Daddy State

For years, conservatives have railed against liberals making America into a nanny state. And I've mostly agreed with them. I think the federal government is just too big and awkward to be used as a charity organization.

People measure charities by what percentage of each dollar actually gets used for the charity's projects and not for fundraising and overhead. I'd be interested in seeing what those percentages look like for programs the feds administer.

Good intentions don't mean good results.

But for the past few years, I've noticed that conservatives might still rail against the nanny state but many are embracing the daddy state.

I see the daddy state as a direct result of fear. So many people are so scared of the terrorists, crime and/or immigration that they are willing (almost anxious) to throw the constitution under the bus. They don't mind giving the executive branch the power to eavesdrop at will, arrest whomever they declare the enemy, detain without trial, torture, refuse accountability to congress. All for the illusion of security.

They are scared little children who are running to their daddy to protect them.

They just want the president to pat them on the head, tell them not too worry their little heads about it while the president just takes care of everything for them.

You can read the rationalizations these cowards use to feel good about trashing the constitution on sites like The Corner, Powerlineblog, Redstate and such. They like to portray themselves as gritty realist in the fight against global terror, but they are not.

The terrorists are a real threat to Americans, but not to America. We've taken on bigger and badder than these Islamic fools and we have won without scrapping the constitution or treating it as an anachronism that can only be brought out in good times.

I don't need a nanny state nor do I need a daddy state.

Rush's GOP

It's impossible to talk politics with people and not run into listeners of Rush. I don't have a problem with Rush. I've listened to Rush, on and off, for years.

The issue is with the people who listen to him and actually think Rush is informing them.

That's not Rush's job. His job is to entertain you long enough so he can deliver you to his advertisers. There is nothing wrong with that. It is what most of print, radio and TV is for. And Rush is very good at it.

The problem I have is with people who think that Rush is doing any more than entertaining propaganda.

You can recognize the signs of the "Rush informed" shortly into a conversation. The earliest sign is the typical reactionary rants about the liberal media. I think conservatives like to use this old line as often as possible because it makes people feel any other sources of information that contradict the conservative host are not to be trusted. And it makes the listener feel they are getting to real information. No better way to feel superior than that.

The "liberal media" rant then allows Rush to build up a straw man of the opposing view which he can then knock down. Rush's listeners who don't seek out alternative views (and no, Sean Hannity is not an alternative view) feel they have just seen liberal views defeated by the incredible logic of Rush. If Rush had to truly defend his arguments instead of battling straw men of his own creation or the occasional over matched caller, then we would have a show I'd enjoy a lot more.

When you find yourself talking to a Rush listener, you will find them giving Rush's arguments that worked well against his straw men. These arguments can sound very good unless you have any real information about the opposing view. If you have that information, it is easy to cause a Rushovite to sputter since they don't normally have any way to respond to new arguments.

I do this for fun just to see them try to come up with an answer to a question harder than what Rush was willing to tackle. It is very rare for them to rise to the occasion.

The key to understanding Rush's appeal is that he usually avoids challenging his listeners. Challenging their preconceived notions would make them uncomfortable and uncomfortable listeners might tune out. Rush needs to stay within the framework his listeners are comfortable with and add enough humor to keep it from getting boring.

This framework is reactionary and populist, but it makes millions of people feel secure in their ignorance and just makes Rush millions.

The first post

The title of the post is accurate. I decided it was time for this middle-aged small business owner to try this outlet for expression. I've been bugging friends, family, acquantinces and unlucky clerks and waiters with my pithy observations for years. Now when I get to see them in printed out in front of me, I will really see if I'm as clever as I'd like to think.

I expect the answer is "no" or I would have done this years ago.

I know the blogosphere is a severely crowded place and getting more crowded by the nanosecond, but I will add my voice to the noise and hope that someone out there might find it of interest or amusement.

Politics has always been a subject that has interested me. I try to keep up with the latest news, but it can be hard to stay current at all times. Life will get in the way.

I enjoy TV, movies, music, sports and books, but if all of America was like me, the artists, actors and jocks would make far less money. And that's because I don't obsess about any of them. I like them but I don't read about the actors and I don't live or die with any sports team. Again, life gets in the way. I actually am glad of that. These are mostly passive pasttimes which most of us do too often (I'm at the age when there aren't many sports I can actually play).

I do stay active and believe in that excersize if essential to a balanced life. I enjoy bike riding since you can get a great workout and your knees don't hurt later.

Well, this being the Christmas season, I have plenty of things I need to get back to so we'll now see if we remember the password so we can log on again to post.