Me and Ms Brinkley

I bring this up because I'd planned to write about it, but laziness overwhelmed me (again), then last weekend I was reading this review of Mark Levin's new book, Ameritopia, and this quote from the book seemed like all the response anyone would need to such a comment.
Inside the home, the federal government regulates washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, dishwasher detergents, microwave ovens, toilets, showerheads, heating and cooling systems, refrigerators, freezers, furnace fans and boilers, ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, lightbulbs, certain renovations, fitness equipment, clothing, baby cribs, pacifiers, rattles and toys, marbles, latex balloons, matchbooks, bunk beds, mattresses, mattress pads, televisions, radios, cell phones, iPods and other digital media devices, computer components, video recording devices, speakers, batteries, battery charges, power supplies, stereo equipment, garage door openers, lawn mowers, lawn darts, pool slides… toothpaste, deodorant, dentures…
So much for the excesses of a free market. I fear that my debating opponent has fallen prey, like so many other Americans have, to simple talking points. Indeed throughout the nation, talking points, or bullet points as some call them, seem to carry the day in many discussions. Rarely can complex arguments compete, even when they are sorely needed. I said I agree that there must be government controls, and I do, but there must also be some balance. The continual growth of government, and government controls, is leading the country in the wrong direction. The real problem however, is that politicians, those who guide the country, are nearly unanimous in pushing for more government.
Consider the upcoming presidential election, now less than ten months away. We know Obama is running again, and no one can honestly argue that he is not for bigger government and more government control. On the other side, at least as it appears today, he'll run against one of the four remaining Republicans. Romney created the basis for Obamacare as governor of Massachusetts and was for climate change legislation before he was against it. Gingrich advocated the individual mandate for health insurance in the last century, did a television commercial with Nancy Pelosi advocating climate change legislation and worked since his ouster from Congress primarily as a lobbyist, regardless of what he calls it. Rick Santorum is not well enough known to be much of a factor, in my opinion, but he has long been an advocate of more government control, especially in your bedroom.
[Note: regardless of your opinion on human caused climate change, any climate change law or regulation - by definition - would result in more government control. Whether that is a bug or a feature is another question.]
Ron Paul is the only one of the five who is actually not for more government and the odds of him getting the nomination, and then winning in November, are almost as good as those of Christie Brinkley choosing me for her fifth husband. The point is that we small government folks don't even have a realistic dog in the hunt. The lips of Newt and Mitt tell us they're for reducing the size of government, but their history tells us they're politicians.
And wasn't "lips of newt" an ingredient in some old witch's brew?
The picture of Ms Brinkley is about two years old, when she was fifty-six. So both she and I have fairly new pictures, and though it pains me to admit it, she does look just a touch better than I do (of course, she has another birthday coming up on Saturday, there's no telling how she'll look then.) Maybe if I trim my beard, she'll choose me. What? You got something against dreams?
