Sunday, July 31, 2005

Another New Word, By Golly!

I've been seeing it printed and written and hearing it spoken relentlessly on tv, radio and in the newspapers. To my knowledge, it's never been defined. We're supposed to know what it means because it's some kind of islamic term.

Fatwa. I gather from context that it means something like "sending a message," yet another not-too-clear, too-often-used buzz-phrase that's been inflicted 'pon us in the past few years.

It's usually used in an islamic sort of context, so I would think it might be a variety of arabic lingo, except that, so far, it's only been spelled one way. I guess I should be looking for other creative spellings of the word in the near future.

It's indeed wonderful, living in a global community!

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Thursday, July 28, 2005

The Left Wing, Airhead America and Other Hollywood Atrocities

This could be a long list, so I'll try to use a relatively small number of names to keep this readable.

In the spirit of Bernard Goldberg's list of "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America," this is my list of celebrities with whom I'd not view their "art," not listen to them speak, not support their causes, nor even wish to share a salon at a public or private event. Let me hasten to add that it's not very likely that I'd be asked nor even that my name be recognized by any of these fine folks.


The reason for this list is that these people, to a man (woman, or other) have said and/or done things so outrageous and offensive, not only to my tender sensibilities, but to any individual who hold the human capacity for rational thought as a positive good, that one can't look at them, listen to them in the performance of their art, without seeing them in the full flowering of their idiocy.

Here goes, in no particular order except as they come to mind:

1. Alec Baldwin--"If George Bush gets elected, I'm leaving the country." The bad news: he didn't leave.

2. Barbra Streisand -- Same reason, plus her many inane political pronouncements. She appears to have no idea what she's talking about. If she does know, that's even worse!

3. Lou Reed -- A communist. A singer who can't sing. Good lyrics sometimes, though.

4. Janeane Garafalo -- One of the more intelligent sounding socialists, but she's almost always wrong.

5. Martin Sheen -- After some of the horribly misguided causes he's supported, he's simply not believable playing the President--even a Democrat!

6. Cameron Diaz -- Is convincing in the role of a complete airhead--otherwise, don't call us.

7. John Cougar Mellencamp -- When GHW Bush wanted to use "Little Pink Houses" as a campaign song, Mellencamp (you'll always be a Cougar to me!) refused to let him. Call Bush dumb for not knowing it was ironic. Call Mellencamp stupid for not letting him use it--and for writing it in the first place, about ordinary people who live better than ordinary people anywhere else in the world.

8. Julia Roberts -- Another complete airhead, but a very good actress. Can actually play the part of an intelligent woman, if so scripted.

9. Sean Penn -- I liked him better as Spicoli. One of the most utterly humorless actors on stage or screen. At the Oscars, Chris Rock made a joke about the evil and rotund Michael Moore. Penn was the next presenter. When Penn stepped up to speak, he soundly chided Rock for the quip. No sense of humor at all. Rock was funny....then, unlike the rest of the show.

10. Linda Ronstadt-- Very good songbird with a Norwegian name, who became Latina when it came into vogue. She cavorted with Guber Moonbeam, but dropped him quick as he fell from popular favor. Now needs a reinforced stage. Also needs plenty of exit doors for people who walk out of her performances, after the inane things she says.

11. Alan Alda -- Has kept a low profile, for the most part, since M*A*S*H. Played Hawkeye as a bleeding-heart pacifist, especially after M*A*S*H stopped being a comedy. For women's rights. Against men's rights.

12. Chrissie Hinde -- You can actually understand her lyrics, but you wish you couldn't. Best legs in rock 'n' roll; worse sneer. Luddite squared.

13. Jackson Browne -- Speaking of Luddites, he won't be happy until we're all freezing in the dark. Except him, of course. He secretly has a miniature nuclear power plant on his estate.

14. Jane Fonda -- Starred in "Barbarella" and a couple of other vapid movies. Oh yeah, and "Klute." Went to Viet Nam and became a traitor. Married a hippie who spent her money, so she married a rich guy to spend his money. He dumps her; she now needs to get an acting job. Apologizes (sort of) for being a traitor.

15. Richard Gere -- Imagine someone so incredibly stupid as to, a few days after the World Trade Towers were destroyed, in light of the policemen, firemen and the people who happened to be in or near the Towers that disastrous morning, in front of New Yorkers, including policemen and firemen and others, some of whom knew victims of the destruction, admonish New Yorkers to exhibit peace, love and restraint. The booing was so loud that, after the first few words, it was hard to hear what he said. This actor has a very tenuous attachment to the real world.

16. Halle Berry -- A great actress when she wants to be. Her acceptance speech at the Academy awards of 2002 (for an excellent portrayal in the movie Monster) really proved her acting ability. Trying to link her Oscar win to her race rather than to her own ability was as insincere as it was repugnant. It sure looked good, though.

17. Ted Nugent -- Because, for balance, I had to include a conservative. Very good on guns, hunting and self defense, but that "back to nature" crap is way beyond the bucket.

As I ponder these names and the really dumb ideas they espouse, I know I could come up with dozens more of them. The theory might be that rational thought is impossible for the performer who invests so much into essentially emotional work. It's not true, though. I know performers who can actually think. Not many.


Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Special Circumstances

Allegedly, on June 24th, the alleged Jose Luis Orozco allegedly murdered the alleged Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Jerry Ortiz while he was allegedly on duty. Orozco has been in and out of jail/prison his entire life and this alleged turd should be punished to the full extent.

He'll probably be out on the street again within ten years. He is, after all, part of a favored minorityand had to be accorded a little extra leeway.

What this entry is really about is a particularly onerous adjustment to the law with respect to murder, that should be abolished.

Special circumstances.

Is a murder victim any less dead if he's not a cop?
Is a murder victim any less dead if he's killed with something other than a gun?
Is a murder victim any less dead if his killer did not lie in wait?

I'm not very enthused about capital punishment, though it's not out of concern for the murderer. It's because government is inherently incompetent, and they'll be sticking the needle into the wrong guy more often than the right one.

But, that aside, there's no reason on earth why the murderer of a policeman should be punished more harshly than the murderer of a clerk in a liquor store. The police officer chooses a relatively dangerous occupation of his own free will. He's given training and weapons to help protect himself and can call backup if he gets in over his head.

The liquor store clerk probably can't afford a weapon, has little or no possibility of backup, and if he does successfully defend himself, he'll be entering the dark and scary world of the police, lawyers and the courts. He could end up in the very same prison which would've housed the attempted killer, had the killer been successful.

I'd propose that the best of all circumstances would be that the prospective victim be congratulated, should he manage to defend himself, even if (or especially if) he kills the thug. Saves all the expense of police, lawyers and courts, you know.

I'd also propose that the law be changed to read that anyone who commits murder in a premeditated way, or in the commission of another crime, should be subject to the same punishment.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Back to the Future

I caught a few sound bites from a speech given by Hillary Rodham, our once and future Queen, this morning. 'Twas on Bill O'Reilly's radio show, but I'm not getting into what he said about her or her speech. He's him and I'm me.

She mentioned Bill Clinton-Rodham's "bridge to the twenty-first century, in which, if you'll recall, he alluded to a number of things he intended to do to effect "change." 'Twas a good thing that he never actually said "change for the better," because those few things he actually did rendered us all a little poorer and under a few more government restriction than we previously had been.

Hillary's reference today (though she mentioned no specifics as to what had been done) was used as a contrast to George Bush's "tunnelling back toward the nineteenth century," in her words.

It was kind of cute.

Thing is, "tunnelling back to the nineteenth century," in some respects, would be a really good idea! No taxes. No regulations on small businesses. No "War on Drugs." No drug problem! No foreign wars! No predatory lawyers. No id cards or licenses.

Inventions were flying out of people's home workshops at a rate never before seen! Bicycles, automobiles, sewing machines, clothes washers, hand tools, then power tools. It was a time that can only be likened to the electronic revolution in the 80's and 90's just past (our recent electronic revolution only happened because uneducated politicians hadn't figured out how to regulate it yet).

I'm leaving out the bad things from the 19th century, mostly because we've been moving in the right direction in most instances. Where we haven't, it's been government that's been the problem. Jim Crow laws, followed by "Affirmative Action," coupled with deliberately lowered expectations have exacerbated the racial problems--not ordinary people.

Government intervention is making medical care more difficult, complex and expensive each year. A person could croak while they figure out your copay!

When anyone decided to build a motorcar near the turn of the century, they just did it. They could borrow money, sell stock, offer unusual considerations or even ask for charity to get the company off the ground. People invested. Sometimes they lost their money; sometimes they hit it big. That's Capitalism. Government had no role. As it should be.

When Preston Tucker decided he had a better idea in the mid 1940's, he had the Securities & Exchange to contend with. He had General Motors, who had many politicians in its pocket, to contend with. In spite of the fact that it was a pretty good car, with many excellent innovations, and which could've become a great car with very little tweeking. Government, using the unConstitutional SEC, shut Tucker down on stock sales technicalities.

So much for innovation in the face of established corporations.


Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Monday, July 25, 2005

Addendum to: Another One Bites the Dust

I've gotten into a couple of discussions with individuals of the "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" sort, with regard to government warrantless searches. The refrain goes a little bit like this: "Do ya wanna get blown up? Hah?"

To approximate a quote of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who will trade Liberty for security, deserve neither."

Cheap joke.....Didja hear the one about the Polish terrorist?
He tried to blow up a car, but he just burnt his mouth on the tailpipe.
(Ar, ar!)

There are actually two major factors here: the philosophical and the practical. I'll take the philosophical factors first, since they're more important.

As noted in the previous entry, the Fourth Amendment affirms the right of the individual to privacy in his person, property and effects, forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures. Can a search be termed reasonable as a condition of use of a privately-owned public conveyance? Yes. The individual is about to enter the property of another (the airline) and may do so only under the terms set by that owner. If the airline deems that searches of its passengers will render the conveyance safe, he may impose that term.

Other airlines may choose other methods of assuring security, and their clientele is free to choose the airline whose methods are regarded most likely thorough.

The freedom-loving individual should have no trouble with this. Various carriers are free to exercise whatever methods and whatever technology they see fit; to be as intrusive or as unintrusive as they think they should, and their customers are free to choose among the carriers and make their decisions based upon the degree of security provided (in combination with all the other factors that make travel comfortable and/or economical.

Government enters the picture, and immediately all choice is taken away.

According to the 4th Amendment, rational analysis and the personal preference of most thinking people, government's one-size-fits-all methodology, designed to inflict the most possible inconvenience to both the passengers and the airlines, is exactly the wrong way to increase airline security morally. It eliminated the property rights of both the airlines and the passengers by playing havoc with schedules, by confiscating of private property and by invasion of personal privacy.

Now, they're starting to do the same thing at terminals of surface carriers.

Since the surface carriers that are thus afflicted so far are government-owned, we can add an additional violation: government agents are scrutinizing and making decisions regarding an individual's right to travel. I guess, the only solution to this situation would be to privatize the New York Transit Authority and make the new owner answerable to its clientele.

As for the practical, this is really simple. Government's one-size-fits-all checkpoint system will not work against a determined terrorist. In the New York subway, a suicide terrorist with a bomb under his coat may or may not get by the checkpoint. If he does, he blows up the train. If he doesn't, he'll do what they do in Iraq. Hit the detonator at the checkpoint and wipe it out, along with everyone on line and anyone who happens to be nearby. To him, probably a good second choice.

As I've mentioned in previous entries, the best bet is to 1) privatize and 2) trust free Americans to learn to be vigilant and 3) observe the admonitions of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the letter, giving all Americans far more freedom to make their own decisions regarding their own security.

Trying to force free Americans to endure government scrutiny and to toe various irrational lines to get approval to travel about in a free country is just another step towards an American police state, a condition which seems nearer every day.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Friday, July 22, 2005

Another One Bites the Dust

Another Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, that is. This time it's the Fourth, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment, along with most of the others, has already peen pretty much gutted by the evil "War on Drugs," aka, the War on the Bill of Rights. Narcs come pretty close to having filled out and signed generic search warrants on tear-off pads in their desks and in their cars.

Judges , ignorant of the Constitution or standing in opposition to its meaning, have wrongly ruled that probable cause is no longer needed to justify a search. They've also ruled that requiring the police to be overly specific about the object(s) of their search or the location(s) to be searched is an undue hardship on law enforcement.

The only time an accused can successfully argue to have an illegal search thrown out of court is if the accused is actually guilty of a violent crime against a non-government individual or group.

Now, because of a successful series of terrorist attacks in London, the thugs in New York city government are taking it upon themselves to randomly search bags, baggage and baby carriages of individuals simply trying to use mass transit (big mistake) to get in and out of the city. No profiling, mind you--we have to remain PC--an octogenarian's knitting basket is more likely subject to search as a swarthy young man in a heavy coat during the current heat wave.

Not satisfied with scrutinizing the movement of individuals about the country in airliners, now they're working on checking people out as they move about within the city.

Now, I feel bad for the injured and murdered people of London, and their families and others affected, just like everyone else. I hope the police find all the guilty terrorists that are still alive, and lock 'em away for good.

Random searches--searches without a specific Warrant--are unConstitutional!!

Not only that, but they'll be ineffective.

If a suicide terrorist is carrying explosives with the intention of blowing 'em up on the subway car (or the bus), and is picked by the cops for a look-see, he's just gonna pop it right there. The cops at the checkpoint and everyone there in line and otherwise nearby will be blown up.

I'm not sure what you can do to a guy who's bent on killing himself--and taking as many others as possible with him. Obviously, it has to be done before he straps the dynamite onto himself.

Allow me to suggest that you read The Black Arrow, by Vin Suprynowics. I like the book--I've read it twice and will read it again, soon. It's no literary masterpiece, but it is a warning. It may be a mite late. Visualize urban troopers in body armor setting up surprise checkpoints at random locations around the city, stopping everyone, checking their identification and searching anyone they wish. If you turn a corner into one, then turn away, that in itself is an offense punishable by a hail of bullets. I think we're pretty close to that, now. Read the book.

I'm sure, though, that the destruction of our once-free society is what these killers' leaders want--and they're getting it. In order to fight the radical islamic fundamentalists, we're becoming them. Unless we stop 'em, we'll soon have a United States that more resembles a prison than a free country.


Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The world will.....hey! You figure it out. Posted by Picasa

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Who's They?

"Ask your real estate agent if they are a realtor." Who's they?
"Ask your real estate agent if he (or she) is a realtor."

"Someone bumped into my car, but they drove away." Who's they?
"Someone bumped into my car, but she (or he) drove away."

"My friend saw last night's Southpark episode, and they said it was funny." Who's they?
"My friend saw last night's Southpark episode, and he (or she) said it was funny."

I think it all started when grammar teachers decided that teaching students to diagram sentences was just too much trouble. Since many government school teachers are near-illiterate themselves, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

A number of years ago, I took a few of the elements of the UCSD Extension Writers Program. One of the classes was a grammar refresher. The first thing the instructor had us do was diagram sentences. Unfortunately, most of those in the class had never been exposed to sentence diagramming. Those few of us who had familiarity with it had, to a man (woman), gone to school in other states.

The problem with this shows up throughout the younger population. They can't put together a decent sentence in writing, and not really even in speaking. Stories of Freshmen in colleges and universities being unable to deal with English 101 are heard every year. I've heard thatat times in some colleges a majority of new freshmen have to take remedial English classes.

Today's youth can't speak, they can't write--neither can they scribble a legible sentence, nor can they compose a sensible sentence. I've been told by many younger adults, "I don't read very much." or "I hate reading." They don't read because they can't read.

Obviously, there are many young people who can read--they are the ones who become engineers, doctors, writers and even (shudder) attorneys. I suspect that those who study these things will tell you that these people had a lot of help, interest and pressure from their parents while growing up.

What's wrong with the sentences above? Both of the objects have to be either singular or plural. Agent....he. Someone....she. Friend....he. Or, Agents....they, etc.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Monday, July 18, 2005

Swat is a para-military outfit designed to separate the city's police from the city's people. It's a "them or us" thing. Posted by Picasa
Baby Killer

Ok, I'm down with the idea that Pena began the whole series of events that led to his poor little daughter, and himself, being killed by the Los Angeles police. It was his fault, and that's the name o' that tune.

It's also sort of ironic that the woman who called the cops on her loco old man, is now the most vocal wacko calling for the cops' heads. Better she should have picked a stable, clean, sober working-type guy with whom to have babies. Meanwhile, ambulance-chasers are circling this woman like sharks, in hopes of getting in on a big settlement from the spineless blood suckers at the city of Los Angeles.

Alcalde Vinaigrette has been using the opportunity to get big face time in front of LA tv news cameras every day since this tragedy occurred. Has anyone other than your not-so-humble pontificateur noticed that if you squint and look at the Alcalde's forehead in just the right light, the lines seem to spell out MEChA?

Mark my words: it's time for the return of Zorro.

But, I digress.

The full reason for this entry is to ax a question. First, a couple of observations to lead up to it.

As reported by the local news, 'twas the LAPD SWAT that were called in on this disturbance, because, I guess, they got a clue that this one really was serious.

LAPD SWAT is a highly disciplined group of elite officers who include high-priced negotiators and really accomplished sharpshooters.

So. Why, when this wack-job started shooting, and a single round happened to hit an unlucky police officer, did all of these highly disciplined, elite officers start spraying bullets all around the area the shots were coming from?

My admittedly naive scenario, which is chuck full of Monday morning quarterbacking, sprinkled liberally with near-perfect hindsight, tickles a few errant synapses, telling me something's not right.

At the moment the nut, Pena, started shooting, everyone should've gotten to cover.

Sharpshooters sight in on the area where Pena is located.

First sharpshooter to get a clean shot, Bang! one bullet through the cranium. Crisis over.

Instead, several of these supposedly discipined officers started hosing down the area with bullets, and unsurprisingly, the little girl was killed, too.

I'm not much of a SWAT fan. Teams of elite ubercops tend to militarize the police and separate them from we, the people. The police aren't supposed to be a military force. They're supposed to be ordinary civilians who take on the job of patrolling the city and solving crimes. Most police officers I've known don't feel comfortable associating with "civilians," because any "civilian" might become the enemy. The insane and counterproductive "War on Drugs," aka, "War on the Bill of Rights," only adds to the citizen animosity toward police.

Bad attitude. Their job is to help people vis a vis crime and other injury. Every citizen is innocent until the jury calls him Guilty. That's innocent, not "not guilty."

As I said in the beginning, this was a Pena-driven event. No police officer, according to what I've heard, has done anything actionable.

I just think some training and, more important, a restructuring of police attitudes toward the public is in order. Maybe fewer squad cars and more beat cops would help.


Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Thursday, July 14, 2005

He's watching you! Posted by Picasa

Fighting Terrorism

Michael Chertoff, Director of the evil and unConstitutional Homeland Security gang o' thugs (has anyone called him czar yet?), was interviewed on the Sean Hannity radio program this afternoon. Of course, Hannity fawned all over him. Hannity asked him what was being done to increase security on buses and trains. To his credit, Chertoff seemed to recognize that treating, for example, New York's subway stations like they do airports would literally "drive" New Yorkers back into their cars.

That'd make New York a daily traffic disaster.

He tried, and failed, to justify the mess they're making at the airports by saying that the feds took over airport security because there was nobody else to do it. Chertoff was born at night, and it must've been last night!

What wasn't asked, or answered, was: Where does it say in the US Constitution that Americans have to pass scrutiny by the federal government prior to being allowed to board a private vehicle?

Does anybody remember when the only reason to get to the airport more than ten or fifteen minutes before boarding time was in case you want a stiff drink before boarding? I do. It was before the feds never ventured out of the air traffic control tower.

Well, Mr Chertoff, if you read this (ar, ar!) here's all you need to do.

Call the enemy by its real name: Radical Islamic Fundamentalism. That doesn't mean all moslems--just the crazy ones.

Watch these uncivilized, bug-eating, camel buggering bastards and don't let them pull any crap. Note: You can pretty much leave elderly women alone.

Stop giving weapons to middle eastern dictators.

Repeal such laws (as violations of the Second Amendment) necessary as to allow anyone who can legally own firearms to carry them according to the conscience of each individual.

Repeal such laws (for the same reason) necessary as to return the right to own firearms to any adult not in prison or in a mental institution.

Make the rules of citizens' arrest easily understandable and available to all.

Admonish real property owners to patrol their property and arrest trespassers--especially in border and coastal areas. Police and the courts must be required to prosecute trespassers rigorously.

Admonish police, park rangers, and other caretakers to patrol public lands and arrest trespassers (as opposed to legitimate users of the lands) and prosecute them rigorously--under pain of dismissal.

Public lands that cannot be adequately patrolled by their caretakers should be sold at auction.

As we Americans educate ourselves on taking care of our property, attacks by savage foreigners (or even domestic subhumans) should diminish to near nothing.

And last, but far from least: Let's put an immediate end to the evil, stupid and unConstitutional "War on Drugs." Most Americans, including myself, do not grant the federal government, nor any local group of corrupt, thuggish narcs, the right to decide what we shall or shall not ingest.


They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Good actors, lousy show! Posted by Picasa

Monday, July 11, 2005

C'mon Jim, be a Man!

I was just watching a tv show on the ABC network, called "According to Jim." The show stars Jim Belushi and Courtney Thorne-Smith, both of whose acting I've enjoyed in other tv series and movies.

I've watched episodes of this show before and, well it has its moments. Overall, though, it's bad, bad, baaaaaaad!

Call me slow, but it took me two or three episodes to get it. It masquerades as an ordinary family sitcom, like a modernized "Leave it to Beaver," or "Father Knows Best."

Father knows best? In this case, it's Father is the stupiest bastard in town. The only consistent theme in this series is that adult males are complete idiots who need to be cared for, fed, dressed, and continually have the drool wiped from their chin.

In today's episode, Jim hides his enjoyment of sensitive, emotional movies--that is, "chick flicks." He goes to great lengths to watch these movies, without letting his wife and her friend know. He goes through a series of complicated and utterly stupid antics to keep his secret, but fails. After he's found out, he's the object of humiliating ridicule, then.....I change to something watchable.

Sorry, Charlie. Like all those commercial ads that poke fun at men by both women....and children--I'm not buying it.

ABC has a couple of shows I like, but for reasons like this, I really don't watch broadcast tv much anymore.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Saturday, July 09, 2005

The best Homeland Security: The free, armed American Posted by Picasa
Uncivilized Islamic Savages Strike Again!

Condolences to the families and loved ones of those murdered, and to all those who were injured in the explosions in London Thursday. I join with all of those who hope that the Yard will uncover and arrest the scummy pigs who set the bombs, and all who were involved with the plot.

Meanwhile, back in the States.....

Homeland Insecurity changed the alert level from Yellow to Orange! Hooo, Doggies! But just on trains and buses.

I feel better already. I don't use trains or buses. *Whew!*

Here in the Stalag, we have a better gauge of the danger. Whenever the danger is actually on the rise, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lou Baca uses it for an excuse to go the the county supes and grovel for more money.

It's kind of hard to tell, though--Sheriff Baca is almost always grovelling for more money. As he sees it, that's his job.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Friday, July 08, 2005

Years ago, before the federal takeover of the drinking age, an eighteen-year-old could walk over that bridge, over that invisible line, and buy a beer in Minnesota. Sometimes those invisible lines are sublime! Posted by Picasa

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Borders? Borders? We Don't Need No Steenking Borders!

For a long time, I've wondered at the concept of national borders. Why do we need to keep people on one side of an invisible, imaginary line. When I was a small scout, not yet even having achieved the rank of private, I saw the dash lines on the globe and was taught that they represented the borders of countries. For a while, I imagined that there was a big dash line demarking the border between North Dakota and Canada. 'Twas when I realized that the dash line between North Dakota and Minnesota was in the middle of the Red River, my world began to change in mysterious ways. I started asking questions that my teachers couldn't answer. Perhaps they thought they were stupid questions.

Did the border between North Dakota and Minnesota wash away? If I accidentally stepped over a border I couldn't see, would something bad happen?If I fell into the river and drowned, would they be able to tell if I died in North Dakota or Minnesota?

For years afterward, borders didn't mean much to me. I crossed the most international borders while I was in the Navy. Being in the Navy, and having the ID, seemed to cover me as far as the government foolishness was concened--though, as I was informed afterward, I crossed a couple of lines that could've gotten me into trouble.

Conservatives say: many of our problem are caused by our open borders. Anyone can walk into the US at will. Ok, that's true. We have long borders. Even if the Administration wanted to close the borders to illegal entry (it doesn't) I don't think it could.

The best solution, though it won't be tried, would be to charge the border property owners to see to the policing of their property for trespassers. They'd have to allow arrest powers to the property owners and they'd have to require federal and local officials who oversee publicly owned border lands to police them for trespassers--and hold them accountable should they fail. All responsible Americans should be cleared to carry personal weapons and should be allowed citizen's arrest powers. (actually, Americans have these rights already, if government didn't abuse its power by means of gun laws, etc.

Government should do away with welfare for the able-bodied. One of the reasons people enter the US illegally is that it's easy to get work and/or free government services. It's easy for Americans to get welfare--that is, extended unemployment payments, aid for dependent children, etc, which makes it easy not to work for long periods of time. Thus, many Americans can refuse low-paying jobs without any downside. Those jobs are often filled by illegal aliens.

If Americans had hunger pressure to require them to take these jobs, not so many would be available to illegals.

Now, I have no problem with Hispanics, Canadians or others who want to come here to work, make careers and become Americans themselves. I just don't want to be forced to support them. Equally, I don't want to be forced to support lazy Americans. Most aliens won't come here if there aren't jobs.

Americans will pick lettuce or shovel wet concrete if it's that or go hungry--the way it was throughout America until the corrupt Lyndon Johnson made all that tedious work stuff unnecessary, dude.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Sir Anthony Hopkins and yours truly--old buds. Posted by Picasa
Star Chaser

A few weeks ago, at a service of the Los Angeles Welsh Church, I happened to (practically) bump into one of the most interesting celebrities of the day. It turns out that on this particular day, the Welsh Church was conducting a memorial for this gentleman's late mother.

I happened to be standing outside the church, greeting a friend who works for Warner Bros, when a Lincoln limo pulls up and stops. Who gets out, but Sir Anthony Hopkins, followed by his wife and a friend.

Mr Hopkins, who has been a very prolific actor, happens to have been in several of my recent favorite movies, including The Edge, Legends of the Fall and, The Mask of Zorro. I also enjoyed his work in Silence of the Lambs, The Road to Wellville and Amistad.

I was introduced to Mr Hopkins and his party, we had a brief chat, and went inside. Debbie was already inside, so I found her, but then it was time for the service.

Afterwards, at tabach, the tea following the church service, Mr Hopkins stayed and met and talked with just about everyone, including Debbie and I.

I don't get crazy about celebs, and there are relatively few that I actually respect, but meeting Anthony Hopkins made my day.

More about Mr Hopkins at

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The new alcalde is not a mainstream, middle-of-the-road politician. Posted by Picasa

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

El Uno de Julio

Los Angeles has a new mayor, or shall I say, alcalde. Friday, the first of July, 2005, a day that will go down in infamy, Antonio Vinaigrette descended to the throne of mayorhood of the city.

Promising to improve the city's schools, streets and hire more police, the new alcalde thus guarantees that, whether he remains in office for one, or two or three or more terms, at the end of that time, not only will the schools have continued to decline, but the streets will have continued to deteriorate and LAPD will have become even less effective. To top it all off, productive individuals and businesses will be continuing to move away from Los Angeles because of overregulation and confiscatory taxation, and the aggregate economic well-being of Angelinos will continue to decline.

There was a huge celebration in Los Angeles Friday, which spilled over into Saturday. If one didn't know better he'd assume it was Cinco de Mayo. On the eve of Independence Day, there were more Mexican flags flying in the central Los Angeles area than US flags.

Ok, I'm not baggin' on Hispanics here. As a construction worker, I've enjoyed working with, and occasionally working for, Hispanics for decades. I'm baggin' on Hispanic socialists. I'd normally only bag on socialists in general, regardless of ethnicity, but the socialists of Los Angeles are making it an Hispanic issue.

Alcalde Vinaigrette sold himself as an Hispanic as a city councilman, he campaigned as an Hispanic, he campaigned more in Hispanic areas of the city, he campaigned predominately on Hispanic issues (where the issues were not universal) and pretty much patronized everyone else.

Furthermore, alcalde Vinaigrette was a member of mecha, an Hispanic organization bent on returning, not only California, but most of the southwest US, to Mexico because the US took it as spoils of the Spanish-American War. He has refused to renounce his relationship with that organization.

The rest of us, including the more sensible, productive Hispanics, realize it'd only take Mexico DF a decade or two to fully loot this area and render it as poor and barren as the current Mexico.

Fair to say that in four years or so, maybe sooner, everyone in the San Fernando Valley, including the Valley's tens of thousands of Hispanics, will be wishing that the late effort to separate the Valley from the city of LA had been successful.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Monday, July 04, 2005

Happy Birthday, Declaration of Independence! May Americans achieve independence from their own oppressive government! Posted by Picasa
Have a Happy and Reflective Independence Day

In spite of my negative assessment of the direction of the government toward a high-tech police state, I still love the country, both the land and the society. The government, well, I regard it as a peculiar sort of occupying force.

Yeah, these thieving bastards were elected (not sure by whom), but they've effectively insulated themselves from any meaningful challenge by anyone who could actually effect change toward liberty.

The schools are run by and for government.

The corporate structure is built to supply and bolster government.

The healthcare system is being increasingly designed to keep government informed, and is being run by government direction.

The social welfare system is being run by government to keep people in their place.

Tranportation systems are fully controlled by government to direct the movement of both goods and people.

And the electorial system is run by government.

In light of all this we should enjoy Independence Day (which sould really be July 2nd, not July 4th) both as a fun day of BBQ's and fireworks, but as a day of reflection. It's a day to read the Declaration of Independence and take note of the grievances addressed against the British Crown at that time. One might also observe that all of those grievances have been committed by the current federal and local governments against us.

And think about whether you like that.

Happy Independence Day!

They've killed Freedom! Those Bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Saturday, July 02, 2005

It's fun to watch fireworks on Independence Day, but we have to remember that the fireworks commemorate the colonies' fight for freedom. Posted by Picasa

Friday, July 01, 2005


July fourth is the day we traditionally celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the document that enumerated the grievances that precipitated Americans' decision to end the states' alliegance to Great Britain. As Americans, we ought to be keenly aware of those grievances, lest they again become a plague on our lives.

Alas! Most Americans haven't really read the Declaration, or if they have, 'twas long ago in school. I'm hearing that a lot of the more socialistic government (but, I repeat myself) school districts dismiss the Declaration of Independence as an obsolete document of questionable value. Socialists despise the very concept "independence," for obvious reasons.

In order for Americans to have realized that they were being politically abused by the British Crown, a transformation had to take place. That transformation happened partially because of the sort of individuals that had the degree of valor, adventurousness and even desperation to leave the relatively safe, if heavily controlled, life in Europe. There was very little chance of a better life there. Men and women came here because they wanted better lives than they could ever have in Europe.

And they were able to achieve a better life here. Many prospered.

The literacy rate in colonial America was very high--perhaps higher than it is today. There was communication akin to today's blogging in existence then: pamphleteering. Quicker than newspapers, pamphlets spread word of British oppression throughout the town and beyond.

The many printing presses in America were not only employed to print pamphlets. They printed books. Books by John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Rene Descartes and others, which taught the rationalism that not only helped Great Britain become the home of the Industrial Revolution and the biggest market economy on earth, but allowed America to break free of the British Empire and surpass Great Britain by the time the United States had been existence for a mere century.

As King George III asserted his "divine right" to a bigger and bigger piece of the action, the colonists became more and more dissatisfied with their allegiance to King George.

Thes factors created the philosophical climate needed to create a revolution.

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the revolutionists made plans and recruited men, and the American Revolution was underway.

And won.

The world's first free country.

So, we'll pop off a few lame, politically correct fireworks in celebration of a free country that no longer exists. King Franklin, King Harry et all up to and especially including the current King George have gradually eased American Freedom into the history books.

Then, the government schools' teachers have gradually eased it right out.

So.....What're we gonna do about it?

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California