Hands in the Cookie Jar

I have a good friend in politics, and we chat a good bit about current events.  This is an email I wrote him regarding the recent budget that passed:

To the point you made a day or so ago about everything being cut (in the budget), it occurred to me that at the point in time when so many people have their hands in the proverbial cookie jar there could be one of only two solutions: break the hands or break the jar.  I submit to you that both must be broken in order for the problem to be eliminated.  The politician seeks to constantly remake the cookie jar through means of repainting while the hands always seek the newest opening.  Until the opening clamps down on the probing finger, a probing finger will always probe.  Until the cookie jar is shattered, someone will always want to fill it with cookies, especially when the recipients of the cookies are so willing to love the baker.

Poison the cookies, bind the hands, and dash the jar.  Create a society where each person maintains his own cookies, is forced to bake them on his own, and is allowed to keep his cookies under lock and key, and armed guard if required.  Touch my cookies without my permission and the toucher shall be appropriately bent into the shape of a carnival pretzel.  Allow those ascribing the fallacies of Karl Marx to create their commune as long as it does not infringe upon those of us who ascribe more to John Locke and Adam Smith.  I would rather see a Marxist absolutely smited by the Invisible Hand as to play with them any longer.

The Point of Viability

A fetus at 20 weeks has a brain, responds to external stimuli, and studies show it can feel pain.  Further, a fetus at 20 weeks can potentially survive a premature birth although in an incubator for a while.  One may argue these facts at 20 weeks, but 24 is the generally accepted time at this point.  Rowe vs. Wade merely states that up until the time a fetus becomes viable, the decision to terminate is a medical decision, but it does not state that after viability (24 weeks) termination is OK.

If you want to take a stand before the 24 week mark, that is fine, but let's not hide behind R vs. W to legitimize the killing of infants after the medically accepted point of viability.  When that 24 week infant is extracted from the womb, it stands a good chance of survival because it is viable.  

This isn't religious.  This is science.  Viability.  The ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb at 24 weeks is scientifically proven, yet the left wing chooses to fight for the right to terminate up until the day prior to birth.  Not a zygote.  An infant.  To snip his/her spine in the eighth month is nothing different that flicking the switch on an incubator in the NICU of a 2 month premature baby.  Don't euphamize it, and don't legitimize it.

Being in the Corporatist State

I can't believe there are people who think that the party of their affiliation is actually against the corporations that they seemingly cannot stand.  Bizarre.

Both political parties reap millions from corporations and politicians reap millions from lobbyists working for coroporations, so when you see a bill that supposedly "restricts" a corporation, how can you sincerely believe that there are no lobby dollars behind it.  As a matter or reason, one might think that politicians--with reputations to vote with their donors--would not then vote against the companies who supplied their donations.  Ridiculous.

Regulations are barriers to entry that prevent smaller companies from ever being able to compete against the so called "oligarchs" as some of you choose to call them.  Ask yourself this question: If Henry Ford lived today, would he have been able to build his car and get it to market?  The answer is no because the large auto manurfacturers have paid lobbyists who managed to buy regulations and red tape that would put Henry Ford in jail or at least keep him from realizing his dream.

If you claim to be anti-corporation, then you really ought to consider being anti-politician.  They are hooked together at the hips.  When you hear of a law that supposedly "protects" the people, you might ought to ask yourself who really stands to gain from this law.  There isn't a single law passed that does not benefit someone somewhere.  Companies always benefit from every single regulation, i.e. regulatory capture.

Claim to be for the little guy, yet rail against freedom and privatization.  In the corporatist state, the little guy is the only one with freedom left until they convince you that you really do need to rent the air to breathe.  Wake up people.  There are no second chances.

Conservatives for the Little Guy

Liberals say conservatives support big businesses. No. We don't. We don't support big business because big business buys votes and bastardizes the system.

Conservatives support small business, freedom to do what one chooses, and reduction in protective regulations--bought and paid for by big business--that create barriers to entry for anyone with less than millions of dollars to compete against the largest companies.

Conservatives are not pro business. Conservatives believe in the little guy.

You can read about a big business plan to pervert or system here.

Death of Innovation

If Henry Ford lived today, I doubt he would be able to build his car, let alone bring it to market.  Corporate regulations, paid for by big businesses, would halt his ability to complete his dream.

Winds of Change

Since the beginning of recorded history, has there ever been a country or government to withstand the test of time or the winds of change? Has any government ever not experienced such major change that shook it to its foundations to make it new again?

I don't think such a country has existed, and if not, how arrogant--and naive--are we, as Americans, to presume that we could never undergo the same fate?

Sebelius: Obama Didn't Know About Website Problems Before Launch

Isn't this how all Presidents, on the eve of their most historic initiative which they've undertaken, discover the glaring flaws in their most cherished programs?  Is this not Obama's biggest, most important "accomplishment" as president?  Does anyone but me ever wonder why Obama only hears about problems after the fact by watching the news?  Do we realize that what it means is that the news media knows more than the "leader of the free world"?Here's a person who supposedly ordered the secret killing of bin Laden, yet he doesn't know that a website doesn't work after a two week government showdown that preceded it and in the midst of tons of negative publicity provided to it by the GOP.  

One might actually think that a proactive person would ensure that a program of such importance to Obama might be tested a thousand times just to ensure success so that he would be able to thumb his nose at his opponents and scream at the top of his lungs, "I TOLD YOU SO!!"  Instead, we hear from Sebelius the quote below, yet her quote doesn't make any sense at all because if she means what she says, then what does it say about her ability to complete "The most important work I've ever done in my life".  

Wow, the most important work you've (Sebelius) ever done, and it failed in front of 250 million people.  Isn't it a bit like walking out on stage thinking you have your clothes on only to discover that you are actually naked?  I challenge anybody to point to a chief executive as inept as Obama and his "team" of nonchalants.

Sebelius: "This is the most important work I've ever done in my life — delivering on an historic act, making sure that we have health security for the millions of Americans," she said. "I think my job is to get this fully implemented and to get the website working right ... I work at the pleasure of the president."

Sebelius: Obama Didn't Know About Website Problems Before Launch