It’s been nearly 20 years since the first publication of “Disturbing the Peace”, Karel Hvizdala’s transcription of written correspondence with Vaclav Havel from 1985-86. With Havel recently announcing that he has commenced work on an autobiography, it’s an interesting exercise to view how Havel represents himself, his work and his politics before the tumultuous events of the Velvet Revolution in 1989.

Quite a lot of political water has passed under the Charles Bridge in Prague during this time and in his new book Havel will hopefully examine his legacy and impact as the first President of the Czech Republic in some detail. One interesting outcome of this will be how his views and opinions have changed or solidified since the mid 1980’s.

His interview with Hvizdala was carried out at a time when the U.S.S.R was still intact (albeit with the budding prospects of ‘Glasnost’ and ‘Perestroika’) and Czechoslovakia was a highly regulated communist state.

In “Disturbing the Peace” Havel is at the peak of his political dissidence and gives an honest and bold account of his life.

He fondly recalls him time learning how to write for the theatre and gives excellent insight and advice on writing in general. Regarded by many as one of the great post war playwrights in Europe, he also elaborates on his penchant for absurdist theatre and begins to define how his plays differentiate or contrast with the work of Beckett and Brecht.

Havel is candid when discussing his politics, philosophies and imprisonment in the 1970’s and 80’s. It must be remembered that this book was published in the West at a time when he was still under threat of further imprisonment and this in fact did happen a few years later.

Reading “Disturbing the Peace” also highlights one of the major ironies of his public life. He became much more guarded in his political approach once he took on the office of President. A one time lightning rod for democratic change, Havel was faced in 1989 with the same realities that most western democratic leaders face – how to manage the economy and build infrastructure whilst balancing civil rights and other democratic principles.

Havel stood down as president in 2003 and has spent much time since championing democratic causes in Cuba, the Ukraine and Burma. If nothing else, “Disturbing the Peace” is a reminder of what Havel is capable of saying and achieving and this kind of voice never goes out of fashion.

This book is a #1 New York Times Best Seller for a reason.

I’ve read several of the previous books by Bill O’Reilly including: The No Spin Zone, Who’s Looking Out For You, The O’Reilly Factor For Kids (I’m still a kid at heart), Culture Warrior and A Bold Fresh Piece Of Humanity. I even read O’Reilly’s only novel — Those Who Trespass: A Novel of Television and Murder. And I watch the O’Reilly Factor almost every weekday night, either at 8pm, or the repeat showing at 11pm.

So you could say I like the guy a little bit. O’Reilly is a lot like me; a right of middle person, not influenced by the pinheads who populate the far left, or the far right ends of the political spectrum. Certainly he’s not as far right as the man whose show follows his, Sean Hannity, who never gives the Democrats, or liberals even one tiny accolade, no matter how exemplary their actions may be.

In his No Spin Zone, O’Reilly tells it like it is, and woe to his guest who doesn’t answer the question he asks and goes off on a tangent, or inane talking point. I had drill sergeants in boot camp less intimidating than O’Reilly when he’s hot. Just ask Barney Frank, who O’Reilly filleted from throat to sternum, then down his flabby back.

Every evening, O’Reilly ends his show with a segment called Pinheads and Patriots. Some nights a person who had been a Pinhead in the past, now does something that elevates them to Patriot status. And vice versa.

O’Reilly begins “Pinheads and Patriots” with the definition of a pinhead by A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. “Pinhead – a simple fellow, a fool. So small a head contain but few brains.”

Then he follows with the Urban Dictionary’s version. “One who lacks the intelligence of the ‘normal’ sector of the human population; one who cannot handle the most mundane tasks due to lack of common sense and intelligence.”

Then he names names.

Patriot — The late Tony Snow, who was a Fox News anchor, then later chief spokesman for the Bush White House. Snow died after a two-year battle with cancer. O’Reilly wrote, “Tony Snow is the bravest man I ever met.” He explains why.

Pinhead — Democratic Congressman Barney Frank, who O’Reilly lambastes under the heading “The Cowardly Lion.” Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services committee, more than anyone else was responsible for the present mortgage crisis. Frank oversaw the disaster of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and even said months before the collapse that things were fine and dandy with those two mortgage giants. Yet when he appeared on the O’Reilly Factor, Frank refused to accept even one iota of blame. He said he was a “victim of economic chaos.” Pinhead for sure.

Since President Obama is on the cover facing O’Reilly, you’d think O’Reilly had him lined up for Pinhead-dom. Not true. O’Reilly points out several instances where Obama was a true Patriot. He cites the time at a Town Hall meeting on Father’s Day, when Obama said to men who father children and leave them: “Just because your father wasn’t there for you, that’s not an excuse for you to be absent, also – it is all the more reason for you to be present. You have an obligation to break the cycle and learn from those mistakes, and to rise up where your own fathers fell short and to do better than they did with your own children.”

Truly the words of a Patriot.

Before the Presidential election, Obama shunned any interview with Fox News, except with one person — Bill O’Reilly. In “Pinheads and Patriots,” O’Reilly gives us the complete transcript of his interview with Obama, which lasted about 30 minutes. Then at intervals, he explains how things Obama said in the interview either panned out, or didn’t pan out for the President. He also takes Obama to task for not admitting he was wrong about the surge in Iraq. Obama admits in the interview that the surge worked, but stops short of giving then President Bush any credit at all.

The back and forth went like this:

Obama: What I have said is – I have already said it’s (the surge) has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

O’Reilly: Right, so why can’t you just say, “I was wrong about the surge?”

Obama hems and haws, but never once did he say “I was wrong.” And as we have found out in the 21 months of his Presidency, he may be incapable of saying he was wrong about anything, except maybe about the White Sox winning the World Series.

One of the best chapters in the book is entitled, “My All-Time Favorite P& Ps.” Without me giving away who’s-who and what’s-what, O’Reilly gives his opinion on, amongst others, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, U.S. Grant, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Robert Kennedy, both Bush’s, Cesar Chavez. John Edwards, Madonna, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison and George Soros. Some of his conclusions may surprise you.

On O’Reilly’s website, the book sells for $27.95, but he throws in a nifty “Pinheads and Patriots” tote bag. I got mine at Amazon.com for less than 16 bucks, and because I have Amazon Prime, I got free shipping (but no tote bag).

“Pinheads and Patriots” is must reading for any O’Reilly fan. And even people who are not too crazy about O’Reilly, should enjoy reading this even-handed book too.

Unless you’re a Pinhead. Then there’s nothing I can do for you anyway.

When a Presidential candidate, any Presidential candidate, campaigns and makes promises to those U.S. citizens of the national electorate who support him, or her, and end-up voting for that candidate, those voters expect that person to make good on those campaign promises. Currently, Donald J. Trump is floundering terribly during his first year as U.S. President in fulfilling the promises he made to the Republican, Tea Party, and independent voters who upset the 2017 Presidential Election by electing him; and by keeping a corrupt Democrat from being elected. Those voters are also the ones who elected a majority of Republicans into the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Trump’s very descriptive language that he has used in describing what he intended to do as U.S. President and Chief Executive in order to eliminate the federal status quo in Washington, DC, such as “drain the swamp,” and “rid the republic of the political swamp creatures (illicit politician)” who have corrupted the federal government, excited those voters who placed him into office. These hard-working rank-and-file patriots have looked forward to a dynamic shifting of Constitutional power back to the States, in accordance with the 10th Amendment, from an abusive and regulatory federal government. Yet, this vision of a severe reduction of federal power and regulation has not been realized since Trump took office, and the President’s promises to end illegal immigration, to build a Southern border wall, to end DACA, and the many other priorities set during his campaign, which are of paramount concern to Republican and Tea Party voters, have not been kept.

Mr. Trump needs to fully realize that what he was given by concerned Republican, Tea Party, and independent voters was not only a 2017 win as U.S. President, but also, and much more importantly, a mandate to keep his promises. That is, Trump needs to realize the salient and perilous fact that, if he wants to be reelected to a second term as President, and continue to enjoy the support of a Republican controlled Congress, he’s going to have to change the way he’s doing things. Currently, as of Friday, March 23, 2018, President Trump needs to understand that he will definitely lose the support of those Republican, Tea Party, and independent voters who elected him in 2017 if he signs into law the $1.3 trillion spending bill that has been passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate. But that’s not all he will lose! His signing of this bill into law will allow the liberal opposing minority party to get everything it wants, which will be inexorably detrimental to the republic. Above all, signing of this bill will diminish the support of those many Trump voters in a Republican congress and assure the retaking by the Democrats of a majority status in the House and the Senate during the mid-term elections.

Mr. Trump desperately needs to learn from, and heed, the history of the splendid lesson set by the great President Andrew Jackson during the time he served two presidential terms, from 1829 to 1837. The significant lesson that Jackson provided to future presidential candidates, through his deportment as President, was, “keep your campaign promises.” I have compared Donald Trump to Andrew Jackson in their bids, during different centuries, for the Presidency and the winning of the confidence of the common voter, and there are numerous similarities. The comparison set forth one very important similarity, which was Trump’s independent voice calling for change during his campaign. Andrew Jackson campaigned primarily on the evil of the Bank of the United States, the forerunner to the Federal Reserve Act, and Trump campaigned on the evils of illegal immigration, DACA, and unconstitutional federal regulatory power. Jackson’s campaign promises to de-charter, and end, the Bank of the United States made sense to the voters in 1829, and Trump’s vow to end illegal immigration by building a wall, by ending DACA, and the draining of the federal swamp, or Washington, DC, made great sense to many more voters in 2017, Republicans, Democrats, the Tea Party, and independents. By keeping his campaign promises, Andrew Jackson won reelection in 1833, and Mr. Trump must realize that he was elected to do the job that he represented, during his campaign, he was going to do. The President needs to stop trying to entertain his constituency with his colorful bargaining motif and his television savvy. He needs, rather, to get serious about doing what he was elected to do, and remember that he’s in a dirty swamp that drastically needs to be drained, and its creatures eliminated, not Las Vegas, and that he’s the President, and not Wayne Newton.

Our national debt has hit an all time high at $14.3 trillion, an amount that can no longer be ignored. Every year, Congress spends more money than they money brought in as income, which leads to a deficit in our national budget. To cover expenses and the spending habits of Congress, money is borrowed and the total national debt is increased. To make matters worse, as the national debt increases the interest on the borrowed money begins adding to the total debt balance, pushing the nation further into financial hardship.

Each day, members of different political parties are lining up to fight for their proposed plan to manage the national debt. Republicans blame overspending on social programs such as Medicare and Social Security, while Democrats believe that under-taxation is to blame for the nation’s financial woes. It’s clear that Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on the best long-term strategy for alleviating the national debt, but members of both parties are apprehensive about raising the debt ceiling. Despite clear party lines, problems with taxation and federal spending are issues both sides are working to resolve. The economy will suffer greatly if no agreement can be reached about how to increase the federal income and how to balance the federal budget. Continuing on the current financial path is not an option that either political party is considering.

Can we fix it?

Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you stand on, some of the proposed ideas could leave all Americans paying for more and getting less in return. The idea of a National Sales Tax, has people of all income brackets fuming. The economy is fueled by consumer spending, so how would a “tax on consumption” be beneficial? The national debt may reduce slightly, over long periods of time, but consumer spending would slow and the number of people who need to receive government assistance for essential items may increase as a result. This idea appears to be a double-edged sword. Along the same lines, eliminating or capping deductions for donations to charities may backfire and result in fewer contributions and an increased need for funding from the government. Reducing benefits for veterans or Social Security benefits may appear as viable options, but how will our respected elders pay for essential living items, and possibly the added national sales tax, when they earn so little each month?

The national debt is a government problem, brought about by years of inadequate budgeting and overspending. It is unreasonable to assume that the debt crisis can be fixed by imposing more restrictions and additional requirements to the citizens of America. It is also unlikely that without such measures, our national debt will be reduced to a manageable state. The compromise may be found in some realistic cut-backs and sensible added requirements we, as a nation, can overcome this financial collapse into debt.

Parenting is something that usually comes naturally to people. There are no hard fast how to manuals or rules to parenting. People generally just learn as they go. Most things are just second nature, like feeding, clothing and generally caring for a child. However, as a child grows and other children are born, parenting becomes more then simply handling the child’s everyday needs. Sometimes parents feel they need some help in deciding the best way to parent their children.

There have been many people who have spoken out about parenting and offered advice and assistance to parents in need. Parenting styles are an example of something a parent can do to help them with their parenting. A parenting style is basically a way to describe how a parent parents their child or children. There are 3 basic types of parenting styles.

Some authorities on the subject of parenting will argue that there are many different variations of parenting styles, but they all go back to the three basic parenting styles. Those three styles are authoritarian, permissive and democratic.

The authoritarian parenting style is based on control. With this style of parenting the parent retains complete control at all times. Under this style of parenting there are strict rules and schedules. The parents rule the children with an iron fist. There is no exception to the rules and punishment is given in a very orderly and prompt fashion when it is needed. The down side to an authoritarian parenting style is that it usually does not allow for a lot of affection or warmth. Since children raised with this parenting style are usually not allowed to think freely or make decisions on their own they often grow up to have problems with thinking for themselves.

The permissive parenting style is the opposite of the authoritarian parenting style. The permissive parent lets the child have control. There are usually not a lot of rules and the rules that are made are often very lax. Broken rules often are not even recognized or even enforced. Parents that use this parenting style feel that their children need to be free thinkers and be able to explore the world and learn for themselves without being held down by rules and strict structure. There is often a lot of affection and warmth with this parenting styles. The downside though, is that children do not learn that rules are sometimes necessary. They learn that no matter what they do – right or wrong- that they will not be punished. This can lead to a life long rebellion against any type of rule or structure.

The democratic parenting style is a mixture of the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles. A democratic parent will set rules that are necessary and enforce them, but they will also take each situation as it comes. Punishment is usually discussed with the child. Democratic parents are most interested in making sure their children understands why rules are in place and why some behavior in unacceptable. Democratic parenting is about letting children know when they do good and when they do bad making sure they understand why it is wrong. It is a style of parenting where everyone – parents and children- work together. Children will usually grow up to respect their parents and to be able to handle conflicts and problems in a reasonable manner.

Each parenting style has its pros and cons. Obviously, with the authoritarian parenting style the children are going to be very respectful and very well behaved. The parents will have very little chaos and they will have a low stress level. With the permissive parenting style the parent is free to do whatever they want because they are not constantly policing the children. The family simply does their own thing, which can often lead to a lot of separation over time as everyone develops their own life apart form the family. The democratic parent in style requires a lot of work. Parents must constantly be talking with and dealing with their children in order to keep everyone involved in the family.

Nobody ever claimed parenting was easy. There really is no right or wrong to parent as long as children are cared for, happy and healthy. Parents can choose for themselves how they want to parent their children. Some parents simply fall into a parenting style that seems to fit their own life and their own beliefs. Others make a conscious effort to maintain a parenting style. However, a parent chooses their parent style, it is fine as long as it works for them and their children are taken care of.

Although, many people, complain about the attitude, performance, behavior, rhetoric, and direction/ actions, of Donald Trump, as President, many of them, should take an objective, introspective, look, at themselves, and realize, while there were many reasons, he was elected in 2016, some of the prominent ones, include: voter apathy (less than half of eligible voters, voted); pouting because the Democratic candidate was not their, first choice; and, a degree of being, unrealistic, about what is probable, in terms of achieving, what it requires, and why, historically, a degree of compromise is needed, to reach a needed, meeting – of – the – minds, for the common good (or greater good). With that in mind, this article will attempt to, briefly, consider, examine, review, and discuss, 5 reasons, pragmatic idealism, makes sense.

1. Often, won’t get passed/ approved: There’s a need, to seek, common ground, or, partisan politics, will interfere with getting things done. After all, if any idea, goal, etc, isn’t passed, and/ or, approved, it will achieve little. Doesn’t it make sense, to go, step – by – step, in a quest for something more ideal.

2. Greatest idea, without implementation, achieves little: Even the best, most essential, logical idea, if it isn’t implemented, achieves little! We need leadership, which is willing, to speak to others, reach out, across the aisle, and put policy, the nation, and the greater good, ahead of partisan politics, etc!

3. Political realities: Anyone, watching the recent, Democratic candidate debates, probably, observed, quite a bit of quibbling about specific details, when they would be better served, by articulating broader strokes, which focused on the so – called, bread – and – butter, issues, including jobs, the overall economy, alternatives (more humane) towards immigration policies, environmental/ Climate Change concerns, etc. When they focus on how idealistically – pure, they are, and the commitment to, Medicare for All, for example, they ignore the reality, which is, unless the Democrats take over control of both houses of Congress, as well as the Presidency, in 2020, they are, walking – the – plank! While many agree, universal health care, should be a right, the discussion should focus on the concept, and a way, to balance, what is, with what can be approved! This, also refers to, addressing the dangers of Climate Change, in a unifying manner, as opposed to a divisive one!

4. Motivating and inspiring the public: If change, for the better, is the objective, the emphasis must be, on a common sense, approach, which is, both, motivating and inspiring, to the public! The finest way, to get things done, is, to involve, the public, and have them, demand better, from their elected officials!

5. Bringing factions together: President Donald Trump, seems to have perfected, the politics of polarization, dividing the nation, and appealing to his core supporters, using empty promises, rhetoric and vitriol, and, appearing to deny, concepts and realities, such as Climate Change, and protecting the environment!

What good, is being idealistic, unless/ until, it one gets something done, to address the need? This requires, a willingness, to be somewhat pragmatic, in order to achieve, worthwhile objectives, rather than merely talking about them!

As I write this the Democratic Senators are staging a sit in to bring about a filibuster in the seat of government in the United States while they demand a vote on the gun laws. It is a situation that has created a storm because right now a terrorist or suspected terrorist who cannot fly for that reason can still legally buy guns and carry out mass shootings. The recent slaughter of 49 people in the Orlando nightclub massacre has finally brought this issue to a head.

In Australia the last and worst massacre happened 20 years ago with the death of 35 people at Port Arthur, in Hobart. The Prime Minister acted instantly to ban semi-automatic weapons and to change the gun-laws. He recalled parliament to pass a law that only those with a need to own a gun or who are members of a registered gun club can legally own guns of any type while it is illegal for others to have one in their possession.

He organised a huge buy-back and weapons were handed and destroyed while people were compensated. This has prevented anything of the nature of a mass murder taking place. There was no hesitation as this country has not had the love of weapons that the American appear to enjoy.

While the residents of the United States appear to support the Second Amendment it is surely outdated as the situation has changed remarkably from the days of the pioneers and Indian uprisings. The number of people killed by guns in the United States is appalling and the rest of the world wonders at the refusal of some in power to allow legislation such as the Democrats are demanding by their action.

Isn’t it time that gun laws must change in the United States for sanity to prevail and for the safety of its citizens?

For, what seems, to many, to be, nearly, forever, many have felt, President Donald Trump, both, in the run – up/ campaign, in 2016, as well as his actions, since, should be examined closely, in order to discover, whether, high crimes, and misdemeanors, have been committed, and, whether, that means, there is a need, to use, the sole remedy, provided by the United States Constitution! At the very least, we should all agree, what we have been witnessing, isn’t normal, and, polls indicate, with the exception of the approximately 35%, which identify, as his core supporters, the level of rhetoric/ vitriol, denying Climate Change, and pitting the wealthiest, and others, against, each other, may not be, in the relevant, sustainable, long – term interests of the nation, and the world. However, the President, and his supporters, state, this process, is simply based on politics, and, there is no cause for impeachment. The Democrats, largely, after, a combination of many interviews, with witnesses, the Mueller Investigation, and the response of Trump, in terms of restricting access to documents, ignoring subpoenas, etc, are convinced, he deserves, to be impeached! With that in mind, this article will attempt to, briefly, consider, examine, review, and discuss, some relevant issues, in terms of, whether this is a necessary response, or, merely, a political one.

1. Mueller Report: Few Americans have carefully, read, and examined, the entire Mueller Report. Because of that, the President’s early proclamation of, No collusion, no obstruction, as well as Attorney General Barr’s summary, before release of the redacted version, separated most Americans into two forces, those who believe in Trump, and those, who believe, he is unfit for the position! In fact, because of the way, much of this, was handled, some wonder, What is he hiding, and why? Doesn’t it make sense, an innocent person, would try to cooperate, fully, to prove, his innocence? Rather, that is not, what we’ve witnessed, and, Mr. Mueller stated, even though, he is not making a recommendation (predominantly, because, a DOJ policy, states, a sitting President can’t be indicted), he referred to the remedies, included in the Constitution, thus, passing – the – buck, to the Congress. Unfortunately, the degree of polarization, and partisan politics, we witness, today, translates to little, being accomplished, in a well – considered, timely manner.

2. Ukraine: While the President and his supporters, state, there was nothing wrong with the phone call (the version in the transcript, the White House, provided), the investigation, seems to indicate, based on the 17 witnesses, there was a great degree of potentially, illegal activities. Blaming the whistleblower, and demanding to see and witness, this individual (although, he is protected by Federal Law, and precedent), and concentrating on the process (although it was, largely, the one, the Republicans, created, 20 years ago), we observed, not a single supporter, defending Trump’s behavior, rhetoric, actions, etc, but declaring, it was a perfect call.

3. Emoluments: Although, this was not, one of the areas, cited, emoluments, is cited, by our Founding Fathers, as a clear and present danger! Whether it is his family’s apparent, business conflicts, or his use of his hotel properties, and charging it, to taxpayers, we have witnessed, many apparent violations, of the public trust!

Wake up, America, because this isn’t normal, in a healthy way, either from the perspective of current needs of the common good, or relevant, sustainable planning, and actions! Although, impeaching a President is a very serious matter, and one, which is not desirable, polls indicate, most Americans believe, Mr. Trump has violated the public trust!

The democratic principle that I selected is that all men are created equal. The equality of all men, and women, is important in a democratic environment in the workplace. This statement is to say that all people, no matter what race, religion, background, geographic region, are created equal as in the same. People are all born with a lot of similarities. The standard for most are humans are two eyes, a nose, a brain, hands, arms, legs, and a mouth. We all are taught from birth the thoughts and beliefs from those around us. We are influenced by the people who are surrounded around us, and what those people teach us are some of the influences that we may have within us.

Diversity in the workplace helps to brings about a numerous amount of great ideas, change, and values for people with differences in opinions and cultures. It is healthy to have diversity in the workplace. Without diversity, we would not have many of the foods that one eats today. Imagine the United States without hot dogs, hamburgers, Chinese food, and a host of other foods that were brought over to this country from other countries and cultures. A variety of cultures and diversity also brings about different ideas in the workplace.

The United States benefited from bringing diversity in the workplace by bringing in Germans who were able to help to build a bomb that would change the world and end a war. It was the atomic bomb. Many of our products today came from ideas from people who are not from this country, as most of our ancestors are not from this country. Having diversity brings about democratic principles that deal with ethics, value, and the equality of people. Without it, our country would be a country that many want to come to and become citizens.

Diversity in the work place means having people of different cultures, backgrounds, age, religions, etc., to come together and work together in the workplace. Without diversity, an organization may or may not be open to new ideas and change. Some organizations have had a hard time adapting to diversity in the workplace and had to aggressively promote and have their human resources department to aggressively seek out people of diverse backgrounds for their organization. I had worked for an organization who had sought people of diverse backgrounds to join their organization. This company brought in people for the base of the organization, but most of the managers, and all of the executives and top management were not from diverse cultures. The organization struggled in this area and admitted to the faults of the organization with not promoting people of different backgrounds and ethnic groups to positions of power. As shocking as this may seem, this is an ongoing issue in some organizations, including some of the largest ones.

Adding diverse cultures and races to an organization can attract better workers of different cultures and races. This helps to generate new ideas and help an organization to grow vertical and horizontal. This can be helpful in a global market. For instance if someone is selling to a person in a country and they do not know the culture and do not speak the language, it may be more challenging to make the sale. But if you have people in your organization who understand the language and the culture, they can bridge the gap and make more business for the organization. Smart organizations look to expand and broaden diversity within the organization. It is a long-term investment that can benefit the workers and the organization.