Friday, July 30, 2010

Unpresidential President Indeed

The view huh? Mr. Obama, you're going on the View as president of the United States to discuss what exactly?


I fear that "..." is sadly all that was truly discussed. There was nothing of substance. Why this medium, no one can answer.

It is very belittling of himself. That's all anyone seems to know.

~David Morris~

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Great Myths of the Great Depression

Great Myths on the Great Depression.

Sigh. 90% taxes. Just to name a few as a preview.

~David Morris~

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

GOP Youth Convention - A personal case study for proper framing.

Along with some of my other libertarian co-workers, I attended a GOP Youth Convention. The mission was to design an official party agenda on a variety of issues from the perspective of young people. The process involved splitting us into subcommittees (such as economics, foreign policy, etc) where we'd draft an proposed stance on a specific topic. We would then vote on the wordings of our drafts before making such stances official. Participates could make calls to reword the stance if found disagreeable, and we would hence vote on the alternative proposal.

While much of the economic and health care issues were agreeable, nominally, libertarians and conservatives are capable of disagreement when it comes to immigration, defense spending, and certain other social issues. With three libertarians in the crowd (including one who was particularly eager), most of the deadlock took place here.

Specifically, on immigration and gay marriage. It appeared that one of my co-workers was unintentionally stirring a hornet nest in the manner she made her proposals on such issues, leading her be be labeled as a "democrat spy" by certain individuals who found her disagreeable.

I recall the deadlock on the definition of marriage in particular. Singularly it appeared, my co-worker was advocating against the original proposal of the societal subcommittee of simply pre-defining marriage as between a man and a woman. However, her framing had more of an appeal tailored to civil liberals and proved agitating to many. As temperaments flared, I quietly thought of means to reword the manner in a way that everyone could be satisfied with.

It is here that I was thankful for heeding some of the lessons learned at Cato in regards to relating to one's audience. I've always believed libertarians can create more common ground with conservatives than not, if they are mindful of proper framing. Recalling the Ransberger Pivot, I employed it in a manner that was able to end the deadlock by making an appeal to the constitution, a document that everyone in the room could appreciate. In the end, rather than stand for federal involvement on marriage, I subtly took things in a direction of allowing the 10th Amendment to settle the issue.

It was nice to play peacemaker.

~David Morris~

Friday, July 23, 2010

Mosque across Ground Zero. Oh well. Can I have a cross then?

Response to this article at Washington Examiner.

I'm a Christian libertarian with traditional values. Sure, I can claim mixed feelings on the controversy of a mega-mosque on Ground Zero.

However, unless there's some hidden form of legal foul play, I can't really care enough to be up in arms about it. I understand after all, that Islam is composed of different denominations just as Christianity is. Its not as if al Qaeda is funding this. Again, I don't necessarily endorse the mosque. I would still appreciate it were they not to build the mosque.

I would also appreciate it if someone gave me a quarter right about now. Oh well, its no big deal if I don't get what I want on this one. This is a red herring to more important things.

Besides, I perceive no true threat to my religious freedom on account of this Islamic building anyway. Nay, that remains the purview of ignorantly intolerant anti-Christian activists, who oft speak of "separation of church and state" as though the term "state" was synonymous with "public display."

So how about the following compromise?

Muslims get their mosque across the street of ground zero, and Christians get to put a cross or religious plaque somewhere ON ground zero. That is, whenever they decide to put something there.

Nah, that's probably attract the ACLU.

~David Morris~

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Debt Metaphors To the Moon.

I decided to go hunting for some debt metaphors today. Imagine the engineering achievements would could obtain!

Big numbers: As a point of reference, if 11.4 trillion $1 bills were stacked on top of each other, they would stretch all the way to the moon. And back. And over halfway to the moon again. Put another way, if you brought $1-trillion in crisp one-dollar bills to the bank and you handed the teller a dollar every second, it would take 32,000 years to completely transfer the money. [source]


23.5 Trillion Dollars Is 23.5 Football Fields Stacked 2 Stories Deep With Packed $100 Bills: That’s the Size of USA Federal Debt. [source]


If you had a nice neat stack of $100 bills 40 inches high, you would have a million dollars.

A billion dollars is a thousand million. If you could keep it from falling over, a billion dollars in $100 bills all in one stack or on one helluva spindle would be more than 300 stories high. More than three Sears Towers stacked one on top of the other. It would be 3,333 feet high, a hazard to air traffic requiring beacons flashing day and night.

The amount that the Bush administration borrowed from investors last month, October 2002, was ironically 33.3 times as much as the above and if stacked all together in $100 bills would reach 21 miles into space. That's not feet or inches, but 21 statute miles of 5,280 feet to the mile.

And that's not all. The Bush administration ran up the entitlement side of the national debt another $20.9 billion which means that the total national debt went up $54.3 billion last month, October 2002. Now, our monthly stack of $100 bills would reach 34.2 miles into space. And that's only what your government added to the tab in one month.

If you took the entire national debt and it was possible to stack it neatly in $100 bills, that stack would extend 3,966 miles into space. "One of these days Alice, to the moon."

If our hypothetical spindle was based in New York City and it fell to the east, we could have a narrow bridge across the Atlantic to Berlin. If it fell to the west, the top would land more than 900 miles offshore from San Francisco in the Pacific.

From another direction.

If you set aside $7 million a day from the birth of Christ, from the beginning of the Gregorian calendar 2,002 years ago, you would be able to pay off the national debt by November of the year 2458. That's only 456 years from now. Of course, right now the national debt would have to stop going up.

There are nitwits who tell us that the United States can easily afford a debt of this size because our Gross Domestic Product is more than $10 trillion a year. At $6.3 trillion, the national debt is only about 60 percent of the GDP.

The implication here is that all we have to do is stop spending money for six or seven months of the year, send everything we make to the government, and everything will be hunky dory. It really means we would all be dead in a matter of weeks.

Don't buy medicine. Don't buy gasoline or groceries. Don't go to Starbucks or McDonald's. Of course, there wouldn't be anybody there anyway because they would all be doing the same thing. How long do you think you could last that way, even if we didn't start killing each other over what's left on the shelves?

We all know what the sensible solution is. Set up a payment plan within our means.

Unfortunately, the most we've ever paid against the national debt was $230 billion in fiscal 2000 and that wasn't enough to keep the debt from going up another $18 billion that year due to interest and the theft of entitlement surpluses.

If you go to any mortgage lender or any of the plug-in mortgage models on the Internet, you will find that paying off the national debt in anything less than 50 years requires annual payments of at least $350 billion a year. And that's with interest as low as 5 percent.


There is one thing we could do that would be of benefit to all of us. We could get rid of the bogus bonds that our crooked government has awarded us while they played a con game called "borrowing" entitlement money—actually stealing our surplus Social Security, Medicare, gas taxes, and other excessive overpayments.

We don't need these phony securities. The entire "Intragovernmental Holdings" side of the national debt, currently standing at $2.7 trillion, is fraudulent. Worse than anything Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossings, Arthur Andersen, or any of the corporations under investigation by the Justice Department and SEC have done.

Wipe that fraudulent $2.7 trillion from the crooked books and we've only got $3.6 trillion in honest debt to investors to pay off.

We would all be better off if the crooks had the integrity to simply take the money and run in the first place instead of tricking us with their double taxation scam.


~David Morris~

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Conservatives vs Libertarians. Solution? The Limbaugh Libertarian Virus.

Original respons to this article over whether conservatism is to be considered a "dirty word."


I think this sounds like an interesting strategy for converting liberals.

Do not break away from conservatives when it comes to dealing with conservatives. The neoconservative brand of Bush is dead most certainly. Its just as dead as Nixon. But the Reagan conservative brand is still very much alive. It is not to be forsaken on the grounds of a single heretic.

So I suppose when dealing with liberals, start the process on social issues and teach them about economics. Bam, a new libertarian. If dealing with conservatives, teach them about the 9th and 10th amendment. Bam, new libertarian.

It all really depends on your audience.

As a movement though, like it or not, the first pure-strain libertarian president will be a republican. I hear you out until you get to a point of speaking of third parties. I don't know of Palin's model. I don't trust Hannity's blueprint. However, I am continually fascinated by Limbaugh as I screen him for anti-liberty gaffes. For when you listen, it is soon apparent that he's a "conservative" with a libertarian infection.

Could his libertarian substitute hosts have a hand in this? We need to repeat what I shall henceforth deem the "Limbaugh libertarian virus" for all the other conservatives and hijack their party.

Ah yes. Another caveat we must be aware of is that not everything associated with "liberal" is necessarily socially tolerant.

Fairness Doctrine, affirmative action, jealously guarded ban on alternatives to evolution, infringement on the *private* right to associate and disassociate, hostility to public displays (not state displays, but public displays by private citizens) specifically of Christianity, etc. One should take care in broadly painting contemporary liberalism as socially untainted.

Certainly, libertarians call for a secular government. Many "liberals" however are known for going further in calling for a forcefully secular culture. Just a word of warning.

The 9th and 10th Amendment is the key. Be we educating liberals or conservatives, our message must provide that people have the right to associate with those who hold their beliefs. Federalism.

~David Morris~

On the Ground View of Afganistan.

From a Recon Marine in Afghanistan

From the Sand Pit it's freezing here. I'm sitting on hard, cold dirt between rocks and shrubs at the base of the Hindu Kush Mountains , along the Dar 'yoi Pomir River , watching a hole that leads to a tunnel that leads to a cave. Stake out, my friend, and no pizza delivery for thousands of miles.
I also glance at the area around my buns every ten to fifteen seconds to avoid another scorpion sting. I've actually given up battling the chiggers and sand fleas, but the scorpions give a jolt like a cattle prod. Hurts like a bastard. The antidote tastes like transmission fluid, but God bless the Marine Corps for the five vials of it in my pack.
The one truth the Taliban cannot escape is that, believe it or not, they are human beings, which means they have to eat food and drink water. That requires couriers and that's where an old bounty hunter like me comes in handy. I track the couriers, locate the tunnel entrances and storage facilities, type the info into the handheld, shoot the coordinates up to the satellite link that tells the air commanders where to drop the hardware. We bash some heads for a while, then I track and record the new movement.
It's all about intelligence. We haven't even brought in the snipers yet. These scurrying rats have no idea what they're in for. We are but days away from cutting off supply lines and allowing the eradication to begin.
I dream of bin Laden waking up to find me standing over him with my boot on his throat as I spit into his face and plunge my nickel-plated Bowie knife through his frontal lobe. But you know me, I'm a romantic. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Afghanistan blows, man. It's not even a country. There are no roads, there's no infrastructure, there's no government. This is an inhospitable, rock pit ruled by eleventh century warring tribes. There are no jobs here like we know jobs.

Afghanistan offers two ways for a man to support his family: join the opium trade or join the army. That's it. Those are your options. Oh, I forgot, you can also live in a refugee camp and eat plum-sweetened, crushed beetle paste and squirt mud like a goose with stomach flu, if that's your idea of a party. But the smell alone of those 'tent cities of the walking dead' is enough to hurl you into the poppy fields to cheerfully scrape bulbs for eighteen hours a day.

I've been living with these Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Turkmen and even a couple of Pushtuns, for over a month-and-a-half now, and this much I can say for sure: These guys, all of 'em, are Huns... actual, living Huns. They LIVE to fight. It's what they do. It's ALL they do. They have no respect for anything, not for their families, nor for each other, nor for themselves. They claw at one another as a way of life. They play polo with dead calves and force their five-year-old sons into human cockfights to defend the family honor. Huns, roaming packs of savage, heartless beasts who feed on each other's barbarism. Cavemen with AK-47's. Then again, maybe I'm just cranky.

I'm freezing my buns off on this stupid hill because my lap warmer is running out of juice, and I can't recharge it until the sun comes up in a few hours. Oh yeah! You like to write letters, right? Do me a favor, Bizarre. Write a letter to CNN and tell Wolf and Anderson and that awful, sneering, pompous Aaron Brown to stop calling the Taliban 'smart.' They are not smart. I suggest CNN invest in a dictionary because the word they are looking for is 'cunning.' The Taliban are cunning, like jackals and hyenas and wolverines. They are sneaky and ruthless, and when confronted, cowardly. They are hateful, malevolent parasites who create nothing and destroy everything else. Smart. Pfft. Yeah, they're real smart.

They've spent their entire lives reading only one book (and not a very good one, as books go) and consider hygiene and indoor plumbing to be products of the devil. They're still figuring out how to work a Bic lighter. Talking to a Taliban warrior about improving his quality of life is like trying to teach an ape how to hold a pen; eventually he just gets frustrated and sticks you in the eye with it.

OK, enough. Snuffle will be up soon, so I have to get back to my hole. Covering my tracks in the snow takes a lot of practice, but I'm good at it.
Please, I tell you and my fellow Americans to turn off the TV sets and move on with your lives. The story line you are getting from CNN and other news agencies is utter bull, and designed not to deliver truth but rather to keep you glued to the screen through the commercials. We've got this one under control The worst thing you guys can do right now is sit around analyzing what we're doing over here, because you have no idea what we're doing, and really, you don't want to know. We are your military, and we are doing what you sent us here to do.

Saucy Jack
Recon Marine in Afghanistan
Semper Fi
"Freedom is not free...but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share".

Send this to ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS so that people here will really know what is going on over there.-

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.' That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.'

FUBAR Afganistan? Redefine the Mission.

As I read the editorial from Gene Healy on Obama's war, I can't help but recall a certain letter from a recon marine floating around, in which he described the populace as essentially "cavemen with AK-47s" for whom improving the quality of life is a hopeless concept.

Which begs the question, what exactly is our mission over in Afghanistan again?

Supposedly, a painful and expensive “long war” of nation-building may yet be touted as ultimately successful a generation from now in Iraq. Afghanistan it seems, will require far more than a single generation. Given the crippling levels of underdevelopment and fractured tribal cultures hostile to civility, perhaps we need to reevaluate our terms of "victory" in Afghanistan.

EDIT: Though it wasn't published on paper, it seems my point makes an honorable mention on the Washington Examiner.

~David Morris~

Friday, July 16, 2010

Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Bible

Rant as a following reaction to the reason debate of where conservatives belong.

I see liberalism as fundamentally statist by comparison to conservatives and libertarians, as it appears to be more emotive and reactionary. Not about freedom, its about equal outcomes for all under welfare. I just don’t agree with it. The hope is for libertarians and tolerant conservatism. Unlike some libertarians, I do not hold all conservatives as fundamentally statist either however. Libertarians who do some tend to be alienating to me, considering that I live as a conservative on the personal level. I do not endorse extramarital affairs. I don’t endorse homosexuality. I do not endorse dangerous substances. I do not endorse abortion. I do endorse Christianity. My children shall be subject to these values.

But I also endorse the 9th and 10th amendment, which encapsulates an adult’s decision to choose his own path. Knowledge of them is what refines conservative values on the realm of public arena, by reminding us that we are not He. After all, am I not to have faith that God is on top of things? Be ye are a murderer, adulterer, homosexual or yes, even a politician, am I not to have faith that Jesus already provides for redemption? Give unto God what belongs to God. My neighbors are his children after all, not mine. He loves them all. He has offered them a choice. That is enough.

Am I not to be called to? As His intent, Adults are best left free do make their own decisions, and by extension, communities are best left to develop their own cultures. The Lord will oversee consequences. It is immoral to extort. Nay, the Holy Spirit calls for kindness over coercion. It is truth, it is eternal. It requires not the force of flawed human law. Live, let live, and educate.

Many mainstream brands of modern Christianity understands this fundamentally. Some perhaps, do not. Therein lies the difference between the “pure strain” conservatives, and the conservative libertarian. My teaching of Christianity never calls for coercive activism. Apparently, some churches do. Therein lies the difference between the church goer unaware of his libertarianism, as I was, and the pure strain “social conservative” who, misguided in his understanding of God’s law, attempts to create human laws to emulate them.

Such is the conceit. For God designed his Laws simply to demonstrate them as useless. Faith is all that matters. It must be made as a personal decision.

Jesus is a libertarian.

~David Morris~

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Question for Supply Siders - Bush Tax Cuts

This following comment was made in response to someone's inquiry on I thought it'd be a quick piece, but I suppose it inadvertently warped into something blog worthy:

Question for Supply Siders- Why didn’t Bush’s tax cuts bring in more revenue? We’ve heard this would be the case (Laffer Curve) but it appears to have failed in practice. Any thoughts?

First of all, keep in mind that the Bush Tax Cuts were of the *income* type. It did increase revenues (as brought in by the income tax). Over the long run that is.

Over the short term up until around 2003, TOTAL tax revenue appeared to be dropping. It may be argued however that this is more attributable to the short recession due from the internet bubble bursting and 9/11. That's were the confusion comes from. Total government revenue (when you consider every type of government revenue source) dropped, but the income tax was bringing in more money than it was before.

The laffer effect is not always immediately apparent or applicable. Increased revenue from a tax cut can sometimes take awhile, if not at all. Around minute four of this video helps make such a point (

So be sensitive to how the data is presented. One could say that Reagan's tax cuts dropped revenue as well, if you make a graph that covers only the first year after his opening cuts in '82 This ignores that his cuts were slowly implemented, and that recovery was still occuring, but a a graph "proving" that they failed could be made if you look at his policy in the short term. This video illustrates for me however the empirical case that there was still positive feedback from when considering all entire eight years of his presidency. Other cases of the effect, as well as caveats are also explored (

Speaking of caveats allow me to reiterate: Not every tax cut "pays for itself." Again, what type of tax we're discussing is very important. Sometimes the cut will simply boost private sector growth without boosting state coffers (and sometimes that boost may be relatively small anyway). Reducing taxes, yet boosting spending on the excuse that the government will automatically be seeing more money from that private sector growth this ill advised.

Nonetheless as a broad-brushed concept, its generally agreed that a "low" tax rate will work better than a "high" tax rate. No one be they left or right, argues that government coffers would be better off were rates returned to upwards of 70% (a la pre-Reagan years). The gray area of what defines a "low" tax rate and whether it affects people's behavior is where the partisanship still lies.

Hence, why everything would far less confusing if we'd only simplify to something like a flat/fair tax. Effects would then be far more transparent.

~David Morris~

Well, that's certainly interesting.

My sister brought this comment from some random Washington Examiner reader on NASA.


Welp, can't say that I argue with the guy.

David Morris

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

A paraphrasal explanation of Iraq.

While I'm on the subject of Bush, I may as well also talk about my own understanding of how we got into Iraq specifically. This was written a long time ago in response to a silly what-if forum war, but the writing conviently allows me to edit and post it here.

Go back to before we had the hindsight of today. Recall that there was substantial fear following 9/11 that our neglect of middle east foreign policy may have meant our gravest threat. In 2002, there was stacks of evidence from unaccounted for weapons that gave the entire global community the impression that Iraq was a rogue state with the will to potentially proliferate their weapons.

As it turned out, Saddam Hussein only thought he had WMDs, hence why he was acting like he had something to hide during the UN Inspections. He was attempting to pay his own internal scientists off so that they'd secure him WMDs, but unbenowst to him (and everyone else), internal corruption within Saddam's own bureaucracy was scamming Hussein out of his money.

Like any do-nothing special interest group, Saddam's own lackey's were giving him false reports of "progress" to the tone of how "we will certainly have toys like nukes and dirty bombs within 5 years Mr. Hussein, provided your continued patronage." These reports would ultimately end up in the world's intelligence community from the CIA to the KGB and, not realizing they were faked by sycophants, ended up putting such intelligence on Bush's desk.

When UN Inspectors arrived, Saddam's lackey's were forced to put on the show of acting like they had research to hide in order to continue Saddam's personal delusion of holding a stockpile of deterrents, fearing his wrath were he to discover that his bureaucracy was essentially doing nothing for the past 13 years. Hence Saddam's arrogant attitude, of speeches pertaining to how he was going to bath Baghdad with American blood by the thousands when they'd attack (using the non-existent WMDs that Saddam thinks he's purchased).

Since every American was pissed off, paranoid, and the thought of kicking some other state's behind was an overwhelming popular sentiment in 2002, I don't blame any president for making that decision. It was not a war over oil (there's plenty of oil on this side of the planet we could tap into if we wanted, its not like all oil in the world exists in the middle east), it was a paranoid war over alleged WMD's that Saddam and the entire Intelligence community thought he had.

~David Morris~

President Bush probably disappointed Candidate Bush more than any other.

In response to this commentary of the hubris of President Bush, I could not help but to deeply reflect on my own thoughts concerning the man.

When I think of President Bush in retrospect to my current understanding, my puzzled emotional response is not of scorn or ridicule. No. When I think of Bush, I think ultimately of a sad man who once wished to do right by his country, yet caved to the forces of political pressure.

As I became politically awake following 9/11, President Bush -or namely, the baneful, spiteful press that he would always receive- would prove to be the principle reason why I could never develop into a liberal democrat. I couldn't analyze with clarity yet, but I knew that in there was an intelligent mind that understood basic economics, regardless of his bashers. I'm sure that in his honest heart is one that genuinely wishes nothing more than for the prosperity of his fellow man.

His pursuit of ANWR, his tax policy, his once anti-war rhetoric, his references towards reforming freddie mac and fannie mae, his list of vetos, and his call to address (at least marginally) social security reform before it was too late are all the reasoning behind why I speculate this. Additionally, his justice appointees Alito and Roberts, his lifting of the presidential ban on off shore oil drilling on July 14th 2008, and his later commitment to the principle of national security gives me confidence that within the man (and not the politician) himself, beats the heart of a true American who should have known better -or at least be retrospective- of such mistakes such as NCLB, the patriot act and the house of cards structure of the Department of Homeland Security.

The pity stems that despite it all, he would ultimately surrender his principles in a manner that resulted in the overall expansion of government. Deficits on account of his war spending is naturally among the first outcrys against him. Still I keep in mind that the man did not ask to become a wartime president. Candidate Bush did not run on the concept of nation building. Personally I hold our wars to be attributed to two other reasons. The emotional, nationalistic demand for someone's head following 9/11, and Saddam's own foolishness in painting himself the perfect scapegoat to vent our frustration upon.

Despite the warnings, the decision to go into Iraq was overwhelmingly popular. We the American people would have been in demand for demonstrating our superpower status regardless of who was president, regardless of which infamous nation was to be our victim. Al Gore could have targeted North Korea given 9/11 and the support would've been there. The fear of what a terrorist could do with a bomb was overwhelming, and perhaps only a full scale war would've satisfied our desire to go back to sleep at night. One can at least argue that despite America's present war fatigue, Al Queada has been dealt with crippling blows. To be fair, none can also deny Bush's attempt to get Saddam to comply and alleviate our paranoia of WMDs, prior towards going in; paranoia that the Baath party could have curtailed given better transparency on their part. I do not believe Bush gave the order to strike out of hawkish bloodlust, but of tempered, dutiful concern that we'd be struck again. In personally interacting with those who have lost loved ones, it is difficult to doubt that Bush carries his war decisions as a lifetime personal weight.

Weight. Remorse. Again I hold a level of pity for Bush, as I cannot help but ponder how things may have been different if not for 9/11. Given his statements during his farewell address, if there was anyone that President Bush least popular with, it was probably with a man known simply as Mr. Bush. With overwhelmingly negative press and the pressure of neoconservative policy pushers advocating against wise policy, I see a man who would finally crack in attempting to satisfy all. Did he honestly agree to prescription drug entitlements as he allowed it to pass? Did he personally agree to bailouts as the subprime crisis occurred (a crisis he brought attention to on deaf ears)? I speculate that he did not. But this was no longer the same man. By the point in his second term, all I saw in President Bush was just another victim.

A victim of the transforming power Washington can have on a man's spirit. Does this give him a pass on his mistakes? No. This American however can at least give him a break.

He was not malicious. Merely misguided. A house of compassionate conservatism torn apart by the winds of politics, for lack of a strong enough foundation in liberty.

The Obama administration on the other hand...

~David Morris~

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Biblical Relevance

Just a little reminder of God's attitude towards big government that I cannot help but to find relevant when it comes to crying out for human messiahs.

I may as well use this opportunity to sneak in a very ironically worded bible verse as well.

~David Morris~

Friday, July 9, 2010

NASA - "National Allah Science Appreciation" Department

Regarding this “new mission,” I merely found myself shaking my head at the latest line in this administration’s flops. Once again I find myself asking the same question: Is this guy even interested in a second term? With a political ammo cache like this, even Bush could theoretically beat him in a landslide come 2012, let alone any other hypothetical candidate.

Just when you thought he couldn’t dig himself a deeper political hole. After all, was there anything we could cite as being redeeming in the eyes of the American people? Corporate welfare? No. “Stimulus?” No. National Security? No. Justices? No. Oil spill? No. Immigration? No. Health Care? Triple No.

Now this. Somehow, he now manages to find a way to mess up NASA? Unprecedented. Truly, he is proving himself to be a president who will go down in history like no other, just as promised. And to think, we still have a minimum two years more with the guy.

~David Morris~

Thursday, July 8, 2010

That's good satire.

This was shared with me at work today. Its an relatively old video by this point, but its humor I found worth archiving.

~David Morris~

Friday, July 2, 2010

Following up on how I was an example of government waste...I regret to say that...I've suffered my first termination in my life.

I received the letter yesterday. The United States Census Bureau has terminated me from my position as a 2010 Enumerator. What have I ever done to deserve this? Woe is me. :(

Included in the census letter ironically, were instructions on how to obtain unemployment benefits. -_-

~David Morris~