"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN"

Published on September 28, 2004 By dabe In Politics

"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN" Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." This is posted on the blog of "Tom Tomorrow" the cartoonist, attributed to "South Knox Bubba". Enjoy.... http://www.thismodernworld.com/

Comments (Page 2)

Bungy32

on Sep 28, 2004

Mistaken about what?.... (snip) By the way you were defending it and the words you used, I just figured you and dabe were the same person.

And that's about as close to a retraction as you are ever likely to get, I guess. Not really an admission of a mistake; more an accusation that I sound too much like the original poster (and that's somehow my fault). Of course, you could always read the by-line. But no. You're right. I guess it is too much for me to expect that. It always comes down to the same thing: "I'm Right, and you're not."

Same old double standards.

Yeah, you got a few yourself. My mistakes (even when I don't make them) are because I am "disengenuous" and "posting junk" and "ignroant" and "bereft of rational thought." When you make a fairly obvious mistake, it's because you can't tell all them liberals apart -- and everybody knows that's the liberals' fault.

It is precisely this double standard of yours that leads me to think you probably do want to eradicate the Left. And frankly, your inability to say something as simple as, "oops, I was mistaken. I thought you wrote the article. My bad." only makes me suspect so even more.

No, I don't take offense at the article. But I also don't offer a blanket defense of it, either. And I'm thinking phrases like:

those with privilege have a hard time seeing it let alone acknowledging it. That's true of all of us, Right, Left or inbetween.

go a long way to indicate some nuanced (gray zone) thinking on my part. More so than in your continued polemic, at least.

Thanks for the "apology." I realize you are doing the best you can.

bakerstreet

on Sep 28, 2004

I think I am doing pretty well just acknowledging your existence as you keep accusing me of wanting to "eradicate the Left". geez... Keep banging away at the little details you can latch onto, though, it'll make you appear to have a point...

Draginol

on Sep 28, 2004

This is a pretty lame article.

As if our water is clean because of left wingers. The biggest conservationist of in American history was a Republican - Theodore Roosevelt.

The medication he takes is safe not because of left wingers but because of a combination of the FDA, an entity that got its start at the order of another Republican in 1862, and pharmacuetical companies.

Most Americans get insurance not because of unions but because of competition for employees in the private sector.

The food we eat is safe thanks to a combination of market forces (i.e. serve bad food in the age of mass communication and you'll be out of business) and some regulation from the USDA -- an agency that once again was created by a Republican President.

And it goes on and on. The bottom line is that Republicans have always argued that the government should regulate certain parts of industry. Just that they shouldn't be regulated to death.

Frankly your lack of knowledge on these issues that you just posted about is kind of stunning given the venom you put with it.

It's like arguing that you are able to post freely on this website thanks to the ACLU or something. Your cause and effect arguments are so tangential as to be meaningless.

bakerstreet

on Sep 28, 2004

Careful Brad. Watch the names closely. Careful who you eradicate. All these pinkos look alike...

...

Oh, my bad. I made a mistake.

SOME of these pinkos look alike...

...
...

Bungy32

on Sep 28, 2004

I think I am doing pretty well just acknowledging your existence as you keep accusing me of wanting to "eradicate the Left". geez...

Oh, thank-you. More Rightwing noblesse oblige. You acknowledge I exist. That's just ...so...touching...

And before you ratchet up the rhetoric on "accusations" I would like to point out my various modal qualifiers that keep my "eradicate the Left" claim from actually being an accusation:

I am starting to think it isn't just paranoia...

...this double standard of yours that leads me to think you probably do...

"Modal qualifiers," according to philosopher Stephen Toulmin, indicate the strength of an argumentative assertion (or, in this case, "accusation"). I am not accusing you of wanting to erradicate the Left. I am saying your words lead me to wonder if that mightbe the case. I "wonder" this (and I chose my words carefully) because you have yet to admit to any benefits in our society that come from the Left and you are unwilling to really acknowledge (and retract) a mistake made in one of your claims about the Left (or, more specifically, this particular Leftist). You even go so far as to suggest that the original poster (dabe, remember?) doesn't have a life. Yeah, "get a life" is just an expression -- but at least figuratively you've posited a Left without a life, already all but eradicated.

But here. If it will make it easier, I don't want to eradicate you or the Right. You actually post some challenging articles of your own and often make a strong case (sometimes even persuasive to me) for a variety of conservative positions. You haven't on this thread (and you could have!), but on other threads and articles you mount impressive arguments, well evidenced and reasoned. I also think the Right has provided some useful things to our culture (not limited to but certainly including the benefits discussed in this article that Madine's and Draginol's inventories correctly credit to Repubicans). And yeah, I've responded to your causticity with causticity, which is usually never productive. My bad. See? Not so hard. I'm still a Lefty. Still proud to be a Liberal.

But see, to your eyes this is probably just further evidence of the weakness of the Left.
And to my eyes, if so, that would be evidence of the weakness of (some on) the Right.

dabe

on Sep 28, 2004

Wow! I really started something. Interestingly enough, many of the environmental and health laws were initiated by Republicans. However, for some bizarro reason, the Republicans have abandoned all good sense and morality, and are trying to dismantle all those good laws. Market forces, my ass. It's having the fox watch the chicken coop. If you trust corporate greed to regulate its own emissions, have I got a bridge to sell you. The "Clear Skies Initiative" is a hoax. It's Dubya's efforts to deregulate the power industry, enabling them to pollute the air we breath so they can make more money. Dubya's has attempted, with some success I might add, to eviscerate the National Environmental Policy Act, which was signed into law by Nixon. For only one reason: enable his corporate cronies to make more money.

As for health care, it's pitiful that health care is predicated on employment. When you have record numbers of people losing jobs, you have record numbers of people losing health care. All liberals want to do is separate health care from employment, take it out of the hands of the greedy insurance companies, and allow everyone the right (not a priveege) to obtain health care. Is that so evil a purpose? I think not.

Because of all these corrupt policies, the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, and the rich are getting richer and richer off the backs of the poor. Our society has become so lopsided, so devoid of humanism, so utterly greedy and corrupt. All I'd like to see is some common sense put back into the White House. Bush has proven that he's incompetent. I'm very happy to give Kerry a chance at the helm. He's a decent, honest person, in spite of all the right wing smears. It amazes me that CBS gets skewered for basing a story on documents it cannot verify, and are likely forgeries (regardless that the content of those documents are correct), but Bush sends our military into a war based on the fradulent Niger documents, and all he says is "oops. I'd do it again". What a fucking clueless, selfixh, moronic, evil sonnovabitch.

rugbyshawn

on Sep 28, 2004

Interestingly enough, Teddy Roosevelt (R-NY) also believed in busting large corporations that he felt were screwing people over and strangling the US economy. He also believed in moving away from laissez faire business policies and have the government make sure everyone got a square deal (Square deal was his re-election slogan) ....
To read about TR and his trust-busting policies....Link

I wonder how long until history repeats itself?

bakerstreet

on Sep 28, 2004

"However, for some bizarro reason, the Republicans have abandoned all good sense and morality, and are trying to dismantle all those good laws. "

Or, if you look at it objectively, perhaps conservatives are trying to moderate the snowballing, rampant, unchecked social experimentation that many Liberals would undertake with no care for the unforseen damage.

"Oh, thank-you. More Rightwing noblesse oblige. You acknowledge I exist. That's just ...so...touching..."

You should appreciate it. If I didn't, you wouldn't.

P.S. I think your articles are insightful, too, but I don't think you know much about the people you talk about. You act like you are debating a caracature.

Madine

on Sep 28, 2004

Trust busting is consistent with the belief in free-market competition. When you have a monopoly controlling the market, you don't have free-market competition.

Why should small businesses (aka most of the top 1% of individual income earners) pay for everyone's health care?

dabe

on Sep 28, 2004

If we shared the cost of health care for everyone, not make businesses shoulder all the costs; if the money we spend on health insurance instead was paid to taxes to cover health care for all, we'd all be better off. After all, we are all in this together. And certainly, why give these miserable tax breaks to the people who need them the least? I just cannot follow the logic (or lack thereof). We should pay for eachother's health care because we're human; because we're humanitarian; because if we don't, we'll end up paying more in the end, in taxes on top of insurance premiums to cover the costs of unnecessary emergency room visits, for diseases that could have been prevented if health care was available.; because we should care about our fellow human beings, goddammit.

rugbyshawn

on Sep 28, 2004

Of course trust-busting is mostly consistent with free market competition although it is still imposing government regulation on the "market" even if it is a market of one. But what I wonder is with all the mega mergers that have occurred (banking and the media are two good examples) in the last two decades, how long until we will need a trust-buster again to give the people a "square deal"?

Plus in the link from my last reply and other things I've read about Roosevelt, you can tell that the Republican bosses weren't happy that Mr. Roosevelt decided to move away from the laissez-faire policies.

Random thought: There have been so many banking mergers in the last few years that the stadium location of the Sixers and the Celtics seem to change every couple years...

KoopaTroopa211

on Sep 28, 2004

Everyone seems to forget that Roosevelt, while belonging to the republican party, was actually rather progressive/liberal (whichever word you like to use) in comparison to most other republicans. He broke up huge trusts, reserved some of our largest national Parks, and got fair treatment for workers.

Many political bosses were worried when he became McKinley's VP. One even went so far as to declare "Don't you people realize that there's only one life between that madman and the presidency?"

Seriously, the man was probably the first RINO.

Bungy32

on Sep 29, 2004

It's all right there, isn't it? I only exist because you acknowledge me, but I'm the one debating a charicature. Talk about double standards.

But thanks for the compliment. It's a start.

As for TR, it's worth noting that the so-called "wise use" movement gets its name if not exactly its philosophy from Roosevelt. Roosevelt was, afterall, a progressive conservationist and not a preservationist. The progressives of the era took "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" as their guiding principle. As a result, TR ultimately sided with folks like Gifford Pinchot over John Muir (the preservationist founder of the Sierra Club) on issues like the damming of the Hetch Hetchy river in California. He was skeptical of folks who simply wanted to preserve wilderness for its own sake. In many ways, conservative stances on the environment mirror this philosophy and "wise use" is based on the principle that people should get to do as they please on their land and, of course, since it is their land they won't want to damage it any more than is absolutely necessary. Much of the rhetoric behind market forces taking the long view and self-regulating on the environment is based on this position.

Problem is, times have changed. Population has exploded. Wilderness (whatever that is) has receded. And the "free" market has become dependent on (unsustainable) growth. There are fundamental contradictions between our economic system and sustainable maintenance (or development) of our environment and natural resources. The "we just want to keep environmental regulations from regulating business to death" argument reveals this, I think. Our environmental regulations, if anything, aren't strong enough (although some, like the Clean Air Act, seem to have caused more problems than they've solved), but any increase in regulation will have a (potentially) profound negative impact on the economy. It can only be hypothetical to wonder what TR would do today with the challenges presented at the intersection of free market economy and the environment.

The bottom line is that environmental and economic issues aren't black and white (there I go with the shades of gray again). We can ill-afford to say, "Save the environment at all costs and screw the economic impacts." We can also ill-afford to say, "The economy matters more than the environment." When we polarize these issues by saying ALL people on the Left only believe the former and ALL people on the Right only believe the latter, we don't help either our economic or environmental issues.

Draginol

on Sep 29, 2004

Republicans are for business, no doubt about it. But they're not for monopolies. Theodore Roosevelt would still be a Republican today. If anything, Republicans of the 21st century are closer to his view than the Republicans of the 19th.

Consider the last major monopoly breakup AT&T. And who was responsible for that? Ronald Reagan. And that was at the same time as he also broke the strangle hold of unions on certain types of jobs (air traffic controller strike).

Republicans believe in free market competition. It also believes in EFFECTIVE policies. Democrats tend to worry about "fairness" but have no idea of how to achieve it effectively. Republicans do favor fairness in opportunity. They just don't want to garauntee the results since different individuals make different choices.

Patriot_Flamethrower

on Sep 29, 2004

LMAO!! Your liberal RANT is the FUNNIEST thing I have read in a LONG time! Thanks for sharing.

The MORAL of this little work of FICTION is "Don't take care of YOURSELF and accept responsibility for your OWN DESTINY.........let BIG BROTHER do it for you, and let the TAXPAYERS pay for ALL OF IT".

Karl Marx and Josef Stalin would be SO PROUD OF YOU!!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!