Showing posts with label Allan B. Colombo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Allan B. Colombo. Show all posts

Monday, March 25, 2019

Some Insights Into Who I Am, Really

Do any of us truly know who we are? I think not.
But here's some additional info on who Al Colombo is.

image of a penny with 'In God We Trust' My name is Al Colombo and I'm officially a trade journalist and copywriter in the physical security and life safety markets. This WebLog, however, has very little to do with security.

What it has more to do with is a hidden life led right under the noses of many professional colleagues, some of which may have suspected that there was something different about me but could never quite put a finger on it.

I did, however, reveal myself to a select few along the way. Those individuals definitely knew there was something different. Many of them were converted into believers while others probably shook their heads and never looked back. Either way, I'm good, as I've come to realize that this stuff is not for everyone. Some of us simply prefer to live our lives oblivious to the details. Not I! I need to know as it's in my nature.

Because you'll learn enough about me by way of my writings on this blog, I'll proceed by telling you about my public life. I own a digital promotional company based in Ohio called Thunder Promotions (TpromoCom). I've owned and operated it in parallel with my writing career since 1995. One of my passions is website design, and it will continue to be into the future.

As a writer, I began writing technical copy for technical magazines in 1986 and I've been writing in print and online publications ever since. I officially retired in 2015, and now I work full time on my own business.

To read the rest of the story, I've included the above plus some additional personal information. For those of you who have known me for years, this additional information will actually fill in a few gaps where it comes to specific incidents in my life where I seemed to have foreknowledge.

For others whom I have counseled as a close friend (as you have I), it will explain the reason why you often tell others things like, "he's always been ahead of the curve," or "he's been right 90 percent of the time," where it came to my insights regarding the path you should take. I'll leave it at that, but part 3 of the OBE story is yet to come. I will write when the time is right.

--Al Colombo

For the serious researcher:

Copyright©2019/Allan B. Colombo /
(Permission is given to republish blog posts providing
my contact information and copyright notice are included.)


Be sure not to miss each and every blog comment by subscribing to my email service. Every time I publish a comment or an update, you will be the first to know. To sign up, enter your email address in the email subscription box on the top right of this page. Thank you!
Where and how to follow Al Colombo via TpromoCom:

To contact Al Colombo, click here.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

US to Pull Out of ICANN

Recent news reports concerning ICANN has
caused concerns among Internet-free activists.

According to Wall Street Journal technology reporter Gauthem Nagesh, the Obama administration’s move to divorce the United States from ICAN oversight is, in part, related to the damning revelations resulting from the Edward Snowden NSA disclosures.

“The U.S. position and that of its allies is that the Internet should be free and open and the government shouldn't interfere with it. That position has been undermined by the wrath of disclosures regarding surveillance from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. And China and Russia, who have always pushed for a more hands-on, top-down approach to the Internet that some people would label as censorship. Well, that approach has gained traction because while the U.S. has been loudly decrying this, they've also been doing a lot of stuff that people don't feel corresponds with the idea of Internet freedom,” says Nagesh (

In an editorial penned 28 DEC 2003 (, I voiced concern at that time regarding the issue of Internet freedom. The recent move by the Obama administration to divorce the US from their current oversight role should give us all concern, especially now.

Why is it so important for the Internet to remain truly free? Because there are governments, organizations, and Elitists who want to regulate it in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes, none of which are good. Although at some point in our nation’s history I would argue that the withdrawal of our government oversight is bad for a free and independent Internet, I’m not so sure that this applies today. This is because there are those in our own government who would have more regulation and government control.

Some of the ways that more control can harm us includes:

  • Censorship of the press
  • Intelligence gathering programs on individuals and organizations
  • Elimination of domain name use by individuals and organizations who dare to speak out against certain individuals in government and elsewhere in society
  • Harassment by government hacks
  • and others

One of the fears that this writer has, with regards to the withdrawal of U.S. oversight, is that socialistic and communistic nations, such as Russia and China, will eventually wrangle control of ICANN. There are many news accounts over the past few years regarding China’s effort to censor what the Chinese people read on the Internet.

One of the foremost examples involves Google Search. “Every big American Internet company is angling for the same thing, more or less: global domination. But the one country where they have the most potential for growth also has some of the most entrenched competition and thorniest human rights issues. The battle for China’s 618 million Internet users is fraught with moral and logistical problems that have sent Twitter, Facebook and Google all packing in recent years. Now LinkedIn is making an aggressive play to enter the People’s Republic, but questions remain about just what kind of sacrifices the company will have to make to please the country’s government,” says Victor Luckerson (@VLuck,

There is no crystal ball that will allow us to peer into the future-a future without the U.S. in a watchdog position in ICANN. But if the United Nations can be held up as an example of what can and will happen once this divorce is final, then we already know the answer to our concerns. -30-

About the Author:
Allan B. Colombo is a trade journalist and technical writer in the life-safety and physical security markets. His work in this venue over the past 28 years is well known across the globe. Colombo also is the publisher and administrator of www.GiantKilles.Org from 1995 through 2005. For more information, go to To contact him, call 330-956-9003 or email him at

For personal security information and products,

Copyright©2014/Allan B. Colombo /
(Permission is given to republish blog posts providing
my contact information and copyright notice are included.)


Be sure not to miss each and every blog comment by subscribing to my email service. Every time I publish a comment or an update, you will be the first to know. To sign up, enter your email address in the email subscription box on the top right of this page. Thank you! To contact Al Colombo, click here.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Book Review: Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson

On November 15, 2013, I finished Walter Isaacson's book, Steve Jobs, founder, chairman, and former CEO of Apple Inc. What an awesome book, published in 2011 before Job’s death.

All I can say is “What a life. What a man.”

Isaacson’s book speaks loudly to me. It says that all great men are peculiarly conscious of their debt to their fellow man and society at large.

I believe the story of Job’s life has touched me in ways that no other has in a long time.

For more information on Steve Jobs, click here.

About the Author

Allan B. Colombo is a technical writer and trade journalist in the life safety and physical security markets. Colombo also is owner of Tpromo offers affordable web designs and hosting for businesses, Institutions, and Individuals in support of products, people, and ideas.

Copyright©2013/Allan B. Colombo /
(Permission is given to republish blog posts providing
my contact information and copyright notice are included.)

Saturday, May 18, 2013

The Enemy Inside the Gate

It was in 1992, while listening to a speech given by then presidential hopeful Bill Clinton, that I found myself on an alternate path. Bill said, in essence, "If I and Al Gore are elected, we will eliminate the Constitution... it was a radical experiment that has outlived its time."

From my early youth to the age of 42 I was a socialist. It was in 1958 that I built my first shortwave radio. It was then that I began listening to Radio Moscow, Radio Havana Cuba, and other radio stations in Communist countries. At the age of 14 or 15 I began sending letters to Moscow.

After a life time of dislike for Capitalism, I suddenly came face to face with a Communist in our government who was about to become president of this country. I told my wife that Clinton is a comrade and that if elected he would turn our government upside down, which he did.

The turning point came for me later that evening when I, in the quietness of my own home, sat down and read the U.S. Constitution. This was probably the first time in my life that I seriously read it. What I found blew me away. As I told my wife, "I was duped."

My words to her were essentially this, "This document has protected this nation from subjugation by a foreign power for more than 200 years."

That was it for me. I became a Capitalist in a few minutes. Well, actually, I had already embraced Capitalism even as a Socialist by virtue of the business I once ran and the system I was involved with. At the time, in 1992, I was a trade journalist living and working in the Chicago suburbs. Now, I made it official.

When Clinton won the election in November of that year, I put a sign on my cube wall that said, "In Mourning." When management discovered that it was not a death that I was in mourning over, they ordered me to remove the sign or face the consequences.

So, because of my past involvement with Socialism and Communism, perhaps I have a unique perspective on the unique mindset of a leftist. Today, I see very little difference in what President Obama represents and the precepts and ideology of the Communists I listened to so many years ago on the shortwave radio. In a word, our enemy is inside the gates of our government and those of you who hail from the left do not know what you've managed to do by helping get his elected and by your current support.

If you should have any questions regarding this issue or any other, feel free to reach out and connect with me. You can do that by sending me an email at

Copyright©2013/Allan B. Colombo /
(Permission is given to republish blog posts providing
my contact information and copyright notice are included.)


Be sure not to miss each and every blog comment by subscribing to my email service. Every time I publish a comment or an update, you will be the first to know. To sign up, enter your email address in the email subscription box on the top right of this page. Thank you!

Friday, October 26, 2012

The Untimely Death of 12-year-old Autumn Pasquale

The connection between children killing children
and the modern instrument of visual/audible
communication called the

I read with great sadness the demise of 12-year-old Autumn Pasquale, a young girl allegedly murdered by two teenage brothers in New Jersey. This young girl was to turn 13 this coming week.

The very thought of what was done to her (strangulation) causes me a good deal of anguish, especially when I think of the parents and grandparents. As a grandfather of 15, I cannot imagine what the family is feeling right now.

The Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office hasn’t identified the teens because they are juveniles, but neighbors and relatives have identified them as 17-year-old Dante Robinson and his 15-year-old brother, Justin Robinson. (click here)

If you think about this crime, you have to admit that there is only one way such things take place at the hand of such young assailants for it's impossible for them to have come up with such a horrid thought on their own. The culprit behind this and all such acts of violence is "example." The murderous thoughts that took place in their young minds had to come from outside of themselves for young children are not, or should not be predisposed to such thinking on their own without some outside agency at work.

Another way to put this is: Monkey see--Monkey do!

Violence on Television

The question is, can repetitive visual exposure to violence on television and in the movies cause young people to commit acts of violence themselves? According to Leonard Berkowitz, author of Impulse, Aggression and the Gun, the answer to that is "Yes."

"Two series of experiments that my colleagues and I have performed on impulsive aggression bear directly on these questions. The first series indicates that even so small a matter as the casual sight of a gun can sometimes stimulate aggressive behavior. The second suggests that, contrary to what the so-called catharsis theory predicts, the sight of violence can increase the chance that a viewer will express aggression himself." Source: Impulse, Aggression and the Gun, Leonard Berkowitz, Readings For General Psycholoby, PL202/PL252, Instructors Office Of Military Psychology and Leadership, Xerox College Publishing, Lexington, Mass.

Source: The Daily CommentaryCatharsis: Psychiatry, psychotherapy that encourages or permits the discharge of pent-up socially unacceptable emotions.

In the first experiment, a group of students from the University of Wisconsin were told that the experiment was intended to measure students' physiological reaction to stress. The students were divided into two groups. Each group was exposed to a series of electrical shocks in response to a series of marketing ideas that they had presented. One group received a low number of shocks while the other group received a much larger number of shocks, irregardless of the quality of their marketing ideas. The group that received the maximum number of shocks were what Berkowiz called "our angry group."

The Daily CommentaryIn the final phase of the experiment, Berkowitz says that some of the students from both groups were exposed to the consequential sight of a .38 cal. handgun and 12-gauge shot gun. Students were told that the guns were left there from a previous experiment and the administrator merely pushed them aside. Each student had a partner who was actually a plant. The roles were then switched where the students were asked to administer the same electrical shocks to their partner who had previously administered the shocks to them. Within the group who had seen the guns, a significant number of students showed more aggression than the control group who did not see them.

Berkowitz says,

"It is quite conceivable that many hostile acts which supposedly stem from unconscious motiviation really arise because of the operation of aggressive cues. The aggression can even be thought of as a conditioned response to the stimulus. If a gun can be that stimulus, then it is a double-barreled threat--an immediate cue that also presents the aggressor with a deadly means of aggrression."

Berkowitz adds a very important point that this experiment brought out. "With our subjects, the guns did not enhance aggression unless the students were angry to begin with."

In the second experiment, young children were encouraged to play with older children who were asked to remain neutral. Berkowitz says there was no fighting or fussing going on. Some of the children were given toy guns to play with while others talked and had fun. The younger children were then told that the older children had built block houses on a series of tables in another room and that if they pressed a button on the table, these houses would shake and come to ruin. According to Berkowitz, despite the fact that all of the children hadn't quarreled and were not angry, those who had played with the guns invariably pressed these buttons, demonstrating more violent behavior than the other group who had sat and talked and simply played.

What do these experiments tell us about children and guns?

"Even given high frustration and an immediate cue, violence will not erupt unless there is a third factor as well: low inhibitions. The 'normal' level of inhibitions to violence in our society is not particularly high. We take a lenient attitude toward what is sometimes called defensive aggression," says Berkowitz.

"Nowhere is violence in the cause of good more consistently and more enthusiastically touted than in movies and on TV. Fictional representations of violence are often defended, by people in the industries that sell them and also by many consumers, on the grounds that they serve a cathartic purpose."

Berkowitz says that some psychologists still believe that it is better to enact violence while others believe that witnessed violence can actually cause children to act out violent behavior. He adds that "a little aggression, like a snowball, can gather momentum and grow."

"Results like this present an awkward problem to TV and movie censorship agencies, and to producers who want to make violent films without encouraging real violence. The modern censorhip agencies generally insist that crime and violence be used not just to entertain but to teach a lesson--'crime does not pay,' for example. How the lesson should be taught is left vague; scriptwriters usually follow the maxim of 'an eye for an eye'," says Berkowitz.

If society is really serious about curbing school violence, then they will look more to the television and movie houses than to the availability of guns. Sure, the sight of a gun on dad or mom's night stand (it ought to be locked up other than at night when mom and dad are in bed) is enough to suggest violence, but, as Berkowitz's research bares out, this alone is not usually enough to trigger violent behavior.

Take the young children experiment where those who played with toy guns reacted more violently than those who did not. At first glance, it's easy to blame the toy guns for the aggressive response of the children. However, it is the significance of the toy gun to these children that actually caused their more violent behavior, not the gun itself. What do I mean by that? Simply that by witnessing violence on their parents' television sets, they knew what the gun was for and they associated violence with the gun before them. Was it the gun itself that caused them to become more violent or was it the violence on their parents' television sets that they associated with the gun?

If you have an opinion on this issue, I welcome your input. Please use the comment portion of this post, email me (, or call me at 330-956-9003.

Al Colombo

Editor's Note: A portion of this commentary appeared in the Daily Commentary on the Giant Killers Organization (GKO) website on May 18th, 2001. (click here)

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Receive Updates in Your Email Box

Received updates from this blog in your email box. Don't wait to see what comes next, receive it automatically without any muss or fuss by subscribing to this blog.

Look top right and you will see a "Follow by Email" box.

Thank you,
Al Colombo