A lot of mixed emotions today.

Today is December 20th. On this day in 2012, at about 8:15 in the morning, I was sitting at my desk when my phone rang. It was an unexpected call from Hope. Part of me was genuinely excited to see her name pop up.

I answered the phone and said, cheerfully, “Hey Hope!”

She responded with three words that would change everything:

“We lost Cade.”

My best friend’s son, Cade Legend, had passed away from complications due to sepsis. His organs had shut down because, as we later learned, he had a small tear in his intestines. Fecal matter had entered his bloodstream. Before that discovery, there had been multiple visits to the pediatrician—stomach illness, fevers, the kinds of symptoms that almost every child experiences at some point.

But in Cade’s case, those symptoms were warnings.

His body was fighting.

And it was losing.

My best friend—someone I care about deeply—lost her son. And I lost a child I loved as if he were my own blood.

Every year, no matter how much time passes, the same emotions return. The same sense of loss. The same ache. I feel it for her, for her family, and for myself. It comes in waves around this time of year, every year, whether I’m prepared for it or not.

I’ve never been very good at leaning on people when I need support. Emotionally, physically, financially—I’ve always prided myself on being strongly independent, right up until I hit my limits.

And we all have limits.

Lately, I’ve been trying to lower the bar on where those limits sit. We all have people in our lives who want to be there for us when we need them. And while I’m always willing to be a resource for the people I care about, I can’t honestly say that I’m good at asking for help when I’m nearing my own breaking point.

That’s something I still have a lot of work to do.

I’ll close with this: trust your instincts. If your body is trying to tell you something about your health—or the health of someone you love—listen. Push. Ask questions. Don’t brush it off.

I’m guilty of not always listening.

But I’m trying to do better.

Back To Top

I swear, every time I think American foreign policy can’t get any dumber, someone hands me a fresh bowl of “hold my beer.”

So here we are again: politicians yapping about Venezuelans allegedly shipping narcotics into the United States, and the proposed fix — courtesy of Trump and Pete Hegseth — is to use the U.S. Military like some taxpayer-funded neighborhood watch. Warships, drones, boots, camo — the whole cosplay starter pack — aimed at fishermen and gas-starved boats that may or may not be carrying drugs.

And here’s the part that makes my blood boil:

If our government has intelligence fine-grained enough to know who these people are, what they’re carrying, where they’re going, and when they’re leaving — then why aren’t we hitting the production line? Not the delivery. The origin.

We have the ability to spot a Toyota Corolla overheating in the desert from space, but somehow the pinnacle of modern strategy is sending destroyers to chase speedboats like the world’s worst episode of NCIS: International Waters.

Let me be perfectly clear: I’m not arguing for soft-pedaling narco-terrorists. I’m arguing for basic strategic logic. If the intelligence exists, use it where it matters. Take out the labs. Disrupt the supply chains. Freeze the cash. Target the networks. Anything but theatrics at the dock.

Either this is political theater — a show for TV cameras when an election cycle is heating up — or it’s an admission we’d rather address symptoms than solve problems because tackling the source is harder, messier, and geopolitically sticky.

Yes, I know Venezuela is a mess. Maduro’s regime is a dumpster fire of its own. Intervening at the source carries complications: diplomatic fallout, messy intelligence operations, and the ugly work of coordinating with allies and regional partners. But every one of those complications is still less stupid than plastering headlines with warships and calling it a plan.

If Washington actually wants to cut the flow of drugs, it needs long-term investment in intelligence, targeted operations against supply and money, pressure on production hubs, and real efforts to reduce demand here at home. Supply doesn’t exist without demand — and nobody wants to talk about that when they’re auditioning for the tough-on-crime role on cable news.

It’s easier to point at a boat full of brown people and look authoritative than it is to admit the real work requires patience, coordination, and political courage. But if you ask me, the true measure of leadership isn’t how loud you sound on TV — it’s whether you’re willing to get your hands dirty in the places the problem actually lives.

Rant over. For now.

Back To Top

What is the appeal of staying connected to people from our distant pasts — people who play no meaningful role in our lives anymore? Is it nostalgia? Is it hope? Or is it simply habit?

I’ve been wrestling with this question lately, especially as I think about the interactions I’ve had with old classmates or acquaintances from long-forgotten events. It’s a very small subset of my “friends,” but those few interactions tend to linger in my mind more than they should.

For the most part, social media is not a staple in my personal life. I participate less than most, yet I interact with it more than I’d prefer. It feels more like a task than a way to stay connected with people I don’t regularly see. I’ll post occasionally, but outside of the podcast, I’m a fairly private person — and I think that’s become a defense mechanism.

I talk about my life, my kids, and my experiences openly on the podcast. But when it comes to social platforms, something in me pulls back. Maybe it’s the process or the performative nature of it. Maybe it’s the fact that hosting a podcast and having one foot in the political sphere puts my family in a more public position than I’d like. That protective instinct is strong, especially when it comes to my kids and the world of Facebook and X.

There is a toxicity in social media.

Over the last decade, I’ve watched people I once considered thoughtful and intelligent steadily lower the bar — trading curiosity for certainty and compassion for confrontation. And I’m not innocent in this either.

I’ve used words with the intent to hurt, hoping it might shake someone into seeing a different viewpoint. But it never works. It doesn’t change minds. It doesn’t shift perspectives. It only reinforces the walls on both sides.

So why do we stay on these platforms?

I believe social media started with benign intent — a place to express ourselves, connect globally, and share experiences. At least that’s the version of the story most of us participated in. But even knowing the origins, even knowing the “Social Network” portrayal of rating and judging women, I like to believe most users never signed up with that in their hearts. They wanted community. They wanted connection.

But somewhere along the way, that shifted.

The online world has become deeply polarized. Conversations have become battlegrounds. And the middle — the space where understanding grows — has felt increasingly vacant.

None of this division will be resolved through snark, anger, or “owning” someone in the comments.

Progress doesn’t happen through insults. It happens through conversations grounded in respect, empathy, and a willingness to listen — even when it’s uncomfortable. That’s how we inch back toward a center where solutions are possible, where people feel heard, and where compassion becomes part of the equation again.

It won’t happen overnight. It will take time, patience, and a whole lot of effort.

And while I may stumble, as we all do, I’m committed to trying — to recognizing my own missteps and correcting them wherever I can. Because the only way out of this toxic cycle is by choosing to be better than the platforms that profit from our worst instincts.

If any of this resonates with you, I hope you’ll take a moment to reflect on your own interactions online. Are we helping, or are we just adding to the noise? If you’re willing, share your experience in the comments, or pass this along to someone who might need the reminder. The effort to make social media healthier starts with each of us — one conversation at a time.

Back To Top

I’ve been having more and more conversations lately with people who consider themselves liberal, progressive, or left-leaning — and yet, when the topic of the Republican Party or MAGA politics comes up, there’s this surprising optimism. It’s like they still believe that the GOP of Eisenhower or even Reagan is somehow waiting to make a comeback, if only the “crazies” would calm down.

But that’s not how this works anymore.

There’s a kind of cultural optimism — born from the idea that the system ultimately self-corrects — that keeps some people believing that we’ll be fine, even as the modern Republican Party openly embraces authoritarian tactics, voter suppression, and propaganda that would’ve once been unthinkable in mainstream American politics.

I hear it in conversations like one I had recently with a friend who told me, “I don’t think Governor McMaster will sign that total abortion ban — it would make him too unpopular.”

That’s the kind of faith that worries me. It assumes popularity still matters, that a politician will pull back from cruelty or extremism because it might cost votes. But Governor McMaster doesn’t have to care about votes anymore — he’s nearing the end of his final term, wrapping up nearly a decade in power. Ten years is a long time for any governor, especially in a state that desperately needs new ideas and leadership.

At this point, McMaster’s concern isn’t about doing what’s popular; it’s about cementing his legacy among the people who kept him in power. And if signing something like a total abortion ban wins him favor with the most extreme parts of his base, history — or the women of South Carolina — will be the ones paying the price.

You see this same pattern nationally, too. Some well-known pundits and commentators call for “common sense politics” or “balance,” while ignoring that compromise doesn’t work when one side isn’t negotiating in good faith anymore. They want to believe the system they grew up trusting is still capable of self-correction, but the evidence keeps proving otherwise.

And it’s not just pundits. In local communities — at church, on Facebook, at family dinners — that same blind faith lets bad actors off the hook. “He’s just old-fashioned.” “She’s not political.” “They’re just tired of the fighting.” These are the soft excuses that let extremism blend in with everyday conservatism.

What’s really at stake isn’t whether someone calls themselves a liberal or conservative — it’s whether they’re paying attention. Because while some remember when the right-wing fringe was just that — a fringe — it’s now the center of Republican power. The “MAGA base” is the GOP. There’s no moderate wing waiting in the wings to save it.

It’s okay to be optimistic. But optimism without accountability becomes complicity.

We need our friends, families, and communities to stop waiting for a “return to normal.” Normal is gone. The only way forward is to build something better, not to wish the old order back into existence. That means calling out fascism when we see it, rejecting both-sidesism, and holding the line on truth — even when it’s uncomfortable.

That’s not cynicism. That’s realism with purpose. And right now, realism is the most progressive stance there is.

Back To Top

Millions of people are going to be affected heavily beginning November 1st when S.N.A.P. (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and E.B.T. benefits are officially halted. When federal funding lapses, most states do not have the budgetary measures in place to cover the required ≈ $8 billion to keep food on the table for our most vulnerable citizens.

This is not an accident of bureaucracy; this is the result of a calculated political choice. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has contingency funding available — roughly $5 billion in a dedicated reserve established by Congress for situations exactly like this. Yet, in a recently issued memo, the Trump Administration has explicitly refused to tap into this emergency funding.

The administration's excuse is that these funds "are not legally available" for regular benefits, arguing they are only for natural disasters. However, leading budget analysts and Democratic lawmakers have publicly stated that the administration is legally obligated to deploy this money to prevent a national hunger crisis.

Despite what MAGA and entrenched conservatives claim, this crisis is not the result of Democrats trying to harm anyone. It is the result of their own leaders choosing to hold food aid hostage. They are weaponizing hunger as a leverage tool in a political fight, intentionally withholding relief that is available and legally designated for this exact scenario.

We are steadily marching toward what will likely surpass the previous shutdown record of 35 days. Today is day 28.

The Democrats of the House are showing up in Washington, D.C. every day to attempt to negotiate the budgeting bill, but Republicans refuse. The effects will reach far beyond the 41 million SNAP and EBT recipients: removing the subsidies that make the ACA affordable will negatively affect nearly 50 million Americans.

This administration is consistently attacking the poor and middle class, and trying to convince them that it's what's best for them. We are watching a crisis of human suffering manufactured by political malice.

Seriously, how many times are Donald Trump and the sycophants surrounding him going to cross that symbolic “line in the sand” before anyone with a hint of power pushes back? How long will Congress, the courts, and the rest of the system keep gritting their teeth while the line keeps retreating?

I wanted to list all the things Donald Trump and his minions have done outside the bounds of their power—specifically as defined in the Articles of the United States Constitution—but the daily news has become such a nonstop feed that it’s hard to keep up.

Just to start, we have tariffs. According to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to create tariffs. Economists generally agree that tariffs, when used correctly, can benefit U.S. industry—but they must be applied carefully.

Here’s how a tariff works: Suppose a product is made in the U.S. and also produced abroad, in a country like China, where production costs are lower. The foreign product enters the U.S. market at a lower price, undercutting the domestic manufacturer. Congress can impose a tariff to level the playing field—essentially raising the foreign product’s cost so both products compete fairly.

The tariff is collected at U.S. Customs, passed down the chain to distributors, then retailers, and ultimately to consumers. The U.S. product now competes on merit rather than cost alone.

But under this administration, tariffs are being used as a weapon against other countries in a way that primarily hurts U.S. consumers. While foreign businesses may see reduced orders, the real economic impact is domestic. This is one clear example of Trump crossing a line—using a congressional power in a way Congress did not intend.

Another example: the federalization of state National Guard troops. While the president can use the Insurrection Act of 1807, it is strictly limited to suppressing civil disorder, insurrection, or armed rebellion. Yet federalized troops have been deployed in states where no such organized unrest exists. This is a unilateral armed response to citizens expressing opposition to government actions—again, crossing a line.

Over the last nine months, the line has been crossed repeatedly, and Congress, the courts, and other institutions have retreated. What will it take for them to act?

Awareness, peaceful protest, and intelligent voting are our options. As my friend Lydia recently said,

“Complacency is complicity.”

Back To Top

When I moved to South Carolina, I noticed something troubling. I had long conversations with friends and neighbors about politics, social issues, and the economy. We agreed on the problems—corruption, broken policies, politicians ignoring the people. But when election day came, those same friends marched to the polls and voted Republican, simply because that’s what they were raised to do.

It didn’t matter that the very party they supported was making the problems worse. It didn’t matter that the candidates offered no solutions beyond slogans. They voted for the letter next to the name.

That’s when I realized the problem wasn’t just bad politicians—it was low Voter IQ.

What Voter IQ Really Means

Voter IQ isn’t about how smart you are—it’s about how informed you are. Do you know who represents you in your statehouse? Do you know how they voted on issues that affect you directly? Do you know what challengers actually stand for, beyond the party talking points?

If the answer is no, your Voter IQ is low. And let’s be honest—most voters are walking into the booth blind, assuming they know what a candidate stands for because of a party label. That’s not intelligence—that’s laziness.

How We Got Here

Voters today are less informed than ever. Most couldn’t name their state senator if their lives depended on it. Instead, they scroll past memes, headlines, and TikToks and call it “research.”

The 24-hour news cycle rewards drama over depth. Candidates learned they don’t have to speak to voters at all—they can hide behind the party logo. Add in the flood of misinformation and disinformation—and the reality that too many people don’t care enough to fact-check—and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

The Price of Low Voter IQ

When voter IQ is low, democracy suffers. Politicians don’t have to earn votes with ideas or transparency; they simply count on party loyalty. Turnout remains weak. The halls of government fill with representatives who don’t truly reflect the will of their constituents.

South Carolina offers a painful example. RJ May, a convicted felon, was reelected to the State House even after federal authorities raided his home and office in a child sexual abuse materials investigation. That wasn’t hidden news—it was everywhere. And voters still put him back in office. That is what happens when voter IQ collapses.

How to Raise Your Voter IQ

• Do your homework. Learn how candidates voted on key issues. Compare that record to your own beliefs.
• Stop outsourcing your brain. Don’t rely on headlines or Facebook posts to tell you what’s happening.
• Read deeply. Books like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 aren’t just classics—they’re warnings.
• Demand real journalism. Facts, not slanted opinion, help raise Voter IQ.

System Fixes Worth Pushing For

At a systemic level, we should rethink election day itself. Make it a holiday, or at least require employers to give people time off to vote. Participation is the bare minimum of democracy, and no one should be denied access because of work or scheduling.

Enough Excuses

Voting is more than a right—it’s a civic duty. If you’re not willing to put in the effort to understand what or who you’re voting for, you’re part of the problem.

Democracy fails when voters refuse to think. It thrives when voters raise their IQ—when they stop being passive, stop being partisan robots, and start demanding accountability from the people in power.

Raise your Voter IQ before the next election. Uninformed voters elect corrupt politicians. And we’ve had enough of both.

Resources for Researching Candidates

Here are some of the most trusted, nonpartisan resources you can use to raise your Voter IQ and make informed decisions:

• Vote Smart — Biographies, voting records, issue positions, and public statements. Free, factual, and unbiased information on candidates.
• Ballotpedia — Election overviews, candidate profiles, and ballot measures. Enter your address to see what’s on your ballot.
• OpenSecrets — Campaign finance data, donor information, and lobbying exposure. Follow the money in politics.
• Guides.vote — Nonpartisan voter guides with side-by-side candidate comparisons, linked to primary sources.
• VOTE411 (League of Women Voters) — Local ballot info and candidate responses to issue questionnaires, state by state.
• BallotReady — Explore your full ballot before voting. Provides candidate comparisons and issue positions.
• On the Issues — Candidate profiles organized around issue stances, with supporting source links.
• FollowTheMoney — State-level campaign contributions and independent expenditure data.

Back To Top

Every few years, it feels like America crosses another line we swore we’d never cross. January 6th should’ve been the last line. The assault on Paul Pelosi should’ve been the last line. The assassination of Charlie Kirk should’ve been the last line. But here we are, still drawing new ones in chalk, and watching them get smudged away.

Let’s not sugarcoat this: political violence in the United States is on the rise. And it’s not just some “media narrative.” The numbers back it up. Surveys in the last few years show a growing number of Americans saying violence may be justified in extreme circumstances — a terrifying sentiment to see gain traction. That isn’t theoretical. It’s a cultural shift.

But here’s the thing: while both sides contribute to the noise, most of the deadly violence in recent years has come from the far right. That’s not opinion; that’s data. Militia plots, domestic terror attacks, targeted killings — those incidents have, repeatedly, been tied to right-leaning extremist actors. Yet the story we tell ourselves depends on what we want to believe.

Right-wing media points at Antifa, protest clashes, broken windows and shouts: “See? Violence is everywhere.” Left-leaning outlets point to the numbers on killings and plots and say: “No, it’s mostly them.” Both camps cling to their version of reality like a life raft, while the water around us gets rougher.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the blame isn’t evenly distributed, but the responsibility is. Rhetoric is gasoline; both sides have lit matches. Conspiracies about stolen elections, “deep states,” “fascists” or “communists” — all of it turns fellow citizens into enemies. When you convince yourself the other side is evil, violence stops feeling like a last resort and starts feeling like a moral duty.

So how do we stop this before it gets worse?

1. Stop feeding on lies.
Conspiracies don’t just “spark conversation.” They radicalize. They justify violence. We’ve got to get better at calling them out — especially when they come from people we like.

2. Leaders need to grow up.
Cut the performative rage. Stop with the “fight like hell” speeches. Retire the tweets that sound more like threats than policy. Words matter. Stop pretending they don’t.

3. Talk to each other, not about each other.
Most of us want the same things: safe communities, fair elections, kids with a chance at something better. The problem is we only hear caricatures of the other side. Face-to-face, people are a lot less extreme than they look online.

4. Accountability matters.
If someone threatens or commits violence, prosecute them. Period. Doesn’t matter if they wear a red hat, a blue shirt, or a tie with a flag on it. Justice loses legitimacy if it bends with politics.

Look, nobody should be romanticizing political violence. It’s not revolutionary; it’s corrosive. Every act of violence makes us less free, not more. Every attack deepens the divide and convinces someone else that revenge is justified.

The future of American democracy isn’t just about who wins the next election. It’s about whether we decide ballots are still more powerful than bullets. If we don’t, we might look back on this moment and realize that the lines we kept crossing weren’t lines at all — they were cracks in the foundation. And one day, the whole damn house could fall in.

Back To Top

I recently shared on The All About Nothing Podcast “Kinda Daily Show” that I had a problem with wishing ill on President Donald Trump.

I do.

It’s definitely an odd juxtaposition to be in the headspace that everything that Donald Trump says and does is so repugnant and is so vile that his existence is an insult to the words man-kind. He is the leader of a cult. He rials up his base with a vigor that may sometimes be unintentional, but when it occurs, he wears it like a badge of honor.

So to wish him ill seems like something that should be natural. I should absolutely be willing to say to myself, or even openly, honestly on the podcast, that yes, if Donald Trump were to expire, that life would be better for most of the country and most of the world.

His cult wouldn’t have the leader to stir the pot of ignorance. The MAGA movement wouldn’t have the direction of stupidity that it has now.

Would it all come crashing down?

No.

There are too many that would attempt to take up the MAGA coat of arms and lead the masses. But it would be largely ineffective.

Look at the Tea Party movement. If you can remember, Sarah Palin, former governor of the state of Alaska and failed Vice Presidential candidate in the 2008 election, was the leader of what was coming out of the gates with all of the strength that could have caused more damage than it did.

But Sarah Palin was not long for the weight of being a leader. She was educated but poorly. She was a beauty queen or runner-up; I can’t remember. Her lack of desire to be more intelligent made her the natural leader for a movement of people that didn’t want to learn their own opinions but to be told what their opinions should be. And when she fell off, when she became just another correspondent on state-run Fox News, she lost the backing of the people that she wanted to lead to glory.

With no Donald Trump, just like the Tea Party, the MAGA movement will fade off.

And I recognize that the Tea Party de-evolved into the MAGA movement. It was just the next step backwards in progress.

MAGA has an expiration date.

I think it is important to acknowledge why the Tea Party and MAGA even exist.

The United States is unique. The diversity in this country is not the same as the diversity of the people in other countries. The United Kingdom is similar, but not the same.

The diversity of the United States has created what some truly believe are winners and losers. But that is not really true. And it is true, all at the same time. The MAGA movement believes that they have been the losers for the last many decades. They believe that liberal lawmakers have forced them under a rock that only this movement, whether it be the Tea Party or MAGA, can get them out from under. Donald Trump is a master manipulator of those willing to weaken their minds to the point where they will believe only his words.

I think this is where the progressive movement must enlighten.

Progress is not sequestered to only a few; not withheld from this group in favor of that group. Progress affects everyone positively, even if this group denies its effect.

Fire was progress. The wheel was progress. Non-nomad civilization was progress. Socialization was progress. The cart. The horse-drawn carriage. The car. The train. Modern medicine. The Interstate system. All of these were progress. How we got to them wasn’t pretty, and I cannot deny the negative impact that the greed in establishing them had on so many in the United States. But as a whole, they have all been progress.

Progress should be that unifying force that causes a positive effect.

Because MAGA has an expiration date. MAGA is not progress. MAGA is a denial of progress.

Back To Top

Let me take you back to February of 2017.

I worked as a Lead Business Analyst for a company here in Columbia South Carolina that was going places. No, that's not right. I did work there as a business analyst. I put that in lower case because in the end, it wasn't a very important job, because when I no longer worked there, none of the functions that I performed were ever done again. They were for the most part, phased out.

Okay. Back to the story.

So in February of 2017, I was working at this company in Columbia South Carolina, and I worked with a group of other Information Technology specialists that all had a wide range of skills and experience. Some employees had virtually no experience in an office environment before they were hired to work there. Some employees were less than a decade away from their retirement. And others were like me, finding their footing somewhere new on what would likely be just another toad stool away from their next job. That job for me? It lasted just over 5 years before my tolerance for my direct supervisor had me out the door.

In this office, among the diversity were several, that because of their lack of experience in the office, and almost complete lack of professionalism, expressed their opinions about different subjects. The one that got me here was their opinions of politics. Sometimes religion, but mostly politics.

Let us be honest though. Most people have political opinions that are different from mine. I do not have some overly bloated ego that my opinion is shared by almost anyone. Maybe bits and pieces, but for the most part, I think it's healthier to assume my opinions about politics are mine, and mine alone.

Hey! By the way; thanks for sticking with me on this diatribe.

So they had opinions. We all do. But in this environment that I worked in, because of a few having not had much experience as an adult in a professional setting, they would take the silent moments of the day to express their opinion to those seated around them. Sometimes there was nothing given back, but sometimes, engagement was a useful necessity, just to get them to stop so that they would return to work, so you could return to work.

I know this does not sound like me, but there was a time where I recognized that some behavior was not going to progress your career forward as quickly as other behavior.

I did not engage, as much as I could not engage. Sometimes I was pulled into these conversations against my will, and sometimes I participated willingly.

Something that I have always made clear on The All About Nothing Podcast is that I do not think that Donald Trump is a good president. I do not think that Donald Trump is a good person. I think that both his candidacy and presidency have been a scar on what will be the history of the United States of America and the world as a whole.

Let us rewind a little further back.

Prior to the Election in November of 2016, there was no one in that office that believed that Donald Trump would win the election, nor should he. Their support for him post election is the typical reaction from the members of the Republican Party, that only vote along the party line. Party over priorities. Truly, the dumbest way to engage in our civic duty of voting for those that we want to represent.

Okay, fast forward back to February of 2017.

Donald Trump is now President of the United States of America. 45th President. A line of succession more than 235 years in the making.

I am not happy about it. Not then. Definitely not now. But as a normal human being, I go about my days and weeks, months and years hoping for the best, and voicing my opinion when appropriate. But in that office, toxicity was leveled up in ways, sometimes, that are hard to even comprehend. Sometimes it felt like people I worked with got so worked up at the excitement of an argument with me that you just knew they would need to run to the rest room, or their car to let free with the mental orgasm.

I made the best attempts that I could to keep the debates civil.

Unfortunately, I have an un-superpower. I am highly observant, especially when it comes to recognizing others behaviors and identifying their weaknesses. And when it was necessary, usually in an attempt to end the conversations as quickly as possible, I used that un-superpower against them; attacking their opinions by pointing out their personality flaws, or identifying why their support of Donald Trump had more to do with the lack of their parents own love for them, than them identifying themselves in his cult. I didn't come to work to make friends, but build upon my own career.

And yes, just as Superman likes to fly, I enjoyed the win over defeat.

And while I may have earned the respect of some of my peers, or at least made a few laugh, obviously hurt feelings, especially those of these Trump Flag Waving individuals, they responded just as you would expect; they ran to management. Management and ownership that was like minded.

So I was asked to ignore them and not participate.

And if you know me, if equality can't exist, then I will find a way to equality.

This time though, it was not me that found it.

So all of that, and please trust, I am very appreciative if you made it this far, to say; there is one person who is to blame for this, The All About Nothing Podcast.

And today, August 31, she celebrates her birthday.

Amii Nicole Bland.

Happy Birthday!

Amii is the brains behind the Welcome To Wonder Land Podcast. She is also my closest friend. I give her a lot of grief, as I do most, but if not for her suggestion to create an outlet for me to voice my opinions, tell my stories, and interact with interesting guests, then I don't know where I'd be without this medium of creativity.

Back To Top

Seriously.

What is it going to take? When is enough going to be enough?

This week, the United States saw yet another horrific school shooting, resulting the in the deaths of an 8-year-old, a 10-year-old, 14 more children injured, and three more at the Annunciation Catholic Church School.

Two dead.

Two children that will never come up to their mothers. Two children that will never again come home to their fathers. Two that will not be waking up this morning to get their breakfast. Two children that will not be getting dressed or tying their shoes so that they can get in the car and be driven to school.

It is senseless. It's an act of terror that will have life long effects on the survivors, families, friends, teachers, clergy, and community.

Mass victim shootings, especially involving children have become too often a common occurence. And yet, when it happen we act as though we are shocked. We hold our own children a little closer, and a little longer, and we thank whatever power there is that it was not our own.

But for those with no direct involvment to the act and loss, find outselves able to put distance with each passing day.

We use the passing of the sun, moon and stars to allow the door of sadness and grief to close more quickly than those lost in the direct grief.

And while we still want change, according to surveys and polls, more than 85 percent of this country wants it to end, our legislators, elected to office to keep the people of this nation safe from harm, debate when it is time to even have the conversation. We raise and shake our fists in the air at those representatives asking when are you going to make this a priority? Why will they not act? When is the right time to make this political?

Yesterday.

Not because we have had enough. But because we had had enough.

Republicans and Democrats alike have long waivered to the Gun lobby.

There are some that do not have the best rating with the NRA, but it is a minority.

The NRA is merely the propoganda machine of the gun manufacturors. The NRA is the puppet, and the gun manufacturors are the ventriloquist. Congress is the audience.

The NRA lost the American people as an audience decades ago. Membership fell off after the tragedy at Columbine High School. Membership fell again after each subsequent shooting that saw the loss of innoncent children and teenagers. The NRA lost its grip on the American People because they were seen as the organization that continued to push the idea that you need more guns to fight guns.

That equation is a poor representation of a bad idea.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

How about there is no guys with any guns?

No wait, that won't work. Our Second Amendment expressly states that we have the right to keep and bear Arms.

Wait. That still isn't right.

The Second Amemdment, in its entirity states, a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

... the right. Odd. That doesn't say the responsiblity. It doesn't say the necessity.

I get it. A right is guarenteed. Our Constitution entitles us, as United States citizens. But what about our responsibilities to that right?

The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution. But like any right, it is not absolute. The First Amendment doesn’t allow you to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and the right to vote doesn’t allow you to cast multiple ballots.

Owning or carrying a firearm carries immense responsibility, because firearms are inherently dangerous tools designed for lethal force. That responsibility extends to safe storage, proper training, mental fitness, and understanding the consequences of misuse.

The U.S. tends to emphasize the right half of the equation, access to guns without equally enforcing the responsibility half, ensuring they are used safely, sparingly, and only by those capable of handling them. This has created a culture where guns are widely available with fewer restrictions than cars, medications, or even voting rights, despite their unique potential for harm.

The Second Amendment should not be a free pass to unrestricted gun ownership. Like every constitutional right, it comes with boundaries shaped by responsibility.A society that protects rights but ignores responsibilities ends up with chaos; and when the right in question involves deadly weapons, that chaos leads to tragic, preventable deaths.

Sirens ring, the shots ring out
A stranger cries, screams out loud
I had my world strapped against my back
I held my hands, never knew how to act
And the same black line
That was drawn on you
Was drawn on me
And now it's drawn me in
6th Avenue heartache
The Wallflowers 1996, 6th Avenue Heartache

We can do better. If our elected officials will not, then its time we elect those that will.

Back To Top

Look, here is the thing. I have been recording and publishing The All About Nothing Podcast for nearly a decade. In that time, the podcast itself has gone through changes in direction, many, many times.

I have gone from having no cohosts to having one cohost, Zac King, to having two cohosts, Zac and Sean Rogers, back to two, back to none, back to one cohost, back to two with Zac and Trent Clark, back to none, and now, back to one cohost with Zac. Everything in life is about change and adaptation.

Recently, I posted on my Facebook what I wanted to express about being as gracious as possible in respect to being runner up in the 2025 Best of Columbia, Best Local Podcast category.

I want to make it very clear: I am thankful to all that put forth the effort to nominate The All About Nothing Podcast. I am thankful to all that voted for Zac and me for The All About Nothing Podcast. It is an honor. It is fun, even if the outcome, as unbelievable as it is, based on all of the evidence of the voting, we wind up with the runner up award.

That is not about that. I am thankful though. Zac is as well. Trust me.

No. This is about comments that were made by one of my former cohosts, Trent.

2023 was a good year for the podcast. We participated in our first Soda City Comic Con as guests of the con. We were given a space and opportunity to present ourselves in person to the public, and it was a booming success. We met people, including Bill Frye, who became our intern for a summer, as well as many more people that have continued to support the podcast.

2023 was also the year we won the Best Local Podcast in the 2023 Best of Columbia voting; the first year that the category existed. Again, 2023 was wild.

But in 2023, towards the end of the year, I had gotten indirect feedback that Trent was unhappy with his creative opportunities in the podcast. Because I was financially responsible for all aspects of the podcast, including merchandise, I had retained that power. If guest suggestions were made to me, I decided on the validity and would agree or deny those guests. I made those decisions purely for the content value of the podcast.

I recognized that I wanted Zac and Trent to be partners with me on the podcast, and I made the decision to offer them both the opportunity to pay one third into the cost of the podcast, giving them both the power to be a creative part of the content. At the time, Trent agreed. Zac also agreed. Just to note, neither took me up on the offer. That is their business.

Then, in October of 2023, we were recording an episode of the podcast that was specific to our Halloween Special episode. We had a guest in the studio that was an experienced paranormal investigator. It was going to be an interesting episode on an intriguing subject, regardless of anyone persons beliefs.

During that episode, Trent made the decision that he was going to run with a long running bit that involved him wearing a mask over his face for the entire episode. Zac and I both made attempts to have him remove the mask. For one, the mask made the sound difficult to listen to. We were paying to record in the studio for quality, not bits. Add to that, our podcast is primarily an audio medium. Our YouTube page is an accompaniment to the podcast. It is not the primary source for our episode releases. It is more of a fixture now, but still, not where we get our most downloads and interactions.

Back to the story; when we went on break for our ad space, Trent took off the mask, which Zac promptly hid from Trent. When we returned, the podcast itself was forced to recognize that it needed to change a direction, because Trent would not participate in the second half recording, nor would he allow us to finish the episode without him. The incident occurred in view of the guest for that episode. It was embarrassing.

After that night, I told Zac and Trent that we were going to take some time off. I did not give an explanation. I used that time to record several episodes with people that I wanted an opportunity to have conversations with. I used that format for several more months.

By the beginning of 2024, I had come down from my disappointment of the last episode with Zac and Trent, and reached out to both of them to figure out how to come back. I suggested that a financial commitment would give them both the incentive to want to make the podcast content the best that it could be. Zac agreed; Trent did not acknowledge my invitation.

I made several attempts with Trent. But because I am typically independent, I gave up. Trent had all the evidence he needed to know that when he was ready to reach out, I was available. We were even on a softball team together that winter to spring, and at no point did Trent approach me to discuss the podcast. I did not approach him about it either because for one, it was not the appropriate place to have that conversation, and two, the ball was in his court.

Fast forward to most recently, in my post, Trent expressed that he had questions about why he was kicked off the show. My preference was never to discuss this on the podcast, or publicly, because frankly, the things that are not being said are designed specifically to protect Trent.

Trent is a very talented personality. Trent is an exceptional disc jockey. Trent is witty and entertaining. But Trent not being back on the podcast was his decision when the opportunity to come back was available.

This is not something that we are going to discuss on the podcast, despite all of the requests for the subject to be discussed. It is not interesting in the grand scheme of what we do. Like I have expressed here, Trent is a talent. I only hope for the best for Trent.

And to date, in spite of my statement in my comment on my post that Trent could reach out to Zac or me, to date, he has not. The matter is closed.

Back To Top

The United States spends more on healthcare than any other nation, and yet access, affordability, and outcomes remain deeply unequal. For millions, especially struggling families, seniors, communities of color, and rural Americans Medicaid, SNAP, and Medicare are not just programs, but lifelines. Yet, the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, championed by President Trump and Congressional Republicans, imperils those lifelines in favor of massive tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. Let us examine what this legislation does and why it is harmful for the poor, the middle class, and rural communities.

1. Medicaid: Work Requirements, Cost Sharing, and Enrollment Hurdles

The bill slashes over $1.2 trillion from Medicaid and nutrition funding.

• Work requirements: Adults aged 19 to 64 must work 80 hours per month to retain Medicaid in expansion states.
• Cost sharing: Enrollees above 100% of the federal poverty level may owe up to $35 per healthcare service.
• More frequent eligibility checks: States must verify Medicaid eligibility every six months, not annually.

These changes are projected to leave an additional 7.8 to 10.9 million people uninsured, as theyll become ineligible or unable to comply with reporting burdens.

2. SNAP: Paperwork, Exemptions Removed, and Coverage Loss

The bill tightens SNAP eligibility with burdensome paperwork, rescinding exemptions for:

• Foster youth aging out
• Veterans
• People experiencing homelessness

Roughly 270,000 vulnerable individuals could lose access due to documentation difficulties.

Nationwide, SNAP enrollment may drop by 4.7 million, with remaining beneficiaries seeing smaller food allotments. Analysts estimate low income households will lose an average of $1,600 per year, while wealthy households gain $12,000 from tax breaks.

3. Medicare: Hidden Cuts from Deficit Triggers

While Republicans promised to "protect Medicare," the bills budget busting nature triggers automatic spending reductions based on a 2010 deficit control law.

The CBO warns this could result in $491 billion in Medicare cuts between 2027 and 2034 unless Congress intervenes.

Additionally, 1.3 million low income Medicare beneficiaries could lose access to vital assistance like the Medicare Savings Programs and "Extra Help" for prescriptions if streamlined enrollment rules are stalled.

4. Broader Costs: Rising Health Expenses and Unemployment

This legislation raises the cost of care significantly:

• A low income Medicare couple living on $21,000/year could face $8,340 more in healthcare costs annually.
• Families with employer based insurance may see $900 more in out of pocket maximums, and individuals up to $450 more.

Moreover, cuts to Medicaid and SNAP are expected to disrupt local economies. Analysts estimate that for every dollar cut, the local income impact is roughly another dollar lost adding up to $120 billion per year in lost economic activity, including job losses in grocery stores, construction, and healthcare.

5. Public Backlash and Political Realities

The "One Big Beautiful Bill" is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in decades according to polls, with favorability averaging 17 to 22 points.

Even some Republican lawmakers in vulnerable districts like Rep. David Valadao expressed concerns over the health coverage fallout, though he ultimately voted for the bill.

Disneying the name to "Working Family Tax Cuts" isnt hiding its consequences: the bill increases the deficit by $3.4 trillion and slashes $1 trillion from Medicaid, with $490 billion in potential Medicare cuts on the horizon.

Conclusion: Where Healthcare Should Be Going Instead

Rather than rolling back vital safety nets, we should:

• Expand Medicaid in all states, instead of tightening it.
• Protect SNAP access, especially for vulnerable children, veterans, and foster youth.
• Strengthen Medicare, not undermine it through deficit driven triggers.
• Simplify enrollment and reduce bureaucracy across all programs.
• Make healthcare more affordable with a public option, lower prescription drug costs, price transparency, and affordable coverage for all.

Why It Matters

These cuts disproportionately affect the poor and middle class, especially in rural and economically fragile areas. In essence:

• The people who need help the most will be shoved out of it.
• Local economies will shrivel as spending contracts.
• Healthcare access will decline potentially with life and death consequences.
• Meanwhile, tax breaks flow upward to the wealthiest, deepening inequality.

Back To Top

Since 2017, I have been the host and producer of The All About Nothing: Podcast, a show that is now passed 300 episodes, including bonus and exclusive content. What began as a personal outlet has grown into a full on production with a loyal audience.

Why I Started Podcasting

I started podcasting in response to the political and cultural climate of 2017, when Donald Trump took office. At the time, I worked in an office where many of my coworkers, largely Republicans, conservatives, evangelicals, or a mix of all, three openly supported him. Their views were often loud and completely contradictory to what I saw happening in the real world. A friend of mine, Amii, encouraged me to start a podcast so I could express my own perspective and connect with others who felt the same.

Microphone: SHURE SM7B

These days, I use the legendary Shure SM7B. It is a go to mic in both the podcasting and broadcasting world, and it delivers on all fronts: warm, clear sound with excellent background rejection.

Before that, I had a vintage XLR mic I rescued from a radio station that was being renovated. It had a great built in compression, feel, and really nailed that radio station vibe; a great piece of gear to start with.

For remote recordings, away from the home studio, I use the Shure PGA48 with the included pop filter. Sometimes its wired using the included XLR cable, or sometimes using a wireless transmitter/receiver, JOYO 5.8Ghz Wirless XLR Microphone Transmitter Receiver. They work very well and you can use up to four at one time on separate channels. Great for recording at a distance.

Audio Interface: Zoom PodTrak P8

Whether Im recording from my home studio or on the road, I use the Zoom PodTrak P8. It is incredibly flexible, with features like multi track recording, sound pads, and clean mic preamps. It is definitely the centerpiece of my mobile and in studio workflow.

Also, if I am away from home, I will sometimes rely on the use of my Zoom PodTrak P4 as it has 4 inputs for mics, and works very well. But for the most part, I stick to the Zoom P8.

Mic Stand Setup: FIFINE Microphone Boom Arm

I currently use a FIFINE Boom Arm Microphone Stand mounted to my desk. While it works, I would honestly prefer a floor standing mic stand. That would keep the mic out of my way and reduce noise from desk bumps, like when I set down my coffee or gesture during recording.

Recording & Editing Tools

When it comes to remote recording, whether it is with guests or my cohosts, Zac King and Bill Kimler, I use Riverside.FM. Its reliable and gives me high quality audio and video, even when were not in the same place.

For editing audio, I turn to Audacity. Its simple, lightweight, and gets the job done for trimming, leveling, and cleaning up each episode. For video editing, especially for our YouTube versions, I use Final Cut Pro. It gives me a lot of control and lets me keep the visuals clean and professional.

Monitoring Setup

I use a single in ear monitor when recording, especially when I have guests or cohosts. Its discreet and doesnt block out my natural sound environment. You might not even notice it unless I turn my head toward the camera.

Truthfully, I prefer not to wear headphones at all. But for quality and clarity when recording with others, having that earpiece is essential.

Pop Filter & Noise Control

I use a large pop filter on my Shure mic. I tend to breathe heavily while speaking, and this filter does a great job of making my breathing tolerable, both for me and for listeners. Its one of those simple but essential tools I wouldnt skip.

The Podcasting Space

I record in the same space where I do my day job, my home office, which doubles as a bit of a man cave. Its a 10x13 foot room located above my garage, which gives it some natural separation from the rest of the house.

There is no real soundproofing on the walls, but theyre insulated well enough to block most outside noise. The Shure mic helps with that too, it doesnt pick up much unwanted sound, which is a big help in an untreated space.

Is the Setup Mobile?

For the most part, The All About Nothing: Podcast is recorded in place, in my office and wherever my cohosts are located. Ive got the ability to go mobile when needed, thanks to the Zoom P8, but the setup is usually static and ready to go when inspiration hits.

Back To Top