Forget Global Warming: Welcome to the New Ice Age

This is the headline in today's Canadian National Post. In a story under the byline of Lorne Gunter, the "(s)now cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966." After making points about the severity of this winter around the northern hemisphere, he goes on to state that "(i)n just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950."

This is undoubtedly coming as distressing news to algorians of every stripe, especially to the Canada government, who've pinned many of their capitalism-destroying policies 'pon their ability to uphold their phony global warming "snow job" and keep its shaky foundations from showing.

Apparently, the world will remain cool enough for hockey at least one more year.

The news story continues:

"OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

"But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."

The discriminating analyst can determine the falsehoods of the algorians by simple observing the false hysteria in their arguments, the nature of their proposed solutions and the blind anger in their denouncing of those who dare deny their points. But, it's nice to see nature take its course.

"Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as 'a drop in the bucket.' Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to 'stock up on fur coats.'"

Not that I'd exactly welcome another "Little Ice Age," like the one that ended around 1850,
but the point is, these variations are caused by solar activity (or inactivity) not 4x4 pickups and suv's.

Just like I've been writing for years.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,
Col. Hogan

...But What Will He Do For Me....?

It's very much a shame to see great nations of people fall prey to a demonstrably failed philosophy,
but it's happening in most, maybe all of the industrialized nations of the earth. Of course, the non-industrial nations are already there. I'm guessing that it'll take longer than my lifetime before the world returns to a new black plague-and-famine Dark Age, but we appear to be headed that way. With the blessing and abetting of not only the world's leaders, but the herds of the great unwashed, as well.

The other day, I raged about the Democrat candidates' promising undefined change. The professed Democrat voters seem to be largely satisfied with that. Keep in mind that, to a convicted witch, tied to the stake and standing 'pon kindling, the lighting of the fire represents change.

I've also noticed another disturbing trend. I don't think it's new; I suspect it originates with the FD Roosevelt Presidency, but now it exists without shame and is explicitly declared by mostly Democrat voters as if it's normal and proper.

"What will (s)he do for me?"

I've been hearing that from the quivering mouths of Democrat voters at just about every man-on-the-street interview and post-debate program during this ever-so-interminable Presidential campaign season. I won't say it doesn't happen at Republican gatherings, but I haven't heard it said....yet.

"What will (s)he do for me?"

It's worse than shameful that this sentiment should erupt from the lips of an American! I've never been more ashamed. Well, truthfully, I'll assume no guilt for this degradation of the vision of the rugged individualist American, because I don't, even slightly, share the sentiment.

Presidents don't do things for people. Let's first get that straight. Presidents enrich their cronies at taxpayer expense. Presidents build monuments to themselves at taxpayer expense. Presidents travel the world at taxpayer expense. Presidents live like wealthy industrialists, without actually ever having to produce anything, at taxpayer expense. Presidents increase the breadth and depth of their power, at taxpayer expense. Presidents cause innocent people to die at taxpayer expense.

In order to understand what a President is supposed to do, if indeed any such thing as a President is actually needed (not by me!), one should first look at Article II, Sections 2 & 3 of the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Bill of Rights. One could also read the letters and papers of the Founders to gain the flavor of what they meant when they built these documents.

Nowhere in any of these documents is it suggested that any part of the President's job is to "do things for me." The President is not a god. The President is not a king. The President is not your daddy.

The President's only job is to play a large part in the role of government: he's an administrator whose job it is to direct the forces and agencies whose only job is to protect the rights of Americans. If he can't do that job, then what the hell good is he?

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Capitalism: The Forgotten Ideal

I'm an admirer of PJ O'Rouke, both for his political positions, and for the wit that saturates his writing. The following, referring to a quote by Adam Smith, the famous Eighteenth Century Scottish philosopher, was highlighted by Jonathan Pearce at Samizdata. Mr Pearce used this quote as the opening paragraph of an excellent review of O'Rourke's book, On The Wealth of Nations.

"Smith did believe free markets could better the world. He once said, in a paper delivered to a learned society, that progress required "little else...but peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice." But those three things were then - and are now - the three hardest things in the world to find. Smith preached against the gravitational load of power and privilege that always will, if it can, fall upon our livelihood. The Wealth of Nations is a sturdy bulwark of a homily on liberty and honest enterprise. It does go on and on. But sermons must last a long time for the same reason that walls must. The wall isn't trying to change the roof's mind about crushing us."

- P.J. O'Rourke, On the Wealth of Nations.

I might hasten to add that I'm also an admirer of Adam Smith.

Tip of the battered gray fedora: Samizdata.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Change

Osama Obama's entire campaign is based on the promise of Change. His every speech touts his promise of Change. In fact, he rarely ever talks about anything but Change.

According to Dictionary.com, there are no fewer than thirty-eight different meanings for the word Change. Here are a few:

1. to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion; to change the course of history.

2. to transform or convert (usually fol. by into): The witch changed the prince into a toad.

9. to become different: Overnight the nation's mood changed.

11. to become transformed or converted (usually fol. by into): The toad changed into a prince again.

19. a transformation or modification; alteration: They noticed the change in his facial expression.

21. the substitution of one thing for another: We finally made the change to an oil-burning furnace.

Obama is this term's master at saying nothing very smoothly. Like Algore, Bill Clinton (who, if you recall, also touted Change without ever defining the term), and John Kerry-- and hundreds of state and local politicians--Obama carefully never really says anything, never promises anything solid.

Well, let's look at the record. The most recent Democrat politician who campaigned on unspecified Change and was subsequently elected, was Bill Clinton. He was in office for eight years. Let's see....what kind of Change did we get?

• Clinton's promised tax cuts were Changed into draconian tax increases.
• A nation that had the potential to be able to supply itself with its energy needs for (at least) decades to come was Changed into a nation who has to crawl, hat in hand, to the most miserable savages 'pon the planet , begging for more oil and lower prices. And the oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear material is here, within the borders of the various United States, available, and only placed off limits by a herd of leftist environazis who want to see America become a third world nation. Bill Clinton enthusiastically signed for it.
• What kind of drawers one wears is Changed from an individual's personal choice to a topic for public discussion.

• War was Changed from an undesirable necessity to defend the country's interests (not always correctly) to something an elected official does to deflect the eye of the news media away from his embarrassing personal peccadilloes.
  

In the interest of holding the readers' interest, and of resting my tired mind, I'll save the many other examples for another time.

What this is all leading toward is the notion that millions of uninformed voters are fairly in a collective swoon over a candidate about whom they know very little. True, when backed into a corner, as in the several televised Presidential debates, Obama has suggested a number of fuzzy-looking, ill described semi-specifics, like his socialized medicine plan (that's not really socialized medicine).

Osama Obama has only two years' experience in Washington DC (Wait! That might not be all bad), has done virtually nothing in those two years other than run for President, and shows evidence of having been a typically corrupt Chicago Democrat as a state official.

My recommendation is that Obama clearly define the nature of the Change he intends to force 'pon us if elected. Of course, if he does, and if he's truthful, he'll never be elected. Further, I suspect that if elected, Obama stands to rival Jimma Carter as America's most inept President, and the Change he will bring is a return to serfdom for Americans.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Addendum:

In the OC Register Commentary pages, dated Sunday, Feb. 17th, 2008, is the following quote, worth reading:

Blogwatch: Empty-Suit Platitude of the Week:

"But this fall we owe the American people a real choice.

It's change [all italics mine] versus more of the same. It's the future versus the past....

They are running on the politics of yesterday, and that is why out party must be the party of tomorrow.

And that is the party I will lead as president.....

You see, the challenges we face will not be solved with one meeting in one night.

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.

We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.

--Barack Obama

What Is Your Annual Income?.......Send It In.

This is a local story, peculiar to El Pueblo de Los Angeles. Or is it? I'll wager, with no one to cover my money, that in every medium and large city throughout the "free" world, that close variations of what I'm about to write have been heard by every productive, yet struggling individual.

For months now, Antonio Vinaigrette, el alcalde, has been saying that el pueblo needs a yes vote on local Proposition "S" to bring fiscal balance to el pueblo and to assure uninterrupted continuation of vital services--services like police patrols and fire and rescue services.

Proposition "S" claimed to reduce LA's telephone tax from 10% to 9%. What was in the fine print was that the phone tax violates the California Constitution, and that there's a lawsuit in progress to nullify it. By popular ratification of Prop "S", the legal proceedings will end. The 9% tax becomes law, in accordance with the requirements of the California Constitution.

What's wrong with that, one might ask? What no one really says (out loud), is that a No vote might very likely have nullified the tax entirely, once the legal proceedings were complete. Prop "S" was being sold as a tax reduction measure.

Wait. Then, why were the leftists arguing so stridently in favor of a Yes vote? Well, I don't know. There's a real inconsistency there. El alcalde, our imported former New York City Sullivan Law loving Police Chief William Bratton and several other leftist local politicos fairly begged LA voters to ratify what was being touted as a tax reduction. The only individuals I know of that mentioned the full truth, including the legal proceedings about the proposition, were the man posturing himself as el alcalde's major opponent in the upcoming election, and a few local conservative commentators.

There's one more fact that almost no one mentioned about Prop "S": the old phone tax applied to land line phones only. The new, "reduced" phone tax applies to cellular phones, as well. So, hide the skinning knives, fellow Angelinos. Here they come.

Proposition "S" passed.

The very next day after the proposition passed, el alcalde held a news conference in which he thanked the voters for passing Prop "S," and in almost in the same breath, he asserted that the millions to be gained by the passage of the proposition would help, but would not be enough(!) to balance the budget of el pueblo.

He couldn't even wait until our freshly-skinned corpses cooled off!

Now, we have to sit 'pon the edge of our seats, waiting for the next proposal for the next tax increase! I believe an increase in the already confiscatory sales tax has been mentioned.

The "or we'll have to look at reducing some services" threat is already in play, but when they make that threat, they usually refer to the services regarded to be the most vital, never mentioning utter wastes like City Officials' travel expenses, subsidies for the arts that no sane person would actually buy voluntarily, "green" programs that cost more than standard methodology, and sports venues that should be financed by the sports team ownership--among others.

Meanwhile, productive individuals and their businesses are leaving the state for more business-friendly locations and the state's population is increasing due to entries by bottom-rung workers who generally pay little toward the costs of city-provided services, and consume to a larger degree.

Recipe for a Shrugfest.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Senator John McCain, Who Served in VietNam.....

I'm starting to see a bit of deja vu in this hyper-extended forever Presidential campaign. Recall four years ago, when on an almost-hourly basis, we were reminded that John Kerry served in VietNam, and that he earned several medals, including a couple of Purple Hearts. Remember also that, in the wake of the end of his service, he attended a number of anti war demonstrations, at one of which he flamboyantly threw his medals away. 'Twas also rumored that the very slight injuries that resulted in his Purple Heart medals were self-inflicted.

Sorry. I always go off on that guy because he's such an inept fool.

The point I'm taking a long time to making, is that in this interminable Presidential campaign, we're being reminded every bit as constantly, that Senator John McCain is a war hero, as a result of his service in the very same war. Well, in his case, he was. He deserves commendation for having survived an incredible ordeal.

It doesn't mean we have to hear about it as a seeming qualification for the office of President of the United States. Every day, several times a day. It makes one wonder if he's ever done anything else worthwhile, since. Well, he has. Not much of it is good, and it seems the 'steemed Senator kind of realizes it, too. According to one observer:

"When confronted with any of his misdeeds, Senator McCain tends to fall back on his record as a war hero in Vietnam. Let's talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal. Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming President of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services. The Presidency is a heavy responsibility for the future of the nation, including generations yet unborn. Character and integrity are major qualifications." -- Columnist Thomas Sowell

It's pretty obvious from the bills he's sponsored that he's no conservative, as is currently being observed by most conservative commentators. He sided with Democrats to make it difficult for the administration to appoint judges. He, in a stunning renunciation of the First Amendment as it applies to political speech, conspired with Democrat Senator Feingold to squelch criticism of sitting politicians campaigning for reelection. The list goes on.....

Additionally, the Senator's rhetoric seems to indicate that he wishes to place the country in a perpetual war situation. He's expressed interest in initiating military action against Iran because of their dabbling in nuclear physics. Iran says (of course, I don't believe them either) that they want nuclear power plants. McCain and others think they want nuclear weapons. Based on the lousy intelligence our spy agencies, all but destroyed during the Clinton administration, we have no more idea what's the truth than we did regarding Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Senator McCain is fondly referred to by the leftist press as a "maverick." They like him because he allies himself with the Senate's Democrats very often. He's favored by the leftist press to become the Republican nominee because they think (probably rightly) that he'll cave to many of the leftists' desires.

His campaign rhetoric claims that he's "the only true conservative," but his record says otherwise. He's also noted to be a hothead, prone to angry outbursts and long-term grudges.

He's a card carrying algorian, who will continue the policies that keep America dependent on unstable foreign despots for our petroleum needs. He'll continue the harmful and wasteful programs that convert food crops into a substandard fuel, at the expense of the use of our very plentiful and accessible petroleum fuel--and at the expense of research that would otherwise lead to new technology to locate and produce petroleum from untapped sources.

The election of John McCain might be better than the election of Clinton or Obama, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. The very conserative Ann Coulter has said that she not only wouldn't vote for McCain, but that should he become the nominee, she'll campaign for Mrs Clinton. Given Coulter's somewhat bizarre sense of humor, and tendency to hyperbole, it'e hard to tell whether that's her real position, but one can certainly draw from her statements that she doesn't favor McCain.

It's not easy to make a decision given the very poor group of candidates from whom we must select. I favor Ron Paul, all the while realizing, given his vote results to date and the political climate in Washington, his chance of becoming the nominee are very slim. I'll vote for Paul in the hopes that his influence can be felt by whoever becomes the nominee.

Then, I'll hope that the coming administration can be held to causing as little damage as possible until voting Americans can be convinced that trying to live at the expense of others is not a life-enhancing policy.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California