Captain Regulation on the Balance of Power and the Interests of Big Business

ring...ring...

Captain Regulation: Hello Ms. Buerkle. It has been awhile. What's up?

Representative Ann Marie Buerkle: REINS [Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act: see the Washington Post's article yesterday for a full explanation]. We have been working hard to streamline government regulations. What do you think?

CR: I am afraid you and your colleagues have missed the point of strong regulations again. What you've done is about ideology rather than good government. Also, you are trying to tinker with the balance of power. Don't you remember what you learned in your 9th grade civics course about balancing the three parts of government?

AMB: We think the President has too much power.

CR: Please let me explain something to you. One of the advantages of regulations is continuity. Because the balance of power can shift so quickly, in fact every two years in the House and four years in the Presidency, without regulations things can become unmanageable rather quickly, creating chaos and confusion. Quite simply, there has to be some stability we can all depend upon, and regulations contribute greatly to that.

AMB: But we like using words like "certainty" and "job creators". We want the American people to believe that we have their best interests at heart.

CR: Do you?

AMB: To the extent that big business uses an expendable and cheap labor force, yes.

CR: What? And what about the consumer and community protections REINS would erode?

AMB: I am always in favor of consumer protections so long as they do not reduce the ability of corporations to maximize their profits.

CR: Sorry, you are not making sense. Not only that, but Lisa Lowery's headline this morning, Rep. Buerkle Stands Up for Businesses, is  deceptive and really not true at all for local concerns. It promotes your false contention that the interests of big business are compatible with the interests of workers, local businesses and communities.

AMB: But we are in the business of getting our point across in small bites. We know that our Tea Party supporters don't read deeply or care about facts.

CR: Honestly, Ms. Buerkle, I do not understand why you and your Republican colleagues waste so much time with stunts like this when you have so many more important issues to deal with right now.

AMB: [click]

CR: [to colleagues working nearby] Buerkle again…Tea Party politics as usual. Nothing to do with good government. Back to work. I swear she would be happiest taking us back to the Dark Ages, like yesterday when she came out against new protections for children employed in farming who have been working with pesticides, powerful PTOs and in giant silos and manure ponds.

Buerkle Chooses Overwhelming Cruelty

Posted this morning by: 

National Right to Life News Today, Dec. 7, 2011 By Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations, Christian Medical Association, Director, Freedom2Care

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, New York Republican, protested that under the new abortion referral requirement [for agencies serving youth victims of human trafficking applying for Federal funds], “Now we are going to ask 12-year-olds to make life-changing decisions. You don’t know the trauma of abortion. This will only add to the trauma already experienced by the victims.”

Ann Marie Buerkle wants us to believe that:

going through a "normal" pregnancy with a child's immature mind and body; and 

having a baby of a rapist, one of your dozens or hundreds of rapists, whom you will never identify, at 12 or 13 years old (to go with Buerkle's example); and

after living as a prisoner and in bondage for months or years; and

ignoring the STDs including HIV that you may have contracted; and

the effect these STDs will have on your baby; and

ignoring your own long-term lack of health care and vulnerability to a wide range of non-sexually transmitted diseases; and

having lost your support network, your family and your culture; and

removing your right to CHOOSE to keep or not to keep, even at this young age, and thereby disempowering you further; 

are all preferable to abortion. How is it possible that Buerkle believes that ignoring all these factors could even remotely be a better choice? 

Buerkle, get this, loud and clear: Being FORCED to go through with such a pregnancy and producing a baby who, along with the pre-teen mother, has zero chance of living a normal and healthy life, is CRUEL and IRRATIONAL. 

Yes, you are right: Blueskygirl is shouting. Sorry.

Both the foetus, if you, Buerkle, proud mother who gave birth to six chosen, beautiful and healthy children, require it to be born and if it survives its high-risk pregnancy, and the child-mother, if she survives her high-risk pregnancy, will have nil chances for lives free of severe health issues, severe emotional issues, poverty and very little opportunity of access to any semblance of a good life.

And please don't tell me that these infants, and these 12-year olds, will be adopted into loving homes. There is not, never has been, and never will be, an inexhaustible supply of loving homes for high-risk infants or pre-teens of any cultural background, including "white." When was the last time you adopted a needy baby, or any child, Buerkle?

And, for God's sake, we remember, loud and clear, that you, Buerkle, have suggested that we diminish or take away the scant medical services that both these victims of human trafficking may ever see.

Oh, please.

Blueskygirl's suggestion: way better to find out how to arrest and throw the book at the traffickers and pedophiles.

Way worse to blame and punish, by your stupid politics, the victims.

WORLD AIDS DAY 2011