Election Day

While I was watching the news and Family Guy tonight, I noticed that it seemed like every single commercial was campaign stuff, back-to-back. It all followed a certain pattern: if it was local, it was about who spent the most time in the area, who grew up where, who hated/loved their hometowns, who was more corrupt. I even saw one local ad making issue of the fact the opponent had never married. That's getting rather personal and frivolous, in my opinion.

On the national level, the biggest issue of choice more predictably is the economy. I really wish I saw more about how Obama broke his promise on killing the Patriot Act... but of course, that wasn't going to be brought up by the Republicans, who introduced it and signed it into law. The ones who rightfully would make issue of it were never taken seriously by the media: the Libertarians.

Between the Democrats and Republicans, I find myself siding more with the Democrats. And ultimately, that's who I voted for (my state has early voting): Obama. Contrary to what Republicans would have us believe, he's proven himself a moderate. Perhaps too much for my liking. That's not to say I want an extreme liberal - I do not. What I want is a leader who keeps promises, stands up for what's right, and won't make the country move backwards. Obama has tried, although like I said, I'm deeply disappointed in him for the Patriot Act and NDAA.

I think I've mentioned before that the one and only reason my vote went to Obama instead of Johnson is because I want the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to have a chance to work.

Meanwhile, the Republican ads are reminding me of that one relative or frienemy that we all have. You know the one - they preach responsibility while doing every stupid and irresponsible thing you can imagine, and are probably on welfare while they do so. Nothing against welfare, but to preach responsibility while using welfare like a piggy bank... yeah. Pretty hypocritical.

You see, the Republicans have consistently increased government spending. While increasing spending, they cut taxes, particularly on the rich. This sounds nice, I guess. Work less, spend more.

That's exactly what it is. And we know as working Americans that this doesn't work. Bush started his presidency with tax rebates, tax cuts, followed by a war on two fronts, more tax cuts, and I think more rebates. That there's some "fuzzy math." And this is the party of fiscal responsibility? Really?

Come on, I like keeping my money just as much as anyone else. But, if I get a flat tire on my car, it has to be fixed, and I have to pay for it. Similarly, the government does provide services on a wide range of things. To break it down in private sector terms, the government provides security, insurance, transportation, infrastructure, etc. And as with the private sector, it's not free. Unless you want to tell a soldier why you don't think he deserves a paycheck or healthcare.

We all get several benefits from taxes that we take so much for granted that we don't even see them. And even if such benefits are pointed out to many nay-sayers, they will childishly say, "well, I don't benefit from it," or "I didn't ask for it."

Well, that's the way things work. With Hurricane Sandy, I didn't see any Republicans turning down help from the government. Even Chris Christie was happy to accept help, even going so far as to thank Obama. That took a lot of guts (and I will refrain from making a joke about Christie's ample gut... or does that in itself count as one? Damn). Of course, the more partisan Republicans (and Fox News) turned on him for doing so. But, let's be honest: these same ones that were graciously accepting help were griping about such government programs a month or so earlier. Wasn't Romney wanting to privatize and profit off emergency response stuff?

How does one profit off this? By gouging those who already lost everything?

Anyway, this is the start of election day. If you can do so, vote. Vote your conscience, and know the truth.

Have I gone nuts or something?

Two topics today:
First, how the hell can I like both Johnson and Obama?

This is a question that I've been asked by a number of people, I suspect in attempts to discredit my knowledge of politics. Of course, we all want to believe that those who disagree with us are idiots, or at the very least, ignorant on whatever given subject... and we generally measure the knowledge of others by how much they agree with us. Arrogant, to say the least - to act in such a way assumes that we are the ultimate authority on a subject.

On the surface, perhaps, it would seem that the two are complete opposites - more so than Obama and Romney, even. But, that's only true if your attention is only focused on the current hot-button issues. Government spending, certainly... Obamacare... stuff like that. What about liberties and equal rights? Johnson supports equal rights for same sex couples, and so does Obama. On women's issues, hard to compare... they are pretty close. I guess it would depend on perspective. Obama said he would get rid of the Patriot Act, but sadly renewed it. I figure Johnson would be the one to actually end it. They both advocate internet freedom, although it's easier to trust Johnson's hands-off approach on this. Johnson wants to legalize marijuana, Obama has kept quiet on the subject... but has admitted to smoking the stuff in the past. Gun rights... well, I was nervous about Obama at first, but he has so far stood up for them pretty well even in the face of foreign leaders practically demanding that he tighten gun laws or ban them altogether.

The thing is that both candidates really want about the same thing, though Obama's more a politician (if you've been keeping up with my blog, you know that that's not exactly a compliment). They both want to improve the economy, but they have different plans. They both want America and its people as a whole to be better off, but go about it different ways. Different paths to (hopefully) the same goal. Obama's idea is to give more government aid, while Johnson's is to have the government back off. Both ideas can work, and both ideas can seriously fuck things up, all according to how it's done.

The Republicans, for example, claim to want government to back off. However, their idea of backing off is to deregulate for corporations and to give more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest, and will do any favors they can for the wealthiest while screwing over the rest and and accusing any who object of "class warfare." They are, after all, helping themselves out in doing so. Kind of like voting themselves an off-the-record pay raise. But, that's the extent of their "small government" - they still want to legislate your morals.

The Democrats on the other hand... the nannies. Their legislation tends to intrude on personal decision making, such as Bloomberg's ban on big soft drinks. And while well intentioned, raising the minimum wage in itself isn't going to work - it'll cause lay-off's and price increases, thus increasing the overall cost of living. Let's remember, business owners and execs (even the ones that really are rolling in the money) don't want to take a pay cut just to give their workers pay that they can actually live on. Also, while I don't support relaxing current environmental regulations, tightening them unnecessarily in the US really won't do much until other nations catch up. Comparatively speaking, we're not doing too terrible hear. However, look at China. Look at Mexico. Fiscally speaking, it would take much less for them to catch up to us. We should still always look for improvements, but let's also let our own businesses catch up on their profits a bit and encourage other nations to catch up on their pollution controls.

Anyway, between Obama and Johnson, I think it would be a win if either one of these candidates won. Romney, not so much. For me, the tie-breaker may be Obamacare, which brings me to my second topic:

How the hell can I support Obamacare?

Won't it completely bankrupt the healthcare industry? Think of it this way - you're driving your brand new black 2012 Dodge Challenger (WANT!), then someone runs a red light and smashes into your new beauty of a car. No problem, insurance will take care of that... oh? What's that? The other driver doesn't have insurance? Damn... well, guess it's a good thing you had to pay extra for that uninsured driver coverage, huh? Except while the hell should you have to?

Consider this: a lot of Americans don't have health insurance. It's not because they're irresponsible; it's because they can't afford it. Or they get denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not all employers provide health insurance, after all... my last two jobs didn't. Nonetheless, if someone walks into a doctor's office in extreme pain or in need of emergency help, legally, they have to help at least to stabilizing the patient... thankfully. The value of someone's life shouldn't depend on how rich they are. This leaves the patient with a debt to the doctor's office/clinic/hospital... and in many cases, the patient will not be able to pay off said debt, leaving the doctor's office/clinic/hospital with a bad debt and not much they can do to collect it.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) addresses these issues. First, insurance companies won't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions... and make no mistake, they will find any asinine reason they can to do so. Childhood asthma, depression, PCOS (Poly-Cystic Ovary Syndrome... fairly common, many cases go undiagnosed and untreated)... the list goes on. Insurance companies are a business after all, and they want their profits.

Next, the question of insurance companies being hurt, or them jacking up their rates. Obama essentially called bullshit on the insurers on this one in the form of the 85-15 rule. That is, 85% of their funds go to patient care with the remaining 15% used for whatever they feel like - administration, whatever. 

As for the question of the metaphorical uninsured driver... that's where the especially controversial individual mandate comes in. Basically, everyone is going to pay into healthcare somehow, if not through insurance, then through a fine or whatever you want to call it, that is withheld from tax refunds. I suppose you could call said fine your annual insurance dues.

I think that Obamacare does deserve a chance. It likely will reduce overall costs associated with healthcare on the private level as well as the government level as well as giving everyone at least minimal health insurance of some kind.

Election Stuff

Ah, the smell of feces being hurled through the air! That can only mean one thing: campaign season!

The Republicans, if not for being such morons, would have had this election handed to them on a silver platter. And don't get me wrong - I'm not devoutly against Republicans as a whole. While I am liberal, I'm a moderate one. I vote based on the person, not the party. That said, yes, I do tend to cast a fair number of votes for Republicans. That does not change the fact that the Republicans are being bloody morons in this campaign season, though.

The TEA party is a big part to blame. Allow me to explain: the TEA Party is of course very politically active, and devoutly anti-Obama. In itself, not too big a deal. Hell, I was against Bush the lesser to the point of wanting a treason investigation on his administration. That's another story entirely however, and something I still stand by.

The TEA Party however is making its points largely by denying facts and obstructing. They tend to favor the most extreme candidates, usually religious fundamentalists (think Bachmann and O'Donnell). The candidate does well in rallies full of like-minded people, so they get the nomination. Then having the Republican party nomination, they do poorly in debates where there assertions and stances are actually questioned and exposed to contradicting facts.

Such extreme candidates tend to disgust moderates, even those who would otherwise be more inclined to vote against the liberal candidate. O'Donnell is a good example of this, as the one she ran against was openly socialist, if memory serves. Just let yourself consider that for a moment: people chose a Socialist over a Republican nominee. Republicans are in serious trouble.

Their presidential nominee does not help. Make no mistake - out of the choices of the ones that were allowed any exposure, Romney really was the best one, I think. But he still is an out of touch hypocrite.

Don't even get me started on the War on Women. That just keeps getting pushed further and further, with it now pretty much impossible to deny in good conscience that a War on Women is exactly what it is.

I think we may see in the near future the Republicans falling to the insignificance of "third party" status with the Libertarians rising up to their place. I don't know if it will be this election, but the way things are going now, that's what is coming.

2012 Elections and my Endorsement

By now, you are probably tired of hearing about election stuff. I know I am, and there is still a number of months to go. However, that doesn't make it any less important.

Republicans... Republicans. Ugh. They had a chance to get some major victories in. While many of the reasons people hate Obama are basically bullshit, the fact is that a lot of people still hate him regardless. But hate is generally synonymous with stupidity, so it requires only a little rhyme and no reason.

All in all, I'd say that the TEA Party is the worst thing to happen to Republicans and the best thing to happen to Democrats in a very long time. Regardless of how stupid they are, the fact is that they are good at getting their candidates nominated. And said candidates tend to be extreme... like Christine O'Donnell. While such candidates may set the conservatives all afire with glee, it's ultimately the moderates who decide an election. We moderates tend to dislike extremists. Most politicians are aware of this, and thus switch to pandering to moderates once they get the party nomination, never mind how much they painted themselves as an extreme party loyalist during primaries. Just remember... "Independent" isn't spelled with an (R) or (D).

Anyway, generally speaking, the Republican Party didn't give choices to be very enthusiastic about during the recent primaries. The one I liked ended up being shunned as a trouble maker and was generally ignored. Unfortunate for the Republicans, because I think the guy could have won against Obama. No, I'm not talking about Ron Paul - I see him as a hypocrite and religious fundamentalist.

Consider the choices offered, though. Most were TEA Party types. Religious fundamentalists to the core, all logic be damned. Preaching smaller government in the same breath as preaching for more invasive government... sorry, but small government doesn't tell you who you can marry or be in the bedroom with, or dictate religious morals as a whole.

Well, counting out the one I like, I'd say Romney was the lesser of the evils offered... but still evil. It is painfully obvious that he is out of touch with all but the rich and super rich, though he tries to paint himself as being otherwise. Don't get me wrong; I'm not one who hates the rich... I only hate those who are greedy/snobby about it, or painfully out of touch. I still remember reading a complaint from one rich person (not a parody) about how people without money just don't understand how hard it is to live on $250,000 a year. Perhaps he should try living on about $10/hour to see why we're not exactly sympathetic to his plight.

Romney really is a politician through and through, and a painfully out of touch rich guy through and through. He is one of those who really has loved "off-shoring" American jobs for quick profits, and he panders relentlessly, constantly changing his stances. I can respect someone who changes their stance after thinking things through... but his changes in stance have been a result of pandering, not deep thought.

For any who may have been curious about an endorsement from me... I like Obama overall. He did inherit a hell of a mess from Bush the lesser, and I knew before anyone even announced they were considering to run for the spot that the next president would likely be unpopular for making hard, but necessary decisions. That's not to say that I endorse him or entirely approve of his actions. For instance, I am thoroughly disappointed in his decision to not only not overturn, but to instead strengthen the misnamed Patriot Act. As for Obamacare... I'm watching and waiting. I don't like the individual mandate... but other than that, I'm waiting for a better alternative to be offered. "Let them die" isn't an option, else I suggest you volunteer yourself to that philosophy.

If I endorse a candidate, it would be the one I mentioned earlier that the Republicans shunned and ignored - Gary Johnson, who now is on the Libertarian ticket. I don't agree with all his stances, but I do know that 1) he is brilliant, 2) he is fair, and 3) he's willing to think about and reconsider his stances if new evidence is presented (for example, his change in stance on the death penalty, now being against it after finding that his policy also would have resulted in the execution of a specific innocent man). In truth, what more can one ask for in a leader? Check him out and give him your support... and spread the word! Gary Johnson (L) for president, 2012

Nanny-State Spreading...

So yeah, I've been on hiatus a bit lately. It tends to happen when one has a life (and job) outside the internet. That, and I've picked up on an addictive new hobby - home brewing. The sad thing is that I am not allowed to make any money off said hobby... but that's a different post altogether, and I'm already groaning at the subject material I'm wanting to cover in this post.

And I'm still waiting for my Black Dodge Challenger, dammit!

First, I'm going to pitch my bitch about the nanny-state laws. If you haven't heard about it already, mayor Bloomberg of New York wants to ban large drinks... that is, anything more than sixteen fluid ounces. That's smaller than a normal soda bottle, just a little larger than a soda can. To many, this may seem like more an annoyance (albeit a ridiculous one) rather than a cause for any real concern. But, I beg to differ. The thing one has to remember is precedents and the thing I mentioned in an earlier blog about a frog in a pan of water - turn up the heat slowly, and the frog just sits there unaware he is being slowly cooked alive. Similarly are our liberties being whittled away.

There are a lot of politicians out there who are making a lot of laws supposedly "for your own good." They attack the tobacco companies... sure, they had it coming and probably deserved it. They were lying about how harmful tobacco really is. Well, millions or billions of dollars in lawsuits later, along with surgeon general's warnings on the packaging, you would think it's more or less done with. Now people know that smoking is pretty damned bad for you. But, some choose to do so anyway. Now laws are made that target the smokers. Oh well, it's a bad habit anyway, and maybe we can get some more tax revenue from them... and more... and more... and more. Don't want to ban them, though... too much tax revenue. Which kinda shows, I think, that the politicians suffer from the same malady that the cigarette companies did - rather than stopping a bad practice, they'd rather keep the money coming it. Pretty much the same is done with alcohol, and the thing is that with tobacco and alcohol both, they are great targets of opportunity for weak politicians who need a dog to wag. Bust a few bars in sting operations for accidentally selling to underage people, everyone will compliment said politician for being tough on crime, and most who know better will be afraid to seem as though they might be defending the alcohol and tobacco industries in any way. Forget the fact that most people enjoy an occasional drink or even an occasional (if not more) smoke.

I'm not saying that there should be bans on alcohol or tobacco, just illustrating a point about political targets of opportunity. Politicians are using the alcohol and tobacco industries as a golden goose; forget the feigned enmity. Realistically, the same goes for porn.

Now, these set a precedent and illustrate a mentality that gives birth to a nanny state. I know that alcohol isn't good for my liver, yet I choose to enjoy it from time to time... whether it be a good beer, a nice wine, or a nice hard liquor. I think any fool now would also know that smoking isn't good for one's health also (and yes, I have had family members die from it). But, some still make the choice, as an adult, to smoke. Me, I think that's fine and peachy... whatever.

Of course, it didn't stop with alcohol and tobacco, did it? The trendy thing now is the "obesity epidemic." So, people who either have absolutely no sense of personal responsibility or just don't want to work for a living... actually, I suppose it's both. Anyway, they started suing fast food restaurants for the fact that they had become fat-asses. Makes me wonder what would happen if fast food restaurants were to start declining customers for being too fat. I hope that doesn't happen - I like my Taco Bell stuff, and I could stand to lose a few pounds. But, if I were in the mood to blame, I'd blame myself. Not that I lose any sleep over it, anyway.

Then there was the trans fats thing, in which New York, and I think San Francisco, decided to ban trans fats. Now, trans fats aren't great, no doubts there. And they were easy enough to replace with natural oils, like sunflower oil. The reason for so many people using them was simply that they gave a longer shelf life, stuff like that. However, I don't think that it was the business of the government at any level to ban them. Just put the news out there, and I think that the manufacturers would have transitioned away from them on their own.

Think I put too much trust into corporations? Well, consider the whole "pink slime" debacle (don't even get me started on that one). Consider that pretty much every major fast food restaurant has stopped using the stuff... on their own, without any laws being made. The lean beef trimmings (aka, "pink slime") was perfectly healthy and wholesome, but popular opinion was enough to sway them. Like it or not, capitalism is a form of democracy in itself. You vote with your money and withhold it from those you don't like. Couldn't be simpler.

Now we come back to the soft drinks. Hell, I like them. For lunch, I had a mustard Whopper from Burger King with a 32 oz coke. You should've seen my grin when I saw 64 oz drinks being offered at gas stations. Especially when one lives in a hot climate, they're nice to have. Yeah, they have lots of sugar and little in the way of health benefits, but so what? Last I checked, I was an adult, going on old fart. I make my own decisions, and have no desire to have a new mommy telling me what I can and can't have. One mom was more than enough, thanks much.

Of course, like other such nanny-state laws, this bad idea is spreading - Cambridge, MA considering banning large drinks and free refills.

Still not getting the big deal? Okay... first, consider the attacks on alcohol and tobacco. Next, consider the attacks on fast food. Now consider the attacks on drinks. The nanny-state bans/attacks are spreading. What's next on the chopping block?

Turning Up the Heat

You've likely heard that if you put a frog in hot water, it will struggle to escape, but if you put a frog in room temperature water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog won't notice and will be burned to death. The meaning of this is fairly simple - if someone directly attacks a fundamental right or liberty, we will notice it and see them for what they truly are. But, if they slowly chisel away at something... well, the heat is being turned up.

This is a very common tactic. It's been used for a very long time by the Brady Campaign, by MADD, and is now being used in a big and obvious way by the anti-birth control movement.

Let's start with MADD. While they started with admirable intentions and goals, they have more recently seemed to gravitate toward prohibition. After they accomplished their initial goals, they kept pushing further. They are pushing toward further lowering the legal BAC to the point where science gives no support to a claim of intoxication. They seem to want to punish people for drinking. Not for drunk driving, or even for being drunk. They haven't seemed to get much attention as of late, but I still notice that when a local politician is caught in a scandal, they start attacking the alcohol and tobacco people at various levels to distract. Perhaps there's some MADD influence there, perhaps not.

Next, let's look at the Brady Campaign. I will say right off that I am fond of guns, and am more than a little knowledgeable on them. The Brady Campaign's goals seem reasonable to those who aren't knowledgeable about guns, and those who don't understand the reasoning behind the Second Amendment - that is to say, it was the Founders' way of insuring that the government never became tyrannical. Also, they didn't really intend for a standing army. They liked the Swiss idea of every citizen being a soldier of sorts if the need arised. So technically, we should all have access to military grade weapons.

The Brady Campaign, bullshit aside, has the ultimate goal of banning guns as a whole. They start by asking for background checks, which does seem reasonable. Then they continue by having waiting periods. Then they want "assault weapons" banned. The Brady Campaign's definition of assault weapons is its own; to one who is knowledgeable on guns, said definition is "anything that looks too scary." They don't like flash suppressors (which don't actually hide the flash), they don't like silencers (which work nothing like they do in movies - guns are still loud enough to damage the hearing, just not as loud), they don't like barrel shrouds (keeps one from burning their hand when they hold the barrel for stability), they don't like pistol grips on rifles/shotguns (ergonomics, really), collapsing stocks (adjustable for shooter comfort), folding stocks (stock folds out of the way for different shooting style). They also don't like high capacity magazines, which may be more understandable for some, but I believe that they make little difference. Then they want to ban semi automatics as a whole. Then they want to ban handguns as a whole because of supposed ease of concealment. Then likely, they'll say they want to ban rifles as a whole, because of accuracy at long distance.

The issue that's been getting the most attention however is the abortion/birth control debate. First they wanted to ban late-term abortion. That's something I can actually get behind, unless said abortion is medically necessary. Then they want to ban abortions altogether. For some, it ends there... but not all. Because of a lack of unity in this movement, they are quite sloppy.

More recently, we've seen birth control pills (that neat little pill that prevents abortions from becoming necessary in the first place) come under attack... not just the Plan B pills, either. Some say that we shouldn't have to pay for women to be able to have sex... but I have yet to see Viagra come under similar scrutiny. Viagra is currently much more expensive than birth control, and having checked a Blue Cross/Blue Shield website, it comes up as a Tier 2 - preferred brand. To give an idea, a popular brand name tri-cyclic birth control pill, for a four week supply, costs about $80 without insurance. Viagra, for six pills, costs about $130. Do the math. Keep in mind, these are both name brand drugs... the birth control drug price I speak of is not for a generic.

So it's not the idea of paying for someone else to have sex that these people are objecting to. It is the idea specifically of a woman having sex. It's not a new double standard, though. When a woman has sex with a lot of people, she's a slut. When a man has sex with a lot of people, he's just lucky... or a stud... or something cool. But no negative label.

Get informed on the issues, and don't be afraid to call bullshit. Otherwise, you'll find yourself in the position of the frog being slowly boiled to death. The heat is being turned up.

The problem with the GOP

Who here is keeping up with the GOP primaries? If so, do you have a favorite? Mine recently went Libertarian after the GOP ignored him and called him a troublemaker. Other than him, I honestly don't like anyone running in the GOP.

With my politics, most who know me would probably expect me to support Obama. Well, I did. I supported him through the Democrat primaries and voted for him in the general election of 2008. The way I saw it was that he was fresh to politics and still had ideals, rather than just being another slippery turd in a business suit. I don't regret my vote. McCain would have been worse... it would have been like Bush having a third term. But I am disappointed in Obama.

I had hoped he would hold onto those ideals that had endeared him to me if he got elected. Sadly, he did not. He carried on many of Bush's policies, such as the inappropriately named "Patriot Act," and more recently, the NDAA. Other than that, much like any politician, he's too much a coward to make any big moves or to push for any big changes. It could be blamed on the obstructionism coming from Republicans, but no one said that being president would be easy, and only a fool would think it would be. Especially being the first black president, sadly. Birthers can deny all they want, but I doubt they would be making such an issue if not for his race.

With this - the bad economy and the continuing slow erosion of liberties, I think that people on both sides are taking a "it's just more of the same" mentality when they look at their leaders and candidates. It's hard to get excited about what either party is offering.

I'm firmly convinced that the TEA Party is going to be the downfall of the Republicans. While the movement in itself is not racist, many in it are. They also keep pushing the most extreme and theocratic candidates up to the front in the Republican primaries, forgetting that it's ultimately the Independents and moderates that decide, come the general election. I will say right now that as an Independent and a moderate, I do not want an extremist in office, and would happily vote Obama another term before accepting one of those the TEA Party has pushed.

Every Republican candidate has shown certain extremist ideas. I won't harp too much on Bachmann, only because she's dropped out already. But, let's look at Rick Perry, who seems proud that Texas has had so many executions under his rule (some of whom have later been proven innocent), or Newt Gingrich who is one of the biggest noisemakers and hypocrites that I've seen in my lifetime - lambasting Clinton from one side of Capitol Hill to the other over an affair while he, himself, is having an affair, which is nothing new. And yes, in general while I am not myself gay, I do consider equal rights for gays to be an important issue. If nothing else, one's stances on this is very telling of their character as a whole, I think.

To summarize, the GOP really isn't uniting on much of anything other than hate, whether it be of Obama or of gays. The candidates presented are weak and sometimes too much alike. None is offering real change... and as for the economy, they just keep presenting plans to balance the budget by the time they are long out of office. That's not fixing anything, it's just passing it to the next guy.

The Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

Sad to say, the differences between the two main parties are fewer than either of them would like to admit. Democrats tout themselves to be liberal and progressive, while Republicans tout themselves to be conservative and in favor of small government.

If one looks at the dictionary definitions of the two party names, or perhaps their root words, we go a little further in-depth as to the original intentions that brought the parties into existence. The word "Democrat" obviously refers to "democracy," which means government by the people, and most likely a free electoral system. As for Republican, it just as obviously refers to the belief in a republic, which means government by representatives of the people. As you can see, the two definitions are virtually interchangeable today, and I doubt that more than a handful of people (including those leaders who align themselves with one party or the other) know the difference. Historically, a democracy would refer to more direct rule by the people, where a Republic would mean rule by representatives who are thought of as perhaps being wiser or more educated than the people.

With this, the Civil War would be a good example to illustrate this difference. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and rather progressive for his time. He went against what was popular when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, was actually a Democrat, believing in states' rights to secede from the union, in keeping the popular institution of slavery, etc. It could perhaps be described as ironic now that the parties seem to have switched roles, with Republicans talking about secession due to Obama's presidency, and Democrats being the main driving force in Washington for civil rights movements that aren't always popular.

I'll say this bluntly: both parties want big government, though one of them denies this.

With Democrats, you get big government in the form of a nanny-state. Perhaps well-meaning, but still restricting liberties "for your own good." This is where you start seeing excessive regulation, like toys in kids' meals at fast food restaurants being banned, cartoon character mascots on kids' cereal boxes being banned, gun regulations that suggest that no one is responsible enough to really be trusted with guns. By definition, these would actually be more Republican ideals than Democrat ideals, as it is suggestive of a sort of elitism. But again, dictionary definitions simply do not apply to today's reality.

The Republican style of big government tends to be theocratic in nature. The Republicans tend to legislate on moral issues rather than simply sticking with the common good. This meddles in the freedoms and liberties of the people just as much as the Democrats' nanny-state ideas. The Republicans in recent years also has shown a tendency to be big spenders, same as the Democrats. Just a difference on what they spend the money on.

My own thought is that we are adults. I spent eighteen years being treated as a child by my parents with no alternative to simply accepting it. I didn't go through all that just to be treated as a child by the government that supposedly knows what's best for me, either from a Republican or Democrat perspective. I believe in freedom, and with freedom certainly comes responsibility. I also believe in compassion... but compassion in helping someone get back on their feet as opposed to making it easier to stay off one's feet.

If you agree, then it's up to you to demand the change rather than simply accepting what you're offered, like a well cared for child. Don't let a party or anyone else tell you what to believe.