Roberto Diego's Web Log

November 8, 2006 - It looks like Al Queda, the Democrats and Dr. Leonard Peikoff are happy today. The real damage that will result from this election victory by the Democrats is what is going to happen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran - in the immediate future. The propaganda will be that the U.S. is planning to pull out, that Bush is now weak in the face of political opposition, and that the U.S. is a paper tiger. Those that were cooperating with us in Iraq will start cooperating with the terrorists hoping to save their own lives. The Iraqi government will probably fall. This will be just the beginning. After that, all of our International relationships will deteriorate and we will become the pariah of the world...be made responsible for all the things we fought for, even for fighting for our own freedom. We will stop fighting for a position in the world and withdraw while the bombers sneak in to our major cities. Then those that cooperated with us all over the world will see that the U.S. does not stand behind its friends. South Korea may also start cracking. Our support and friendship of Britain will crumble and they will hate us like the French. The rest of Europe will try to reach an accommodation with the terrorists and let the terrorists have positions in their governments. Their policies will become even more anti-American.

Some of the Democrats will now start trying to undo all the damage they did to our country with their blocking of President Bush's actions in the war on terror. They will actually want to undo the damage by not pulling out of Iraq, spinning their way into being hawks and hoping that they can hold on to the sinking ship; as well as take credit for being heroic fighters against terrorism. They will tell us again that they really didn't want us to stop fighting the war, they just knew how to do it better. Bunk, pure bunk. But that is the problem. They bored the hole in the ship and it is too wide to prevent the ship from sinking. The damage is done to our standing in the world and the world will begin to disrespect the U.S. even more. We ARE a paper tiger. The most powerful Dems, on the other hand, really believe we are an Imperialist nation and that we are the problem. So the ship will sink. So much for the idea of lying to gain political power.

Actually, I blame this on the Republicans for squandering the advantage they had. They did themselves no good by making all these debates about religion and bringing god into government and faith-based initiatives. Some people will claim that the problem is that they strayed from their conservative principles. That is just like the preacher that claims our problems are caused by not enough sacrificing; the problem is that he says there is not enough sacrificing. What self-respecting Democrat or Republican would vote for the idea of a religious dictatorship? Did they think they wouldn't scare the hell out of us and that we'd all just happily march to the church? After all, they think, who wouldn't want God in their government? Now Bush can only do one thing...take all the issues away from the Democrats by fostering a bigger role for government in all our lives - but I suspect he will do nothing - be a lame duck, a beat and demoralized man that tried to fight for America while his friends tried to smuggle in a theocracy. There is nothing he can really do now. He is a loser, beaten.

Bush's major flaw was in believing the idea that you can win politically by being more big government than the Democrats. See where that got him? It made him a wimp. Domestically, it will be good for us to have gridlock - if we have gridlock. (We have to stop thinking that everything we do has no real consequence - this is the flaw that makes some of us vote for the Democrats - we will see the consequences of that vote shortly in more terrorism) You have to remember, it was the Dems that fostered gridlock. It was the Dems that lied about Bush. It was the Dems that blocked every effort Bush made to fight the terrorists. It is the Dems that want us to lose the war on terror. It is the Dems, or many of them, that hate America. Knowing the Republicans, they will simply join with the Democrats and move us forward toward a more domestically self-defensive fascism. The first result will be paranoia and violence aimed at Mexican Americans (not Muslims - Muslims will be accommodated). Mexicans are the easiest minority to destroy and blame for our troubles. This will destroy our relations with Mexico and all of South America.

Internationally, this election is the first sign of our surrender to the terrorists. We will no longer fight the war on terror - the work of our intelligence agencies will be blocked. This war will now become subject to political spin, negotiation and hiding our heads in the sands. The terrorists are here now, plotting the next attack. They have won. We won't fight them any more, but our politicians will pose as our defenders. They would rather fight George W. Bush. We now have about 5 years to look ahead to only a semblance of freedom...after that it will be chaos and destruction. Be careful of anything you say. You never know who is listening and who they might tell. Watch what happens to those people on the right. They will be scandalized out of their jobs. George Soros now has a congress and possibly a Senate to help him loot America. And he will do it. He will be rich, we will be poor and we will then ask him to save us with the money he has "made". Blind leading the blind. Pay off the accuser and the accused. Everyone will come to George Soros. He will be propagandized into greatness while he stabs us in the back.

The first signs that the Dems are going to take over government will be the efforts to sign the Kyoto Accords. Once we sign that, we will be sunk and we will be a dictatorship. Bush is so wimpy and neocon-influenced that he would sign it. Mandating a reduction of fossil fuel usage will be tantamount to government expropriation of the American economy. But it won't be our government that is in charge, it will be the United Nations. The political opposition to Kyoto will be disenfranchised and removed from their jobs, forced to resign as capitalist pigs that want to destroy our planet. If this happens we are doomed. We may be doomed anyway since we have given the terrorists a bigger victory than their destruction of the Twin Towers. Yes, this election is a bigger victory for the terrorists than their destruction of the Twin Towers because it sets the stage for their ascendancy into the mainstream and for their killing of many more Americans. If we don't wake up, we will learn too late that our desire for immediate gratification in the war on terror has brought us more bullets and bombs. Those of us that oppose dictatorship will soon start disappearing.

Obama, The Democratic Convention and "famous" individualism

The liberals today are truly uncomfortable standing for the individual. The 2004 Democratic Convention has shown that their dedication to individual rights is now limited merely to the right to an abortion. They have forgotten the individual in all other areas and when they start using the language of individualism, as they did at the convention, it only proves that individualism is the real movement in our country that they have hated to watch - it is represented by George Bush (in their minds). That movement toward freedom is the last thing they want and the one thing they must prevent...by gaining power. So they will use the language of freedom and patriotism to gain power in order that they can later take that freedom away in a morass of social responsibility and the coercive imposition of that idea. That they are uncomfortable with the language of freedom shows how far they have gone and how radicalized they have become. They are unfit to lead because they have no connection to leadership. They are a bunch of radicals who have been out of the mainstream in a practical sense and have never actually led...which was a problem of the Clintons as well...and why they lost power. They did not lead. Today, liberals can only educate and they do a poor job of that because they don't teach skills but instead brainwash children and college students with "socially responsible" ideology. Look at the results.

That Obama called individualism "famous" is the point where the mask drops. Since it is "famous" it must be acknowledged, but for a liberal, individualism is an uncomfortable, almost dirty idea. It reeks of egoism and "can do" rugged self-alienation...they would feel so uncomfortable around people like that. So they will call it "famous," but that's all they will say good about it. That it is "famous" means that it is a factor to be acknowledged and dealt with. Those for whom it is "famous" must be pandered to and fooled into believing that for the liberals, it really is a "good" idea.

They will acknowledge the roots of our nation, sing praises to it's power, call it important...because it is important to others not to them...but they will talk more enthusiastically about the freedom to "sacrifice" and "give to others" in a true "bait and switch." Imagine what they would be saying if the ideas of freedom and rugged individualism had never been "famous." I'm sure you know, they'd be talking about the "famous" idea of "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability." We would not have them today defending themselves against "false" accusations that they are communists. They would be what they are: communists.

This is the very reason they will lose in a landslide. I had thought they had a chance but now I see, they are totally bankrupt ideologically and it is obvious now, the only way they will win is through a coup of lawyers or rifles. The people are not stupid...as Michael Moore believes. They fooled us once with Clinton and Gore. The defeat of the liberals will mean that there will have to be an entirely new ideology for the future, an emerging paradigm shift and I like the "ownership" idea of Bush that may mean a start toward real freedom...at least economically. We can work on the theocracy threat after the election of Bush. Posted on 8/11/04

To make a comment send me an e-mail

Thank You, Bill Cosby

Thank you for having the courage to stand up and criticize the self-victimization of many minorities. I think the whole issue of race is an individual issue. Only individuals can stop being racist and only individuals must change their minds - this includes those who are victims of racism - they cannot be racist - and that is the key - taking responsibility for yourself and having the courage to stand up as an individual without all the trappings of "my people" is what individualism and freedom is all about - being willing to take on the racism in our society by becoming a successful individual in spite of it is the key and this is where you are right - I've been doing that for over 50 years. Posted on 7/6/04

Reagan was not a great communicator. He was a communicator of great ideas and that is even more rare than being able to communicate well. Ideas like freedom and the American spirit; of getting things done and doing them right. Reagan was a staunch advocate of the individual and of his right to be free of government meddling and interference. Because of this he made enemies of many people whose paychecks came from government, including the intellectual establishment and their propaganda arm, the liberal media, all of whom had lost touch with the reality of having to trade real value and earn a living. He did not accomplish everything he set out to do and there were certainly some contradictions in his beliefs with which I would not agree, but there is one thing that can be said of Ronald Reagan: he freed more people than any other President, not only through his insistence that the Soviet Union tear down its walls of oppression, but also by championing the individual in our society. That saved us from an onslaught of negativity and decline that would surely have meant the end of civilization. Rest in Peace, Ronnie. When you came forward with your gifts for humanity, we needed exactly what you brought. Let no one diminish your accomplishments. They have no right to stand on your platform.

Hollywood had to ruin the story by changing it. This time, and once again, for the worst. I don't see how Agamemnon, after being killed in the movie, could have gone home after the war and been murdered again by his wife's lover. The world would have missed another great Greek tragedy.

It could have been a great movie. But, it was only another cheap Hollywood film. The battle and fight scenes were impressive and I enjoyed how the movie was able to condense large amounts of Homer's text to one or two scenes in panorama. I loved the few scenes that were played the way Homer wrote them, but I missed the gods and goddesses that were part of the battle. There was also something missing in the lack of golden chariots and shields that were the subject of so much plunder in the original story, not to mention some of the deadly blows that, in the original, healed so quickly.

Alas, Aeneas, one of the central characters for Homer, was reduced to a bit part - Hollywood just can't seem to get everything into just a few hours. And as a middle aged guy myself, I wonder why the Greek central characters were all ugly corrupt old men. Maybe they needed to give Helen an excuse for running away in the first place. Menelaus was certainly out of her league. However, as I recall, in the original story, Helen was not necessarily as beautiful as this captivating young actress. In fact, she'd been locked up in that walled city for over ten years by then and must have been at least 30 or 40 years old. She even had children back in Greece.

PS. Brad wasn't buff enough for this role, though his little slave girl was an incredible "show stealing" delight and a fine actress. I've always believed that going to a movie is the same as going to church - you spend your time watching a suffering savior and end up worshiping him and wanting to live your life that way. I'd rather have just won the slave girl and lived happily ever after - but that isn't what happened in the real story either. Suffering saviors always die for others and miss out on all the joy afterwards. Posted 5/14/04

You tell me to read history to learn how corrupt America has been for years. You tell me to study the Spanish American War to find out how corrupt we are. Well, I did in the fifth grade and I know what happened. I've been to Spain and they still resent that war and insist they did not bomb the Maine - and they probably didn't. But all of that is irrelevant to one basic fact: we are still the freest country in the world and there is no nation on earth that can hold a candle to our freedom, our tolerance and our generosity. We have a constitutional framework of government that respects, for the most part, the rights of people and turns the government, again for the most part, away from plunder and theft toward protection of rights...an unprecedented accomplishment in the history of the world. You want to say it is all about big business but that is pure anti-capitalist clap trap designed to repeat the old communist party line - you know the one about how capitalism's success is responsible for the delay of the communist revolution in America? Where's that revolution now?

That is the problem with you. You want to ignore the principles and find slices of facts and then make sweeping generalizations such as, this is only about oil, or only about Bush getting back at Saddam, or only about lies on WMD or only about prison abuse and then make sweeping generalizations about our nation from those slices that don't add up the way you add them up. Well find a nation that is worth fighting for, brother, and then come back to me and tell me what is fundamental about that country and why, fundamentally it is the proper government. Guess what? You won't be slicing up the facts and saying, well, in 1991, this country invaded this country and that means they are corrupt. No, you will be looking at the fundamental issues that make it a better country than ours. You won't find one, my friend. What you'll find is a country that may have flirted with the communists back in 1965 or 1975 or may have had a dictator in 1985 and you will find that they were as corrupt or more corrupt than you say we are. You will also learn that in order to maintain your argument that they are a better country, you will have to put some of that corruption in perspective and try to find something fundamental about that country. Then you'll come home and realize your quest had ignored the fundamentally best country in the world and in the history of the world.

I've got lots of complaints about this country and George Bush. I find him to be overly religious for a country that should respect all religious and non-religious viewpoints. I am an atheist. I find that his compassionate conservatism is nothing more than liberalism and violates the basic principles he pretends to espouse - free markets and less government regulation. I don't like his deficit spending and his Medicare program is a sham and the last thing we need. I disagree with his desire to impose religion on people and his desire to ban abortion. I'd just as soon had Gore on all those points. But one thing I know, he will fight terrorism and there is no other candidate who is not a charlatan and a liar that I would trust to fight it. I have children and I don't want them wearing burqas some day. I'm sorry. I believe we should go after the terrorists...no matter what...and that includes Iraq, Iran, Korea and everywhere else, just like one time we went after the mob, without giving any quarter, without any compromise...find them, kill them and get it done quickly. That's it for me. Now if you want to continue this discussion, don't even think about giving me any historical facts that say the U.S. is corrupt. I'm not wavering on that point and nothing you can say will make me waver on it. I know all those contradictions in the U.S. and right now, they are irrelevant to me. What is relevant is what do you propose to more effectively destroy those terrorists. If you don't want to address that issue, please do not respond. I don't care about anything else. Don't criticize, don't obfuscate, don't dissemble and don't tell me we are just as bad as they are - because you should know better. Posted on 5/13/05 - Happy Birthday, hon. I love you.

Thanks for the discussion on Mr. Berg, the unfortunate victim of true abuse and cruelty. As a person highly critical of Mr. Bush, but a supporter of our war on terror, I had warned that the media "spin" on the photos could embolden Al Queda. I think the silence that you mention on the part of the mainstream media is due to a measure of questioning of themselves by the liberal media. For a few minutes they might actually contemplate how much responsibility they bear for this event in light of the fact that the prison pictures were released by CBS in a blind attempt to do political damage to George Bush rather than support our war effort. It seems, to me, that the Vietnam Syndrome that many liberals seem to be enmeshed in, gives them the "right" to question the war in the midst of it. By this reasoning there would be no "just" war, no "rightful" defense and no need for perspective on any issue so long as they question the war. This mindless lack of perspective on the part of CBS in particular has contributed to the belief by Al Queda that they can destroy Americans with impunity and make the nightly news. Had I been CBS I would have done the following:

I agree with Mr. O'Reilly that now, with the exception of Fox News, it is impossible to get any information from the mainstream media. They give us some good cooking recipes but as agencies charged with giving us information about major events, they are propaganda arms for the soon to be Kerry administration and Al Queda. Notice I said "soon to be Kerry administration." I fully expect that they will succeed in bringing George Bush down. Unfortunately, no Presidential candidate can succeed against such a massive onslaught of lies and distortion undertaken by the national media against him. When they realize that this propagandistic approach, unprecedented in the history of our nation, made possible because of their unchallenged power to decide what is news and how it will be slanted, works to elect the candidate they want in power, we will never be the same free nation again. Once they succeed in electing Kerry, you will see an effort to regulate out of existence (or discredit through scandal and distortion), such entities as Fox News and those involved in talk radio like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. As the saying goes, "The writing is on the wall."

I am truly dismayed at the state of the American media and the blatant propagandistic (Big Lie) efforts to make the American public get ever more frustrated with the Bush Administration. They are obviously working in concert in a major campaign to defeat Bush. This effort will be relentless until the election is over. It violates all "equal time" laws because they claim to be presenting news rather than political opinion. Story after story, book after book, lie after lie, scam after scam will be cooked up to make sure that the American public, like them, hates George Bush. This will be done by all the major media outlets and will be non-stop. This is the most Un-American, dictatorial and dangerous display of the unfair and dishonest use of the American free media that has ever taken place in our country's history. If they succeed, it will have created a precedent so dangerous that the American citizen will no longer have the right to get information as opposed to propaganda. To openly, blatantly skew the news in only one direction time after time, story after story is a major scandal that should be investigated now. Heads should roll at the media outlets. People should be fired. They will not stop until they are sure they have done everything they can to discredit and destroy George Bush. I am very afraid for the future of freedom and our way of life if they succeed. Bin Ladin could not have thought that we would destroy ourselves and that his best ally was the American free media. Posted on 5/7/04

Nah, he should be given a medal for putting up with people that want to take political advantage of a war. Why don't we win the war before we start asking for resignations? Why do liberals do everything they can to make sure we lose the war? Why is the media engaged in a relentless campaign to defeat Bush? Where is the fairness here? Who apologized for the dead Americans paraded on the street in Iraq or for the thousands killed on 911? When will we demand an apology from Bin Ladin? When will we demand an apology from Saddam and from Hezbollah? Where is the perspective here? Why are we damning ourselves for what is undoubtedly a minor issue when we have so many major issues to deal with such as the survival of our country and way of life? It is not like we tortured those prisoners and killed them and hid the graves. Where is our solidarity on the most important issue of the time; the very survival of our way of life? Liberals and especially the media should be ashamed of themselves for selling our futures out for the sake of political power and winning an election. Apparently they learned nothing from 911. Posted 5/7/04

I don't agree with the political claims that jobs are lost and won by agreements between governments. The question is, when do you start counting and when do you stop? Certainly, a job that is here in the United States in, let's say, 1947 that is eliminated because of improvements in technology making it possible for one person to do two jobs is a lost job. But is that a bad thing? Are we to say that it is unfair that someone lost that job? What did that person who lost that job do, starve and die along with his or her family? Probably not. He probably kept his job and he and his fellow worker did the work of 4 people instead of 2. Or he took his skills and got another job, got training and improved his situation or retired. That is not a lost job because the American economy improved due to the gain in production. The worker became more valuable by being able to do more. A company benefited by being able to do more for less cost as the cost of the new technology lowered with time.

That is part of having a free economy - we let companies make decisions that improve production. That is not a bad thing. Let's say this job holder is in 1947 21 years old. He does the same job for let's say 20 years, during which time he gains no new skills, just does the same job making a part for a machine using the same technology. During this 20 years, factors like inflation and government regulation put pressure on the employer to reduce costs. Other factors like competitors who find better, cost effective means to produce the product put pressure on the employer. The labor union that protects the employee demands higher and higher wages, mostly to keep up with inflation so the employer also has to raise prices to keep up with the higher wages and inflation. The competitors do not raise prices as much and the employer has to count on quality and customer loyalty to stay in business.

The employer has to look for new technology that will improve productivity or he will go out of business. If this job holder is to keep his job, he must be productive and must continue to improve his skills and knowledge. But at a certain point, with technological development, with increased demands on the employer to find better ways to get the work done, certain things will become clear, and this is part of economic progress. What may not have been possible in 1947 may now be possible in 1967...the same job can be done more cheaply somewhere else where labor issues presented by the union will not impact the cost of labor.

The question, is the job a static 'property' that cannot be changed or moved or 'taken away' from the job holder? If so, then we must develop a guild system to protect the job and freeze development and productivity improvements at a certain level so the person can keep his job. And we must do this everywhere, all over the world. Or, are we to have a more dynamic economy and allow the employer to adjust to circumstances and create environments that enable the same work to be done less expensively somewhere else or by some other means? It seems to me that the first choice, to globally freeze development of productive choices, is not a good thing for the company, that after all, is invested in by other American workers who expect a profit and will take their investment capital elsewhere if the company does not make a profit. To allow the company to find better ways to get work done with opportunities presented by trade agreements like NAFTA, is then a good thing...in spite of the fact that we want to vilify companies that take advantage of such opportunities. I just don't buy in to the idea that companies are evil and hurtful to workers because they want to be. Companies are beholden to investors and it is American workers who are the investors in those companies and who demand that the company engage in an effort to constantly improve.

Advance 20 more years and we have incredible technological improvements, let's say computers and robots and other new technologies. Are the companies beholden to keep the old methods that were quite advanced in 1947 but are obsolete in 1987? How many jobs are lost due to the incredible new productive capabilities of computers and 'programmed' employees (robots)? What happens to the now 67 year old worker who will not even consider working with the new technology, whose son, now a computer specialist can handle with ease because he was trained in this new age? His son can probably do the work of what would have been 20 or 30 men in 1947 because of the new technology. That means 20 or 30 lost 1947 jobs. Is that bad or good? Had we frozen development back in 1967 because we didn't want that worker to 'lose' his job, where would we be when computers and robots came along? I think you know, we'd be without any of those jobs - they wouldn't be there because the workers in the countries that allowed free development (such as Japan) would have taken them anyway.

I have worked in the U.S. for over 40 years and I have seen first hand the kinds of decisions executives have to make in order to keep their companies alive and I know how they agonize whenever they have to make tough decisions that affect people. But they must ask themselves who are their most productive employees and how can they be more productive? Where are they losing money and how can they stop losing that money? What do they have to do in the face of competition, technological advances, government requirements and consumer demands to stay viable? I guarantee you, they are not sitting around trying to figure out ways to disenfranchise American workers - it just doesn't work that way. Counting American jobs that are 'lost' just doesn't square with the realities and requirements of a dynamic and advanced technological economy. Although it is politically popular for a politician to talk in those terms, it only proves the politician does not understand how business works. Instead they should talk about how to facilitate trade and choice among American workers and American companies, talk about a global economy where there are fewer barriers and more free trade, not less. Then they will be talking in terms of realities instead of "company bashing" for mere political gain. Lost jobs are not the issue. If you compare 1947 to today, I would almost bet that more jobs have been 'lost' due to technological and productivity advances than to any migration of jobs to other countries. That, in my view, is the reality. Posted 4//04

The U.S. economy is a great economy because business people are free, for the most part, to make business decisions that benefit the �business� and that benefits the workers and the economy. Those that are against outsourcing assume that jobs are property and that once a worker has lost a job it is unfair and wrong of the company to let him go. But decisions are made every day in the business world to terminate the employment of people. Sometimes those decisions are necessary in order for the company to be viable. But the issue of outsourcing has been made into a political issue and it assumes that businesses are unfair when they do it.

Outsourcing could be a valid business decision based upon rational reasons. Put yourself in the place of a business owner. Your employees cost $15.00 per hour producing a part for a machine. You learn that a company in Singapore, for example, can produce the same product for $2.00 per hour with the same quality. What would you do? Would you continue to pay $15.00 per hour? You know your employees would not work for $2.00 per hour. Would it be unfair to go to Singapore for that product? Outsourcing, in this example would mean a savings of $13.00 per hour and thousands of dollars per week in savings. What would you do with that $13.00 per hour of savings? You could invest it in additional marketing efforts to sell your product to more people because you are able to drop the price so your competitor doesn�t put you out of business. Also, as a smart businessman, you would make sure you had several sources of supply, maybe even keep some of those employees that cost $15.00 per hour just in case your supply in Singapore dries up for some reason. The economy is not static and you must make the right decision, set the right price and do what it takes to stay in business. As a good manager, you now look at the most skilled people that you have in your business and try to find ways to use their skills to be even more successful. I would bet that most companies that outsource are doing just that but that doesn�t make the news because it doesn�t feed into the scandal.

In fact, we outsource all the time. Every time we buy a product made or grown in another country, aren�t we outsourcing? Should we stop doing business with other countries because that takes away U.S. jobs? Well, it would sure create a lot of jobs wouldn�t it? The issue of outsourcing would not be such an issue were it not that it recently has been made into a political issue for political advantage. I would venture to say that outsourcing is making our economy stronger. I don�t know a business man who doesn�t want to make a product for a lower cost. In fact, it is his job to find the best way to make products. To say it is unfair is unfair to the very purpose of running a business. Do we want the government looking at every outsourcing decision and deciding if it is fair or not? Who can really decide that except the person that is responsible for the bottom line of a company? Posted 4/6/04

So Kerry wants to force young people to "give something back." Kerry thinks that his form of slavery is something accepted by all since it is altruistic and therefore "good." This is the spin of dictators and I think he means to become a dictator. That is his demeanor and attitude.

Altruism, as a solution to problems, is the easiest "solution" of all but it has always been ineffectual as a solver of problems...it is no solution, but the problem. Little minds like Kerry's think they can trot out the old saw about "service" to others and then benefit from the free labor force...show on CNN the dams and the power plants that serve the indigenous populations around the world as proof of the concept. What he will get are finger paintings and boring documentaries on NPR.

Altruism is the problem because the minds that think it is the solution to all problems don't know anything more than to say "altruism is the solution." Beyond that, they have no ability to decide what to do to solve specific problems of individuals except feed them the labor of people that can solve problems in the real world...people who can solve real problems don't like being forced to work without pay. Guess who will get blamed when the "solution" (force) does not work? The slaves, of course, not Kerry and his little mind. Hard working Americans "give back" every day by working hard and doing their best. They do not need to be herded into some sort of "idealistic" concentration camp. Posted on 4/26/04

I disagree with Bush on many many issues, among them his religious premises. However, and this is a big however, religion has been an albatross around the necks of many presidents for many decades and has been responsible for some of their major contradictions and beliefs. Such presidents as Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, for instance, made policies and decisions that harmed freedom and our efforts around the world. As an atheist, I can only make my decision on the presidential election around one fundamental principle, in this age of pragmatic politics, and that is who, will fight the war on terror to win.

I and most atheists that understand these very real contradictions of Bush have to decide between two evils, one (Bush) that I think will be the biggest bulwark against muslim style tyranny in this time, perhaps and this is a big hope, long enough to enable the right ideas of freedom to win. Afghanistan and Iraq, are not free secular countries and they never were and they are not establishing free secular constitutions there. What they are doing now in allying with the U.S. are taking steps toward that, not perfect steps, and certainly contradictory, harmful steps, but they are steps that might enable some people within those countries to begin, notice the word "begin," to ask the right questions and hopefully be able to make true change, just as some are doing in Iran right now.

Consider even our own government and constitution in their founding were full of contradictions too. And we are still in the grip of those contradictions because we are a mixed society of some that don't understand freedom and some that fully understand it, some that think we are a theocracy and some that believe in a separation of church and state. You don't want to reject our government because it is not perfect, do you? Well, on the same level, we can't fully reject what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are movements, we hope, in the right direction. That is a big hope, but the movement toward freedom is a process that is still being fought here too, it is not freedom.

When people say, no, it was a secular government we set up here and no, it was individual rights they set up here, well sure...but what about the people that say, no, it was a theocracy? That is a debate (and on that issue both are right and both are wrong because of the contradictions in the founding of our country - it is an issue that still needs to be fought over and settled for all time). Freedom is the result of laying a foundation and what we need, as lovers of freedom is time, time to lay the foundation for winning that debate against theocracy. Bush, who takes a stand on terror is much preferable to a man whose ideas and policies are responsible for letting the terrorists gain the advantage.

We must lay the fertilizer for that process toward freedom here in the U.S. and ask the right questions in an uncompromising way. This is the best way to lay the foundation, to ask those questions and point up the contradictions of theocracy. If the Dems made their stands against Bush on this foundation, then I'd support them. But they don't because they don't have any answers. That's because they are tied to the Vietnam and Watergate syndromes and are so intellectually bankrupt that they dare not question Bush on religious grounds for fear of losing one single Christian vote, so cynical are they about the American voter.

Religion and theocracy are the issues I would plan on taking the republicans on about in different venues as many atheists are doing today regarding individual rights. That's a different front and generally it is being fought on constitutional grounds. Atheists are demanding their rights and that will help lay the foundation and put them up squarely against the theocrats like O'Reilly and Gibson and other radicals who need to be confronted intellectually. Bush gives lip service to religion because he thinks Christianity is good, a false view, but he also thinks Christianity recognizes the rights of free speech of others - certainly he is pandering. Although this is mistaken, it clearly reveals his major weakness and his utter anti-intellectualism (publicly). I still think he has the right approach when confronting terrorism. I just wish he'd put more troops on it and try to get the job done - kill Bin Ladin and get on to killing those radicals in Iraq. Every day that we do not confront them, these thugs and Al Queda killers are being made by Al Jazeera and our media into heroes and "freedom fighters" against an "oppressive" occupation. This has to stop.

You see, I think it is a matter of getting the right perspective on where we are. And we are not near freedom yet. Far from it. But we have to participate in the war on terror. That is key and once we win it, we must continue the fight against theocracy...and there is nothing to stop us now from reminding people that theocracy here in the U.S. is the same as theocracy in Muslim countries with all the pitfalls in both places, the hatred of someone different, the willingness to disenfranchise and even destroy people with a different view and the demand that all people think the same and accept god or allah, or else. And, there is an opportunity to expose those pitfalls and teach our nation and the world a lesson about what freedom really means. I wish I could find a presidential candidate that knew it...but I can't so I'll take Bush for now until I can. Posted 4/25/04

Consider also, the war in Iraq has had fewer deaths than any war in history and that means the military is equipped well and trained well...during Vietnam, our hand to hand combat training consisted of 1/2 day and no practice after that. These young men today are professionals and well trained, but in more than just combat. They are ready for all contingencies and that means they are more comfortable in their jobs and more certain they can handle it. And, you don't always go to war when you are in the military. I spent my time in Korea. It wasn't rosy, but I managed to spend a lot of my spare time off base with a beautiful young woman with whom I fell in love. Sometimes you stay in the states or go to places like Germany and the Philippines.

Lots of guys fall in love when they join the military and want to live and work where their new wives are, so they re-enlist if they can stay there (I knew several soldiers like this and was almost one myself) - the military gets to keep a guy that is already trained and the specialist is able to raise his children as Americans in the country of his wife's birth. Don't be surprised by those numbers. It is the media that is wanting to make it look like slavery.

One of the side effects of the Vietnam war and the draft is that it forced racially divided people to mix and associate with people from different backgrounds. From this perspective, it reduced racism in our society when these soldiers re-entered the American workforce. While I was in the military, I learned to like and respect people that were Jewish, Philippine, Native American, Korean and Black to name a few. These relationships helped me feel more comfortable among individuals from these groups when I joined the business world. It truly made me a more "worldly" individual.

I even had the opportunity to go to West Point (I declined). My test scores were high enough that I was invited to obtain a college education at the expense of the military. Had I taken them up on it (I see this in retrospect), I might today be even more talented and fascinating than I am. (lol) But the training I received in radio communication, though for years I thought not relevant, actually gave me an opportunity to survive. I learned a work ethic and a large part of my business career has involved telecommunications. So don't think the military is not a good place to work.

Why do some people join? Well, sometimes it is the best decision once the clearing of the mind takes place, but the military is a clearing of the mind - it does that on purpose. As a manager of people for many years, I have always called it bringing a person to the point of decision. The good manager does it by making the facts clear. I have done it with rebellious types and either gotten them to the realization that the company has certain expectations and as a matter of choice, these are the facts in reality and the reasons for the expectations, I have told them clearly and now that they understand that these are the facts, what are you going to do?

The legal system has a way of doing that but so does reality when it is presented to a young person in clear fundamentals. It is powerful and I find most young people appreciate having been brought to that point because it enabled them to make a life changing decision and showed them what to regard and what to disregard in the making of that decision. But more importantly, it showed them "if I do this," I can expect this result and as a manager I would be the person providing the result - a long term job and the ability to pay one's way for a long time to come. That's what it means to be brought to a point of decision by an adult. It is actually part of being a good parent, also.

However, that is not the same thing as making a life changing decision on one's own. That is an aspect of rationality and the military is a two-edged sword - but they are extremely intelligent about it (the military, that is). They give you clothes, a roof over your head, 3 square meals a day, a little status and in return, all they expect is that you do your best at the job you have selected to perform for the benefit of your nation. That is not exactly like life, it is even better than college - and now they offer additional percs, a professional education, a get things done attitude, and if you want to make it a career, an early retirement, if you choose leadership and are good, a path to the top of a status society, a chance to see the world and be involved in world events. That sounds like a pretty good deal. Is it reality? No, but it clears the mind certainly of a whole host of issues that most people have to consider on a daily basis.

When it comes, if it comes, time to make a decision to do your job or die, you know that you are doing it for a clear purpose and with a clear mind. Believe me, I know because I've been there (Do I sound like Kerry? "I was in Vietnam and I know."), when that time comes, you know what you have to do. So, is this military reality? It can be if you want it to be, but you must know what is expected of you and sometimes what is expected is that you fight to the death and not complain and not ask for laurels if you get a little shrapnel in the arm. You just do your job and hope someday you will see your parents or wife again. If not, "Remember me. I did my job and I might have even shown a little courage too." That is a life decision, my friend, and it is not as hard as you might expect. People do it, not as a sacrifice for us, but because they want to be free and they want their loved ones and children to be free too.

Posted on 4/23/04.

I dare say, we knew as much about what we would do in Europe and Japan before World War II was over as we did in Iraq and it took us years to establish stable sovereign governments in those countries. The liberals among us, as well as the mainstream media, want to hate Bush because they want to hate Bush and are using whatever words they can to express it regardless of the truth and regardless of the facts of history. I find them totally non-credible on the issue of the Iraq war. Expectations of Bush after the fact, created by people that said nothing before the fact, such as he did not have a plan (meaning Bush over Iraq), in my mind, ring hollow.

Many issues are fluid and in this day of government oversight of appropriations, our military is forced to try to do a job on limited funds. Politicians are expert at haggling over expenditures if the person asking for them, the president, happens to be a political opponent. Then they take the lack of funding as an indication of the failure of the political opponent. It is a con game. For the politicians to take a fluid situation, the negative aspects of which they created for political reasons, and call it the failure of Bush, also rings hollow.

FDR did not have to deal with this sort of back seat driving in his day because everyone banded together to win the war first. We should take an example from that. Today, liberals and the mainstream media are accusing Bush of being devious and calculating in planning the war and at the same time accusing him of being incompetent and myopic in planning the war. Which is it? Neither, because, as they did during Watergate, they are digging for and creating scandals everywhere they can for political purposes. They are undermining our effort to win the war in order to win an election - after which they will swiftly attack any criticism of their handling of the war - if they don't decide to cut and run like cowards, leaving the world to the bombers and terrorists while our influence and safety diminish.

I believe we have two syndromes that make us (the liberals among us) our own worst enemies. The Vietnam syndrome makes us believe that any war we get into is an unjust war (also known as the '60s radical left now control the government syndrome), and the Watergate syndrome that makes us (the liberals among us) believe that if we keep digging and making vague public charges without facts, we will find a scandal to create (also known as the Bob Woodward syndrome).

In the meantime, the terrorists and Al Jazeera are using the liberals to help demoralize our military, comprised of young Americans who are being killed because the killers think we are a "paper tiger" like Bin Ladin said. The liberals and the mainstream media are the paper in the tiger. We must understand that this struggle is for our freedom and survival. To attempt to take political advantage in the middle of a war is to help the enemy and to contribute to a loss of the war. This war should be hands off politically and should be supported by every American that wants a future for his children, that wants freedom for his loved ones, that wants an education for his daughters, not a Burqa. As much as I disagree with Bush on many issues, I find him to offer the only chance we have of protecting our futures. Posted 4/23/04

Liberals should stop war criticism.

I think that liberals in the U.S., who are making the war in Iraq a political issue, should stop criticizing the war effort and say "hands off" the war on terrorism. More than any other group, the liberals are causing radicals in other countries to heighten their bombing attacks and criticism, because those radicals now see a chance to use our political election to create a collapse of our war effort. George Bush is their worst nightmare and the liberals, because they criticize Bush, are seen by these radicals as more eager to pull out rather than fight. That may or may not be true, but it is the hope of these radicals to weaken and divide us. If we can defeat ourselves, then their job is easier.

Consider, that when we decide as a nation to go to war, all citizens should support the war effort until the war is over, until we and our soldiers are out of harm's way. Then we can haggle over what was done right and wrong. After 911, a vast majority of Americans realized that we had been attacked by an enemy that wants to kill us and our way of life. We knew then that we were in a war and that we needed to fight in order to survive as a people and as a free nation. To criticize now, while that war still rages, only emboldens our enemies and gives them the idea that they can defeat us politically by killing more of us in the war zone.

Consider, the investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack took place after the war to defeat the Japanese was over. During the war, Americans all over the country were working hard to strengthen and support our war effort. Where is that now?

Today, we can defeat the enemy by getting behind the war strategy as expressed by George Bush. Take the war to the enemy where he lives and trains - and destroy him, strengthen our CIA and don't hamper effective investigative methods designed to stop terrorists before they bomb us, get the governments that harbor terrorism and either make them change politically or force them to change, develop a strategic missile defense system so that we need not fear madmen with nuclear technology. The result will be a world we can live in peacefully. Don't you want that? Or would you rather have Al Queda to worry about for the next 50 years while our nation declines?

Americans, this is a war for our survival. The enemy in this war is not some jungle guerilla but a sinister group of well trained murderers living all over the world whose only goal is to destroy our nation, our way of life and the futures of our children. They want to kill us. Do you really want to contribute to the victory of that enemy by showing weakness, division and distrust of our leader in that war?

There is only one way to describe the utterly despicable and disrespectful attitudes that liberal politicians and news commentators are displaying towards President Bush in the national media. These are the same leaders that did much to spin away the irresponsible acts and attitudes of former president Clinton. Now they lie about, defame, misrepresent and slander a man that has presented himself in a respectful manner to them and to the American people, a man that has the best interests of the U.S. citizen at heart. The single word that best describes these vitriolic liberals is "Nazi-like."

I don't agree with everything President Bush has done and I support very little of the policies he holds toward domestic programs and government spending, but I do believe he is an honest man doing the best he can in a very difficult time. He is, in fact, very Lincolnesque and principled among this onslaught of hatred that is being directed toward him. He does not deserve the despotic attitudes with which he is being assaulted by people that are obviously hoping that if they attack enough, lie enough, misrepresent enough and slander enough, someone will believe there is something truly wrong. In fact, the liberals are only showing how bankrupt they are in the area of political ideas. (2-9-2004)

My poem, "The Answer," is intended to express the joy of experience. I do not seek myself in the sense of trying to "find" out who I am. Throughout the poem, I learned the value and joy of seeking experience as an answer to the question, "What do I seek?" I seek myself in the sense of enjoying life and experiencing happiness. In this context, I would say that I "found" myself the day I was born and I seek joy and experience as a way of discovering the wonders possible to a being that possesses the ability to reason and to decide what is important. Yet, I believe that one must have an ego and enjoy the experience of being separate and individual. The words, "I seek myself" are not intended as an ego statement - though it is very egoistic to say it. It is merely taken for granted that I value myself in asking the question, "What do I seek?" Copyright 2003 Added 6/20/03

What was the first human thought? Of what was the first awareness aware? Is there an archaeology of the human mind, a method for identifying how man developed a human, awareness, one that understood and was able to communicate the significance for life of entities encountered in nature? Copyright 2003 from a work in progress. Added 6/1/03

In mythology, when the light-bearer, Prometheus, succeeded in bringing light to mankind, the response of Zeus was anger and vengeance. Prometheus was thrown back down to earth and then punished mercilessly. Thereafter, Prometheus became the symbol or paradigm for a crucial lesson for man: don�t attempt to be as good as the gods or else you will be punished forever. The battle against the individual by the collective was begun and man became the neglected pawn whose role was to do as told. Weapons of war became the technology of the day, the means for the imposition of �god�s vengeance� against the collective�s enemies and those who would act as they wanted. Envy was let loose. The only question was: who was god�s representative?

Many men today merely possess the capacity for reason, operating instead upon a foundation of ancient cultural paradigms, thinking and acting, like ritualized automatons, solely on the basis of these paradigms rather than logic, depending for survival upon the reason and logicality of economic �organizers� and corporate managers while at the same time engaged in a battle to exploit and destroy the very men upon whom their survival depends. In effect, they operate upon principles they barely understand, the sources of which are lost in prehistory, the solutions to which they have barely considered�since they are not aware that there are problems with their modes of thinking. What has created this situation? Why are most men ritualized and controlled, not by reason, but by cultural paradigms?

As an ardent reader and lover of Romantic literature, I had never thought that reading a book about education could excite me to any degree. For this reason, I had put off my educational reading requirements for many years. Recently, however, I blew the dust off one of those books and discovered one of the most interesting reading experiences of my life. Dr. Maria Montessori�s book, THE ABSORBENT MIND, is a classic of educational literature. Indeed, it may well be the most comprehensive exposition of child psychology ever written.

For years, Dr. Montessori crusaded for her educational techniques, while the world clashed in bloody war (World War II and the decades before). She worked against great odds to convince the world that her educational principles provided the means by which the world might eliminate its gross problems. In fact, Dr. Montessori�s system was breeding individuals of such quality and self-confidence that they never required violence in order to solve their problems. While the adults murdered, the children she taught loved.

What are we doing to each other? What is behind the inhumanity and cruelty, the violent and non-violent warfare we wage against each other? Why is the individual being attacked by group after group that tries to convince him of their views and of just how much of his soul and money he should give to them and their goals? What are the causes of crime and institutional theft that pit beneficiary against provider? My theory is that some men simply cannot stand to see the successful state of human existence. --Work in Progress 12/1/2000

We live in this world with others. We come into this world because of the actions and support of our parents. As infants, we need the sustenance and nurturing given by others. We are aided or restricted in our development by other people. We go to school with others our age and we live our lives working for and with others. This is a world of people and the developing individual must understand his/her "place" within this world in order to know peace of mind and happiness. How it is done, and how to develop individuality within this collective illusion, is one of the mysteries of human existence and the quest that has consumed mankind through centuries, nations, empires and governments. --Work in Progress 11/27/2000

Here’s the spin tactic: Create an issue in advance of the election that you will put into play if you lose the election. Use this issue: “we must count every vote” to leverage your vote count by demanding a recount only in counties that are heavily in your favor. Use this advantage to obtain additional votes, all the time, claiming that you are looking for the voice of the people who have been disenfranchised. Then steal the election and cry that you are standing for “the rule of law” and ”fundamental American principles.” What you are trying to do, of course, is use spin to gain the political advantage and the presidency.

Fortunately, not everyone is as cynical as you and not everyone is fooled by flimflam. -- Commentary 11/26/2000

The real issue behind the Election recounts, and all the messy stuff going on in my old home town (West Palm Beach area), is the issue of who will be able to take over Clinton’s true legacy, Bush’s boys or Clinton’s boys. What is that legacy? The progress made in deceiving the public about the constitution we are losing piecemeal—the progress made by Clinton’s spin machine.

I dare say that Clinton’s boys, who want to prepare the ground for government control over everything, are the best at getting what they want. They will use any tactic to win—any tactic. If they win, it would amount to a coup every bit as bad as Milosevic’s efforts to stay in power. If Bush wins, much depends on his integrity and honesty. If he has these, we might be able to stem the tide of dictatorship. If he is just another politician, it won’t make any difference. –Commentary 11/24/2000

See below for a selection of my works available for sale:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------