Do As I Say

So what do we learn from an article such as this entitled, "Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War"?

• "Despite promises by President Barack Obama to reel in this habit, the trend toward granting favored companies federal contracts without considering competing bids continued to grow, by 9 percent last year, according to the Washington Post." And yet no pictures or headline likening Obama to Darth Vader or verbal depictions of him as a money grubbing war satyr. If Cheney is Satan come to earth, then Obama is 9% worse. I won't hold my breath for The Nation, Halliburton Watch and Kos to mock and disparage President Obama for enriching his oil buddies.
• "The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade,..." Does the author think that the $39.5 B was just stuck into Cheney's (and now Obama's) bank account? Halliburton purchased no materials and provided no service? Some portion of that was profit, but it is presented as if the whole wad was just handed over in a sack and that's that. But not so fast...
• "...such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg." a) so they did provide something for all that money. b) who was it again that was in the White House in '10?
• Even though many prosecutions for misconduct occurred against KBR and Halliburton employees during the Bush administration, this article refers to it as "Cheney's Halliburton"? Apparently that didn't help shield them from scrutiny.
• Will we now hear about Obama's Monsanto and his corn profiteers? (Ha ha, that was just a joke. Of course we won't.)

Of course, if corruption is happening it should be prosecuted. But Obama is given a pass on being a corrupt politician because he SAYS that some are too rich, that he doesn't bend to special interests, that lobbyists don't touch him, that Wall Street is filled with fat cats, that he puts poor and middle-class Americans first, etc. He also said, "I don’t take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House." But that doesn't square well with his habit of appointing lobbyists, fat cats, tax cheats, the rich and banking tycoons to government positions and taking money from lobbyists, agribusiness, Wall Street, etc.

A brief list of the kind of people Obama said would not find a job in the White House:

[Name, Obama position, former employment]

• Jack Lew, Chief of Staff, Citigroup fat cat (offshores money in the Caymen Islands)
• Bill Daley, Chief of Staff, JPMorgan Chase lobbyist
• Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff, Wasserstein & Company ($18.5 million in 3 yrs. Hasn't he made enough?)
• Peter Orzag, Office of Management and Budget, Citigroup fat cat
• Robert Wolf, Obama bff, Swiss bank UBS tax cheat
• Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for the FDA, Monsanto VP
• Roger Beachy, USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center
• Islam Siddiqui, Agriculture Negotiator for the US Trade Representative, Vice President of the Monsanto and Dupont-funded pesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife
• Ramona Romero, General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, corporate counsel to DuPont

What is amazing is his followers on the left that fall for his anti-lobbyist/Wall Street/fat cat money juking while he does the very thing he said he wouldn't do.  But one of the greatest benefits of being on the left is never having to say you are sorry because nobody in the press will hold you to account.

(Source: http://themoderatevoice.com/136653/the-washington-wall-street-revolving-door-just-keeps-spinning-along-guest-voice/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/the-unholy-alliance-monsa_b_642385.html)

Maddow, Maher and High Taxes

View on YouTube

Maddow is loathsome with her meanness and purposeful misrepresentation. Of course, "the big problems in America right now are that rich people do not have enough money," and that "poor people have too much access to affordable health care." What a despicably demagogic representation of those she disagrees with. Can you imagine so misrepresenting those you disagree with? And that many applauded her is shameful. Is fear of discussing the real issues what causes her to set up her fantastical straw men and knock them down?

Wouldn't this be like saying that because the left supports largely unrestricted abortion and because blacks abort at a rate 5 times greater than whites, that the left hates blacks, are afraid of them and is engaging in genocide to control their numbers?

I struggle to know if it is rank hatred, a who-cares-what-I-say-about-them-win-at-all-costs mentality or complete derangement that motivates her distortions. I normally don't waste any time listening to her degeneracy.

But what follows is priceless. Bill Maher concedes that the rich do 'pay the freight'. This isn't remarkable; anyone who can read knows that. But what is remarkable is that he said, "I just saw these statistics. I mean, something like 70 percent."

Really? Just now saw these statistics? Is he willfully ignorant? How is it possible that a man who has a political commentary show had not absorbed this before now?

I guess Diana Mutz, professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, was correct when she concluded that those with the highest levels of education have the lowest levels of exposure to people with conflicting points of view. This is because universities are largely leftist seminaries and intellectual ghettos. The left lives in an insular cocoon where they only listen to each other and just dismiss those with whom they disagree with mockery, name calling and the sort of trite, twisted deceit that Ms Maddow demonstrates here.

I won't hold my breath for the Maddows of the world to jeer, mock and deride Maher as a mean old rich white guy who thinks America's problem is that he doesn't have enough money or that the poor have too much access to affordable health care.

Intellectual honesty would demand it. But that's precisely why it won't happen.

Ever Has It Been

The badgering and opprobrium showered on the Catholic church in many ways is a study in lack of self-awareness. Those old men in Rome are lectured that they need to get with it and adopt new values and standards and to quit thinking they know better than the rest of us by a crowd that is certain that they know better.

As Taranto notes:

If you judge it by the standard of contemporary feminism and sexual liberationism, of course it will seem lacking. But these fashionable dogmas have yet to prove their worth, either for understanding human nature or sustaining a society over the long term. Their adherents fancy themselves sophisticated, but in fact they frequently are too simple-minded--or perhaps fearful--even to consider a different way of looking at the world.

I suppose the Jews were similarly mocked for their stodgy prudence by the followers of Baal because of their reluctance to engage in sex worship, commanded religious prostitution, human sacrifice and burying sacrificed babies in the cornerstone of a house.

My experience is that most religious peoples are constantly questioning and reevaluating their dogmas. Remember Mother Teresa's confessions of doubt-filled angst? I wonder if those mocking the Catholic church ever do.

Venezuela Cleans Up After Hugo

On the heels of Rodman schmoozing with the warden of the world's largest prison colony, we have some good news from the third world.  But one of the left's favorite sons did not receive a glowing obit from the left's paper of record.  The NYT (I repeat, the NYT, friend of the left) description of Chávez:

• visceral connection with the poor, tapping into their resentments
• his followers called him Comandante
• had no qualms about using weapons to seize power
• used oil revenues to finance his desires
• nationaliz(ed) dozens of foreign-owned assets, including oil projects controlled by Exxon Mobil
• social welfare programs could be corrupt and inefficient, but they made the poor feel included in a society
• determined to hold onto and enhance his power

The WSJ who does not share ideology with this guy also notes:

• he stripped independent TV and radio stations of their licenses
• opposition politicians were limited to three minutes of advertising a day, while Chávez could commandeer the airwaves at any time
• he permitted no debates
• public workers risked being fired if they voted against him.

Weren't these the kind elections that Jimmy Carter blessed?  (For those of you not paying attention, the answer is "yes".)  Can anything be learned or concluded about President Carter's ideology from this? Are we allowed to conclude anything based on a man's actions? Or are stated good intentions the only thing that informs our judgment?  Anyway, the list of laudable accomplishments rolls on:

• despite the populism and government handouts,... the less-fortunate now endure routine food and medicine shortages
• prices are more than 20 times higher than in 1999
• the murder rate in Caracas is one of the highest in the world
• bridges and roads are in disrepair
• blackouts are routine
• untreated sewage pollutes drinking water

How on earth does this qualify him to be the "hero to Venezuela's poor" as the LA Times headline barked? These conditions are good for the poor?

What is it exactly that the left so admires about this man and other fellow sojourners like him on the left? Why would Kevin Spacey, Danny Glover, and Sean Penn visit this man? Some of this sounds like the left's fevered imaginary description that justified deep hatred of Bush. But this engenders love and admiration for Chávez? So they share Chávez's ideology or... what? I guess oil money is super nifty when you are a petrol-potentate or it is purchasing a leftist TV station. Remember, the NYT is inclined to print hagiographies of guys like this. But all they could come up with was what a rat he was?

He grew obsessed with changing Venezuela’s laws and regulations to ensure that he could be re-elected indefinitely and become, indeed, a caudillo, able to rule by decree at times.

The NYT could have saved some space on that one.  We have a nice short word for that – dictator.

The NYT continues:

He stacked his government with generals, colonels and majors, drawing inspiration from the leftist military officers who ruled Peru and Panama in the 1970s.

...often in his military uniform and paratrooper’s red beret.

Isn't the left always worried about the militarization of government? Is there no self-awareness? The ends justify the means? Pas d'ennemis à gauche, I guess.

The NYT ended with psychiatrist Dr. Edmundo Chirinos's assessment: “a hyperkinetic and imprudent man, unpunctual, someone who overreacts to criticism, harbors grudges, is politically astute and manipulative, and possesses tremendous stamina, never sleeping more than two or three hours a night.” The WSJ concludes with: "As life stories go, the lesson of Chávez's is to beware charismatic demagogues peddling socialist policies at home and revolution abroad." That is, if we can conclude anything from results and not just intentions.

Sequester Scare

Thomas Sowell wrote,

Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency’s budget were cut, what would it do?

The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place.

This is a nice illustration of what is known as the Washington Monument Gambit. That is, when making decisions about budget cuts, do the most harm with the most painful cuts possible so that you can reinstate the spending that you want.

The Whitehouse is unleashing WMG on the populous for political gain. And if that wasn't enough, as Sowell continues,

President Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to cut. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter cynicism of this glib man.

He doesn't want to make his own plan (sequestration) work, but wants to inflict pain on the poor and vulnerable in order to get his way. Possibly because that plan was never intended to work budgetarily, but was a political maneuver to check mate the GOP.

Harming the most needy is usually the sort of thing rich Republicans are accused of – whether they have the power to do such things or not – and here the President is actually doing it right before our eyes precisely because he has the power to inflict pain on the electorate.

If It Saves Just One Life

During his January 16 speech on gun control, President Obama said:

Because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.

His first sentiment is accurate, thoughtful and, although regrettable, reflective of reality. It is true that those intent on harming or burgling are not all that interested in laws and the preferences of civilized societies, so in this way the President is merely acknowledging this truth.

The second sentiment regarding the bromide "if it saves one life, isn't it worth it" is depressing. Whenever a politician utters these words, you should be wary. Very wary. The real answer to this question – if we are to be honest – is likely, "No." The statement is often used to stir emotional and populist sentiments in order to forward some legislation that the speaker is favoring. It is used by many on both sides of the aisle and it is troubling no matter who says it. And I can assure you that most of those using it are brimming with good intention.

I am certain that reducing maximum speed limits to 35 mph would save lives – many more than one life and orders of magnitude more than any and all gun control schemes. Banning driving altogether would be even better – if vehicle fatalities were the only consideration. But when the costs are considered, the lives saved must be compared to the costs to society. Societies are constantly counting the costs and determining if the prescription is worse than the disease. Politicians are no more callous when they support higher speed limits that assure more fatlalities than they are when they oppose gun control measures that would do little or nothing to reduce gun violence and/or gun related deaths.

To the individual affected by gun violence, statistics and societal costs are meaningless. The murdered loved one isn't partially dead or statistically insignificant. So for the individual the platitude of saving just one life means everything. But a society must consider things more broadly and cannot make laws based on saving just one life. It is always a trade off between, say, freedom and reducing numbers killed.

Intoxicated driving provides a good example of the trade-offs. One might support stringent restrictions on blood alcohol levels as a way to reduce deaths on the roadways. But all alcohol related driving deaths cannot be prevented by this action alone, so one might think up other ways to 'save just one more life'. Roadside sobriety checkpoints may be a method by which one more life could be spared. However, roadside checkpoints have an element of presumed guilt such that the driver must disprove his guilt via a test administered by the roadside officer.

There are an infinite amount of issues for which some could argue from atop the 'if it saves one life' soapbox. Arguing against abortion, automobiles, energy production, ultraviolet rays, fast-food, drone strikes, cigarettes, and lawn darts would certainly save one or more life. Just as allowing the South to secede, swimming pool bans, peanut based food bans, never going outdoors, guarding embassies and schools resembling prisons would undoubtedly save lives.

And some acts aren’t as clear. And while one could argue that outlawing capital punishment would preserve the life of the convicted, there is ample evidence that ridding the world of some such evildoers would save far more lives in the long run if the evildoer is ever released and then commits more crimes. And weren't there more than a few that thought prohibition would save lives? Good intentions aside, prohibition likely cost many more lives than it saved.

Our society must grapple with whether gun bans or anything else that is promised to save 'one more life' is worth the abridgment of the Constitutional rights and individual liberty. The point is that societies count the cost, and like it or not, saving just one more life is not usually worth the societal cost. The answer to the question, "If it saved one life, wouldn't it be worth it?" is usually "No." And I suspect that would be the President's answer if met with a proposal to arm every citizen based on evidence that innocent lives are spared quite regularly by armed citizens rebuffing the unwanted advances of a criminal or rapist.

Gun Control v The Patriot Act

So on the one hand the Patriot Act is bad because it delegates far too much discretion and arbitrary power to law enforcement agencies, because it opens the door for abuses by the Administration and is an attack on civil liberties. But when others suggest that similar problems may exist with gun control -- that it delegates far too much discretion and arbitrary power to law enforcement agencies, that it opens the door for abuses by the Administration and is an attack on civil liberties not to mention an actual Amendment -- well, anyone who would suggest such nonsense is a bunch of crazies, clinging to their guns and religion.

Nobody wants unrestricted gun ownership. It is heavily regulated now. Those who think it isn't are ignoring the truth to further their agenda, lying to further their agenda, cannot read or aren't interested in facts. None of the proposed changes would have prevented Sandy Hook and other tragedies. Aren't these studies and facts and data that those who are always lecturing about studies and facts and data should consider? Will changing the color or stock material really prevent lunatics from acting looney? And this from a crowd that is eternally lecturing and mocking the religious for believing in an "invisible friend in the sky" and ignoring facts and science.

Fighting further regulation doesn't mean that gun owners want no regulation just as opposing further taxation doesn't mean one wants no taxation. Those who reduce their ideological opponents to such an extreme position are either lying or are just trying to win an argument. They certainly aren't interested in exploring ideas, "bipartisanship", "compromise" or "negotiating". They are interested in brinkmanship. And this from the side that is quite proud of their capacity for nuance.

The truth is that over the last 30 years, the U.S. homicide rate has declined by 50 percent. As Krauthammer writes, "We’re living not through an epidemic of gun violence but through a historic decline." Does this mean we should be uninterested in doing what we can to improve laws or curbing violence? Of course not. Again, only the silly and unserious paint their ideological opponents in such a way.

Would those who are in favor of gun laws have felt the same if "news"papers published maps that showed where all Muslims live? Of course "news"papers should not publish such lists or maps. All those gun owners are presumably innocent and have committed no crime just as the majority of Muslims are peace lovers and intend no harm. I guess the same crowd who struggles with the distinction between Islam and Islamists is equally puzzled by the distinction between gun owners and mass murderers.

The same group that was very concerned that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft would, in the name of the Patriot Act, jack-boot through every home destroying every conceivable civil liberty on their way to rounding up all peoples of Arab descent are now mysteriously quiet about the abuses of government. "But that was different," they cry. The "Bushies" only wanted to enrich their gun buddies and the left wants to spread peace and love and harmony. I suppose that would be great if it were in any way tethered to reality. There is as much or more cronyism and pocket lining going on these days as ever. In fact, an awful lot of loans have been taken out in the name of environmentalism and defaulted that have enriched a select few. And it has all been done in plain sight. If corporations like Halliburton were involved, would we hear the end of it?

This is why smaller government is better. Corruption and cronyism on both sides is the status quo. And only by limiting the amount of power any group or individual can have can this be checked. Those who are concerned when Bush and Cheney are at the tiller should maintain that suspicion when their side is at the helm. The problem is, they don't. They forget that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Yes, it cuts both ways. Those who look suspiciously at gun control should have as keen a suspicion for things like the Patriot Act. The thing is, they usually do.)

Those who think that larger and larger government can do no wrong often are tilting against their proper suspicion of those in power. They suspend that suspicion when those they agree with are holding the reins. How they manage the cognitive dissonance is a bit of a mystery. Those who think smaller government is a better way acknowledge that power corrupts, no matter who is in charge, so limiting the influence of those in power is a better management practice.

So the one side relies on mankind being good and having better answers and more perfect implementation. The other says all men are frail, mortal and corruptible and therefore institutions that can exercise great power over large groups should be limited. A well armed citizenry is a part of a larger picture that regulates and limits that power.

The Founders understood this. Shouldn't we?

The GOP and the Fiscal Cliff

Here is a crazy and bold prediction: à la the 1994 government shutdown, no matter what happens with regard to the "fiscal cliff", the GOP will get the blame. Just as the right was fingered as the culprit for the housing bust even while they were sounding the alarm about the need for more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so too they will be blamed for any detrimental effects of the fiscal cliff. Republican options for dealing with this issue include:

• stay true to their values and pledges of smaller government and lower taxes;
• put forth reasonable solutions such as the Ryan Plan;
• agree to return to the full panoply of the Clinton era taxes;
• put forward the Simpson/Bowles plan as a compromise;
• just vote "present" and let the Dems march forward unresisted;
• leave DC and hole up at the Best Western Clock Tower Resort in Rockford, Illinois;

But, it doesn't matter what the GOP does short of registering as Democrats and feeding grapes to Nancy Pelosi, they will be castigated by the Dominant Liberal Establishment Mass Media (DLEMM) and those on the left as obstructionist and intransigent.

And this will happen even though the left boldly proclaims their intransigence on a daily basis:

• Before the election, Harry Reid said, "Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable."
• Harkin and Rockefeller asked Obama to "reject changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that would cut benefits"
• The Congressional Progressive Caucus said that entitlements are off the table
• Durbin, the Senate Majority Whip, said in a speech that under no circumstance would there be any entitlement reform.  
• Krugman says, "Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a 'grand bargain' on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. So stand your ground, Mr. President, and don't give in to threats. No deal is better than a bad deal."
• A pundit opines, "The president can win, without doing anything. He does not have to give an inch. Not an inch!"

Are these the voices of bipartisanship and compromise?  

The left sets up a situation where "negotiation" means something like 'You can choose any color you like as long as it is blue," and then accuses the right of stonewalling if they desire any color other than the shade of blue that the Dems are promoting. They are all for compromise so long as it is the GOP that does the compromising.

However, If the GOP compromises here - and by compromise I mean choosing the preselected, preauthorized positions of the left that are not open to compromise - they will just be yielding more ground to the all-encompassing entitlement state and will be part of the problem.  They will fix nothing and only slightly mitigate the slowing economy, higher taxes on everyone and increased debt. But worst of all, if there is even a trace of GOP DNA on the deal - GOP good intentions notwithstanding - the DLEMM and the left will pin all negative outcomes on the right and the GOP will bear the political consequences of failed policies no matter who authored them (e.g., housing bubble).

Since most agree that we are approaching the cliff at a high rate of speed, the GOP should let the left own the 'solution'. Many on the right argue against this because of the inevitable destruction resulting from leftist policies. But since our Thelma and Louise moment is nigh, will nudging the wheel so that we enter the atmosphere at an angle somewhat less than 90 degrees change the outcome? Will insisting that the windows remain rolled up before we sail off the cliff make the car any more drivable once we reacquaint ourselves with terra firma?

How could the GOP let the Dems own the solution? First, the GOP should set forth details about what they would do if they had control of all three branches. Second, they should propose Obama's own budget and tax plan with a nice acronym like AIRBORN, or FORWARD and vote "present". Lastly, the GOP should then let the Dems propose anything they like and vote "present".

The first move would establish a benchmark.

The second would, as much as possible, remove the ability of the DLEMM and the left (but I repeat myself) to blame and demagogue the right's attempts to inject sanity. And there is little likelihood of passage since Obama's plans have gone down in flames before. 

The last move would allow the Dems to wholly own the solution by letting them propose solutions without resistance. By removing the resistance, the Democrats would be forced to realistically deal with their own proposals. It is very likely that without a great Satan to battle against, the Dems would self-moderate rather than relying on the GOP to provide the moderation for them (as well as a scapegoat) and come to rest on something like Simpson/Bowles. A self moderated outcome may share many aspects with the Republican benchmark and the GOP could enjoy an 'I told you so' moment. But even if the Dems don't moderate their extreme positions, by voting "present" on anything the Dems propose the right gets absolution - not from the DLEMM or the left, but from their base and their conscience.

GOP moderation and compromise only serves to prolong the inevitable. Just as Democrats often stand in opposition to and protest against economic reality, we may be at the point where Republicans are standing in defiance of Schumpeter's reality, and they should, if reluctantly, step aside and allow creative destruction to do its work.

The Infinite Womb

An IEET article observes that Juntendo University researcher Yosinori Kuwabara "predicts that a fully functioning artificial womb capable of gestating a human fetus will evolve in the near future." Cornell University's Dr. Hung-Ching Liu who has successfully implanted and grown mouse embryos in a lab-created uterine lining says it could be as soon as 2020 for animals and 2030 for humans.

The article notes that "In an unusual twist, this technology offers justification to pro-lifers in the abortion debates." How so? A few weeks ago, a Facebook friend asked the following question:

Let’s say we build a machine that’s a perfect simulation of a womb. It can take a human egg and sperm and replace the need for a woman to carry it. However, the machine is scalable, so that it can carry the human through the entirety of its development, all the way to the point where the cells naturally break down and stop working (i.e., through adulthood, old age and death). If the human never leaves the womb, and goes through all the same phases of development that you and I do, at what point do we consider it alive? Do we ever consider it alive?

The current state of affairs is a strange moral place where the worth of the fetus is determined solely by the mother. If she wants to keep the baby, the fetus is infinitely precious and you can be prosecuted if you harm the "child in utero". However, if the mother decides she doesn't want the child, the fetus is determined to be no more important than a wart.

It is an odd thing that this one person determines the worth of another living thing. Even a dog's worth is not determined by its owner - just ask Michael Vick. Right, wrong or indifferent, this situation is certainly odd and unique.

But my FB friend's question calls attention to the 'magical birth canal' sophism - i.e., there is something magical about the infant leaving the birth canal and taking a breath that validates its sanctity or humanity or its life. This is presumably why some docs can perform partial birth abortions because so long as the face is not exposed and a breath is not taken the child is not considered fully human and the activity is not considered infanticide.

If this current way of thinking is applied to the artificial womb scenario, it would appear the object growing in an artificial womb would not be considered human or 'alive' unless and until it took a breath of outside air or the mother deemed it so.

Applying the current ethos to the artificial womb reveals how ridiculous the current thinking on this matter can be. Add to that the potential to more readily observe the fetal development - albeit maybe not as transparently as the womb galleries depicted in the image provided with the article - and the likelihood of earlier and earlier application of the 'life' or 'baby' moniker increases. Just as ultrasounds affect the way a mother now views the developing fetus within her womb, so seeing the developing human form would certainly affect future observers.

However, one suspects that abortions could become increasingly rare for those using artificial wombs as the purposefulness of the sans-sexual insemination process would move it ever closer to former Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders' wish that every child be a wanted child. If women could harvest eggs and store them for future artificial insemination in artificial wombs and be rendered functionally sterile with birth control, the need for abortions due to accidental pregnancy could theoretically be eliminated. And it is difficult to imagine a couple purposefully initiating the artificial womb process and then pulling the plug at some later stage of development - that is, those who were careful and purposeful.

One can just as easily imagine a world in which individuals desire the natural birthing process, careless partners not preventing pregnancy, or those without access to birth control still using the "dark and dangerous place" for gestation.

However, having the parallel option of artificial wombs would certainly bring clarity to the double standard that is debated even today. On the one hand it would be easy to understand that a vandal who removes the fetus from the life giving sustenance of the artificial womb could be easily charged with murder. What would not be so easy to understand is why the woman who separates the fetus in her womb from her life giving sustenance would not be so charged. If those two cases are not equivalent, then one is tacitly stating that an artificially produced child has more right to life than a naturally gestated fetus.

Big Government Means Bigger Business

Newsflash: The rich are already rich. Higher tax rates don't prevent them from being or becoming rich. The wealthy are less concerned with higher tax rates because they will avoid taxation by shuffling their wealth around and by collaborating with government to ensure their position. Higher tax rates will not prevent GE and the Hollywood effete from acquiring wealth – they have already ascended. Large corporations are natural allies of heavy handed fiscal policy because they are better positioned to influence government in their favor and better able to reposition themselves financially and globally in order to skirt or avoid taxation. Big business is the natural ally of big government.

Tax rates do, however, have a mitigative effect on those moving through the economic continuum. In free societies people are not restricted to the class into which they are born. Unlike most economic systems throughout the world, capitalism allows for infinite mobility through the economic spectrum. But onerous tax regimes – and worst yet, being told that the system is rigged against you – can have profound and devastating effects on those trying to climb the economic ladder.

One of the better aspects of the 'creative destruction' of capitalism is the possibility of unseating the power structure. If the influence and control by the government is relatively weak then there is less ability for a group that has the policing power of the state to influence, collude and control. At the very least, corporations can be toppled by the next guy with a better mouse trap. Simply put, if WalMart is functioning in ways that offend your sensibilities, you can spend your dollar elsewhere. If government is doing a poor job, good luck trying to change that.

When a controlling bureaucratic labyrinth exists, the rich and powerful will seek to impose their will with the force of law. The small guy doesn't have the same ability to influence the heavy hand of government as the wealthy. Sure the little guy gets one vote. But the wealthy get that same vote plus a lobbyist. This is the impetus that motivates those with the notion of smaller government. It is mystifying that so many vote for larger government to control the economic and social reigns while thinking it will lessen the influence peddling.

Ironically, those who seek to lessen the shipping of jobs overseas, the consolidation of power and wealth into the hands of a few and reign in corporate behavior with taxation, caps, restrictions and regulation often make the problem worse. One must be careful when ceding power to the government or imposing one's will via government mandate to not just intend to do good.