The Libertarian Party and Current Candidates

I keep checking in on the people running for presidency as Libertarian, and each time I am disappointed. It seems more like it is being taken over by moderate democrats or just plain idiots. There is support for things like open borders, medicare for all, and even restrictions on guns like requiring training courses. While some may argue that open borders are okay, I disagree for reasons around private property. There also to be some banking on the idea that they can simply dissolve bits of the government away with little to no transition outlined. It almost seems like the only sane person running is Vermin Supreme.

I did see on Arvin Vohra in his mention of removing all restrictions on immigration he also mentions eliminating social welfare programs. That deals with a big problem a lot of people have, but it still ignores the obvious security problem of some people just hate other people and want to do harm for next to no reason. It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world where people only did things for incentive. The fact of the matter is, we don't.

If I had to pick a Libertarian candidate, it would probably be Arvin Vohra based on his stances on issues. I won't though, because I highly doubt any of the candidates have real solid plans for what they can accomplish. I'm more inclined to vote for Trump, mostly as a big middle finger to all the stupid pandering going on. I may disagree with a lot of what he does, but I don't think we're done shaking things up yet.

As for the Libertarian party, I don't know if it was taken over by the homeless moderate dems, or if that is just a target group they are trying to get support from to gain more recognition. Either way, it is annoying. Before the gatekeepers of who is libertarian and who is a fakertarian/lolbertarian try to say I am not really libertarian, here's a quick shot of my results from isidewith.com.

I'm a fairly right wing libertarian, but a libertarian nonetheless.

Maybe next presidential election, people will get their heads out of their backsides and actually gain some perspective. I think for now we are stuck because the DNC is having its own internal war between the career dems and the socialists, leaving many politically homeless with no place to go on the left.

The Wall and Borders

I have had a lot of frustration lately around the topic of walls and borders. In the Libertarian spaces I poke around, there is this general idea that having a wall and enforcing borders is against NAP (Non Aggression Policy). It took me a while to formulate why this is a load of shit, so now I'm going to try to explain.

Let us start by evaluating what is meant by aggression. In the context of NAP, it refers to the initiation or threat of force against an individual or their property. This would be like threatening to jail someone if they do not give up money or taking land from someone, forcing a sale, anything where resistance to the act would result in some form of harm or repercussion. Sounds reasonable so far.

The problem arises around property rights. Assume I own a plot of land. I have more land than I currently use. Someone rolls on up and starts setting up a home on the unused land. Since it is my property, I have the right to remove them from the land I own. Of course I have an option to sell or rent the land, but that does not mean I should or have to. I as an individual doing this would be fine. Even if I threaten them, it is fine because they have already violated my rights by trying to take my land without permission.

So now let us assume we have a community of people. This community of people all own various plots in a region of land. They decide they do not want certain people coming into their region without vetting them to their standards. They even go so far as to deny passage through the region without some form of vetting to ensure their own safety. This is the concept of a country having borders. If someone attempts entry or passage by attempting to circumvent these rules the owners of the land put in place, that is a violation of property rights. The only difference right now is it is private citizens doing this rather than elected officials.

Continuing on with the same idea, the people now create a militia to patrol the land and make sure people everyone has agreed need to be vetted before entry are actually either vetted or not within the region. Are we still good? After all, it is people protecting their private property. I still say yes, this is perfectly fine. People have a right to protect their property, even as a group.

So now the militia finds someone their that should not be. They own no property, which means they are on someone else's property. They refuse to leave, so the militia forces them off private property. We still good? If you think we have gone too far, just remember we are assuming everyone is under a unanimous decision and rather than functioning as an individual they are instead just a group with the same idea helping each other out. If an individual can do it, so can a group all working towards the same goal.

Now imagine that someone in the middle with no bordering land decides that they want to let everyone and anyone in. As a result, an individual decides to trespass to get to their destination. This still violates rights of the other landowners who did not consent to that travel across their land. Is it okay to use force to stop their travel? Sure. It is still a violation of rights and people protecting their own rights. What happens if they make it to the individual within who said it was okay? Well, this is the whole sanctuary city conundrum. If the militia goes onto that person's land to extract the violator and throw him out, are they not in turn violating now two people's rights? Well, the trespasser already violated the rights of others. To allow a person that commits a crime to go free so long as where they stay is okay with it is the same as endorsing the crimes themselves. Upon violating the rights of another person, in my opinion you already forfeited your own rights. In the same turn, to violate the rights of someone else who did not do anything wrong in action does not seem right. We could end up with a group imposing their will over the individual. Some may consider trespassing to not be a big deal, so why pursue it. That sets a precedence of there being a certain condition that could be added to make it okay. Perhaps they murder or rape someone along the way. This creates reactionary laws and conditions that messed up a lot of our judiciary system in the first place. Simple black and white, the person committed a crime and those who were wronged have a right to have it made right to them. So my conclusion is it is still okay to extract the person who trespassed.

After all that, the bordering people and majority of internal supported in the region decide, let's build a wall. If we wall off the region, it will be harder for people trying to trespass to actually trespass. Sounds good, right? Since it is their land, they can build whatever they want. Walls, fences, moats, or a billboard that says "Go away, <derogatory term>!" It is their property, so it is their choice.

The US is similar to this. The difference is the border land and points of entry are government owned, so every citizen in a sense owns it. Right now we have people saying open up all the borders, people saying shut it down, and the majority of people saying we need to reform the entry criteria and evaluate border security. As the majority of the country is not for open borders, it makes sense the borders are not open. To impose the will that they need to be open would be to violate all the stakeholders that disagree and under current contract with how the governments work. True, we never actually agreed to it, but there is a little caveat in law people seem to disregard even though it is pretty much common law as well.

Implied Consent is the idea that you clearly see the requirements for something and by continuing or proceeding, you consent. This is why a place like Disney does not need you to sign an agreement to search you before entering their parks, they have police out front and searching equipment while at the same time you are under no obligation to enter. Implied consent is used quite frequently, like when you are in an area with a sign that says there are security cameras, you are consenting to being recorded. Living in a country falls under pretty much the same idea. As you continue to live here and proceed with life, you are implying consent to the laws of the land. While there may be the case made that it is because there is no where else to go for what you want, that would be like complaining you cannot buy land because all the land is already owned. Touch luck.

This does not mean I think everything is fine and dandy or that we should not fight back against the things we disagree with. This is purely the reason that I think right now the best option is to be diplomatic about things. As it stands now, it seems like the majority at least leans in my direction of enforcing borders to protect private property to some degree. When it rolls in the opposite direction, I will fight it. I just would not claim someone to not be libertarian just because they don't want to check people entering the land or if they want more screening.

My point is, whether I protect my property as an individual or a group, it is still a protection of private property.

Project Veritas and Bernie Sanders' Campaign

So when I heard about this, I personally did not even feel a need to watch the video, nor was I shocked. I did eventually watch the video just to see if it was possibly something more than I would have thought. It was exactly what I expected. A communist/socialist wanting to re-educate or violently remove people against such a regime is just how the mentality goes. I do not believe Bernie Sanders supports the actual action, but I do think that type of speech as rhetoric or motivation would be tactically used to gain support or push the campaign farther.

The idea of actually attacking someone or re-educating them because of wrong think is weird. The book 1984 was a cautionary tale, not a guide. It has the same air as the "Ministry of Love" from the book. Add that with the way news today operates compared to the "Ministry of Truth," things start to get a little scary. At least for now we do not have a "Ministry of Plenty" parallel. There is also a "Ministry of Peace" from the book responsible for perpetual war, but that is a little more blurry of a parallel since we are never at a loss for wars going on.

Talk like this is not going to subside. If it is pointed out or hidden, it will continue to grow. Violent speech will rise on both sides. As people pull to extremes, people in the middle get pushed or pulled to one side or the other. There is talk of civil war over gun rights, attacking "nazis" and the like, people praising what communist regimes do, all sorts of stuff.

Right now as it stands, Bernie Sanders' campaign is a low hanging fruit. The more his support grows, the more crazies like this it will attract and eventually eat itself alive. There have already been people both defending and attacking what was said.

As time goes on, there will most likely be more. What may or may not evolve from this is hard to say. People now talk a lot. Small groups of extreme actors are also taking it literally. It is all crazy, but nothing unexpected.

Climate Change, and Global Warming, and Extinction, Oh My

Climate Change and Climate Hysteria always seem rather strange to me. You see when I was growing up, we were told many times by many people that the world was going to end because of one climate crisis or another. I was told the ozone would deplete and we would all die of cancer as solar radiation killed us because of aerosol cans. I was told that because of pollution we would all die from acid rain destroying everything and poisoning the water supplies. I was told there would be an ice age. I was told the polar icecaps would melt and we would all drown. Here we are today and a lot of stuff said just does not get mentioned anymore. Now it is climate change, where the world will be thrown into chaos by ever exaggerating seasons.

So let's start with the basics. What is Climate Change? Climate change is something that happens with or without us. Due to changing balances in the atmosphere, changes in our orbit, and a lot of external causes, the climates change. Even tectonic plate movement changes things.

So what is the big deal? Well, specifically people are arguing over man's impact on the climate. Climate change is real, but the effects people have on it are what is being debated. The biggest debate is over "greenhouse gases." So let's get a little scientific. When we are talking about greenhouse gases, we are taking about certain molecules in the atmosphere that hold heat longer. This is pretty much everything except stuff like O2 (oxygen), N2 (Nitrogen), noble gases (Hydrogen, Helium, Neon, Argon, etc.), basically simple molecules. Greenhouse gases themselves complex molecules like CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (Methane), H2O (water [vapor]), SO2 (sulfur dioxide), and so on. What makes these chemicals greenhouse gases is because of the ability to store heat longer. The idea is that these chemicals can vibrate much more than simple molecules, which is what heat energy is. This would mean that over the cooling cycle of night, the air stays warmer for longer. Thus there is less time to cool off and temperatures rise. On top of that, many of these chemicals have other effects or interactions with the environment. Consider O3 (ozone), a complex molecule that is really good at absorbing radiation. This protects us from a lot of dangerous radiation, but would also be bad to breath in directly.

So how do we know what will happen if the greenhouse gases keep rising? This is where things get a little more interesting. Back in the time of dinosaurs, take for example the Jurassic period, CO2 was much higher than now by about 5 times. About the only thing this amounts to would be animals adjusting to low oxygen environments, something people intentionally do to themselves for things like running marathons, and possibly bigger plants. There is a lot of data we have that is indirect from times when the atmosphere was "worse" than it is now. With the direct data we have now, it would be hard to tell what the effects would be.

So why all the hysteria? Part of it is our reliance on computer models. Remember, I work in IT. Computers are dumb. Computer models are stupid. It amazes me that people take our weather and climate models as being super accurate and at the same time laugh at how unrealistic games are when attempting to re-create simple physics. A computer model is just simply a person putting together an algorithm to calculate a human guess with much faster math. These models are not smarter than people, they are just faster than a person calculating and can often contain really bad errors. One of my favorite errors are floating point errors. Math on computers is not as simple or good as most people like to think. So when it comes to the "models," spare me because I call them out during hurricanes when they are about as good as people speculating and guessing with nothing to go on but their own experience and observations. Not to mention we do not know all the variables involved or the full effects.

Here's the real root of the hysteria part. Hysteria over climate change drives up oil and gas prices. Despite having no effect on the supply at the time, the hysteria drives prices up. The government adds taxes, joining in on the profit. It plays into the hands of big oil companies and the government, meanwhile many think they are fighting against and bringing down the exact same entities. Then as the oil companies get more money, these groups fighting them spring back and push more, gathering more money in donations and the like. It's a self-feeding beast. Now it is massive and has put us where we are today.

I am not saying climate change is fake, or humans have no impact, or that we should not do anything. Here is the reality. Climate change is real, we just do not know the full extent of it yet because we do not have that much directly observed data. Everything has an impact on it, even humans, we just do not know how much of an impact humans have on it. We do not need to panic, nature is good at doing what it needs to keep going.

Now many of the climate hysterical people tell us we need to cut back on fossil fuels. Here is the way I look at it. Countries and people that can should look at cheaper and more reliable sources of energy because that's the smart thing to do even if there was no climate change. However, there are a lot of poor countries that cutting it back now could cause more problems. So let's be smart about it.

On the opposite side of the table, there are people that say there is absolutely no cause for alarm, keep on keeping on. This is dumb. There are plenty of reasons to go "green" even if you don't care about the environment or think there is no threat.

Here is the reason you should go green to benefit you. Switching your light bulbs to LED may be an investment, but they last longer and cut back on the electric bill which could save you money in the long run. Getting a more fuel efficient car will save you money on gas, which means less money from gas taxes feeding the government beast. Walking or taking a bike is free to get around and good for your own health. Planting trees around your house can reduce costs on cooling in the summer with the shade and if they bear fruit, could reduce your food bill. If you are on city water, using less water saves you money. Reusable items can save you money and even time. Consuming less and not being a fatty costs less and is better for you. Recycling certain items saves energy and reduces the need for landfills. Really any reasonable way to save yourself some money here and there is probably going to benefit the environment and reduce the impact we have on the world around us.

I, personally, like keeping things green because I like nature and I like saving money. I have fruit trees scattered about on my yard, LEDs in the house, backyard chickens, a bunch of reusable stuff, I drive a hybrid (I drive around 100 miles a day, so gas can be a major expense for me), and really anything I can to save money or make my yard look better.

The world probably will not break apart at the seams tomorrow. Try not to be hysterical about stuff we are still gathering data on and probably have not identified all the variables yet. Also do not become complacent like everything is all okay. There are plenty of problems with the environment we should keep in mind. Most importantly, stop acting like stupid computer models ran by stupid computers made by people somehow can reveal all the secrets we do not know.

Ricky Gervais and the Golden Globes

Since this seems to be popular, figured I would throw in my opinion on this. What he did and said was like what comedy used to be. I don't think anything he said would indicate in anyway that he is right wing, but more that he's a comedian. People being upset by this or thinking he was a "jerk" makes it even more funny. As far as I know, he leans to the left quite a bit, but I have to give him credit for doing what he did. What also makes it funny is the air of truth to it all. I hope more comedians and entertainers continue to push back and produce actual entertaining content.

Soleimani Killed and Everything Going on in Iran

Everything going on in the news has been a little crazy. There are fears of a World War III, being drafted, retaliation, and so on. I wanted to hold off saying anything until giving some things time to unfold. The problem I see is that it seems all of a sudden, people are acting like experts in foreign affairs and politics of the middle east. I'll clarify one thing first, I am not an expert in foreign affairs and I probably couldn't even list off half the countries of the middle east, let alone tell you anything about their politics. As a result, I was unsure of what to expect.


Things are fairly confusing with all the propaganda being considered truth making its way through the information chains via celebrities and over-eager news outlets. It is hard to decide which sources are actually true, which is why I think most Americans need to pull back on their opinions. It's a little scary to see how easily people can jump aboard narratives and throw out common sense. I'll add a twitter thread I came across on Reddit that made a lot of sense to me.

Currently the US media is trying to blow this up like the biggest story ever. Sure it is high profile, but it is not anything new to our general relations with this area. Why we even have so many troops there seems a bit of a mystery to most. While many would claim this is all Bush's fault or something along those lines, a simple check online shows that we have been involved with Iran since World War II. So back in the 1940's we have had dealings with them and it does not look like at any point could we really consider relations good.

In the current times, relations appear very tense. As with everything we do over there, the US is met with both cheers and jeers. This is the nature of even appearing to pick sides. It is still unclear what will result, but I personally doubt the possibility of a new World War. Tensions seem to always be high in that area and due to how unstable the region as a whole seems, the unexpected could possibly happen.

While I do not think this was the right form of intervention, I also do not think that the US should just roll over when pushed. I would prefer we pulled all of our troops from every country with such strained relations and let it be dealt with locally. I do not think it is America's place to be the global police nor do I think it is worth sinking billions of dollars to manipulate foreign affairs. This money goes either through the military funding or "Emergency Aid" which is really just a quick way to fund "our guy." Our lack of understanding of the people and all the nuances almost always guarantees we will cause more problems in the long run. If we stop interfering, the people with the right knowledge and the adequate amount of power may actually stand a chance at fixing something. Alternatively things could get way worse, but then at least there may be an actual reason for us to go back there and fight.

Just for the sake of completeness if my assumptions are wrong, what would happen if WWIII happened? When I was watching a video by Tim Pool, he made a good point I did not consider. Warfare has changed a lot. Wars are fought with technology. We have a never ending cyber war with governments and companies. In the IT world these are called APT (Advanced Persistent Threat). We also have drones, smart bombs, missiles with lots of capabilities, and so on. So the battlefield has changed drastically and there is no telling exactly where the major face of it would be waged. I also think it is a fair assumption to say that there may be many sides to it with constant challenging and retaliation as groups try to sneak in their own motives to work towards. I think there could even be an argument made that we have already been at WWIII for a while and it just has an ever changing landscape with no real sides to it.

Regardless of what happens, I still think we should work towards just getting our troops out of the area and as far out of the middle east as possible. It is my opinion that our interference has destabilized things and our continued interference makes it worse. I also think that when we pull out, things will get far worse in the immediate future but much better in the long run. It is unavoidable for things to fix themselves without some tragedy.

Is a President Impeached if it Does Not Go to The Senate

I have seen a few things arguing back and forth about if Trump is impeached or not. Most of them contain legal terms, metaphors, or references to the British laws around all the house of lords stuff that we got the impeachment stuff from. I notice this more and more, but the real problem in my opinion, stems from language changes. People now do not speak like people from them. Writing is also different than how we speak, and that has changed as well. I am no legal expert or language expert, but I am an IT person who hinges everything on logic. So let us look at things from a logical computer perspective because why not.

The argument seems to stem over whether impeachment is a process or a declaration by vote. It is being compared to the term indicted, but by logic different words are used for a reason. Let's check out the etymology first.

formerly also empeach, late 14c., empechen, "to impede, hinder, prevent;" early 15c., "cause to be stuck, run (a ship) aground," also "prevent (from doing something)," from Anglo-French empecher, Old French empeechier "to hinder, stop, impede; capture, trap, ensnare" (12c., Modern French empêcher), from Late Latin impedicare "to fetter, catch, entangle," from assimilated form of in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + Latin pedica "a shackle, fetter," from pes (genitive pedis) "foot" (from PIE root *ped- "foot"). In law, at first in a broad sense, "to accuse, bring charges against" from late 14c.; more specifically, of the king or the House of Commons, "to bring formal accusation of treason or other high crime against (someone)" from mid-15c.  The sense of "accuse a public officer of misconduct" had emerged from this by 1560s. The sense shift is perhaps via Medieval Latin confusion of impedicare with Latin impetere "attack, accuse" (see impetus), which is from the Latin verb petere "aim for, rush at" (from PIE root *pet- "to rush, to fly"). The Middle English verb apechen, probably from an Anglo-French variant of the source of impeach, was used from early 14c. in the sense "to accuse (someone), to charge (someone with an offense)."

So what does all that mean? Well it says to accuse, bring charges against when talking about law. Specifically, formal charges. This is where the little logic loop is coming from. The president is accused, but since the Senate does not have the stuff, the charges have not been brought. This still is not a definitive answer, as this is the word generically which to me seems like it could be interpreted both ways right now. He is accused, but there are no charges being brought up yet.

In one of the videos I watched, the key piece being brought to say he is impeached is where it states the House of Representatives has the "sole power of impeachment." This is where language is going to get annoying. The law also says that the Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment. So let's put these side by side and compare with logic.

"SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT" and "SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS"

To try an impeachment would, to me, indicate that it is being used in the form of an accusation. This falls in line with the result if the charges go through, that being the point a president would actually be removed from office. If that works well, let's apply it backwards. Sole power of accusation (impeachment). This to me means that the main separation for the "sole power of impeachment" means they are the only ones who can start the ball rolling.

So back to the question, is he impeached after a vote if it has not reached the Senate yet? If I were programming something to give an answer on that, legally, sure? I can see an argument for either direction, but the bigger argument I see is that unless it goes to the senate and has a trial and results in actually going through, it's purely a moot point. The impeachment in a legal sense is nothing more than a formal accusation.

I think another problem we are having is people in our system are doing things that make no sense to drag out the dog and pony show that just frustrates everyone. I blame career politicians.

Who is For the Working Class?

Quite often in American Politics, politicians try to pander as being for the "working class." It is one of those strange pieces of the human condition where people latch on to this "us vs them" mentality. Most people fall into all different categories and groups and to varying degrees are either persecuted or praised for that group. Take myself for example, I am white, have Jewish heritage but am Christian, bisexual, in a same sex marriage, conservative, middle-class level income, home owner, dog person, tall (over 6 foot tall), thin...ish, wear glasses, speak English, ignore all the gender stuff but am happy with my anatomy as is, so on and so fourth. For all of those traits mentioned, I have at one point or another been grouped by it and either praised or otherwise. Anything from "it must be nice being tall enough to reach stuff" to being called a k*** by someone I worked with at Wal-Mart as a young adult. I have also heard time and time again of people pandering to most traits for people as a group of "us vs them." Of all of these, classism seems to be this one bastion of "us vs them" that is politically correct enough to be accepted. After all, the rich could simply give up their wealth to be like the rest of us, right?

This is where the term working class is poorly defined. A lot of people work, most people need to work to survive. So who are the working class. Most people like to refer to the working class and blue collar workers almost as synonymous. The problem is that there is such a spread that working class people seem to be fighting against each other, working against each other.

I consider myself working class. I live most of my life paycheck to paycheck, but I still have retirement plans in the works. My husband is not much higher than me on income and he's one of those evil "business owners." I work for a public school system at the moment. If we were not married, we would both be economically on about the same level. My husband's business is a franchise, so he has the name of a big corporation even though right now he just owns one store that is considered small, local, and family owned. Politicians would have people believe there is a distinction with a line drawn.

Most big corporations involve family. They mostly get built from the ground up with hard work and determination. Despite what people may say about "big business," there are always faces and people behind them. Any megalithic name you can think of boils down to people. All the "evils" that they commit are decisions made by people or groups of people.

Who are these working class stiffs being taken advantage of by big business, paving the road to be trodden upon? It is not college kids barely scraping by thinking a degree is their only chance at success while at the same time trying to tear down the people who achieved their goals already. It is not the people sitting on top of an empire built upon their ability to act out a story. It is not the career politicians who took pan-handling to a new level of empty promises we are forced to pay for. It is not big businesses who "stand up" for the "little guys" riding in on their self-righteous horses. It also is not those who work day in and day out, because almost everyone does on one level or another whether it's observed or not.

The "Working Class" is a load of bull shit. Business owners WORK to keep their business profiting. Employees WORK to keep not only themselves and their families surviving, but the place of business they work for because it benefits them with a means to survive. People in other countries work to survive just like us, or in some cases against even harsher odds.

Most of us have the same goals. We want to be successful and happy. We want a good environment that can support all the good things we have and come to expect. We want to live in a world where people around us can be happy along with us. No matter what we do, life is not fair. People get lucky, and some unlucky. We cannot do better if we waste all of our time attacking people for being lucky, or born at a better time for what they had accomplished, or for building something that worked out well. We cannot solve problems by taking from those that have and just giving it to those that do not have. We solve problems by working together, or competing, or even just by trying until something works.

These politicians that say they are for the working class is nothing more than a ploy. People are not your enemy just because they are wealthy and they most certainly are not your friends because they are poor. We have college kids barely getting by wasting their time attacking families living paycheck to paycheck to survive or even attacking the companies that are keeping hundreds and even thousands of people employed so they can survive. I am just so sick and tired of all this class crap and political pandering. Politicians should either actually do something that helps or get out of the way and let people fix their own problems. Preferable, get out of the way.

Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas

Another Holiday season, another time to see this debate dusted off and dragged out by people. For as long as I can remember, people have been saying both. From most of my personal interactions, people do not seem to care which I say. Happy Holidays is meant to be inclusive to those that might not celebrate Christmas, but I always viewed Merry Christmas as having its own inclusive nature. By wishing those that do not celebrate Christmas a Merry Christmas, it is inviting them to celebrate along with you, and is that not also inclusion?

I grew up with a mother from a Jewish family and a Catholic father, so both Chanukah and  Christmas were marked in my house. Granted we only marked the first day of Chanukah. I also use this particular spelling of "Chanukah" because that's the one we used in my family and because we used to joke around pronouncing it like an English speaker would read that. In my house growing up, no one cared if someone said Holidays, Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, or Festivus. The important part was the good will to others and taking the time to say to have a good one.

As I get older, I find myself saying "Have a good Holiday" when not on a particular Holiday, or depending on the person may say "Christmas Season" and if it's Chanukah I'll say "Happy Chanukah" and on Christmas Eve and Day, I'll say "Merry/Happy Christmas." The reason I do is to invite people to celebrate with me whatever it is I'm celebrating at the time. As far as the "Have a good Holiday," it's my Holiday time "Have a good one."

The arguments on both sides as to which people should use have their merits, but it's all just dumb in the end. If you celebrate a particular Holiday, wish others to enjoy it with you by saying which it is. Maybe you can spark a conversation and people can actively choose to learn about other Holidays and beliefs. If you want to tell everyone regardless of what they celebrate to have good times, wish them a Happy Holidays. If you don't celebrate, say Christmas, and someone says "Merry Christmas," wish them a Merry Christmas back because they were kind enough to invite you into their fold so why not at least return the kindness and wish their Holiday to be merry.

Sometimes it seems like the arguments people have are just to make themselves feel special, and that is probably the case most of the time.

To all out there, Happy Chanukah! Have a Merry Christmas! I'm gonna get drunk all the same.

Thoughts on Impeachment Vote

My main shock is that things have gone this far. Watching through statements being made, I find absolutely nothing shocking. Those supporting impeachment are really good at parroting talking points, but it seems like they bring up a lot of different talking points. Despite the Russia investigation finding nothing supporting it, it seems to be mentioned like that is the original point they are using for the impeachment. The Republicans talking points re-iterate a lack of evidence.

So is there really evidence of anything? Depends on what you would consider credible and from my point of view it is all a load of bull. The evidence is not evidence and the Republicans pointing this out rather than arguing against it being a problem makes me lean towards the Republicans in this matter. I think with the election, Russians interfered on their own accord to cause disruptions and chaos and it worked. I do not think Trump thought ahead about using Ukraine to get dirt on Biden because I think Trump is too arrogant to think he would even need help beating Biden. I would bet that the Democrats give Trump way too much credit like he actually might be some sort of evil genius.

With the vote now in we can see a clear divide along party lines, as expected. In the final vote tally, there were 2 defectors on the Democrats' side, but none on the Republican side. Now the process moves on to the Senate where it will most likely be tossed in a shredder and things can start moving again. This whole thing is nothing more than a big symbolic dog and pony show, anyway. If half the career politician representatives actually cared about all they said they did, impeachment would be a lot more common and even removal of a good deal of Congress members.

I think the ones that should be most applauded are the two that decided to vote against party lines. Those willing to actually represent the will of their constituents even when it may go against their party is commendable, even if it may just be to get re-elected.

If I were to bet on the events to unfold, I think the odds are in favor of no conviction and a second term for Trump. If I had my way, we'd more likely be gearing up for the impending big igloo. I really don't see how people aren't just fed up with all the display that has no real backing substance. Even outside of all of this, everything already seems predetermined and they just love to waste time with all this show like anything they say actually changes anything. Regardless, at least it's almost over.

Voter Registration Purges

Living in GA, we had complaints around the past election for Governor. It was claimed that due to purging inactive voters, people were unable to vote around election time. So what really goes on?

After about 3 years a voter is considered inactive. A letter will then be mailed to the last known address. If the user fails to respond in 30 days, they will be removed from the system. To then vote, you need to simply... register. It is all related to laws passed by Democrats in 1993, National Voter Registration Act by Bill Clinton, and in 1997, House Bill 889 signed by Zen Miller with bipartisan support.

So why purge inactive voters? If not an active voter, information may fall out of date. Let's take me for example. I lived in Upstate NY and was a registered voter. I did not actually vote until after I had moved twice, giving no updated information until I planned to vote again which just involved me registering in the area I was living at the time. Later I moved to GA giving no notice or change of address because the only thing that would have done is let junk mail follow me. Once down here I registered to vote, and did. My parents gave me a call to let me know that my name was still active to vote there as well. In the area they live, you do not need to prove who you are to vote and you basically just cross your name off of a list. Someone knowing my name and previous address could simply say they are me, get my name crossed off, and vote. Or even worse, I could have voted twice and I would be surprised if anyone caught it since I live in a different state now. The quicker it gets purged the less likely it is to happen. The difference in GA is you actually need to show an ID to vote. If that is the case, then why purge? Well to put it plainly, your ID is checked by a bunch of older people sitting at a table and no one checks if the ID is real so long as the numbers match. I might not be able to vote in multiple places in the same state, but anyone with a copy of my drivers license and some skill could probably vote for me if I did not go vote.

So the main reason to purge the system after inactivity is to try to reduce voter fraud. Plenty of notice is given and it can help clear out people who move and just simple register elsewhere. It is all part of a fairly archaic system that could use a real proper rework and update, but at the rate things move and to verify security, so on and so forth, it may be a while before that happens. The mechanism is not perfect, but it is far from targeting certain peoples unless the idea is certain groups of people are inclined to vote in rare occurrences with no notice.

Could voter registration purges be used to target specific groups? To some degree, probably. To be honest, that just really sounds like more effort than it would actually be worth. To me, the whole argument against it is about and the dangers make it seem even less effective than gerrymandering, which for reasons that should be obvious does not make a huge impact on things. The fact of the matter is there are variables that are too inconsistent and unpredictable to guarantee anything this way or that.

The best advice I can offer is vote often. There are lots of times local issues get voted on, and it is worth becoming more active in your small local government decisions. I have gone to some local votes with no knowledge of the topic, read the simple information and found issues that were actually things I did have concern over and would want to vote on. So even if you have no idea what the vote is for, it's never to late to form an opinion and make it heard to try to improve what is around you.

The Current State of Virginia

I have only been following from afar the news in Virginia about the proposed gun laws and Second Amendment sanctuary cities. Personally, I do not know much about Virginia or its current or past political dealings. From what I understand is that it is primarily Democrat run and now there are a few proposed legislation gearing up for 2020 that would severely damage gun rights. When I say damage gun rights, we are talking about possible waves of confiscation and registration for what are perfectly common use firearms. There have also been threats of the National Guard being called in, sheriffs being removed, and the obvious talk of the Big Igloo aka boogaloo aka a real recreation of events of 1776.

From my understanding, the Democrats want to not only restrict the guns, but also parts, and even militia groups. This is astounding to me, we are a country that was formed and fought for by militia, I should clarify the term militia even back then was used to refer to a civilian formed military group. If you aren't aware, there are still many active militias across the US, and if you want to join one you can just look online for militias in your state or even form your own. Some may wonder why they form, and they all have different reasons. They're not usually all crazy and gearing up for war, but can even be as simple as people maintaining readiness to act in an emergency or disaster. A militia exercises our rights to not only the second amendment, but the right to assembly (peaceful, anyway) in the first amendment. As long as the group is not violent, a militia is covered by the first and second amendments of the US Constitution. So from my understanding, the Virginia government is stepping on both of those rights.

The alarm is real and I don't think people fully understand the gravity of the situation and what it presents. While people focus on the second amendment violations, of which have occurred and people seem to accept some infringement there for whatever reason, they are also stepping on the toes of the first amendment. To then threaten the involvement of the National Guard is elevating a state issue to a federal issue, which shouldn't occur unless there is a federal reason, such as violation of the constitution, in which case the National Guard should be going against the state and not the people. Then you have the state trying to step on the rights of the cities and counties by threatening to remove their elected officials.

What we are witnessing in Virginia is more than the reason for the second amendment. It's the reason we set up so many layers of checks and balances and distribution of power. This was going to happen sooner or later. I do not know if it is better this is happening on a state level as opposed to a federal level. The reason is that I believe this is the kick in the stomach people needed to see exactly what kind of a road they decided to venture down. I just don't know if it is enough to bring that realization to the whole country. This is because people said it was okay to have some restrictions. The Constitution had the line drawn and it got blurred. Now we are heading further and further down a dangerous path.

This isn't about gun rights. This is about all rights. This is about the rights of the individuals, their rights to assemble, their rights to protect themselves, their rights to their property. I hope this is the start of people waking up. I hope this all turns out for the best. I fear it may only be the tip of the iceberg.

Gun Rights or No

The topic of gun rights should very easily be headed off at the very beginning when the question of do we have a right to private property gets answered. We have a right to private property, guns are property, therefore why would we not have a right to it?

The arguments over restrictions are based around the idea of inherent dangers posed with said property. Examples of this are all over the place like buying a car, heavy machinery, explosives, chemicals, and anything else people see as dangerous. Despite this, some items do not have the same scrutiny. I can harm or kill someone with a baseball bat or a hammer, yet I do not need a background check or an age check to purchase such things. These are glaring inconsistencies that the numbers and stats around should show we should be doing the exact opposite. This is because there are a combination perceived dangers set by information or lack of, and another thing people often overlook that we in the IT world, and people in the business world, know as "risk appetite."

Risk appetite is the amount of risk or inherent danger/uncertainty that is considered acceptable to leave to risk. It is a term I had to become very familiar with in exploring IT security. When considering risk, the potential dangers are presented. We determine which ones are acceptable risks to take with our risk appetite. We can see examples of this in everyday life. Simply driving a car where we know the statistic chances we could be injured, have problems, or even die yet we accept the risk to drive because the benefits of it exceed the risk. When driving we may choose to speed because of our risk appetite, putting aside the dangers or potential ticket as an acceptable risk. Usually once the consequences hit, there is obvious regret because the decision of acceptable risk was made without the apparent glaring consequences we thought we could either ignore or avoid.

In life as individuals we constantly make choice after choice, weighing risks or choosing to ignore them. As a result there are plenty of examples of what can go wrong reported on despite most of the times things turning out okay. People more conscious of things going wrong will see more risk than those exposed to things going just fine without many, if any, consequences. People can live to a ripe old age smoking every day of there life and others may have smoked only a few times and ended up with cancer. With all the potential outcomes, very few things could be considered for certain.

So why would we take the risk if there's even a chance of something going wrong? Because there are also consequences to not doing something. Choosing not to drive a car could cause you to lose out on all the potential. Even more so, simply walking around could cause you to be hit by a car where the person inside the car with all the safety features walks away unscathed. There are many sides to every arguments and every possible decision.

So now the real core of the matter, guns. Personally, I feel no need to make a justification for any type of private property I own. I own a handful of different guns and I have never viewed it as a problem. I have also never had a problem with someone who chooses not to own a gun and if they want to stay away from them I support that and feel everyone who is uncomfortable around a gun should not own one until they can feel comfortable and safe with it. I also have no problem with others owning guns, concealed carrying, or open carrying. My problem never arises with the guns, but the actions people do when they have a gun.

When a person owns a gun, the risk varies depending on the individual. For example, if a person has children they run the risk of accidental discharge or misuse by the child without proper precautions. If a person is reckless, they may cause an accident with the firearm. Risks to people surrounding them are also apparent. Much like walking along a road, the safety of those around the road depend on the drivers as much as those around a gun owner depend on the safety and responsibility of the carriers. Considering how far we have come as a society and how little actually goes wrong compared to how many people are on the planet, I do not see that as problematic. Most areas with a lot of guns are perfectly safe.

So what if we do not have any gun ownership among private citizens, then what? Realistically most places maintain the same safety as before and the government does whatever regardless of potential threats or lack there of to them. There still is plenty fo fear mongering that goes on with both sides of the argument. There are potentials of mass shooters, there are potentials of government taking too much power, we see it happen. The potential on both sides is real and realized around the globe almost every day. So why should we pick a side?

Here's what the real truth is. In our individual lives we will face many individual things that may justify needing a gun or never at all. It is our choice what property we own. Letting the government tell the ultimate authority, the people, what they can and cannot privately own is the danger. It is the slippery slope we are sliding down now. I own a gun because I want to protect myself, my family, and my property from any external threat, people or government. I have a right to own a gun not because I'm over 18, not because I am responsible, but because I can acquire it. Take the sale of guns away, the people will make their own or find a way to get them. By regulating it, the only thing that is done is more criminals are made. We should all accept the risk of freedom and never sacrifice freedom for safety.

Paying Your Fair Share

Something that often gets mentioned when talking about taxes is the idea of paying your "fair share." This idea to me always seemed childish. As I grow older I have to acknowledge more and more that life is not fair. Very few things could be considered fair. Yet people bring up the need for things to be "fair" or the idea of something being "deserved." I want to focus on the idea of "fair share" and why this is all just childish garbage.

Almost everything today gets taxed. You make money, pay a tax. You inherited money that was already taxed, pay a tax. Spend money, pay a tax. Own property, pay a tax. I could go on for quite a while, the point is there is a tax for everything. In most cases we all pay the same amount per dollar. Sounds reasonable, right? Despite this, if you have a larger income then you have to pay more per dollar than other people. That's not right, how is that fair? Well, it's not. So a fair share would be to pay the same amount, right? No, the people talking about paying your fair share means that if you make more money you should be paying even more. How is that a fair share in anyone's mind?

So the way it works is currently is (2019) we have a few "tax brackets" for different income levels. Currently it goes like this for a single person:

The first $9,700 is taxed 10%
From $9,701 to $39,475 is taxed 12%
From $39,476 to $84,200 is taxed 22%
From $84,201 to $160,725 is taxed 24%
From $160,726 to $204,100 is taxed 32%
From $204,101 to $510,300 is taxed 35%
And from $510,301 and up is taxed 37%

The first thing you may notice is that there are some big jumps, one being a 10% difference. So how much is it numerically for each at the top of the bracket. We start with $970, then $3,573, then $9,839, then $18,366, then $13,880, then $107,170 roughly when rounded to the nearest dollar. Added up that is $153,798. This averages to 30% of your income as taxes. this excludes marriage, dependents, and other things that you can deduct. We could go and average each bracket, but the bottom line is it's taking more per dollar from people that make more money. Even though they will pay more per dollar than anyone, people still think it isn't enough to be fair. we haven't even taken into account state income tax and all the other extras that are paid out on top of all of this.

From what I can find, in 2018, 44.4% of Americans actually did not pay any federal income tax, but they still pay out for Social Security and Medicare. That means that we burden 55.6% of wage earning Americans to float a huge portion of our federal budget. Despite this, people say it isn't fair and the rich need to pay more.

Often times to show the numbers, people try to show off the net worth of individuals as though they can take a huge chunk of it. What people fail to realize is that a lot of time it is not money on hand or income, but investments. I can have a million dollars worth of investments without a cent on me and make no income whatsoever. See the thing is, there are things that aren't taxed until you sell them. These fall under capital gains tax. This can be stocks, bonds, precious metals, real estate, and property. As long as the investment is held, it is not getting taxed. These are taxed differently than your income tax, but they are added together to find the percentage to be taxed.

Regardless, if someone is paying more per dollar, they are paying more than their fair share. The only fair tax would be a flat tax with no deductions, then everyone would be paying their fair share of income tax. In my honest opinion, we should be working towards eliminating income tax entirely.

You see, income tax was a concept for a way to fund a war effort. In 1799 Great Britain implemented income tax to fund fighting the French, led by Napoleon. It was viewed as temporary. The US considered income tax to fund the War of 1812, but the war ended before it happened. Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which had income tax to help fund efforts in the Civil War. Due to problems with the details of income tax law, taxes were not collected until the revision in the Tax Act of 1862. It was amended multiple times until being repealed in 1872. The government was making most of its revenue through taxing imports, exports, and sales. The problem they found was it mostly effected the rich. They came up with a graduated income tax in 1894 and tried to enact it across the country. It was found unconstitutional in 1895 by the supreme court because all federal taxes had to be based on state population. To finally get a permanent income tax, they ratified the 16th amendment to eliminate the need that federal taxes be based on state population.

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In the same year, the federal government ratified the first permanent income tax law.

It starts as a temporary idea to help pay for a war. It then becomes an idea to make the average American pay their fair share. Now the rich are being told they aren't paying their fair share. There is a lot of history surrounding income tax, and taxes in general. Going through most of it, it is hard to imagine people are not rioting in the streets to repeal all the taxes. The bottom line for me is I think paying any income tax at all is more than your fair share.

Socialized Healthcare

Healthcare is a rather odd topic. From the capitalist point of view, it makes money mostly on people's misfortune. From a social point of view, there is this idea that everyone has a right to healthcare, after all how can you live a good and happy life if you aren't healthy. It seems like a fair argument on the surface level, who are we to say someone doesn't have the right to be healthy? The problem is that we are neglecting so many factors, especially the human factor. That to me seems to be the problem with socialism as a whole, neglecting the human factor.

So to start with, do we have a right to our health? No. Some people are born with health problems, others may be perfectly healthy from birth to death. Some people choose to live an unhealthy life, others may choose to make their entire life about their health and how healthy they can be. From the very start people are on an unequal footing and as life progresses that changes constantly whether from life choices or unforeseen circumstances. There is no guarantee to anyone that they will have a long and healthy life. Even with modern medicine, we are still limited in how much of an improvement we can offer, if any, to various situations.

So what if it was a right? Or what if we don't care and say everyone should have access to healthcare? Well, the first thing is that healthcare is done professionals. People spend time and money to learn how to care for people's health. Saying a person has a right to healthcare means that people have a right to any healthcare professional's skills. A doctor or nurse would be unable to refuse someone. How could that be bad, someone might wonder. Examples could include if a doctor doesn't support transitioning, abortion, circumcision, or anything that people today want to argue about. Also if we add the government in to the mix, they will most likely fix the prices. Now no matter what skill level the doctors are, they will make the same amount. This may sounds great from a consumer perspective, but this would only degrade the healthcare system as a whole.

Another big problem is that everyone pays into the system, so everyone should theoretically have a say in what services are actually healthcare. This is going to force people to have more rigid views, after all it's part of their money being spent on healthcare. This sounds great to people who believe they have majority opinion. Instead, put yourself in the shoes of a minority opinion. Take abortion for example, imagine if all the people on the opposite side get there way and now the enforcement is not law, but instead healthcare. Imagine the healthcare supporting all that you oppose and not supporting what you want it to. This is what will happen to people who will be forced to pay the socialized healthcare system. People will have more of a right to make those decisions for everyone because they are paying for everyone. You could end up with health coverage that does nothing for you, goes against your beliefs, but you still have to pay for it and to change anything you then need to sway the entire country.

The most damning part of all of this is financially it just is not possible. People get sick unexpectedly, some people are born with more needs than others. Estimating the amount of money needed for this would be hard enough, getting that amount would be impossible. Currently private healthcare companies can work because they are made to make money. Since the goal is to make money, they have money even when the unexpected occur. Some even offer incentives for you to prove yourself healthy and that you are taking care of yourself, costing you less and allowing the chance for the company to make more. It's a win-win while still maintaining a safety net for both parties. Not to mention, they cover smaller areas with fewer people, meaning less overhead for managing it all as well as better fine-tuning. The US is a much larger country than most out there with an incredible number of people. This is a logistical nightmare to try and account for the health of so many people across such a huge area. The money for overhead alone would likely be tremendous. Most of the estimates given are just not achievable.

Socialized healthcare comes from a caring thought, but the warm and fuzzy feelings just cannot change reality. Even if we assume we can get the money and support for it, people will argue about it and try to tear it apart so that it is personalized to them. People are greedy and selfish, and it's not a bad thing. Greed and selfishness are good because we can understand those motivators and work with those goals. It is when those traits are forgotten that we end up with things that sound nice but just will not work. We cannot save everyone and not everyone wants to be saved. As far as I can see, socialized healthcare will not work and even if the figures could add up I would still not support it.

Concerns About Impeachment Talk

While people are focused on President Donald Trump being impeached, it seems to me that the way things are being worded and done by the democrats should be raising red flags all over. There is plenty to criticize Trump on, there should be a big focus on how things are conducted and stated.

We have had private phone records made public. This is the major red flag that got me paying attention to what was going on. It seems insane to me that people would be okay with a person having their privacy violated just because it might take care of someone you don't like.

We have had it stated twice now that I have seen that they want to get Trump impeached because they think if they don't he will get re-elected. Despite there being no findings of Trump colluding, they say he will cheat AGAIN. They say we cannot rely on an election to solve our problems. The whole point of elections is to show the will of the people, and if they want Trump, then why would they go against that.

There are three different reactions I have seen so far to all of this. I have heard people call Schiff a hero and "the greatest speaker of all time," and that the evidence is obvious and overwhelming. I have seen people say nothing will happen and are just wanting to ride it out. I have seen people outraged by the democrats disregard for the process and think it's absolutely ridiculous. It should be shocking, but that is also pretty much in order of the age of people from youngest to oldest as well.

In the end, I doubt anything will actually come out of all of this except a big helping hand to getting Trump re-elected.