I was talking to a younger 20 something buddy of mine who was adamantly against dating liberal chicks. Upon finding out they were of the lefter leaning ideology he would immediately cut them off, stop calling them and would let them flail about in the dark wondering what happened. "Good, that'll show 'em!"
And I presume this mentality is more prevalent on both the male and female sides of the dating world, for I too had this close-minded approach.
But there are two reaons now that I fully endorse and advocate dating leftists;
1. You stand a better shot at showing them the short-comings of their ideology and the merits of your's the longer you associate with them. And if you really care to win the war against socialism you will take a more "Dennis Prager" approach and try to explain things to them, rather than punish them.
2. Dating a leftist provides you with an unrivalled opportunity to advance your, ahem "aims" and perhaps allow for a little naughty flirting. And the way you achieve this is through betting.
Allow me to show you what I am talking about.
TRUE STORY;
I was dating a rabid leftist and borderline feminist. She wasn't what I would call a "hard core" leftist or feminist because she just regurgitated the crap she got in college (then again, how does this materially differ from you average leftist anyway?). So when she would say something that would display her ignorance and brainwashing I would say,
"You want to make a bet?"
One time she said we didn't spend enough on health care. Remembering a chart I had recently seen, I then said the US government, on average spends just as much per person on public health care than your average socialist European country.
She didn't believe me.
So I said, "well, care to make it interesting?"
Her ego, belief and entire world view system was now being challenged, naturally she said, "sure" no doubt fully expecting me to be wrong.
"OK, if I'm right you have to wear a naughty stewardess outfit and serve me dinner for an evening."
Dead silence.
For you see, previous to that there was no penalty or cost associated with blathering on ignorantly about nationalized health care. There was no price to be paid for being ignorant. Any leftist can blather on all they want at a party or at class or at a protest because there is no penalty for being stupid and misinformed.
Now she had to make a choice; her ego or her ignorance.
Of course she balked, as most lefists do when they realize they may not know everything they've thought they knew the past 10 years of their lives, especially when there is a penalty associated with it (of course, one could make the philosophical argument why would getting dressed up in a naughty stewardess outfit would be a "penalty" if it was all good fun, alas I'm left to opine women hate doing such things for reasons I'll never understand)
But now isn't the time to let them go, you gotta stay on 'em, otherwise they weasel out of it.
"What, certainly you won't admit to being wrong? I mean, you've staked your entire political ideology on such beliefs, additionally you've no doubt voted based on those beliefs and thusly your great responsibility as a citizen to the governance of this nation is based on those rock solid beliefs. So how can you possibly lose?"
That goosed her ego.
"Fine, what do I get if I'm right?"
"Well, whatever you want."
And this is another advantage to the "betting game" as I like to call it. If you are an educated aspiring economist, you don't make bets unless you are absolutely 100% guaranteed to win. So you can promise her to mortgage your house and give her the proceeds if she wants, because it isn't going to happen. Of course such outlandish betting will show your hand and she will retreat from the bet. Fortunately for me she posed a reasonable penalty for me should I lose;
"OK, dinner at The Lexington."
"Very well."
40 seconds later we were on the OECD's web page and I showed her this chart.
I'd like to tell you the details, but let's just say sometimes economics does actually help you get a chick.
8 comments:
Interesting you regard this as a victory for anarcho-capitalism. I just used the same graphic in my blog to prove that the fucked up healtcare system in the US costs the same amount as Norway and Sweden.
I'm apolitical but know a fair bit about economics and politics. It's not too hard to trip up anybody of any ideological bent, just as it is not hard to be tripped up yourself. Being rigidly idealistic, whether of the right or left-wing persuasion, will set you up to tumble time and time again.
I've dated leftist girls who are parrot-idiots, but also some who are really sharp. Ditto for right-leaning girls. Better to go for smart, strong, interested fair-minded women, and not get hung up on whether they are "liberal" or "conservative" or not.
Sounds like you were very fortunate that your girlfriend doesn't know how to read a chart, since the one you linked to shows that Norway, Luxembourg, and Iceland spend more public dollars per capita on health than the US, and perhaps also Sweden and Denmark.
(of course, one could make the philosophical argument why would getting dressed up in a naughty stewardess outfit would be a "penalty" if it was all good fun, alas I'm left to opine women hate doing such things for reasons I'll never understand)
I figured the "borderline feminist" comment had that question pretty well covered...
Huh?
This proves...nothing. Oh, wait, it does prove that our healthcare system is totally and completely broken. We spend a lot more money per person on on healthcare yet we have 40 million (MILLION!) people who don't have any kind of medical coverage.
Enjoy your dinner at The Lexington.
I will, and without any guilt, as your 40 million uninsured stat is completely misleading.
Good point. However, medical services cost much more per act in the US than in countries that have a nationalized health care system. The graph should be adjusted for cost of a medical act, which would bring the total US spending inline with that of other countries.
You can blame the lawyers in the US, and government monopolies in other countries for this distortion.
"Good point. However, medical services cost much more per act in the US than in countries that have a nationalized health care system. The graph should be adjusted for cost of a medical act, which would bring the total US spending inline with that of other countries."
Anyone who knows anything about American health care would see that as a benefit because, as a general rule, we like to triage patients based on their acuity instead of making them wait their turn in line for such things as an angiogram or a heart stent (example from my coworker's father who lives in Canada; he had to wait two weeks for a procedure which would have prevented his third heart attack while he waited). Not that our health care system is perfect, far from it! But at least we don't tell people who just had a stroke they have to wait two weeks to get a head cat scan because they're in line behind such people as someone with cancer and an athlete with a torn ligament.
Liz - RN
Post a Comment