The Church of Kharma Futures

The Rev's views on politics, events,faith, and the world. All content copyright Church of Kharma Future 2007-2015 All rights Reserved

Author Archive

There is hope for the future

Posted by brotherkharma on November 3, 2010

Once again I will pop out of nowhere, fire off a post and return to normal life.  This time I am cheating a bit.  The following is an essay written by a student in a public high school.  There is hope that despite all efforts to indoctrinate, some students can see the truth.  Let’s call the author…….nephewkharma?  It is long but it was an assignment and I think you too will be a bit more hopeful for the next generation.

Why Deregulation Works Better Than Regulation

In his book, Arguing with Idiots, Glenn Beck writes as if he is having an ongoing conversation with a friend whom he has dubbed an idiot. One particularly amusing passage comes in his chapter about Capitalism where the idiot makes the argument, “We need a new kind of capitalism, one where the government has more control.” To which Beck responds, “Thanks for buying the book, Stalin.” While the exchange was intended for humor, it also makes a point. With that statement Beck says that there is no room for government in private enterprises and business, and he is right. While government regulation is generally harmful to the economy, deregulation provides for a much more profitable economy. There are several proofs of this. One is how regulation is harmful to the economy by restricting a company’s ability to adapt and placing hardships and financial burdens on the working class. Another proof is that deregulation brings more profits and companies to the market and is beneficial to consumers and the working class. Finally, there is proof in the fact that while the New Deal and other government programs were failures, private sectors achieved far greater success. When the facts are examined, it is hard to believe that anyone still believes in regulation of business.

The first fact to be examined is how regulation restricts a company’s ability to adapt to a changing market and to consumer needs. The airline industry is a prime example of regulatory harm to companies. This is because it has experienced complete regulation until 1978, when it was partially deregulated (Hamrin 245). While it was regulated the government controlled prices. The result was that airports couldn’t adjust prices, and the prices set by the government were too low to cover some basic maintenance costs. They had to close a few gates, which limited the number of carriers they could bring in, which cut their profits even more (“Airline Deregulation: The Concise”). Conditions would have been better if the government had allowed them to set their own prices, as will be shown. Yet the prices would not have been too high, because competition in the market would have driven them down. They would have started off initially higher than government prices, just so that the airports could cover the maintenance cost of the gates. After they had a steady income, they would have been able to open more gates. The additional gates would bring in additional carriers, bringing in more profit. Competition in the market would make them lower their prices so that consumers would choose them over their competitors, and the increased profit from the additional gates would allow them to. As previously stated, the airline industry is a great example of how regulation hurts businesses, but it is not the only example. Another prime example would be the United States housing market and the crash.

Many people say the collapse of the housing market was caused by a deregulated, free-market economy, but when the facts are examined the opposite holds true. The United States housing market was far from deregulated. The government wanted to increase home ownership to paint a better picture of the economy and the American dream, and so they began to regulate and set interest rates. (“Price”) According to economist Walter E. Williams in his paper, “The House that Uncle Sam Built,” interest rates provide potential investors with clues and signals as to whether or not to invest. When the investors saw the low-interest rates, they believed this was because the public was becoming more interested in the housing market, when in reality the rates were artificial and manufactured by the government to entice people to buy homes. Investors then made mistakes in investing in the market when public interest was not as high as they were led to believe, and these investing mistakes led to the housing crash. So it is quite apparent that if the government had left the housing market alone and allowed the economy to run the way it should, the housing market crash, which many cite as the cause of the global recession, would never have happened. Interest rates would have been based properly off of market factors, and that many investors would not have made bad investments in the market at the same time, which is what caused the crash. Rather, any poor investments would have been spread out, not doing as much damage to the market. Regulation hurts business in more ways than this, however. It also causes numerous other problems.

Among these problems is a decreased competitiveness between companies, which is essential to operating a business in a free-market economy. Once again, the airline industry is a prime example. As previously stated, airlines were very heavily regulated up to 1978. When deregulation finally came, some of the larger companies that had existed under regulations were hurt by their lack of competitiveness. Up until this point, these companies were not used to having to handle competition. The government had regulated almost everything in the industry, including prices, flight times, and carriers providing which flights. When competition came, large companies such as Braniff had no idea how to change their business plans to be competitive with smaller, more localized airlines. They had plans built around the fact that they flew at these prices at these times, and they were the only ones who flew at those times. So when smaller companies came and offered flights to the same destinations at the same time, but with lower prices or quicker routes or both, Braniff did not know how to properly adapt. Reliance upon government regulation caused Braniff and several other companies to collapse when smaller carriers entered the market (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”). Without government regulation, these companies would not have become dependent on the government for support. They would have been able to properly adjust their plan and cost structure to compete with the smaller companies. With previous regulation taking away all competition, they had no idea how to do this, nor would they have been able to because of their business structure and cost structure. Because of this, their companies collapsed, costing many American jobs. Regulation does more than just decrease a company’s competitiveness; it also places hardships on many people.

The group most affected by government regulation is the consumers. For this example, the automobile industry is a good reference. From 1967 up to 2001, there were government regulations in the industry that mandated certain safety features, among other things. In that period of time, average cost of a vehicle rose about twenty-two thousand dollars. The mandated safety equipment was expensive, and the only way companies could compensate for costs was to raise the price of their vehicles. Now if the government hadn’t stepped in, the prices would not have gone up that high. Some argue that prices would still have risen, and although that may be true, we’ll never know for sure, but it is true that government regulations and requirements contributed to about a third of vehicle cost increases. (“Price”) So while the regulations maybe made cars a bit safer, it also placed an economic burden on the consumers. If the market had been deregulated, but people wanted safer cars, they could have opted to pay the higher price for the more expensive car. Instead, the government mandated the safety regulations and therefore indirectly took that choice away from the public. The automakers had to raise the prices, placing a burden on the consumers. Another example of how regulation places a burden on the working class can be found in the electricity industry in Texas. In 2001, the electric industry was regulated in Texas. The government deregulated the industries, and prices plunged. The average price of an electric plan in 2009 after deregulation was substantially lower than the average in 2001. Across the board in all companies and in all companies’ plans, every single rate for every plan went down (“The Success”). Obviously, the deregulation helped the market immensely. It is important to deregulate fully, as the Texas electric industry was. If an industry is only partially deregulated, there will only be partial success. Full deregulation has many benefits, as does even partial deregulation, though there is less success there.

One of these main benefits is a generally more profitable business environment, characterized by higher profits and more companies. For example, railroads were partially deregulated in 1981. As previously stated, partial deregulation will bring only partial success, but even this partial success brought a profit increase of forty-four per cent by 1984 (Hamrin, 246). After the airline industry was partially deregulated, fares have fallen twenty-five per cent. Economists say that if they continued under regulation, the fares would have fallen only three per cent. (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”) Also, while regulated, no interstate carriers were granted permission to open, but after deregulation twenty-six new carriers opened from 1978-1988 (Hamrin, 246). The change in the railroad industry was drastic. A profit increase of forty-four per cent in only three years, and that is only under partial deregulation. Based on those numbers, the profits under full deregulation would be incredibly high. Some argue that full deregulation would mean an increase in control of the top companies, and a growth in “Big Business” but the airline industry proves quite the opposite. Rather than smaller companies being forced into bankruptcy, twenty-six new carriers were formed. Now it is apparent that deregulation is beneficial to companies, but many people are mistrustful of business in general. Deregulation does not only benefit companies, however.

Deregulation also benefits consumer and the working class. With an increased freedom for competitiveness, deregulated airlines resulted in more choices and even more services offered to consumers. Among these choices were city-pairs, which are flight direct from one city to another with no stops or connecting flights. After deregulation, there was a fifty-five per cent increase in city-pairs, which are quicker and more convenient for flyers (Hamrin 245). Obviously, quicker service and more convenience are positive aspects for consumers, and what is positive for the customer is positive also for the provider, as the customer will be more likely to return and do business again.  Many supporters of regulation say that regulation protects small business and keeps Big Business in check. This is a common misconception. In fact, the opposite holds true. In an article “Big Business and Big Government” published on the CATO institute’s website, Timothy P. Carney points out this flaw in thinking. He writes, “The facts point in an entirely different direction . . . Enron was a tireless advocate of strict global energy regulations supported by environmentalists. Enron also used its influence in Washington to keep laissez-faire bureaucrats off the federal commissions that regulate the energy industry.” Enron would not try to keep laissez-faire politicians off of federal commissions if deregulation increased its control over the business. So clearly, it must be that deregulation threatens its power. Carney goes on to explain that newer, smaller business cannot keep up financially with all the government regulations, whereas big businesses have the resources to easily afford whatever regulations the government puts in place. They use government regulations to keep their smaller competitors one step behind and struggling financially under the burden of the regulations, which usually are not quite big enough to do any real damage to big business (“Big Business”). It is not good for consumers or for an economy to have the majority of the financial power residing with a group of large corporations. It reduces customer choices, and prices are more likely to rise, placing a burden on the people. With less competition, business can and will slowly raise their prices. This is the point of business; to make a profit. A free-market economy ensures that these prices do not go out of control. Simply put, if two companies offer the same service or good with similar quality, but one offers it a lower price, consumers will go to the company with the lower prices, forcing companies to have fair, competitive rates. With regulations and restrictions, companies are either forced to raise these prices to cover the cost of these regulations, or they have the freedom to raise them with less competition, as proved above. So it is clear that regulation ultimately ends in failure.

There is no better way to show just how and why these regulations end in failure than to examine government run economic programs such as the New Deal and other programs that amounted to nothing. According to Glenn Beck in his book Arguing with Idiots, the reason that government is ineffective in areas involving economics and business is simple. He writes:

Their motives are completely different. Private companies exist to create wealth, the          government exists (at least in theory to provide protections critical to life, liberty, and the        pursuit of happiness. Private companies closely manage expenses and ensure every dollar      has a return; the government attempts to spend every dollar it’s given and measures     returns in campaign donations and polling data.

If one disagrees that government is incompetent in the business and economics field, he or she need only look over previous regulations and programs and find the proof. During the New Deal, Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea to seize all the banks and make them close during a national “banking holiday” as it was called. After the so-called holiday, five thousand of the banks did not re-open. The majority of failed banks were in states with unit banking laws, which forbade a bank from opening new branches to lessen risk. Now this could be circumstantial, but further evidence proves otherwise. In Canada, there were no such laws, and banks could feel free to open new branches wherever and whenever they like. The number of bank failures in Canada at this time was a grand total of zero (“Great Myths” 8). The logical conclusion is that the unit banking laws caused the banks to fail. The banks were not allowed to open new branches, so when there was an opportunity to make more profits in another area, they were unable to seize that opportunity. Obviously, these banks needed the extra profit badly, or they would not have failed. In Canada these banks could open new branches when they got into financial troubles, and the new revenue could save their company. So it is clearly established that government regulation and government programs ultimately end in little or no success.

In contrast, private sectors have achieved far greater success. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, both government agencies and private charities rushed to help. The government also put forth numerous recovery plans. The majority of these failed miserably. For example, Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, put forth over three hundred public projects and rebuilding efforts. Almost three years later, only six were complete. Conversely, Wal-Mart was having incredible success. One hundred and twenty-six of Walmart’s stores had been severely damaged in the hurricane. Within ten days, one hundred and ten of them were up and running (Arguing). It is hard to believe those numbers. In less than two weeks, Wal-Mart had completed recovering eighty-seven per cent of its stores, while in over three years less than two percent of the government programs were completed. Obviously the private company had much better success than the government; the facts do not leave room for any interpretation. New Orleans recovery is not the only example of the government versus private companies though.

For an additional example of how private sectors achieve greater success than government-run operations, the National Center for Educational Statistics offers this interesting report. Private school students in the fourth grade outscored public school students by 14.7 points in reading, and 7.8 points in math. By the eighth grade, private school students were outperforming their public school counterparts by 18.1 points in reading and 12.3 points in math (“Comparing Private Schools”). As the students in the private school advanced through the grades, their scores over the public school students increased by 3.4 points in reading and 4.5 points in math. The longer the student remains in a private school, the more his or her scores improve. Clearly, the private-run schools provide a better education than the government-run schools. Financially, the private schools were better also. Competition in the private, less regulated sector drives efficiency and lower cost. According to that same report, the average annual cost per public school student in 1996 was $6,857. The average tuition in private schools that same year was about half that, at $3,116. Obviously, the government is doing something to raise costs that the private sectors are not. This same basic effect occurs whenever the government attempts to regulate private industries that it should not be involved in.

So it is obvious that government regulation hurts the economy, while deregulation provides for a more profitable business climate. This can be seen in the way regulation restricts companies and places financial burdens on consumers. It can be seen in how higher profits accompany deregulation and the effects of deregulation on the working class. It can be seen when government is directly compared with the private sector. The Founding Fathers drafted our Constitution with distinct goals in mind. Among these goals was the decentralization of power, keeping the federal government as far detached from citizen’s day to day lives as possible. Through regulations and restrictions, however, the federal government has inserted itself into areas it does not belong, with complete disregard for the Constitution. It is time for a change; it is time for the government to realize that the welfare of the economy is more important than its own power. Deregulation can bring many benefits to the economy where regulation can only cause more harm. It is time to deregulate, before it is too late.

Posted in administrative power, bailout, bank takeover, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Constitution, corruption, Democrats, economics, federal reserve, Federal reserve bank, gold, gold standard, international money, monetary policy, Obama, Obama Administration, Political parties, TARP, Tea Parties, unconstitutional | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Just Watch the Right Distort Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda Remarks

Posted by brotherkharma on January 6, 2010

Warning – This is long (for me), meandering, and quite possibly incoherent. Please do not mistake this for an official White House briefing or proposed legislation.

It is amazing to me, although I thought I was finished being shocked by the left.  I Googled the phrase “Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda remarks” and it took me 10 minutes to find the actual remarks.  I had to search Whitehouse.gov to find the text of the speech.  All that came up on Google (at least the first 2 pages – which is all my attention span will allow me to look through) was the same silly blog being reposted all over the place.  The blog was “Just Watch the Right Distort Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda Remarks”.  They claim the President was saying Guantanamo was a propaganda and recruiting tool, and that the right has begun to twist his words.  The same way the head of Homeland Security had her words twisted by being quoted?  Maybe the same way Supreme Court nominees have their words twisted, by repeating them in their entirety with contextual explanation?   Now I’ll grant them that President Obama said:

“For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo…. There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.  Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.  …. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause.  Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”

The problem is he said that in May, 2009.  What he said in January of 2010 was:

“But make no mistake:  We will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for al Qaeda.  In fact, that was an explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  And, as I’ve always said, we will do so — we will close the prison in a manner that keeps the American people safe and secure.”

Now the phrase “explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda” seems to my untrained ears to mean the reason they are there.  If he wanted to say Guantanamo helped them recruit or helped raise sympathy in the Islamic world, I think he would have said it like that.  You know, the way he did in May.  Both speeches do a lot to tell you his mind set in dealing with this threat.  Following the “explicit rationale” comments, he went into detail on how he will address security.  The President warns us that al Qaeda is “constantly evolving and adapting their efforts to strike us”.  The White House site also says what I hope is a typo: “As they refine our tactics, we’ll enhance our defenses”.  People tell me I am overly critical of the President on this issue, so here I am going to rush to his side.  He did not mean that al Qaeda is refining our tactics! They are not wondering into the White House, uninvited, and offering their opinions.  I mean, no one gets in there like that!  The President promises us “smarter screening and security at airports, and investing in the technologies that might have detected the kind of explosives used on Christmas”.  Well, I am willing to help my country.  I have an old laptop that is kind of slow, a little buggy, and needs an external keyboard attached to it, but it can run e-mail, a web browser, and word.  I will happily provide this 21st Century anti-terror technology to the TSA so they can see if someone on multiple watch lists, buying a one way ticket in cash the day of the flight without a valid passport should be searched as thoroughly as I was the 3rd time I flew round trip from Philly to Colorado Springs in the same month.

In May, he really laid down the gauntlet.  In that speech he stated “We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates”.  Hoo-rah! (Can’t you just hear R. Lee screaming that out maggot?) He followed it up with the caution on how to prosecute this war.  “But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.”  Hoo-hah!

I don’t recall FDR demanding lawyers and checks and balances to combat the Nazi threat.  I do not recall a stirring speech to Congress promising to bring Admiral Yamamoto to justice.  I have spoken to many WWII vets, none of whom have ever issued a Miranda warning on the battlefield. But wait, he leans on some quasi historical precedent.  “…the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions…” .  Can anyone tell me what war the US waged with a reliance on “our legal traditions and time-tested institutions”?  The American Revoloution? No.  Civil War? Hmmmm, nope.  Either World War?  Don’t think so.  Wait!  I have it.  The closest we came was in Vietnam.  That’s the model we want to follow, right?

Well, if that didn’t strike fear in the hearts of our enemies, they did it today.  They revoked the Visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man who tried to blow up 300 people on Christmas day.  12 days later, they revoked his visa.  The Administration is sending a STRONG Clear statement!  If you are a failed terrorist, we don’t want you here!  And Gitmo, which of course is the main reason that al-Qaeda flourishes on the Arabian Peninsula, will ABSOLUTELY be closed!  Sometime.  Soon.  Probably. We think, just don’t send them to Yemen.  Or to Illinois because we can’t afford to buy lights and a new fence at the vacant state prison – fiscal responsibility is part of the new change in Washington remember!

Now there are some who will point to the cooperation of the Yemen government as evidence that Obama is gaining support around the world.  It might seem like the approach to this as a legal issue and closure of Gitmo has garnered support in the Middle East.  However, let’s take a deeper look.  Since 2001, US military, not prosecutors, have driven the Taliban into the mountains.  They have ripped Saddam from power and wrought havoc on the terror organizations that attempted to move into Iraq.  The war was pushed away from our shores and towards the heart of Islamofascism.  But why the sudden support of Yemen?  There has also been support of the Saudis, who have launched air strikes against al-Qaeda on the Saudi/Yemeni border.  In August of 2009, for the first time in decades, there was an attempted assassination of a member of the Saudi Royal Family.  Al-Qaeda sent a suicide bomber tried to kill Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, assistant interior minister for security affairs, in his palace in Jeddah.  Somehow I think this is far more likely to cause Saudi and Yemeni cooperation than a guarantee that someday Gitmo will close and the threat to deport every failed terrorist.

BTW – if anyone is still reading this, I feel sorry for you but wanted you to know one more thing.  The reason I gave it the title I did was to hopefully get it in the mix of those other brain dead blogs that made me go on this rant.  Have a nice day and go J-E-T-S-Jets Jets JETS!!!!

Posted in administrative power, Afghanistan, chaos, Christianity, deception, Democrats, fascism, Freedom, Homeland Security, International, Iraq, Iraq Victory, Islam, Just talking, Justice, laws, Middle East, Military, Napolitano, Obama, Obama Administration, Oil, Pelosi, Political parties, Politics, Russia, Tea Parties, Terrorism, Torture, US Army, US Navy, USMC, White house | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Legacy

Posted by brotherkharma on July 15, 2009

Legacy.  It’s an odd word.  It used to mean, according to Merriam Webster, “a gift by will” or “something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past”.  Well, as with so many words, politicians have annihilated that as well.  Legacy now means the way today’s media would like historians to judge a current political figure.  Please don’t confuse this with their actual legacy, which is what they have transmitted to our culture and posterity.

Take for example, and I do hesitate to invoke the name, President Clinton.  I am not, in any way attempting to link the current administration to Clinton’s.  For one thing, Clinton was much better about doing a poll driven 180° policy turn and convincing a lot of people this was the original direction.  That brings me rambling along to something like making a point.  (I understand that is what I’m supposed to do with these blogs, go figure).  Enough time has passed that we can begin to honestly evaluate the Clinton legacy.

To do this, we will need to look at the “Webster” legacy, and the “Network” legacy.  First, the network legacy.  I will paraphrase a few things; sort of quote a source occasionally.  You know, real, hard hitting modern journalism.  There is a NY Times article, “Striking Strengths, Glaring Shortcomings”, that is one of many attempts to describe the former President as someone who tried really hard.  He had to overcome a public that just didn’t trust the executive branch after the 12 years before him.  They actually referred to his “modest domestic initiatives” in the same paragraph as “his effort to overhaul the nation’s health care system”.  They refer to his poll driven policies as navigating between the left and the right.  The gist of most of the major news outlets view of the administration is that he was a likeable guy, bad husband, and the only really practical person in Washington.  Their version of his legacy is that conservatives learned to move to the left because of him, and those who disagreed with his practical policies had to attack his personal life.  The impeachment was, after all, the result of Ken Starr being a pervert and a prude (with no explanation how you are both).

Watching some of the recent news of the day is what prompted me on this rambling.  I am seeing more of the true legacy.  To be fair, it is not all directly from the former President, but what I see is the result of both his actions and those who rushed to his defense.  In 1988, there were several prominent Democrats running for their party’s nomination.  In these pre-Clinton days, reports of Gary Hart’s affair on the yacht Monkey Business was more than enough to run him out of the race, and politics.   That same year, another Senator running for office was discovered to have plagiarized a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock, as well as a number of papers while in law school.  He was disgraced and withdrew from the race (although he did provide me with a good joke for my brother’s wedding toast) and was very quiet for a long time.  Now, in the post Clinton days, that man is Vice-President.  I look at the Governors of New York, New Jersey, and South Carolina and I hear people saying it’s their personal life.  In New York, Eliot Spitzer is actually being considered as a viable candidate.

We used to look for leaders, for people to inspire the nation to greatness.  I can’t stand to hear one more talking head tell me that our politicians are just like the rest of us.   That’s not leadership.  George Washington was not like the rest of us.  Most people would have taken the opportunity to become the first American King, or Emperor.  Why do we tolerate (and don’t get me started on the new definition of that word) mediocre leadership?  I see the messages battering my children that some sex is not sex, and anything you do in private is OK.  Spin is OK.  I’m sorry but spin is just a soft way to say lying through your teeth.  My kids have been told (not at home) that there are times in life when a little lie is the right thing to do.  Let me repeat that.  They have been told that sometimes a lie is the right thing to do.  As long as you avoid offending anyone, and spin it right, just say what you need to say and get past the situation.  Of course, if you botch it, there is a guaranteed fix.  If you actually do something that someone considers wrong, and get caught, you must apologize.  It should go something along the lines of “To the extent that anyone may have taken offense at what I said, although I never intended to offend them, I apologize.” Apologize for someone else’s actions too, while you’re at it.  Can’t hurt.

So in the end, I am trying to raise my kids to learn the lesson of the only legacy that truly matters.  I understand that this gets me labeled with all sorts of horrible titles, but I still do it.  It is a true legacy, a “gift transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past”.  The world has the legacy of Christ, handed directly down from Him through Saint Peter.  I will hitch my wagon to that, and let the others try to build on the media legacy.

Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Cabinet, change, Christianity, citizenship, corruption, Democrats, Faith, Faith under assault, First Amendment, Founders, Freedom of Religion, George Washington, Government expansion, governors, incompetent Clinton, Justice, liberty, Obama, Political parties, Politics, Presidential race, Senate, White house | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

In My Spare Time – Right?

Posted by brotherkharma on May 19, 2009

The Rev and I have had many discussions surrounding this website, and for some reason he still encouraged me to provide input.  My initial reaction was that I would be thrilled to bloviate (apologies to Mr. O’Reilly) on a number of things that interested only me.  I would have no problem driving down the readership of this site.  My next reaction was to agree, as long as expectations were low and the submissions could be staggered and unreliable.  Underwhelmed by my enthusiasm, the Rev did not rescind his invite, which I interpreted as acceptance.

I found myself with a lot of opinions, and an outlet.  This was tremendous!  I mulled over some issues and ideas, wanting my first post to make a splash.  I sat down and began to write something, but the dog needed to be walked.  Well, I’d think about it on the walk and get started the next morning.  Several next mornings and a slew of track meets, softball games, booster club meetings, Taekwondo classes, book reports, leaky pipes, deadlines at work, client meetings (yes, I do actually have to work for a living, I’m not a liberal blogger), doctors appointments and other “trivial” things later, I still had nothing.  I told the Rev I was trying the best I could, but was interrupted by life. 

My next attempts faired slightly worse.  I actually went backwards by completely forgetting what I had wanted to write about.  It was obviously compelling and of a burning urgency to the world.  Somehow, I just could not work up the passion to ignore life to write about politics.  Something must be wrong with me.  I mentioned this to the Rev again and he pointed back to my “interrupted by life” excuse.  He suggested that if I had time (seriously, he did), I might want to expand on that. 

I thought about that for a while, not too long lest I forget what I was thinking about.  Then it hit me.  The major uphill battle that Conservatism faces is our complete and total ineptness at staying “me” focused.  The left has us beat hands down, and have for years.  I was raised by two people (of different genders, actually married – gasp!) who did whatever it took to ensure good things for their children.  Sacrifice was something they did by choice and out of love, not demanded of others to enhance their position.  I have tried to follow that example, because I admire the people who set it. 

There are tremendous issues facing us every day, and there are always important points to make on each one.  There is only one spring choir concert a year, and I am running out of those.  There is only one first varsity wrestling match.  The left can whip up professional protesters and seminar callers in an instant. If they can prevent themselves from being interrupted by life to stay focused on the issue du jour, then they have convinced me I am on the right side (pun intended).  We went through all of this in the 70’s (pending Ice Age vs. Global Warming;  Jimmy Carter and détente vs. Barack Obama world apology tour insisting we are not a Christian country) and survived, even thrived again 10 years later.  This country can get through anything.  I am not sticking my head in the sand and saying pull me out in 8 years, but a lot of voices are starting to sound shrill.  I would love to explain in detail why there is no need for panic, but please pardon the interruption, my life is calling.  Maybe after I pick up a sick kid from school I’ll have time to write it all down.

 

bro

Posted in Big Government, Just talking, Kharma stuff, o'reilly, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »