Little Boy Bush

I did listen to the President's press conference this morning.

When I hear the President talking, I can't help but get this mental picture of a 7 year old boy just getting off the school bus and eagerly telling me what he just learned in school. The 7 yr old wants show you how smart he is by explaining his new info to you. You have to be careful how you ask any question since he will only know what he was just taught, and you don't want to bust his bubble of excitement.

Another way to describe it would be "a mile wide, but an inch deep" but I think "a mile" is overestimating it.

I do think that no matter which major candidate running actually wins this November, we will be getting a leader who will actually understand the issues at hand. That's going to be a big upgrade.

The Law of the Unintended

The catchphrase now is "change". The big three Democratic candidates (really big two, but I'll be more inclusive for now) can't stop talking about how they are the most pro-change candidate out there. The Republicans have to play the "change" game a little more carefully, but they still try to get the "change" word out there whenever possible.

Apparently voters feel things are so bad now, any change must be for the better.

I don't think that way. How many times have people sat in corporate meetings to hear about the latest and greatest new program? How many times have the new programs been wonderful changes for the better? Sure, sometimes they are, but too often, they just create a bunch of new problems to deal with.

I'm being pretty preachy here, but I just want people to dig just a little bit into what the changes are a candidate is proposing. The internet is great since you can go to their websites for particulars.

And remember one the the most fundamental laws of government at any level: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

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.