Get your facts first, then you can distort them later

Get your facts first, then you can distort them later, by Mark Twain.  Ah, Mark Twain, the man is full of witty and funny wisdoms.  In this case his quote here is about politicians, charlatans, or even an author or two.  The idea is simple, get all the information you can.  Educate yourself as much as possible so that you know more than others or at least more than you knew about a subject yesterday.  Now you can use this information to advance yourself, or, more importantly, know when others are trying to distort the facts.  That is the essence of the quote.  You should know and learn anything and everything you can, for otherwise people can take what you do not know and manipulate you.  No one likes to manipulated, and sure, by knowing your own facts you can potentially manipulate others, but you have morals.  You have the character to not do something so foul (right?).  

Final Thought:  Twain gave us a simple quote on knowledge and manipulation of knowledge, and then we think.  At that point we truly understand that knowledge is power and we can have knowledge over ourselves and others.  It is up to us to prevent power over ourselves from being stolen through the manipulation of the facts, a lesson I re-iterate multiple times in multiple issues in my little blog here.  In fact I purposely make sure everyone knows when they read my blog that this is all opinion based on information.  Opinion is not fact and thus should be questioned and discussed.  I do not want my blog to become a source for information other than the fact that it is my opinion.  Instead I like it to be used as a window to say, is he right?  Let me look this up.  I never want you my readers to be used by anyone, and especially not even myself, so I will always invite questions, debate and discussion, for through those we can eventually find the truth.

Trump Boycotts last GOP debate.

Donald Trump is boycotting the last Republican debate because Megyn Kelly is one of the moderators.  He apparently really does not like her.   This is sadly disappointing for a prospective Presidential candidate for it reflects poorly on how he would deal with people while as a President.  You cannot just say to President Putin of Russia that he will not get on the phone because he does not like him.  You can't do that with any world leader, and yet he is doing it with one News Reporter/Commentator.  This to me just blows my mind.  Sure, I am not a fan of Trump, but any candidate doing something like this is a terrible reflection of leadership ability and makes Trump look childish.  If I didn't like Trump before, I certainly don't like him now.

Final Thought:  A President serves at the behest of the people.  You cannot be childish and refuse to do something or see someone simply because you do not like them.  Presidents have to deal with the best of the best and the lowest of the low.  If you can't deal with people and learn to grin and bear it when doing something or associating with people that you don't want to be around, then you're not ready or able to serve as President.  This is a game ender.  Game over Donald Trump.  That is just my two cents.

Non-Aggression Principle

Libertarians are somewhat in disagreement as to what is the founding principle of the libertarian movement.  In this case the Non-aggression Principle (NAP) is one idea where aggression should not exist at all as an absolute for libertarianism to work.  But Austin Peterson (a person running for President of the United States on Facebook) and an article by Matt Zwolinski "Six Reasons Libertarians should Reject the Non-aggression Principle" says no to the NAP.  Let us discuss.

What is the NAP and why it does not work:  Basically, the NAP advocates doing no harm.  You cannot hit a person or do anything that resembles harm.  However this idea does not work based on what the NAP means by harm.  For instance, with pollution, there is none allowed.  So you cannot have factories or power plants that emit smoke.  No dust due to construction.  Basically, anything that is construed as pollution is not allowed, and thus things that potentially could pollute are also not allowed.  Then there is potential harm.  Under the NAP, potential harm is not allowed.  So nothing that risks another person's wellbeing.  As such, no fake threats like "I'll punch you" or "I'll kick your butt" or pointing a knife at someone on accident while talking is a big no no. Fraud is allowed under the NAP as it is not an aggressive act.  So someone can trick you out of your money and get away with it.  Then there is trespassing.  If you trespass onto someone else's property, then the owner can beat you up as trespassing is considered an aggressive act.  So here the NAP is hypocritical as it supports property rights as opposed to non-violence.   And finally we have children.  Willful neglect is allowed under the NAP.  Basically, as long as you do not hinder your own child from obtaining their own food, then allowing them to starve to death is ok.  On top of that, if someone gives your child food while coming onto your property, you can beat the person for feeding your child.  These are the flaws of the NAP and why I do not believe in the NAP as the foundation for my libertarianism.

Final Thought:  I write this because there is a fundamental disagreement about libertarianism that has caused misconceptions.  My libertarian principles is basically, do not tread on the rights of others, respect people's right to property and do not perform any of the obviously wrongful acts.  With these basics you get in my opinion a purer libertarianism without controversy.  Libertarianism is all about respecting others and their personal rights.  Sure there are some disagreements on things like welfare, how much government and abortion, but who doesn't have those kinds of issues within their political and religious ideologies.  Remember it is about personal responsibility and freedom together, not just not doing harm or even being an ideology.

New Hampshire Primary

So I was able to watch a little bit of the New Hampshire primaries Saturday where a number of the Republican candidates were able to participate in a town hall set up.  Here is my reaction.

I will have to say that the Republican field is very decent with respect to personal and economic freedoms (though they do not go as far as I'd like).  However I heard good things like regulation reforms, tax reforms and more.  However, none have really impressed me (from the ones I got to listen too) overall.  Though I can say that Jeb Bush probably did the best in the town halls (from those I got to listen too) and showed why he is a really decent candidate for President.  If it weren't for the fact that his last name was Bush and people are sick of dynasty Presidencies, he would probably be a frontrunner right now.  I was also impressed with Carly Fiorina where she willing answered every tough question and seemed to want them so that she could show that she could take it and also to be honest about her views including the legalization of drugs.  I also heard from a speaker from Pennsylvania I believe, but as far as I know he is not running despite having a lot to say on trade reform and fixing the Bureaucracy.  My dad was able to see Rubio and Christie and he liked them both and what they had to say, but I cannot comment beyond that for I did not see them.

Trump and Cruz were both absent from the Primary instead doing their own thing.   In this case Cruz accepted an endorsement from Glenn Beck, the spiritual leader of the Tea Party and the Owner of the Blaze network.  I was able to watch that live and needless to say Glenn Beck's intro was strong.  Cruz followed up with his acceptance of the endorsement by discussing how he was going to be a true conservative even on the campaign trail if he gets the nomination.  His reasoning was that everyone is conservative during the nomination process, but goes moderate in the general election.  Cruz promised not to do that and be real all the way through to the end.

Sadly I was not able to hear a literal peep out of Trump.  He did not receive coverage or I potentially missed him from the point I turned on the TV.  

Now we wait to see if anything these Candidates said will impact the upcoming debate on Fox News this Thursday.

Hope you enjoyed the snow storm (well I sure did cause it kept me in the house long enough to watch the primaries, something I did so yall don't have to lol).  See you all tomorrow.

A quote by David Bowie

In honor of David Bowie (actor, singer and more) I present a quote by him.

The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time.

What does this mean?  Simply put, David Bowie did not see life as a bunch of small journeys or even a big one.  Instead he saw life from a day to day perspective (at least this is the case if I am interpreting this correctly).  Basically, we all come and go and change ourselves all at the same time.  There is no real end goal or any treasure at the end, but instead it is what we take from life and leave behind in each waking moment of every day.  It is our choices that influence what happens to us and our potential.

Final Thought:  This means that Bowie saw life as something that is constantly changing and altering.  It is essentially chaos, and we simply try to make sense of it.  I disagree on the part of there being no journey, but I do agree that life is about hellos and goodbyes, and what comes of those hellos and goodbyes.

The Republican Debate: Reaction

So last Thursday there was another Republican Debate (another will be held in the coming weeks).  Here is my reaction to it.

Ben Carson:  While a very nice man, and most certainly smart, he does not come off as tough enough to handle Washington or ISIS.  He struggled to get his words out, which demonstrates that he is no politician, but he looked too soft.

Governor Christie: As usual he comes off as a member of the Sopranos cast.  He got the voice and the guile to crush his opposition.  However, he is out shown by Trump and he also seems abrasive.  To make matters worse he believes in global warming and a few other democratic ideals which makes him less liked to the conservatives who actually will be choosing the Republican Presidential Candidate.

Governor Jeb Bush:  Another good candidate who like Christie has some liberal views.  He is also too soft spoken like Carson.  However, he did speak clearly and showed his smarts, but he needs to put some more passion into his speeches otherwise he is out.

Governor Kasich:  All I heard was Ohio this and Ohio that from him.   Yes, he did a good job as Ohio governor and is a capable leader, but people do not want to hear about Ohio, they want what Trump is dishing out.

Senator Marco Rubio:  Another great contender, and he knows his way around washington.  However as a main contender next to Cruz and Trump, all I heard was attacks and no substance.  He performed better in the other debates when he talked about what he wants to try and accomplish.

Senator Ted Cruz: Cruz being the current front man was attacked from all sides.  He successfully fended off Trump with his accusations of not being able to run due to issues of him being born in Canada to American Parents, but fumbled in his comment on New York values (socially liberal values).  Also, Rubio attacked Cruzes voting record, to which Cruz used his time wisely to address some of the criticisms leaving the rest for the post debate interviews.  He proved why he is a debate champion and a Constitutional litigator.  At the moment, Cruz, for being the smartest when it comes to law and his understanding of Constitution is my main guy.

Donald Trump:  Still the biggest mouth in the room, he surprised us in the debate.  He went into some details on taxes which showed off that he's smarter than his hairdo and even said openly that Cruz was on his short list to be his Vice President,  Cruz responded that if he wins the nomination Trump is on his short list, to which Trump agreed to be his VP, which is assuming Trump was being honest.  Overall Trump pulled a good performance despite my distaste for his anger harnessing voting machine.

Final Thought:  Fox went the way of the other networks and asked questions based on popularity, but they allowed each candidate to say their peace.  As such, the debate went an extra 20 minutes which I liked.  However, I am sad to say my ideal candidate (Rand Paul) is relegated with Carly Fiorina to the pre-debate debate with candidates who are least likely to get the nomination.  I think overall this debate was one of the better ones and that the front runners are Trump, Cruz and Rubio.  Who the republicans end up choosing remains to be seen however.

M.I.C.E.

M.I.C.E is an acronym used by the intelligence community for the terms Money, Ideology, Coercion, and Ego.  It is usually used to describe how spies are recruited, but it can also describe how terrorists, gang members, and even businesses recruit people.  I may have talked about this M.I.C.E. before, but I will talk about it again due to its importance and application.

It is important to know why people are joining things like ISIS/ISIL.  In this instance most people will hear from politicians that it is due to the M in M.I.C.E., Money.  Sure, it is an excellent recruiting tool as many in the Middle East, Africa, and central Asia are generally impoverished compared to us Americans and Europeans.  However, they are not primarily joining for that.  People do not just die for money, especially young men and women who are willing to blow themselves up (this includes educated doctors in England, Military psychologists in Texas and college Students in Boston).  Instead it is the I in M.I.C.E., the ideology.  This Islam fascism existing within Islam, especially ISIS/ISIL, wants to cause as much havoc as possible to usher in the end of days.  They want world war three because they believe that it will summon the great Imam, and Jesus, who will force all to convert to Islam or they will die.  ISIS/ISIL wants an Islamic State that obeys Islamic law, or at least their own version of it that enslaves women, and makes all none Muslims lives worth nothing.  Additionally, they will try to use the C in M.I.C.E. to convert Christians to Islam, and Muslims who do not believe in the cause.  The C stands for Coercion, and in the case of converting peaceful Muslims and Christians they take everything they own to pressure them and then threaten their lives to either convert or die.  E for ego is also used, but this is used to reinforce the ideology of the ISIS members to say how great they are and flatter them into thinking that they are divine soldiers.  In doing this, it prevents people questioning the ideology and the leadership as they are basically receiving positive reinforcement for murdering others.

Final Thought:  I keep wondering why we are not doing more to counter the ideology, by presenting the ideology of other Muslims who preach peace and cooperation.  It makes no sense to me save that the ISIS/ISIL being politically and militarily useful.  The United States does not like Assad, and the current government of Syria, they do not like Hezbollah in Lebanon, and they need a proxy war with Russia who is allied with Syria.  It makes too much sense and is a repeat of the cold war (assuming that it actually ended, and we haven't just changed enemies instead).  Any case it is important to know and understand what is going on and I hope this helped.