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.

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.

Do we need a Leiby law? -- NO!

Well, this is a very Jewish way of looking at it, but, we don't need a Leiby law.  We should not allow one kook to so disrupt our lives.

A Note to Parents Worried Their Child Will Be Nex,  By Lenore Skenazy


We know it's wrong to kill little kids and chop them up into tiny pieces.
We don't need a new law for this.  Just follow the ones we have.
And, we know that this is far from a common occurrence.

It was sad.  It was tragic.

Grieve and move forward without being neurotically paranoid.