A Legend of a Different Sort

My dad, who passed away a few years ago, and whom I think about often, was a lifelong railroad man. I've already chronicled a couple of my railroad adventures and will undoubtedly write about more of them in the future. Railroads played a big part in my youth.

When I was, I suppose twelve or thirteen years old, I discovered magazines. I was selling the Grand Forks Herald in the streets of downtown Grand Forks and East Grand Forks and making decent money for a twelve-year old. Fifty or so cents a day could keep an adult alive in those days, if he didn't mind living in a camp down by the river.

At times, after I'd sold my papers, I'd walk down to the train station, to a very well-stocked newsstand across the street. I liked to peruse Hot Rod and Rod & Custom magazines, take a look at Argosy and some of the other men's adventure magazines. Mechanix Illustrated was one of my favorites. I still remember Tom McCahill's road tests of the various new cars, in which there was his signature photo of himself, a big man, or his (large) dog Boji, lying in the open trunk of the car he was reviewing to indicate the adequacy of the storage space. Of course, the technology fan that I am today has its roots in these magazines, as well as Popular Science and others.

There were the science fiction monthlies, the horror magazines (whose names fade into obscurity), the crime magazines and, of course, the girlie mags.

Kids my age weren't supposed to wander to the far end of the magazine racks. The little "over 21" sign was supposed to keep kids away from the fledgling Playboy and the many others at the end of the racks.

I didn't let it stop me. The clerks were usually busy helping customers, working on stock or just reading a magazine. Some probably just didn't care. Occasionally, I'd step a couple of feet beyond the limits and leaf through this girlie magazine or that. The curiosity of a twelve-year-old boy is a very real.

Scantily-dressed women will always attract the looks of young boys and men. From the girls with torn dresses, shrinking in horror from the long, curved fangs of a bug-eyed monster on the cover of a sci-fi pulp to the women in red or black lingerie posed in the girlie magazines, to the now almost forgotten nudist camp magazines, only one name survives to this day.

Bettie Page.

Her photos have appeared in several issues of Playboy magazine, including a feature as Playmate of the Month in the January, 1955 issue, and had hundreds of photos published in various men's magazines in those few years. Photos in and out of then very risque lingerie and in poses suggesting both kinky sex and pure feminine beauty.

Bettie Page, at this writing, is still alive, but just. She was being treated for pneumonia, was about to be released when she suffered a sudden heart attack that's left her in critical condition in an LA hospital. This according to a DenverPost.com story, here.

Bettie is 85 now, and has lived in relative obscurity for decades, until granting some interviews in recent years.

I, of course, wish Bettie a full recovery.

But, I've outgrown all that stuff now. Like hell, I have!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Addendum: Ms Page passed away yesterday, December 11. Rest easy, Bettie. You'll be remembered for a long, long time.

The Condemnation of a Small Town

The "California" section of the Sept 23, 2008 issue of the LA Times happened to be lying 'pon the butt gaskets in the reading room of our construction office. I succumbed. I regret it. Above the fold I found Steve Lopez' column--Nowhere exposure: visiting Wasilla, Alaska. I wrote an entry about one of his columns last year--about an airhead Beverly hills woman distraught that she didn't dream that coyotes would actually enter her Benedict Canyon property and kill the little dog she left outside in the yard.

That column was funny. It cleverly pointed out the complete empty-headedness of many cloistered residents of el Pueblo de Los Angeles. This column is very different.

I'm not sure exactly what facet of Ms Sarah Palin inflames the sensibilities of socialist newswriters, but the lady sure has something!

This time, it wasn't Ms Palin who was attacked (directly), it was the town of which she was mayor, prior to her election as Guber of the state of Alaska.

The first thing Lopez attacks, after complaining about having to stop for a moose crossing the road, is that Wasilla isn't the "quaint mountain village" he expected. It has a Wal-mart, a Target, a Lowes and the normal variety of fast food emporia. "They paved paradise...." he fairly sobs.

He thought he found "downtown" when he saw a "row of frontier-style buildings." "But," he laments, "it was just a Knott's Berry Farm-style facade...." housing mundane, ordinary small businesses, including a (shudder) gun shop.

Well, Mr Lopez, as you might have noticed, driving from Anchorage to Wasilla--a very short distance--it'd be more accurate to have observed that Wasilla is actually more of a suburb (like San Fernando or El Monte) than a "quaint mountain village." It seems that it was too much for him to take, that Alaska is no longer a 19th-century wilderness, despite all the stunningly beautiful vistas and its huge size.

Most of its productive class have regular jobs or own businesses. They drive cars and many have personal aircraft, if they must travel the state a lot. They have a far more sophisticated view of their life on the land, their relationships with the wilderness and the wildlife and their own independence than do most residents of el Pueblo de Los Angeles.

Lopez turns to the people of the town of Wasilla. According to his column, he spoke to four of them--One who told him that "This is Main Street." One who's running for Palin's old job as Mayor--who likes Palin. One who is an enthusiastic Palin partisan in whose store they sell a bumper sticker "I Thinc Im Gunna Vote Four Oboma Cuz Thems Hollywood Peoples Like Him." And finally, a "progressive" socialist who gives a left-distorted critique of Palin's religious views. Guess who gets the most sympathetic treatment.......

I'm a mite concerned about Palin's religious views, too. I'm also concerned about Obama's religious views--which seem to change every time he dumps one of his lifelong mentors. I'd prefer that the Presidential candidates have no religious views, or at the very least, never let the public know what they are.

Well, Steve Lopez is a columnist, not (here at least) a hard news writer. He can have whatever views he wants, and write about them. What I'd like to see though, is for him to research Sarah Palin--that he actually and honestly knows something about her--and then comment on her politics, her actual religious views (if he must), her record and the reasons why he agrees or disagrees with her, than trash her home town and its residents because they aren't what he wanted them to be.

I hesitate to place most of the LA Times on the bottom of Rosie's (my parrot) cage, for fear she'll develop neuroses.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Stunning Insult to WWII Vets

In one of its more amazing efforts to carry algorian water in the advancement of the global warming hoax, Time magazine has reached a new low in its disregard for American veterans. An article by Jeff Poor on the Business and Media Institute website shows the cover of the current issue of Time magazine, which parodies the raising of the flag over Mount Surabachi (in which about 7000 Allied troops were killed and over 20,000 wounded) following the fierce and costly Battle of Iwo Jima.

We can say what we want about the discourse or lack of it by the Roosevelt Administration, in the opening moments that lead to the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese Navy, but the US Marines, as well as all the other soldiers, sailors and fliers involved in the war in the Pacific acted with extreme competence and valor throughout.

Survivors of the battle, and of the war wherever they fought, justifiably feel very insulted. Those of us who are sons and daughters of the veterans, and who've heard all the stories first hand, are equally so.

Global warming is going to be on the list of the world's greatest hoaxes, in future history books, and the generation now known as the "Baby Boom" in the US are going to be known as gullible, as well as a generation of spoiled brats. Time magazine, already on a downward slide because of an outrageously flawed editorial point of view, is on its way to insolvency.

“I think since I’ve been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that’s needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things,” [Time managing editor Richard] Stengel said. “You can’t always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let's just say so.”

Well, Mr Stengel, no one will criticize you for having a point of view, unless it's stupid to the point of insult.

I think many mistakes were made at the political level during the period, but for which our involvement might have been far different, but nothing can be said to lessen the valor of the troops, once mobilized. Time magazine's cover should be taken as an insult, not only by the survivors of WWII, but by all veterans. There is no excuse for trivializing the loss of a great part of a generation by trying to equate it with a hot summer.

Last summer wasn't even particularly hot.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

A Political Debate, Or A Seventh-Grade Classroom?

I watched ABC's Presidential debate yesterday evening, and while I found ABC's chosen format to be refreshing--giving the candidates time to expound 'pon their views rather than recite memorized sound bites. Charlie Gibson did a creditable job as moderator and referee, not getting in the way, yet keeping the battle under a degree of control.

I didn't watch the Democrat part--who can listen to the blathering of those who only debate the degree of enslavement they wish to impose 'pon America's Productive Class? Not that the Republicans are much better--but at least they speak in somewhat rational terms.

I thought.

The actions of five of the Republican candidates was shameful on numerous occasions. Fast forward to the Fox News analyses by numerous pundits and commentators later last night and today. Nearly all (or, as much as I've observed, absolutely all) of them made a lot of the barbs tossed at ex-Guber Romney regarding his real and imagined flip flops over the course of his career. There were such barbs, but they were relatively few and in the spirit of good-natured jabs among members of a club, over beers.

All the candidates did take advantage of their opportunity to expound on the views they've tried to offer and defend in thirty- to sixty-second sound bites in past debates. I think my candidate, Ron Paul, did less well at this than did the others. Part of this was his own fault, but much of it was because of the situation which I'll try to reveal: He was interrupted often by one or more of the other candidates, who didn't offer any sort of rational rebuttal to Paul's assertions and arguments, but who was essentially pointing a finger and laughing at Paul's positions with no attempt to demonstrate why they disagree, or to offer any better ideas.

Time after time, Paul was interrupted. Time after time (and ABC's cameramen were johnnies-on-the-spot to make sure these moments were on camera) candidates were seen to make faces and break into derisive laughter at some of Paul's points--whether it be his comments on hard money being a solution to inflation, or his mentioning that the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are causing the dollar to sink on the world market, feeding the increases in oil prices. Whenever he mentioned the US Constitution, I thought Rudy (Butthead) Giuliani was going to whip out a straw and start shooting spitballs.

Sadly, my second choice among the Republicans, Fred Thompson joined in on this juvenile behavior. Aside: I have to fight with myself on this--I can't seem to forget that the President in Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged was named "Mr Thompson."

So, while I don't yet know how well Dr Paul will do in the various Primaries, I do know that none of the other candidates will be consistent advocates for liberty, hard money or capitalism. I expect more of the same whether the next President is a Republican or a Democrat.

Remember, VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Salag California

On Becoming a Ron Paul Partisan



Looks like I'm one of many vocal supporters of Ron Paul for President. After reading a note from Patrick M Byrne, CEO of the very successful internet sales firm, Overstock.com, as part of a blog on his firm's site wrote the following:

Dear Customer,

Because Overstock advertises on Fox channels, Overstock has been receiving calls and email messages about Fox News decision to exclude Dr. Ron Paul from the upcoming January 6 forum in New Hampshire, a decision that seems especially rank given the fact that in yesterdays Iowa Caucus Dr. Paul out-polled Mayor Giuliani by a factor of 2.5:1. I always enjoy hearing from our customers, particularly those who display political commitment of any flavor, and I thank them for their calls and emails.

In October Dr. Paul came to Utah, and he and I visited for an hour in my office. After that meeting, I gave him the largest donation I could under federal law: it is rare to meet a politician who understands the Constitution, and rarer still to meet one who thinks it binds the government meaningfully (I would give Dr. Paul more were there not now a federal blackout on free speech known as "McCain-Feingold"). In a television interview last week I stated that, while for the first time in my life I felt there are several candidates qualified to be president, my #1 choice would be Dr. Paul.

That said, I believe that pulling Overstocks advertising from Fox would represent an inappropriate conflation of my personal politics with my corporate responsibilities: thus, fellow supporters of Dr. Paul, my answer to you is, "no." However, I have contacted Fox and told them that, as a major advertiser, I believe it is unconscionable of them to exclude Dr. Paul from participating in this forum on January 6, thus denying our polity the opportunity to make an informed choice.

Respectfully,

Patrick M. Byrne, Ph.D.

CEO, Overstock.com

After reading this, I've decided to a) take a second look at the possibility of making purchases from that form, and b) write the following to Fox Senior Political Producer Producer Marty Ryan:

Dear Mr Ryan,

It disturbs me greatly that Fox News has decided to take a hand in the 2008 Presidential elections by eliminating one of the more viable Republican candidates from the upcoming debate. Dr Ron Paul is the only candidate who is aware of the US Constitution and who often expresses support for the document. He has a record in Congress of consistently voting in accordance with its tenets--a record few, if any other congresspeople can approach.

Your commentators, Messrs Hannity and O'Reilly, to name two, seem to stand in opposition to this same document by their habit of referring to Dr Paul as "wacko," "nutcase," and many other derogatory references, liberally mixed with ignoring this candidate at moments when it would clearly be proper to include him.

Fox enjoys a position at the forefront of cable news stations in the US, and deservedly so. It seems a shame to put that leadership at risk for a mistaken political stance, inconsistent with Fox's stated mission: "We Report, You decide."

Sad to see the beginning of the downhill slide of a great organization.

Yours in truth,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

I don't have anything against the organizer of a political debate deciding whom should attend but, as I said, Fox News positions itself as a "fair and balanced" news outlet, and Ron Paul has tens of millions of pots in which to piss. He did get a score of 10% in the Hawkeye Cauci. I'll be surprised if he doesn't do better than that in New Hampshire.

Remember, VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Reporter Ignores Facts, Shows Bias

We're becoming so accustomed to "news reporters" writing opinion pieces and editors placing them on news pages, that the above headline (mine) seems bland.

I haven't read the LA Times for,well, somewhat over ten years, but some leftist at my office brings them in and leaves sections in the "reading room." Since I've recently heard from Larry Elder's show that they've actually had a few un- or less-biased stories lately, I checked it out.

I stumbled into this story in the California section from the 18th of October, this year: "Gov. ignores gun lobby, and condors get lift." George Skelton, writer of the piece, ought to be thrown out on his kiester for having written such a piece of trash--or the editor should be given a mop and told he was hired into the wrong department. Or both.

While I wish none of earth's critters ill, I honestly can't work up a huge amount of sympathy for the California condor. While they look ever so majestic soaring above, even Mr Skelton admits they're ugly when seen up close. And they are. Even the babies are ugly--I saw one once at the San Diego Zoo. They look like vultures on steroids.

Our neo-socialist, neo-conservative Guber, Arnold Schwarzeneggar (a far better action movie star than politician), has signed legislation banning the use of lead bullets for hunting, in favor of copper. Since the Times didn't cite any studies proving that lead is the thing that's causing the low condor population, I'm very skeptical. Also, I'm wondering if they just aren't suited for life in today's world. Even Mr Skelton admits that they seem prehistoric.

If California condors as a species will be saved, it'll be by the efforts of men working very hard at it--not by government edicts. The condors don't seem to care very much. Honestly, I don't either.

I'm not a hunter, being a city boy and all, and so I don't know what might be lost by replacing the lead in bullets with copper. Copper is soft (but not as soft as lead, and copper is heavy, but not as heavy as lead. I do know that government has no business legislating the content of bullets.

Our idiot Guber also signed a bill requiring that semi-automatic handguns must have their chambers stamped with the make, model and serial number of the weapon, so that each shell casing expelled will be stamped with these markings. To help police solve crimes, they say....as if the criminals actually use guns registered to themselves!

Back to new bias: throughout the story, as you can readily see by reading through it, we can readily see the writers opinion. "The gun lobby ranted...." "Schwarzeneggar would have been hammered--and justifiably--if he had vetoed these two bills." (italics mine) "He (Schwarzeneggar) was pandering...." "....22 caliber lead bullets....should be the next step."

The guy might have a point, regarding the lead poisoning of carrion eating birds, but what we need is the facts.....just the facts.

We report. We decide. You shut up, turn off your mind, and absorb.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag california

Long Live the King!

Today, Nicolas Sarcozy was elected President of France, defeating Socialist Segolene Royal by a wide margin. Story here. "You can count of France as a friend," Sarcozy said to America during his victory speech.

I find that comforting.














One thing I noticed: the defeated Mme Royal bears a uncanny resemblance to a certain American socialist: Ms Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation, what one might consider a very leftist-oriented political magazine, and the woman for whom the famous New Orleans Hurricane was named.

I wonder if they're actually both the same person....

France's loss is the world's gain.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag Califorina

A Politician With Common Sense?

I never thought I'd see the day.

I don't think much of politicians and political leaders. Not much at all. I only bring this up because it is (to my knowledge) unique. In a Drudge story, it seems the President of Czech Republic is another one of those evil Global Warming Denier.

Mr Vaclav Klaus, in an interview for "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, says, "IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body....." of the green variety. Asked why none of the world's senior statesmen share his views, he says, "Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice."

I particularly enjoyed reading Mr Klaus' doubts as to the sanity of Algore.

Refreshing.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The Prince of Phallic Symbolism

It might seem like I'm stuck of talk show hosts, and maybe I am, but I just have to write about this, since it at once stands out as irrefutable proof that the christian taliban right is obsessed with sexual symbolism, if not with the sex itself.

I watched the HyperBowl game yesterday, and enjoyed it, in spite of the fact that I'm not that much of a fan of foopbaw. I've always rather enjoyed the game played under inclement weather conditions. It's interesting to see how the players deal with rain, snow, cold and/or a muddy field. In yesterday's game, the main problem was a steady rain that lasted troughout the game. One of the reasons my interest in the game has flagged, is the proliferation of covered stadia. Traditionally, foopbaw is an outdoor sport.

Debbie and I watched the halftime show with a high degree of enthusiasm, both being Prince fans. While I might've picked a slightly different playlist, I still enjoyed it thoroughly. As did Debbie. I commented that this was one of the only halftime shows that actually worked, in several years.

This morning, on the infamous Laura Ingraham talk show, I found out how wrong I was. I didn't notice this, I was enjoying the show: seems that, at one point, Prince used a wind machine to blow a large, white cloth sheet to a vertical, flapping, moving screen 'pon which the lighting caused his shadow to be displayed as he sang and played his guitar. For a brief moment, Price turned so that the shadow of his body hid the guitar body, and the neck of the guitar appeared to be sticking out of the front of his pants. As he ran his hand up and down the frets, well, you can imagine how that looked.

Ms Ingraham, sexually repressed individual that she appears to be, jumped 'pon that image like Miss Balbricker in the shower scene in the film Porky's.

Ms Ingraham spent a large portion of her show discussing this, bringing up the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake show a few years ago. It seems we can see which kind of individual is sex-obsessed.

One of the excuses Ms Ingraham (and others--Hannity, O'Reilly, et al) uses for her fixation 'pon these kinds of images is that of protecting the children.

We have to protect the children.

I don't think it's the job of the christian taliban right to make the world child-safe. I don't want the world to be child safe, nor is it its nature to be so.

Parents, care for your children. Love your children. What you teach them in their first four years will go far toward their psychological makeup throughout their lives. What you teach them in the next ten or so years will make young men and women out of them.

And, for the sake of their safety and future sanity, keep them out of the government's children's prisons!! They're getting more and more dangerous and more and more destructive of the uniqueness of the individual.

No one has ever been able to convince me that casually observed sexual images are destructive to children. Usually, they elicit an attack of curiosity--normal and healthy for a child. You tell the youngster the truth--just enough to satisfy his curiosity. You can tell him more later, as he gets older.

"Protecting" a child from his own adulthood is far more destructive than any casually observed sexual images he might encounter. If you can manage to protect your children from sexual abuse--a formidable enough task--that'll do. That'll do, along with his education and your love.

Government schools are child abuse.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

It's Not Only the Islamists

This afternoon, I was watching Fox News. A program called "Heartland, with John Kasich" was on. I don't often watch this show, because Kasich seems such a stupid man. A topic on his show caught my eye.

He was interviewing a couple of women on the subject of teaching "exotic dancing" to teenage girls. One of the women conducts classes on exotic dancing, and offers reasons why a teenage girl might want to learn the techniques. The other, obviously, thinks this is stupid. Or rather, in today's typical non-judgemental speak, not helpful.

Kasich is downright hostile. Clearly, he thinks any mention or suggestion of anything sexual to any girl under the age of, say sixty, is robbing a girl of her childhood.

Well, unlike John Kasich, I was a child once, and though I had a pretty good childhood, at the time, I was continually wishing it was over so I could go out and do real stuff. Childhood, though a carefree time of learning and playing (ideally) seems vastly overrated.

What could be wrong with teaching young girls to dance, in any manner, when they've decided that they would like it?

I know from previous experience that Kasich is a christian conservative. He was in Congress for a short time and, fortunately for all of us, is no longer there. As far as his opinions on the subjects of girls, women and sexuality, Kasich falls in the same category with other christian conservatives like media personalities Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham and others. Put girls in burqas and keep them from any knowledge of things sexual until marriage. Put the boys in uniform and send them to war.

Girls ought to be educated by their parents gradually, as they express curiosity about things sexual--especially the dangerous aspects--and then guided as they grow up. Then, they should be trusted to behave intelligently as they attain adulthood.

Most parents are way too protective of their kids, for far too long. It often leaves them unprepared to deal with the world as they become adults.

Kids are always smarter (in many respects) than adults think they are.

We should let them be adults.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The Never-Ending Campaign

It's only been eleven weeks since the Congressional election, and less than three weeks since the new Congressdrones have been sworn in--to an Oath of Office which has certainly already been violated by every single one of those having taken it, if this is a typical year. Welcome, New Parasites; time to start campaigning for the next election. The 2008 Presidential campaign season is already well underway.

With at least a dozen candidates already announced, and more sure to come, let's look at the near future. With the exception of the Honorable Doctor Ron Paul, every single candidate, announced and yet to announce, is devoted to increasing the role of government and diminishing the prerogatives of the individual. Even Dr Paul has a couple of issues with which many libertarians will disagree, including myself. While Dr Paul is an extreme long shot for the Republican nomination, he would be far and away better than any of the others. I will vote for him, given the opportunity.

Even though, as I wrote above, the prospects for a return to governmental respect for the freedom, sovereignty and dignity of the individual look quite dim, one can still, perhaps, find some enjoyment in the humor and spectacle of the upcoming events 'pon the scene political. Playing the fiddle as the Republic burns, as it were.

There are a number of things to observe, both good and bad, in the coming protracted campaign season to which we'll have to look forward.

First, the bad news:

• The news will be (already is) so completely cluttered with statist-spun stories about sad, sorry individuals who will never, have never actually lived a productive day in their lives, and who presume to be able to take care of us (by making it impossible for us to take care of ourselves), that time and column space for any news we might actually find informative, will be less available.

• Our mail (both e- and snail-) will be jammed full of what will prove to be untruthful brochures and letters, filled with unachievable (fortunately) programs and goals, and solicitations for campaign funds.

• Radio and tv stations will bore us with annoying and untruthful campaign ads for two full years!
  

• Politicians, having two full years to campaign, will be out shaking babies and kissing hands when they ought to be doing their jobs (this is a very mixed negative).

• Streets and highways will occasionally be closed to allow motorcades filled with high-powered politicians to pass unimpeded and flights will be delayed while government planes land and take off, and to allow for Presidential haircuts on the taxiways.

• We'll be continually bombarded with poll results from various pollsters, and analyses by hundreds of pundits, to the exclusion of entertaining programming.
  

Now, the good news:

• Jay Leno et al will have an abundance of new material with which to delight their audiences.

• Since virtually everything Congress passes into law becomes detrimental to the productive individual, keeping politicians on the road campaigning and fundraising, instead of "working" in their offices and 'pon the floor of Congress, can only be a good thing.

• Many wealthy but foolish individuals will have their wealth diminished to the extent of their donations to campaigning politicians. Conversely, catering firms, hotels, hookers and other entertainers will be enriched by the foolish spending of campaign managers and the inevitable camp followers.

As for us, while there are few prospects of anything close to an enhancement of freedom in American society, we have to acknowledge that we can look forward to two full years of often-entertaining gaffes and missteps, charges and countercharges, and sometimes the exposure of the lies and hypocrisies of the political animals.

While the future looks bleak to freedom-loving individuals, at least we have bread and circuses to enjoy while the once-wonderful Republic of the United States of America is turned into just another two-bit people's state by the traitors who inhabit the nation's Capitol.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Addendum:

This just in--Past Presidential candidate and junior Senator from Taxachussetts, John Kerry, has announced that he will not enter the race for the Democrat Party's nomination this year. He will return to his normal job as one of the statues on Easter Island. Thanks and a tip of the battered grey fedora to Dennis Miller.

Journalism 101-1/2

I took a couple of journalism courses at Fullerton Junior College long enough ago that you can actually see the difference in the government school dumbing down process from then to now. The first rule that was taught, in the reporting of a story, is to find out and include the who, what, where, when and why. I assume that's still the case.

Leaving aside all the allegations of spin and bias, and just sticking to the straight reporting of the story as it exists, I still find many things lacking in many news stories. Case in point: A recent LA local CBS news story about a woman who called police, having been shot. Police found the woman wounded and a man dead inside the store, both shot.

We aren't told the woman's condition. We aren't told who shot whom, whether it was a robbery in which one of these individuals was robbing the store and was shot by the storekeeper, who was shot simultaneously. There was conjecture that it was an attempted murder-suicide, but no indication of a relationship between the two. No names. Only a very sketchy police statement with little useful information.

At FJC, in the journalism class I attended, the story would get a failing grade and a lecture about stayng on the story until you have the facts. It wouldn't have been a pleasant lecture to have to endure. Shame on CBS2-LA and its reporter for a shoddy job of reporting.

Somehow, most of today's working news reporters, seem to be content to go to the press conference, listen to the speeches, get in a question or two and take the handout. The story is written from that, and only from that. What the politician, his hack, or the police spokesman says becomes the whole of the story.

The romantic in me recalls the stories of fast-talking reporters who interview witnesses, politicians, who finds a way to interview the principals involved, and who finds a way to remove the spin and find the truth. If the politician lies (now, who'd believe that's possible!), if the police are covering something up, or if a criminal is hiding something, the good reporter will find a way to ferret the truth out.

Today's news reporters are at worst, bought and paid for and at best, slackers.

Brenda Starr, where are you?

Warm regards,
Col. Hogan

When Is A Nazi Not A Nazi?

Answer: when it's not a part of Adolph Hitler's Germany between ~1933 and 1945.

At least, according to several master debators who scream that to make any reference to Nazism in regards to current-day United States of America is to ruin one's argument. This morning, Doug MacIntyre, morning talk show guy on KABC-AM in El Pueblo de Los Angeles, made just this argument with reference to Joy Behar's having compared Donald Rumsfeld to Adolph Hitler, on the tv talk show "The View," this morning.

First, I wouldn't call Rumsfeld nor any other member of the Bush administration Nazis--in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. What's happening in the United States has been progressing for many decades, and George W Bush and his administration have simply continued a long-established trend--as his father did before him.

Nazism is merely a contraction of the German phrase Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which means, National Socialist German Workers Party. It also refers to that period in German history, called the Third Reich, during which Adolph Hitler was the nation's leader.

There are, in fact many comparisons between the recent United States and the German Third Reich, and they are detailed in Leonard Peikoff's 1982 book, "The Ominous Parallels."

The major differences between the two are that we can still vote, more or less in accordance with the US Constitution (many disagree about what that's worth), and that the American press and the internet are still more or less free.

We can, though, accurately refer to the current-day United States government as a fascist government. Fascism is defined by Dictionary.com as "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Now, we don't quite have a full dictatorship yet, though recent residents of the White House exhibit many dictator-like traits, such as the propensity to "find a way" to do what they want done, with or without the authorization of the US Constitution, and the considering of themselves as something "above" the common person.

How much closer to a dictatorship-in-fact do we want to come?

My point is: Nazism and fascism are political systems each with precise definitions. It's indeed possible to make comparisons between these systems and capitalism, and it ought be done often. Only by making careful and precise comparisons and discussions can reality be known and described, thus making reality more clear and making changes poisssible.

Nazism and fascism are loaded words, 'tis true, but this is to the good. They awaken the mind and aid the focus, by their mere invocation. Some of us need to be awakened, it seems.

I don't agree with Behar's silly little quip, partly because I don't think she has a clue what she's saying, but I'm certainly not offended by the use of these loaded terms to draw attention to one's point.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regarrds,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Writer's Block....

I've been trying to write an entry about the Republicans' utter failure to do anything other than continue the destruction of the Bill of Rights and attempt to remain in power (presumably to finish the nullification of the rest of the Constitution), but it wasn't quite working. Meanwhile, I wasn't getting anything posted.

I'm gonna write some easier stuff for a bit.

Like, today. I started to watch Hannity and Colmes on Fox. Unremarkably, they spent the first several minutes talking with the very shady Col. Oliver North about North Korea. They were saying the predictable things about strengthening the ill-conceived "Patriot Act," and getting the do-nothing UN to write yet another resolution or something.

The really annoying thing--the thing that made me change to AMC (which is playing Fargo, a movie that reminds me of the part of the country in which I grew up--they really do talk that way up there!), was that once again, over and over, ad nauseum, they played that same hackneyed old footage of thousands of presumably North Korean soldiers goose-stepping in a way guaranteed to wreck their backs in no time. I think those clips were really put together by George Lucas on his Industrial Light & Magic, Inc computers at the Skywalker Ranch.

I did a little marching when I was in Boot Camp in the Navy. I have a good memory. You can't march like that.

And I can't watch those computer-generated stooges hippity-hopping past the reviewing stand even one more time.

Remember, VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Yes, But Is It Really Funny?

With exceptions, I usually don't like comediennes. Most of them are really full of not-too-repressed anger, which reaches their audiences more as outrage than humor.

An LA-based radio talk show hostess, Stephanie Miller, does a better job of controlling this and going for really clever humor, than most. I occasionally listen for the humor--but not for the commentary. There is almost no serious political commentary, in spite of the show's being billed as a "progressive" talk show.

Incidentally, I really hate their having co-opted the word "progressive." to mean socialist. Once, they were proud to call themselves socialists. Jack London proudly called himself a socialist. Eventually, "socialist" became a pejorative term, so they started calling themselves "liberals." This in spite of the fact that free marketeers had been calling themselves liberals for decades. Now, if you refer to A. J. Nock as a liberal, people assume you mean socialist. Recent years, the term "liberal" has become pejorative.

People now know a "liberal" is a socialist. After experimenting with words like "communitarian," which most people (correctly) confused with communist, socialists have finally begun to call themselves "progressives." How we can apply the term "progressive" to a group comprised of "environmentalists," who want to put an end to technology and reduce mankind to roaming bands of hunter-gatherers, and wealth redistributors, who want to take wealth from the productive and turn it over to the non-productive, is well beyond my ability to understand.

They're not liberals. They're not progressives. They are socialists.

And I have digressed.

Back to the very lovely and quite talented Stephanie Miller. She's clever, she's quick, she's funny and she's interesting. She is not informative. She very rarely actually gives a rational discourse on any part of the Democrat agenda, rational reasons for hating GW Bush (there are many), alternatives to his programs, the Democrat platform or anything! Her radio program is basically a three-hour standup routine--with numerous commercial breaks.

Today, however, she slipped up. She actually allowed a bit of real "War on Terrorism" news to slip through, along with an actual rationally formed conclusion. 'Twas a welcome event!

Apparently, the Afghan drug trade is very business-as-usual, in spite of the efforts on the Iraq-depleted US forces there. It's coming out that the money from this trade is financing a resurgance of the Taliban. This, in turn, is making the job of our Afghan-stationed forces even harder and more dangerous. By the way, does anyone know what is the current job of our forces in Afghanistan?

Y'know? (sez Col. Hogan, not Miss Miller) This wouldn't even be possible, but for the other really stupid war the feds are waging: The War on the Bill of Rights.....er the "War on Drugs."

One of the major effects of the "War on Drugs," other than:

• Huge amounts of land, money and property stolen from their rightful owners as "booty" in the "WOD."
• Competing, often warring drug gangs throughout the nation.
  
• Increasing numbers of innocent bystanders killed and injured in battles between drug gangs and the police.
• The romanticization of drugs to rebellious young people.
• The paramilitarization of local police forces, separating them from the local people.
• The creation of a non-productive drug subculture dependent 'pon social welfare programs.

Is the fact that drug prices increase to the point where such monsters as the Taliban can make huge profits on the trade; enough to re-energize the organization which served to repress the Afghan people for these past many years.

So, as the very clever and somewhat oblivious Miss Miller has inadvertently revealed, the federal government is once again working at cross-purposes with itself.

It's not making the President and his Administration look very good.

Remember, VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Interviewing on the Slant

Not being very sophisticated in the art of the interview, it's taken me a long time to even begin to isolate the tricks and ploys that make a good or a bad interview. I've long been aware, in a general sense of the slant many interviewers bring to the table; their personal perspectives and biases, but the way they set up the questioning to make the interviewee look smart or stupid, honest or deceitful, rational or emotional often eludes me.

Today, I heard an excellent example of bias in first a very hostile, then a very favorable interview on the Laura Ingraham radio talk show.

I was working, so I couldn't listen in full concentration, so I missed the names of the two interviewees, but I heard most of their interviews.

The first one had been a captain in the Marines. He's currently a professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth (a school with a perennially competitive varsity ice hockey team) . His thesis was that evidence seems to indicate that something other than--or rather, in addition to, the airliners brought the World Trade Center towers down.

Now, I know a few people who don't accept the official explanation of the collapse of the buildings, and think there must be more to it than that. I haven't had a chance to converse with any of them at length about their evidence and theories, so I was curious to hear what this man had to say.

Ingraham was continually interrupting him, butting in with questions that took him off-message, interrupting with statements of trust for the Administration and the 9-11 Commission (in spite of having poo-poohed the Commission in the past), and questions designed to make the professor seem wacky. She acted hostile and contentious throughout the interview. Fortunately, the professor was able to sidestep some of Ingraham's subversions, but unfortunately, he really wasn't able to get his message out--this according to Ingraham's plan.

The other was also a Marine officer--one who has been involved in the current Iraq war. He also was a well-spoken gentleman, but his agenda was very different. He has a book on the difficulty of fighting over there in the face of lack of media support over here. He also spoke on recent statements by leftist politicians and on the recent Supreme Court decision on military tribunals.

Throughout the interview, Ingraham lobbed softball questions designed to allow the gentleman to speak his mind. She was affable and supportive throughout. She gave the gentleman plenty of time to respond fully.

I enjoyed the chat thoroughly and generally agreed with his responses.

My difficulty here is with the way Ingraham, after inviting the professor to come onto the show, didn't allow him to make his points. I listen to talk radio quite a bit and have observed this phenomenon several times. This was, however, the first time I've seen such blatant opposites within an hour of each other.

We all (who pay attention to this stuff) know that Ingraham is a conservative, and a bit of a Kool-Aid drinker, but I'd never thought of her as incompetent. Or, maybe the truth is that she thinks her listeners are stupid.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Those Awful Cartoons (Again)!

There have been calls for a boycott against Borders Books for their cowardly handling of a recent issue of Free Inquiry in which were printed those now-famous Danish cartoon depictions of Mohammad. Borders apparently cites concerns for the safety of their clientele and employees as the reason for its having refused to place the issue on its magazine rack.

Liberty loving individuals all over the country decried the bookstore chain's pitiful handling of the situation. Many individuals have decided to avoid Borders, and have called on others to do the same. An occasional customer of borders myself, I have decided to join this effort.

Now there's an interesting addendum to the story: the June issue of Harpers also has the Danish cartoons in its pages. Anybody care to give odds that Borders will refuse to carry this issue of Harpers? Anybody?

Robert Bidinotto, Editor-in-Chief of The New Individualist, the Objectivist Center's magazine, alerts us in his blog, to the current status of the story, and provides links to analysis by others.

Kudos to Mr Bidinotto for his stand on this issue!

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

A Collective Guilty Conscience

I guess I'm a little stuck on the movie V For Vendetta. I liked it. I plan to see it again. And again.

Although the movie is set in near-future Britain, the parallels here in the United States are hard to ignore. President Bush's administration seems hell-bent on putting an end to any and all privacy here, and in spending to (and beyond) the point that the next administration will find it very easy to justify a reactionary tax increase.

Note that, while the miniscule tax cut he pushed through was welcome, it was nowhere near big enough, and it was accompanied by less well-known tax increases not often acknowledged. Increases in fees, etc. It ought also to have been accompanied by cuts in spending, and wasn't--GWB's spending eclipses that of any previous administration. We only occasionally hear a faint mention of making those meager tax cuts permanent, and hardly ever hear mention of spending restraint. And, dammit, my car needs a new muffler.

Meanwhile, the insidious "Patriot Act," aka the Ripping the Bill of Rights to Shreds Act, has been renewed, guaranteeing that whatever rights GWB fails to destroy, his Democrat successor will have plenty of time to finish off.

Back to the subject, I've noticed that nearly all libertarians I've read like V. Libertarian reviews are full of positive comment and show agreement with the movie's view of the direction the world is heading. On the other hand, reviewers of conservative bent, every one, despise the film and, in some cases without having seen it, make their attacks focus on the terroristic element of the bombings and the assassinations.

The individual I particularly remember in this regard is Michael Medved, who apparently saw only terrorism in the movie--as did Sean Hannity.

As one of America's dumbest living politicians exclaimed, They "played on our fears!"

Why would conservatives so roundly condemn a work of art that so clearly favors a return to freedom and a hatred of tyranny? Could it be a reaction to the niggling complaints of what little is left of their consciences? Might they be remembering, with a sense of denial and embarrassment, that conservatism once, not long ago, claimed to champion capitalism and individual rights--however inconsistently? Does this movie point out a conflict that they're loathe to face?

The movie implied that America warred and spent itself into receivership, leaving us at the mercy of our not-so-benevolent allies. Not really much of a stretch, as things look from the here and now. GWB's excesses will hand a very difficult set of problems to the next administration. And the next administration will take it out on us.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Remember, VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The Shot Heard 'Round the World

Y'know, I have to think that Dick Cheney's having shot Harry Whittington on their quail hunting expedition was an accident. As a firearms enthusiast, I also have to think that the whole thing was Cheney's fault for not taking the moment to know where all the members of the hunting party were. All that's pretty much established, and pending any unexpected further revelations, the story's over.

What was really strange and really funny is the way the whole thing went down with the MSM press. Obviously, the reporters in the White House Press Corps--reporters whose photos are in the dictionary illustrating the meaning of the word "pompous"--expected Cheney to put down his shotgun and pick up his cell phone and call them, even as the unfortunate Mr Whittington lay bleeding in the dry grass.

In movies and stories of yore, we learn that the job of a news reporter is to go out, find the individuals involved in the story, interview them by hook or by crook. They might have to go to strange places; dangerous places and research the facts. They might have to eavesdrop, spy, develop ruses, pay bribes or even outright lie to get to the truth of the matter.

Not any more. You'd damn well better call a press conference and give all the reporters from all the newspapers, newswires, news magazines, radio and tv reporters and retired tv talking heads all the facts and answer every question fully until they decide they've heard enough or you, my dear politician, are dead meat. Unless your name is Clinton or Kennedy.

Why, you might ask? Because if you delegate this solemn responsibility to a mere private citizen, who'll tell it to a cub reporter on a local paper, of course they'll get it all wrong. Such unschooled oafs are not to be trusted with real news! Just ask David Gregory. He'll tell you. And tell you. And tell you.

Now, hold up your hands if you know the answer, children: How many times have we seen a big story, when told to us by Geraldo Rivera or Newsday's Tom Brune--or any of the others, for that matter--change from hour to hour, from day to day? Not changes that develop, mind you, but factual changes. Changes in which the reporter rushed off a quick story to get a scoop, before he had the facts, and was subsequently shown to be exaggerated or incomplete, or just plain wrong?

Having read news stories about which I had personal, first-hand knowledge, it happens a lot!

I heard Cheney's shotgun referred to as 28-caliber several times before I finally heard 28-gauge, for example. The press, as I've mentioned before, changes the spelling and pronunciation of Arabic words and names every couple of weeks or so. Nobody seems to understand the necessity for news people to have some degree of real-world knowledge before sending them out of the halls of ivy.

There were thousands dead, more thousands raped and robbed, hundreds of bodies floating in the New Orleans streets after the Katrina hurricane, until others were able to get into the area and give a little perspective. Yet almost no one in the MSM reported the fact that the military and the police were going house-to-house confiscating residents' legally-owned firearms, in complete violation of their Second Amendment rights. But, I digress.

I only saw bits and pieces of that embarrassing press conference in which the entire press corps tried to rake the Pillsbury Doughboy over the coals because of the "delay" in the reporting of the accident to their tender, pampered ears.

Had I been the doughboy, and were I being verbally assaulted by the likes of those dolts, I'd have closed the meeting, then told them to have their bosses send a new set of reporters: reporters who can be civil and polite while asking the tough questions. Reporters who can keep their personal psychoses and biases under wraps while working in the supposedly neutral third estate.

Were I the editor of any one of these news media, I'd have reporters actually digging and finding out what's really going on, rather than relying on what the White House dorks are being spoon-fed.

I don't trust the Administration any farther than I can throw it. I'd like somebody to find out what's really going on in that den of iniquity, so we can go back to being a Constitutional Republic once again.

Remember, VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Say......What?

I was just watching the news on KTTV, Channel 11, in LA.

Did Mary Beth McDade really say, "...Alleged allegations.....?"

Let's hear it for government schools!

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag california