Is Bill Gates a Traitor?

In "CyberWar:  The Next Threat to National Security and What To Do About It", Richard A. Clarke, former advisor to several U.S. presidents on the issue of cybersecurity, mentions that Bill Gates and Microsoft gave the Chinese government the source code for Windows.  But, Mr. Gates refused to give the same source code for Windows when the Pentagon asked for it.  Windows, as everyone knows, is full of bugs and security holes.  The Chinese government was free to modify the security and encryption parts of the code; while the U.S. military can not.  And, Mr. Gates calls himself an upright U.S. citizen?

Mr. Clarke goes into many issues about cybersecurity.  Most of which I agree with from personal experience.  But, I have never been a national advisor of cybersecurity.  My experiences are with corporations.  Small manufacturers and ISPs.  But, I know the industry and the technology.  I know what logic bombs are.  Seen them programmed.  Unplugged modems to prevent access so that there would only be data communication when a scheduled data exchange was to take place.

I must agree that our national infrastructure and networks are not secure.  But, could be, without much effort.  Just some care and work.  And, as loath as I am to admit it, the large ISPs should be packet sniffing for viruses; shutting down botnets until users fix their systems.  In fact, ISPs block other ISPs that have spammers until the culprit is shut down.  We need to take some measures and have guidelines.

As for Operating Systems, certainly our military and even individuals or corporations could do with better security than we currently have with Windows.  The Open Source solution is technologically and militarily a good one.  Plus, plus, it would be cheaper on the U.S. taxpayer.  ...  So, now how do you feel when Mr. Gates told the U.S. military, that if they start using Open Source operating systems (like Unix or Linux) then; he will no longer support the Windows he sold the U.S. military?  (As Mr. Clarke stated.)

I do not support the current atmosphere of tax the rich.  Paying your fair share means a flat tax.  Not twice or 10 times what someone else pays.  Rich people work hard too.  I believe many people are just jealous and blinded by their jealousies.  Without belief in a God or a good attitude, how can one be happy with what one has?  Try to make as good a life as possible for themselves--by hard work, providence, prudence, saving, frugality and other admirable traits.  Stealing is wrong.  Making theft legal is still stealing. Need convincing?  Let them steal from you or the fruits of your hard work.  Let them tax you excessively.

All of that preaching is not to say, that there aren't rough industrialists, capitalists, entrepreneurs, free market sharks, who do not give a damn about the next guy or customer.  "Let the customers be damned!" was one railroad mogul's cry.  (Vanderbuilt)

Scalping customers is wrong.  Fraud is wrong.

Mr. Gates' fortune in a large part, has been made from U.S. tax dollars.  Mr. Gates is a U.S. citizen.  Our military's defenses are compromised.  He dares threaten the military with malicious breach of contract!  While I have no intention of comparing the Chinese to the Nazis, I do intend to compare Mr. Gates to Nelson Rockefeller, who sold fuel to the Nazis during World War II.  Do I really need to explain that was illegal and the crime of treason?  Secretary of the Treasury, Morgenthau wanted to arrest Mr. Rockefeller for treason.  That was within his jurisdiction.  Nelson Rockefeller threatened not to deliver fuel to the U.S. Army if Morganthau arrested him.  FDR told Morgenthau not to pursue the matter.  Because, it would put FDR in the position of having to seize Rockefeller's oil by public domain.  An action President Roosevelt did not want to do.

In my opinion, Mr. Gates may have gotten away with his treason.  But, we the citizens and consumers can protest.  We can use open source software as much as possible.  Or, buy an Apple, iPad, Mac.  Tell people why.  Let Mr. Gates know.  He's lost your sale because you feel he is a traitor and unAmerican.

What Does Breach Of The Marriage Contract Cost?

Marriage and divorce are complicated.  Many legal systems look at marriage as a contract.  A husband's obligations -- usually to support his wife.  A wife's obligations -- usually to have sex with her husband.  So, what happens when 2 people decide to break the contract?  Well, if it is 2 people agreeing this doesn't work any more, hopefully, they will be able to come to an agreement.  After all, they agreed it isn't working, right?  But, what if one is happy and the other is unhappy?  Well, in business, that would be simple.  You buy them out.  Usually, partnership agreements--good ones--have bailout clauses how to split up, who gets what, etc.  Who will handle the arbitration or law--which court will have jurisdiction.  But, how should a man and woman divorcing handle it?

Let's face it, prenuptial agreements can't cover everything.  There will always be unexpected issues arising.  But, what happens when one party changes a fundamental premise?  You were married in a certain religious setting and now...You're not into that religion any more?  You're not a communist or liberal or Republican or whatever any more?  What about the kids?  How are they to be brought up?

In contracts--a sale is a contract--if there was a fundamental misunderstanding, the contract--the sale--can be voided.  For example, selling land while being ignorant of the mineral rights and mineral richness of the land.

This could also apply to marriages based upon a false premise.  Usually, misinformation about a previous marriage or current financial situation.  However, I have found it hard to accept an annulment from a couple married for 30 years and having 5 children!  (True story!)

Yet, there is another scenario.  As children we are all socialized to be whatever.  What happens when we realize how we were manipulated and no longer want to live that way?  This is particularly obvious with religious upbringings and gender issues.  How does this all apply to divorce and the children?

There are no easy answers.  But, one thing is for sure, the one breaking the contract has to pay a premium.  And, if either side is too hard headed, the result will be unpleasant for all parties concerned.

NOTE:  See Fraidy Reiss'es article in the Huffington Post.   An example.

NOTE:  The current custody battle for Pearl Perry Reich is also very interesting.  Much to comment on.  But, I will not be misconstrued as publicly supporting either side without knowing the parties.  And, even if I knew the parties, I could never go back in time and know the historical facts.

A Real Argument Against Intelligent Design: Intelligent Design, Belief in God & Atheism

Belief is for something you can not know.

God is an improvable. No one can prove God exists. We can look at things and surmise the existence of God is true. Often, that is a fallacy based upon skewing the facts—including just what proves one’s point while ignoring the rest of the data.

By the same token, one can not prove that God does not exist either.

This was a point made by Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest logicians of our time and the 19^th century.

Believing in God is quite logical. The belief answers many questions.

The disbelief in God, is also quite logical.

However, the dogmatic disbelief in God is not logical at all.

Or, the belief that the disbelief in God is a fact, is not logical.

There are good reasons not to believe in God.

There are even better reasons to reject that which is said in the name of God.

While the opposite of the belief in God is atheism, this is not what many people mean when they say they do not believe in God. What they mean is they reject their theory of God or belief system in God. Meaning, the explanations of evil, heaven & hell, austerity of life, suffering, poverty, etc. ‘Why me?’ ‘Why do I suffer so much, while others have it so good, or easy?!’

Not believing in God is usually more a denouncement of a religion than the disbelief in God.

Many people use the idea of intelligent design to prove the existence of God. This is not new. This is done by the old Middle Eastern view of master architect. This was done by the Greeks with all their math. Albeit for a polytheistic view of gods. This has been done by many physicists. The French Catholic scientists and mathematicians did the same. Louis Pasteur’s discoveries were all done in the quest to prove that life comes from God and can not be man made. Laplace, in his magnum opus, Méchanic Céleste (Heavenly Mechanics or The Mechanics of the Sky), went into a great in-depth explanation of the math of motion. Also, to explain, that there is a “great” intelligent mover, who knows where every molecule will go and when.

None of which “proves” the existence of God. All of which merely lends credibility to the existence of God.

Or, as some would say, using God to explain what we can not understand.

A proposed logical argument that is not logical is a fallacy.

A refutation proves that a logical argument is a fallacy.

The refutation of intelligent design is NOT atheism—the belief that God does not exist.

The refutation of intelligent design is proving the premise, the idea, that the design of the universe is really not as intelligent as we believe:

“If a man in order to shoot a hare, were to discharge thousands of guns on a great moor in all possible directions; if in order to get into a locked room, he were to buy ten thousand casual keys, and try them all; if, in order to have a house, he were to build a town, and leave all the other houses to wind and weather—assuredly no one would call such proceedings purposeful and still less would anyone conjecture behind these proceedings a higher wisdom, unrevealed reasons, and superior prudence.” [Yet so is Nature…] – J.W.N. Sullivan … The words quoted by Sullivan are from Lange, “History of Materialism”.

THAT—is a real counter-argument to intelligent design!

Of course, that counter-argument has been rebutted with all the advantages to the eco-system and fulfillment of the needs of the food chain as well as life in general, that such behavior brings.

Brilliant. Yes, brilliant. We can go around in circles forever; with more and more retorts; all summing up to the same basic argument; pointing to the same type of facts; demonstrating: Intelligent and Unintelligent design.

The real question remains: “Does one believe in God because one believes in God?”

How To Shave From $50 Billion to $200 Billion Off The Deficit!

Sounds like a tall order. Fantasy, make believe. Not at all. Most suggestions to reduce the deficit discuss eliminating an entitlement—just one, that appears somewhere between unnecessary and ridiculous. The amount saved usually is several million dollars. But, one billion dollars is only 1/10^th of 1% of a trillion dollar deficit. A savings of a million dollars barely dents the national deficit. But, $100 Billion dollars! Now, you’re talking! 10% of the deficit! That’s a real reduction! $200 Billion dollars in entitlements is 20% of the budget! What entitlement could be costing the U.S. taxpayers over 20% of the national deficit? Why single mothers of course.

Let’s do the math.

All these calculations are based on official government reports. You know, Census Bureau, CDC, etc.

Almost every State in the Union is taking funding from the monstrous Mondale Act. (Perhaps Minnesota & Wisconsin don’t.) That’s the Congressional Act that in effect, slanderously labels all men as child molesters & wife beaters. The monstrous Mondale Act basically slanders all men as violent sex perverts. The monstrous Mondale Act provides for federal funding & matching funding for the new invention of Family Courts, Supervised Visitation, so-called Child Support Enforcement and more. Family Courts did not exist before 1960 and would not have come into being without the funding of the Mondale Act. (I’ll explain why it is so-called child support and not child support momentarily.)

Mind you, federal reimbursements for the collection of alleged child support, is not reportable. That means it does not have to appear on State budgets and is otherwise invisible to the taxpayer. Due diligence is required to dig up the data.

Well Washington State gets $98 Million in reimbursements (1990s figure. No reason to suspect an entitlement has been reduced! Ever heard of that?). Can we round up to $100 Million for easy math?

50 (States) x $100 Million (Per State) = $5 Billion

New York State gets over $5 Billion in reimbursements. ($5.4 in the 1990s.)

50 (States) x $5 Billion (Per State) = $250 Billion

To be fair, let’s take the average of the highest and lowest ($5.4 Billion + $98 Million).

$5,400 Million + $98 Million = $5,498 Million

$5.498 Billion / 2 = $2.749 Billion

Shall we round it to $2.7 Billion per State?

Therefore: 50 States x $2.7 Billion = $135 Billion

Now, did you know, that for every dollar in so called child support collected, that over $5- in reimbursements is paid by the federal government to the State? (A 1990s figure. It must be more by now.)

As to the single mothers involved, let us not say that we should starve them to death or discontinue any of their entitlements. God forbid we should ask them to get a job! Let’s just say, that in New York State, as stated in official government reports:

1. The court orders – so-called child support orders – are regularly assessed 66% of the time at 2/3^rd more than the salary of the man – without any proof or explanation of any kind.
2. The court orders – so-called child support orders – are regularly assessed 66% of the time without any record of the woman’s assets or job – in contradiction to the law.
3. That the New York State Dept. of Child Support Enforcement fails 40% of the audits that the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement makes. That is a consistent, yearly audit failure rate of 40%

Yet, the State of New York, always gets their entitlements.

No government official in New York State, or any other State, has ever gone to jail for fraud or misappropriation of federal funds!

Why don’t you try being 40% off on your deductions with IRS for even 1 income tax return!

This does not take into account the Medicaid Fraud, Welfare Fraud, etc. of the women and the State. Food stamps, WIC…

Add that to the $135 Billion savings in misappropriated federal funds.

For example, men are ordered to have health insurance for their children. But, it is never used and the mothers use Medicaid instead. Do you wonder who is committing the upwards of $5 Billion in Medicaid Fraud in New York State?

Add that to the $135 Billion savings in misappropriated federal funds.

Then, there are fees for the courts, the judges, the lawyers for the children, the supervised visitation. All paid for by federal funds.

Add that to the $135 Billion savings in misappropriated federal funds.

The American Bar Association itself claims that 80% of these cases are unsubstantiated. Official New York State government reports use a statistic of 98%; 95% in a good year. Let’s be conservative. 80% of the reimbursements for the courts, judges, lawyers, psychologists are simply a waste of money. You know what a lawyer costs?

Add that to the $135 Billion savings in misappropriated federal funds.

Did you know, that the law in New York State is, that all things being equal, custody of children should be awarded to the parent more able to support the child. Makes sense. Yet, with all this money in federal handouts, do you wonder why only 4% of the men get custody in New York State. -- That 4% is rounded up. (The State of Hawaii has the highest paternal custody award rate in the country. But, that’s only 15%.)

With all this money in federal handouts and clear misadjudication, jacking up assessments by 2/3^rd without any evidence what-so-ever; that New York State Family Court judges—IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL LAW—refuse to participate in mandatory accounting assessments?!

If I were writing a book, I would go into the long list of crimes being committed by the judges, courts and politicians. If I were writing a book, I would rehash what the promotion of single motherhood does to society and its children. It is a fact, that crime, especially violent crime, has risen sharply, in direct proportion to the increase in use of and power of the Family Courts and the whole anti-family, anti-man, anti-father apparatus that goes along with it. It is also a fact, that the perpetrators have been becoming younger and younger—even to preteen!

I assume the reader knows enough to understand that there is corruption and graft turning our children into criminals. The depth & the breadth of it, is unknown to the reader. That is only known to those who have been behind the closed doors of family court. That is the real reason family court is a closed door courtroom. But, the existence and immorality of the family court apparatus is known to the reader.

There is no greater treason, than to destroy the very fabric of society upon which a country is based.

The family courts, the monstrous Mondale Act—however well intentioned; are destroying our society. We see it with our own eyes.

We also can see that many of the judges, social workers, psychologists and lawyers of the Family Court system are anything but well intentioned.

Child abuse is a terrible thing. Family court is not the solution. Family Court is so bad that it must be abolished. Throw these charges into criminal court.

I just come to repeat the words of a long standing, old time, Father’s Rights Activist, James L. Wilks. “That this is America. The only way to stop this corruption and destruction of the family, is to take the money out of it.” We have a tremendous opportunity at this time, to reduce our deficit; save our society and prevent terrible injustices of inhumane and corrupt courts. Cut an entitlement that counts!

Theory of Government Borrowing & Hiring Proven Wrong

Did borrowing from Social Security to hire government workers really ever boost or jumpstart the economy?

Or:  Nordhaus and Proving a Theory Wrong

Since the 1950s, Nordhaus' book  "Economics", has been considered a fundamental textbook in economics.  He, the Ivy League professor, won a Nobel prize.  Refuting or denying his assertions in his text would leave one wide open to attacks as an ignoramus or just a plain idiot.  No matter what your logic or math.  Facts just confuse the issue and are not important.  However, if one reads Nordhaus carefully and truly understands economics; one understands that Nordhaus and many other economists are conjecturing--guessing.  Their theories are just that--theories.  Unfortunately, as many mathematicians have noted; because math is a logical system, when anyone--economists included--express an idea with mathematical symbols; that idea is given a credibility it does not have; as if transformed into a real mathematical formula.  When Nordhaus wrote that when unemployment is high, the government must borrow money to hire people to create jobs and boost the economy; that was his theory.--A theory that has yet to be proven.

While this approach was tried during the Roosevelt era, with the TVA and other programs, there were many other factors to account for.  This is another factor of economics and all social sciences.  It is a science that deals with people and how people react.  The factors are so many and complicated, so many different relationships, that we mere mortals truly can't know.  Jonathan Weeks, a noted sociologist has pointed this out very well in his works.  Paul Krugman, a noted economist has pointed out , that some facts of economics we can know empirically.--We see it!  But, there is so much more we don't know.

The economic programs of the Depression Era did not really pull the USA out of the Depression.  They may have helped.  But, WWII really got this country out of the Depression.  Millions of men, able bodied young men, were taken off the streets and unemployment by being made soldiers and shipped off to Europe or the Far East.  The whole country went into production overdrive supporting the US army and lend lesae for all the Allies, including Russia.  (An often skipped over fact.)  Then, for a decade, while the rest of the free world, was in physical and financial ruin; the US had free reign to soar economically.

Did borrowing from Social Security to hire government workers really ever boost or jumpstart the economy?

I would say no.

While the economy was good, America at the top of the economic ladder, the borrow & hire policy could be implemented without loss and; go unnoticed as a luxury.  But now, that money is tight.  The failure of the policy is proven.  It doesn't work.  An Obama stimulus package did not stimulate.  The theory is finally proven for what it is.

To add insult to injury, many of these government services are unnecessary.  The workers are arrogant and working in a way that is detrimental to society.  The normal checks & balances that would overcome bad worker attitude and bad workmanship are not present in the false economy of the government workforce.

Most of what we know about economics is empirical.  We see it.  Supply & demand.  Tariff wars don't work.  Etc.  For decades, people talk about balancing the budget and the false economy of government jobs.  It a home situation we know how it works.  You need to balance your budget.  You can't spend more than you have.  Businesses don't hire people who don't produce.  Etc. Etc.

Giving unemployed people jobs not created from need, may give someone a job; a nice charitable move--better than welfare; but it does not stimulate or get the economy going.

You Want to Know Why There is so Much Child Abuse & Neglect?

Banning Children.  What a novel idea?!  As a kid I used to see this sign, "No kids allowed" in some antique shops.  My parents liked to go antiquing and took me along on their Sunday outings.  That is where I got a book on backgammon and learnt the game.  Some shops had signs that said, "If you break it, you bought it."  In one shopping area, with several antique shops, only one had the "No kids" sign.  My father said, with a smile, 'We won't go into that store.'  As if we were on boycott!

Of course, we can debate the legalities and ethics and practicalities of kids in an antique shop.  Surely, some kid has broken something.  Surely, it was an accident.  Surely, the kid does not have to pay.  Surely, the parent has to pay.  But, what if they can't?  At the moment?  What of the aggravation?  What of the accusations and counter-claims?

True.  There are some places that kids do not belong.  There are some parents that should teach their kids better manners.  But, kids are kids and; Americans are anti-children.

While there are some places where kids do not belong, I think this is much more about America being anti-child than anything else.  This is about people not having patience; or being forgiving or tolerant.  Since kids are powerless against adults, adults can easily blame kids for things and get away with it.  A serious trip for some adults how love "to rule over children".  And,  while some couples may try and not have kids, there really is a certain selfishness to the DINKs.  (Dual Income No Kids)

I once saw this anti-child attitude and child neglect manifest in a woman, that had to have her mink coat, but couldn't afford to buy her kids clothes.  One pair of pants for the entire school year.  No joke.  Now, *that's* real neglect!  She got away with it.  She didn't want to be a mother and did the bare minimum not to be arrested.

And, they want to know why there is so much child abuse & neglect.  Because people do not give a damn about kids.  People hate kids.  Kids are annoying and noisy.

In a country where you get more tax deductions for raising horses than children, what do you expect?

The U.S. birth rate is negative.  Americans do not have children and have to rely on the foreigners, immigrants with kids (Mexicans with large families) to keep the U.S. birth rate up.  Let us not forget all the adoptions of foreign children or; reaping of children, from minority foreigners (Mexicans) by Child Protective Services, to keep our population growing.

This is an anti-child society.  Adults do not marry and have children.  The many single mothers can't compromise and get along with a man.  They have to rely on artificial insemination or adoption of foreign children.

What does that say about our society as a whole, in getting along with other people?  Children, by the way, are people.

We, U.S. citizens, need to rethink our position.  Perhaps being nice to children, giving them attention, positive direction and activities, setting examples of good behavior--Yes, even at a public restaurant--might go a long way to having children who would be pleasant to be around.

Clearly, the current anti-child philosophy is not a sustainable life philosophy.

No Show Racism?

Just in from AP.  Not enough white people have lost enough money in this depression.  Are the liberals crying and looking for a new way to "redistribute wealth".  Clearly, there is something about not being jealous and not coveting and not stealing, that many people are not getting.  This disparity is not the result of any current discrimination or lack of opportunity on the part of white people.  In fact, that is what the report says! 

I would like to know, are there statistics as to how many people, of what race, bought those houses on foreclosure during the banking collapse?  Because, from just looking at the pictures in the newspaper, it certainly seemed to be one ethnicity to me.   Why, one could even say that there had been a planned subversive action to get white people to lose homes that black people could buy.  But, saying something like that would be rascist.

While the statistics cited may be a fact, citing them was racist and stupid.  Certainly, the interpretation and insinuation that white people still have money, more money than black people, because they have bad money gained from racist activities from "before the war" on racism, is, well, racist.