a variety of capacities. There is nothing good in the bill or in this administration for them. And as I was driving home from the train station today, I had a thought that made me shudder. I was pondering what advice I would give my young sons when they got old enough to begin contemplating careers. My answer made me shudder. For the thought that ran through my head was "Go work for the government, son. It is the only way you know you will be taken care of...better pay, better health care and great job security."

Think about that.

Regarding New Jersey

Just a quick post to say how glad I am to have been wrong about my earlier post regarding Chris Christie's chances of winning. Way to go, my man.

NJ Governor's Race: Does Anyone Really Believe the Republicans Will Win?

Granted, Chris Christie is making a good show of it. And Republicans should be glad for that and not expect much more. Why? Because in any close race at this point, one has to assume that the Acorn vote machine will do what it has in the past and produce enough votes to ensure a Corzine win. For insight as to how this works, I suggest reading Robert Caro's excellent account of Lyndon Johnson's race for the US Senate, Means of Ascent, which lays out in agonizing detail just how to go about stealing an election. Of course, there are laws that make much of what Johnson did back then much more difficult today, but don't question for one moment whether similar activities go on today. In fact, much of the uproar against voter ID laws under the guise of voter protection are nothing more than a push to make sure that vote stealing remains possible in this day and age. No, to win today, candidates will need Bob McDonnell sized leads.

Jarrett: "“If the Chamber members decide they’d rather come and talk to us directly to present ideas, we welcome that”

And with that, a number of US Chamber of Commerce members lost their minds and, zombie-like, dropped their affiliation with the Chamber. And thus, politics has come full circle. Isn't it interesting that certain Chamber members, believing that they actually have a voice in the White House, were so quick to fall away over the global warming issue. Do these CEOs not understand that once the administration has used them for their purposes, they will turn on them and hang them out to dry? They should ask the pharma and health insurance companies how their alignment with this White House has worked out for them. I get ComEd and other energy companies leaving: if Cap'n Trade passes they will be in line to get carbon credits that they will desperately need. GE? What would you expect from the largest supplier of wind turbines? But mark my words, the Community Organizer in Chief knows this game better than you. And you are playing right into his hands. He is not your friend, he is not your ally. He is simply using you to achieve his ends.

Don't say you didn't see it coming.

CAFE and Trade

It has been a looooong time since I have posted anything here. But as I was watching an unnamed business program this morning I got an urge, so here I am. The discussion that got my attention related to the auto industry and recent conclusions about the billions of taxpayer dollars that will likely never be recovered (didn't see that one coming). One of the participants mentioned that the government needed to allow the US automakers to make cars people want to buy as opposed to mandating the plug-in matchboxes the green movement would like.

Now, it should come as no surprise that I am not a huge fan of CAFE standards. Unfortunately, they are a reality of our system right now and the political sea change that would be necessary to repeal them completely is not likely to happen anytime soon (think of today's Dem dominance in DC and reverse it). But I do think that fixing CAFE is a possibility. Here's the problem I really have with CAFE (beyond the obvious regulatory argument): it actually reduces the efficiency of each individual carmaker by requiring them to produce more than one kind of chassis in order to sell cars. The Ford Festiva can't be produced on the same line as the Ford Explorer. The problem is that Ford has to produce cars like the Festiva to remain in compliance with CAFE and has to produce cars like the Explorer to stay profitable. This introduces a great deal of inefficiency into Ford's business since it now has to run two completely different operations and must keep each of them operating as long as there is even minimal demand for each of these models. It reduces flexibility, purchasing efficiencies and the best allocation of firm resources.

So how to get around this? I look to another left-wing dream program, Cap and Trade (again, not a fan but I work with what I've got). Why not tweak CAFE rules so that CAFE standards (let's call them "credits") can be traded between firms? This would allow for the kind of specialization required to make operations more efficient. It would require those firms wanting to specialize in SUVs and light trucks to have to pay the true economic value for the right to make those cars, in the form of purchasing credits, to the firms that choose to focus on the smaller, more fuel efficient models.

Of course, free-market purists are tearing their hair out right now. "Why restrict at all?!" they are yelling. And I agree. My answer to them is that that the CAFE framework as been around for a long time and has only been strengthened over the years. It is not going away any time soon. Since this government regulation is here to stay, we really need to look to microeconomics rather than macroeconomics to make it work as efficiently as possible. This will be better for the consumer, better for shareholders and better for the firms' employees.

Sod Off!

So this is about how I am feeling about my chosen career these days...