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~
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
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.'
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.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
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~
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~
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 economicsinfo.com. 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw7LtVwDCbs&feature=channel).
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08&NR=1).
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~
----
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw7LtVwDCbs&feature=channel).
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08&NR=1).
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.
Huh.
Welp, can't say that I argue with the guy.
David Morris
Leesburg
Huh.
Welp, can't say that I argue with the guy.
David Morris
Leesburg
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~
----
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~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)