Katrina Bowl

Ok, so we're all really happy that the Saints won the Hype-er Bowl this year. Everyone, that is, except the folks from Indianapolis. I really was hoping thay'd win inspite of the fact that foopbaw rates a very poor third behind a couple of other games that can be played 'pon a carpet.

I just have one little niggling problem: why is it that every--literally EVERY news or sports story about this game and this team never failed to mention how a win for the Saints would do wonders for the folks in N'Awlins trying to recover from Hurricane Katrina.

WHAT!!??

Hurricane Katrina, for those with memories de-enhanced by children's prisons, happened almost four-and-a-half years ago. Four-and-a-half years! Get over it!

South Florida had a class three or four hurricane every two or threee years. Typically, they're rebuilt in a few months, and saying it's worth the nuisance to live in such a wonderful place.

Folks equally devastated in coastal areas along the gulf coast of Mississippi and Alabama got relatively little news coverage, very little disaster aid (by comparison) and rebuilt and resumed their lives within a few months.

Four-and-a-half years after N'Awlins' first bad hurricane in recent decades, and there, it seems, has been little or no recovery yet.

To be fair, N'Awlins had a really bad break in the criminal mismanagement of disaster aid by local, state and federal relief agancies, for which literally dozens, maybe hundreds of local, state and federal officials should be taken out to the nearest concrete wall and shot. Literally.

Also, to be fair, a majority of the voters in N'Awlins deserve the hard times they managed to survive for having the suicidal stupidity to re-elect that profoundly inept thievin' idiot they have the incredibly poor judgement to have called Mayor. But for the few thousand remaining productive individuals in that fair city, who certainly voted to give the dunderhead Mayor Nagin a lift from the pointy tip of their boot, not only out of N'Awlins, but out of existence.

The hurricane was only the bare beginning of their problems.

Government defines incompetence.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

North Dakota's Annual Water Follies

I grew up in Grand Forks. Actually, I went to 1st and 2nd grades in a little town 13 miles west of Grand Forks in which my grandfather owned a general store and a fleet of grain trucks. In his teens, Dad drove one of the trucks to bring farmers' wheat to the railroad. After high school, my dad worked for the Great Northern Railroad in those years, and took jobs in many towns in the northeast of North Dakota. I was born in Langdon, a little town about 8 miles from the Canada border.

Before I started school, Dad had managed to get a more stable position with the railroad back in Emerado. That led to a better job in Grand Forks as I was entering fifth grade.

During my childhood I experienced two of these spring floods. The first was in, I think, 1949. Beyond the river bank, the land is very nearly flat. Once the water rises beyond the levees, it's free to sheet across miles of flat farmland. In '49, I recall that the water in Emerado was 2-3-feet deep.

You couldn't drive a car. Most didn't try to drive trucks. Basements filled with water, but the first floor of houses were often left dry, very slightly above the level of the water. The hardwood floor of my grandfather's store was soaked, causing it to buckle and bulge. Everyone waded around in the streets for a few days, but after a few days or weeks of fixin' and cleanin', things gradually returned to normal.

The second flood, after we moved to Grand Forks, was similar, maynbe not so bad--except now we were closer to it. Aside from a basement full of water, we escaped fairly unscathed. The only thing I remember clearly was the National Guard working on the levees and their amphib vehicles the only vehicles in the streets.

I was a mite young in those days, but most able-bodied individuals would involve themselves in sandbagging the levees, patrolling them, sandbagging around their dwellings and businesses and other work to save their property from the high water.

The river swells every spring there, mostly due to the snow melt. Factors affecting the degree of flooding include the amount of snow on the ground and the suddenness of the spring thaw and, of course, the severity of spring rains.

The 1997 flood was apparently particularly severe, since much of the effort was in vain and there were many dwellings and business buildings lost. I wasn't there, but I'm sure that the heroic efforts of the area residents at least equaled and probably surpassed those of other years.

We're not getting so much news from Grand Forks this spring, since the more urgent danger seems to be 80-miles south, in Fargo. We see a lot of video of local residents working very hard filling and placing sandbags atop the levees there.

Pridefully, I have to say that Dakotans live tougher lives than do most of us, and are aware of the special problems that exist in that part of the country. There's a willingness to work together to overcome these problems. Part of it is a hardy individualism coupled with the knowledge that a benevolent cooperation will overcome difficulties that are just too much to handle alone.

The National Guard is there, as usual--probably in smaller numbers since the feds have commandeered many of them to do the regular Army's job in Afghanistan and Iraq--and using its heavy equipment to its best advantage.

I'm kind of proud, in a way, to have grown up in those surroundings, because I know I'd be there helping if I were still living in that part of the country. Most of us were brought up aware of our situation, to be self reliant with a sense of benevolence for our neighbors.

I've heard just about enough of California whining.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Fight For What You Want

For many years, extended out of WWII, through Korea and VietNam, flying in the face of the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States forced Americans into involuntary servitude by requiring them to enter military service. For several years, particularly during the VietNam war (the very definition of a war of choice; a war that had nothing to do with the security of the United States), young people protested, not only the war itself, but the conscription the war required.

The majority of the protesters were non- and anti-intellectuals who had an agenda other than the simple end of conscription or even the end of politicians' military adventures. There were, however, a number of smaller groups of more rational, better spoken and better focused individuals were able to frame the argument and place it in the laps of legislators.

Between the voices of these individuals and the thundrous noise of the other protestors--as well as the slothful desire of the politicians to make it all go away before the next election, the protesters were successful. Conscription was ended. The pro-slavery types of politicians have since reinstated registration for the as-yet nonexistent draft, showing that we have to be far more careful whom we entrust with the care and feeding of our way of life.

There's a lesson here.

This lesson should be entitled, "Fight For What You Want."

I know and know of many individuals who recognize the failures of the government children's prison system. Actually, I suspect that just about everyone, including the people involved in the system, are aware of these failures.

Some say that the system needs more money to be improved, though the system gets more and more money with every election, and improvement never comes. The children's prison system currently spends, depending on the particular district, two to five times more than the requirements of various parochial schools and private schools. These latter generally offer a much better education than do the children's prisons.

Almost all schools spend far too much time on propagandizing--whether pro-government indoctrination, religious indoctrination, agenda promotion or a combination thereof--than they should. Schools are to teach academic subjects and to prepare the student for higher education, and life. Not for pushing political or philosophical agendas.

I could say more, but you get the point.

Many people I know want to be responsible for the direction of their children's education. You see protests against many of the instances of incompetence of school administrations, from the kinds of non-academic indoctrination to the actual ability of teachers to teach.

Since parents have to pay for the children's prisons anyway, through taxation, many are trapped. They can't afford two tuitions for one child. They send their kids to the children's prisons, then protest the many failures therein. They shouldn't have to do that--they should simply be able to remove their kids from the failing children's prison or private school and enroll them in a better one.

You have to fight for what you want.

Rather than attending parent-teacher meetings, which are never fruitful for the student, parents should say," I want my money back so I can use it to see to my children's education."

Nothing less.

Government should not be allowed to collect tuition and other costs from parents of children who do not attend government children's prisons. Nor should they be allowed to collect tuition from individuals who have no children.

This is where the fight is: whether government has the right to force the individual to pay for substandard services he neither desires nor needs. Take it a step farther: government shouldn't be allowed to involve itself in areas not mandated by its charter.

There's no point in arguing over whether your child should be required to suffer through sessions of sex education presented by often-troubled adults they don't know. There's no point in arguing over whether he should be required to suffer through sessions of indoctrination toward such nonsense as recycling, global warming, the evils of smoking, the wonders of government action, the need to subject oneself to government whim, etc.

Teach him logic and critical evaluation and he'll be able to make those choices for himself. Parents should teach interpersonal relations themselves, both by instruction and by example. The same goes for philosophy and ethics.

Who worse to teach philosophy than a neurotic union schlub whose very existence depends 'pon the whims of government, and whose only ambition is to retire as soon as possible.

Fight for what you want.

• Fight to control the education of your children.
• Fight to control your life and the products thereof.
• Fight to control the pastimes you prefer to pursue.
• Fight to control your freedom of association and dissociation.
• Fight against having to get permission.

Government has progressively asserted authority over many aspects of our lives. To reassert our rights, we can't ask for bits and pieces. We have to fight for the full freedom with which we were born, and which our lives require.

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Self Defense -- As It Might Be And Ought To Be

The following is a video which was the introductory minute for an episode of the ABC tv series Boston Legal. It exemplifies, in a humorous way, how an honest, self reliant man would deal with a criminal in a free society.

Denny Crane- Guns @ Yahoo! Video

Seems a mite cold, until one realizes that when a man turns to crime, he is metaphysically committing suicide (by denying the right to life, he denies his right to his own life), and the hand that pulls the trigger is his own.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Nation of the Flies

I often wonder what the world will be like a century from now, or even twenty years along. I'm observing that the government children's prison system and the media are seem to be doing everything they can imagine to keep children from full adulthood--by de-emphasizing the need for personal responsibility and critical thinking, and many other activities to which man (in Dirty Lab lingo, man is an abbreviation of human, which is a species of critter that has a female sex--woman--and a male sex--man--and is inclusive) must attend if he's to even begin to fulfill his potential. One can only conclude that the individuals who operate these institutions want to see mankind stunted and mentally/psychologically crippled to remain a sort of world of children throughout their lives.

Another trait these elitists are trying to destroy is that of defiance. As I've mentioned in the past, the only reason for this is that the elitists want a subdued, compliant populace to follow quietly along the elitists' path toward a new feudalism. Most of us are already in the mindset of serfdom already, after decades of conditioning and propagandizing. We can see it wherever we go.

Since the children's prisons seem to be teaching mainly compliance and subservience. Any teaching of that which is necessary for children to become adults must come from the parents. In addition, it has to be hoped that there's some spark of individualism left with the parents, they already having been bathed in humanity-robbing propaganda during their own school years. One bit of evidence that young people are failing to reach adulthood is the relatively common phenomenon of adult children living in their parents' homes well into legal adulthood--presumably with their teddy bears.

The failings of many of today's parents include the inability or lack of desire to:

• Teach their children the work ethic.
• Teach critical thinking.
• Teach time management.
• Be parents.
• Teach children to dress properly.
• Teach children common courtesy.
• Teach them to defend themselves.
  

Many parents fail to allow their children to learn for themselves by:

• Never allowing them to be alone.
• Never letting them set their own goals.
• Never letting them achieve their goals on their own.
• Never letting them achieve self reliance.
• Never letting them have adventures.

Or even:

• Letting them walk to the places they go.
• Letting them go to a public rest room by themselves.
  
• Letting them go to summer camp without their cell phones.
• Letting them find work, earn money and spend it as they will, on their own.

I became a streetcorner newsie when I was ten. It was wonderful, having my own money.

Years ago, I had a job in which I hired kids. I'm not sure if that could still happen today. I tried to instill in them responsibility and pride in a job well done. I tried to teach them to make change properly--something the children's prison hadn't done. We didn't have cash registers with pictures on the keys in gas stations back then.

They'll have kids of their own by now. I hope a little of what I tried to teach stuck.

The road to serfdom is all downhill.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The War on Irrational Fear

I think I once wrote a column on my ideas for combating the world's savages, one that doesn't involve Bush/McCain's Hundred Year War, or anything of the sort.

The United States is a nation of property (or was, if you want to get technical). In a quasi socialist manner of speaking, many of us own property: our homes, our businesses, some own lands and buildings of various kinds and for sundry reasons. Also, many of us own guns and various other kinds of weaponry for self defense, hunting, camping and other uses.

No foreign government has attacked any of the United States in recent decades, however several individuals have, in the name of some religious outlaw gang or another. Al queda is the alleged name the federal government likes to accuse most, but I don't by any means think they're the only one.

Al queda is, as near as I can tell, the brainchild of the spoiled brat kid of a rich Arab. He spouts islam as if it had something to do with the destructive ideas in his poisoned mind. Something of a similar nature is the genesis of groups like ham-ass and the various other hate-filled savage groups from that part of the world.

All that is only slightly relevant. It doesn't matter why these savages attack US properties and individuals, or who they are. I don't care. Just as I don't care why that poor college girl was murdered the other day. I care that some subhuman murdered a young woman, and her killer needs to be caught and punished. A better solution: the girl might have been armed, and able to successfully defend herself. But sadly, and stupidly, the prevailing airhead politicians have decided they'd rather see an innocent young women dead than to see her with a gun in her purse (or in her hand).

My solution to the Arabic savagery is the same as my solution to our local gang thuggery: if they trespass 'pon your property, arrest the bastards and prosecute them for trespass and for whatever else harmful they do, and if they won't be arrested, they can be planted.

Every individual should arm himself, learn to operate his weapons safely and effectively, and should learn how to conduct a citizen's arrest for those who'd rather face prosecution than die. Those who own property should be prepared to defend it from any of these suicidal/homicidal thugs. Those who can afford it might opt to hire security people, but in the end, every individual is responsible for his own life.

The many layers of government own much of the property within the borders of the various United States. They shouldn't, but they do. Fact of life, until we can change it. There is also a lot of corporate-owned property. This property should be (and is) the responsibility of its owners, and those they employ.

Park rangers must be responsible for the parks in which they work. They must be trained in firearms use and arrest technique and must be taught to protect the park and its visitors on pain of losing their jobs. Same goes for airline workers and those in airports, factories and stores. Heads should have rolled at the Boston airport and among the airline workers and government drones responsible for not arming the flight crews of the airliners involved in that disaster.

I like to use Disneyland as an example, because nobody gets away with much in that park--though it'd be better if visitors were able to carry weapons of self defense in the park. Park Security can't be everywhere, and it's only a matter of time until some deranged psychotic manages to sneak a gun into the park.

In short, it's been proven many times that areas in which individuals carry weapons are far more crime-free than are the so-called "gun free zones." Schools and malls are favorite places for psychotics to go to kill a few innocent people, and in a world in which government action rewards irrationality and punishes productivity, one has to be very carefully creative just to stay whole.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Yet Again, Another Case of Not Enough Guns

She got a little to close to this unstable individual, too soon. Only after they'd moved in together did she find out about his uncontrollable fits of anger. After his propensity to physical abuse showed itself, she moved out. The man, unable to let it go, began threatening to commit suicide. He threatened her and threatened to harm members of her family, and even her pets.

She got a restraining order and changed her phone number. Rebecca Griego was afraid for her life.

She worked at the University of Washington. Because U of Washington is an educational facility, it's illegal to carry firearms or other weapons on campus.

Yesterday, Jonathan Rowan murdered Rebecca Griego at her workplace, then committed suicide. Apparently Mr Rowan was unaware of the fact that weapons are banned on school campi.

According to an AP story here, her boss said, "She did everything that a person in her situation could have done, other than leaving town."

Well, she didn't do everything.

As early as grammar school, her parents could've enrolled her in martial arts classes. As soon as she could physically handle it, they might've begun teaching her how to handle a firearm safely and how to shoot. Failing that, she could've begun these things herself, as soon as she attained adulthood.

Had Rebecca been capable of defending herself either by means of martial arts or with a weapon, she might very well have been able to successfully defend herself against this subhuman thug.

Had lawmakers been more in touch with the facts of reality, they'd never have banned weapons of self defense on school grounds (or anywhere else). Anyone who wishes to commit suicide, and take a number of others with him, need have no concern. He knows he'll have the only gun. Mr Rowan was free to carry out his evil plan without fear of effective resistance.

Although Ms Griego informed Campus Security and her coworkers of the restraining order and circulated Mr Rowan's photo amongst these same individuals, there was nothing that a disarmed campus could do against a deranged individual bent 'pon murder and suicide. She received no warning.

Sad. Many individuals are scared to death of even the sight of a firearm, but not afraid to set up housekeeping with people they barely know.

An armed society is a polite society.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Of Blizzards and Self-Reliance

I grew up in the Great White North in the 1950's. I often tell friends that I think that was probably the very best time in history to be a child, though I'll admit that I'm looking through Wayne-colored glasses. The period just before World War One might have been a better time (as long as certain illnesses were avoided), but I don't have a clear vision of that time.

We actually walked to school in those days, carrying our Gene Autry lunch boxes filled with goodies made by Mom and bought by Dad. We weren't carried to a chain-link surrounded prison-like structure sixty miles from home by an evil-smelling retard driving an ill-maintained black smoke spewing yellow death trap, or even in a bullet-proof four-wheel-drive rebodied pickup truck with heated seat cushions and a HDTV screen in the back.

Sometimes it was cold. As I've told my friends here in the Stalag, we had to slog four miles through waist-deep snow in -20 degree temperatures, and it was uphill both ways. That's a bit of a stretch, but we did walk and some days it was -20. The good part was that we were free to experience little adventures of many kinds, within the constraints of getting to school on time and getting home in time for dinner. Today's kids don't get that.

The main reason I bring all this to your attention is that this may be a part of the difficulty I'm about to discuss.

There were some really cold and miserable winters in North Dakota in the 1940's and 1950's. Added to that, technology was far less advanced than it is now. I'm not saying that winters are milder now. Winters and short periods within winters are very severe, where others are less so. No change there.

The change is, however, in how the "victims" handled severe weather then, as opposed to now. People rarely died in blizzards in the '40's and '50's. We made sure we had a basement full of coal or a tank full of fuel, and replenished it well before we ran out. Our winter clothing may not have been pretty or stylish, but it was warm. People didn't trust their cars: everyone realized that the car might not make it, and so we carried chains and shovels in the trunk. We had outdoor clothing with us in the car (usually, we were wearing it--the car heater often wasn't enough!).

This winter, and numerous times in recent years, there are news stories about individuals dying in cold and blizzard conditions. I won't try and tell you that this never happened in those earlier decades, because it did. What I will say, is that many of the recent freezing deaths ought to have been, and could 've been, avoided.

Herein lies the problem. We (most of us) trust our cars. We tend to let our technology do our thinking for us. That and, as I often say: today's younger people don't know how to connect actions with possible consequences.

The news reported, over a period of days last month, the plight of a family that got stuck in Oregon, in very cold weather and far from a town or any help. Fortunately, mother and child were rescued before they succombed, but Dad, having left the car to try to walk to a place in which help could be found, died.

In the chatter about the heroism if the dad in his sadly failed, but valiant attempt to find help for his family, the fairly long list of errors that led to their predicament was hardly mentioned.

There was no emergency clothing in the car. Nor were there any emergency tools or survival gear. Having missed a turn, they took an unknown road shown on a map, and got stuck when it turned out that the road was unmaintained in winter.

A series of small errors that proved fatal.

So, are we (many of us) getting too soft? Are we of the opinion that "something" will take care of us? Why is it that so many of us step off into very dangerous situations, unprepared, thinking we'll make it, somehow?

Or, is it that we know that, in the end, we're gonna die anyway?

Ponder it, if you dare!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Addendum, Jan 7:

Today, I was just made aware of a "weather bulletin," an unattributed news story from the state in which I lived in my childhood. I've read something like this before, and I don't know if it actually appeared in the news (no names of officials nor actual locations), but I've lived through situations much like this myself, a couple of times. In essence, it is truthful.

This particular version appears in "Tibor's Place on the Web," Tibor Machan's website on MSN.

Unshaved Beach Babes in Burkas

I'm in somewhat of a quandary about this ongoing islam funny-mentalist thing. As a not-always-willing member of the United States Republic cum police state, I realize that the American Way of Life has been and is continuing to be attacked by utterly irrational forces of the savage philosopy that seems to travel with this very christian-like religion. I'm not at all tempted to support our government's utterly incompetent attempts to protect us from these attacks. The President's "plan" to deal with these attacks completely dismisses the public at large, casting us as ineffectual victims who lie cowering in the corners of our bedrooms while the US military does the dirty work for us. Somewhere else.

What the Administration forgets is that the miltary is drawn from the very cowering masses that he so cavalierly dismisses. We can and should help. Our way of life depends on it.

Again, I'm not necessarily talking about a town militia, although some localities may opt for that, I'm suggesting that everyone is responsible for his own property. I'm suggesting that each owner of real property should be responsible for what happens on that property. For example, if those who were responsible for the aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (and the one that crashed in Pennsylvania) had been doing their jobs, the incident wouldn't have happened. I realize that the drones at the federal government have usurped many of the airlines' prerogatives with respect to security, but the airlines should have refused to allow it, on pain of refusing to operate.

Property owners must be able to control security on their property. As I see it, since the federal government took responsibility for airline security, the individuals who made the relevant decisions are personally responsible for the damages.

Every individual property owner should be prepared to defend his holdings from tresspassers, should be armed and prepared to take tresspassers into custody, turn them over to the police, press charges and follow it through to a conviction. Or, he should employ security people who will.

If each individual took full responsibility for himself and his works, either by himself or by means of hiring experts to work for him, there wouldn't be a need to enter into "wars of choice" to strong-arm unprepared groups of savages into quasi-democratic submission.

The federal government has a severely limited mandate. Though it's overstepped its legal prerogatives routinely and criminally almost since the inception of the country, it's one job, in this context, is to protect the nation from foreign invaders. It is failing miserably at this, obviously regarding foreign adventure more important than its mandate.

My opinion is that the US federal government has far outlived its usefulness and should be "fired" for incompetence. It does far more harm than good.

Meanwhile, to reiterate, each individual is responsible for his own well-being in the context of a capitalist system. Individuals of good will may, and will cooperate in this regard. It's sheer folly to entrust our well-being to individuals whose sole ambition is to do as little as possible and retire early with a fat pension.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The Pledge of Servitude

Well, the old "Pledge of Allegiance" is back once again. The recently added phrase "under god" is again under fire by alleged atheists and a sympathetic federal court.

I wrote about the pledge the last time it came up, and still hold the same opinion on the matter.

The Stars and Stripes used to be a symbol of all that America is, but thanks to government school civics classes and actions of government on all fronts has led most people to the opinion that the flag is a symbol of the government. Thus, when we "pledge allegiance to the flag," most of us are pledging allegiance to the government. Note the way that many people react to the President as if he were royalty. Note how, during the recent troubles in the Gulf area, many people look to the President as a savior, and are extreme in their anger as they perceive that he's failed them.

Only from libertarians and a few conservatives do we even hear the suggestion that they might actually lift a finger to help themselves and help each other. From the left we hear, "Where was the federal government?" and "Bush doesn't care about black people."

So we send the kids to government schools where they recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" each day, to reinforce that the federal government is and always will be critical to their very existence.

That's what I mean by the Pledge of Servitude.

I don't care at all about the "under god" phrase. I've never added the "under god" phrase when I used to actually recite the pledge, but now, I won't recite it at all. It's subversive and unAmerican. Americans aren't subservient.

Americans are individualists.

I don't care about "under god." Any parent worth his stuff will keep his kids out of government schools (government schools are child abuse) and teach them that government is the servant, not the master. This servant has been doing such a poor job at it's assigned (by the Constitution) tasks that it deserves to be treated with nothing but contempt.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Where Did My Charitable Spirit Go?

Seems like every few weeks, there's another disaster, following which come pleas for donations to aid the victims.

I was in a disaster once. Mine was less overwhelming than many others--although not to those who died. I lost a lot, but not everything. FEMA helped some, though most of the help came from our own insurance. Altogethe, it covered maybe half of our loss.

Presumably, there were calls for charitable giving, though I was too busy to be aware of it. None of that charity came my way, though I didn't ask. We recovered, eventually.

My dad told me, years ago, that when he was a young man just getting started on his railroad career, that his taxes were about 10% of his gross earnings. Local, state and federal. I don't think he actually paid income tax those first years.

Thirty years ago, I earned around $6.50 an hour. I did pay state and federal income taxes, and all the normal stuff, BUTT! I was a single dad at the time. I had a nice apartment. I had a used pickup and a new motorcycle. I sent Jim to a private school (even then, I thought that government schools were bad business) and I often took time off from work to ride up and down the state to see the sights. We ate at restaurants. We went to LA often for libertarian group outings and went to an occasional movie or rock concert.

I make more than four times that now. I'm doing ok, but there's little extra. I have to think about going out to the better restaurants, running up to LA for the evening doesn't happen any more--traffic, the cost of gas and the cost of the entertainment are the main issues. No way could I afford private school tuition for a youngster. My quality of life is better, but not four times better.

The cost of the several layers of government is about half of my production. That's bogus! Most of that money is wasted, and/or goes into the pockets of politicians and their cronies. The roads and parks, etc are--well, to only say poorly maintained would be a major failure in perception. The schools' best areas of competence are in subverting parents' value systems and distorting America's founding principles--that is, substituting a state-subserviant morality for individualism. I could go on and probably will at some point.

Back to the original point, my charitable spirit is lost somewhere in that 40%. I figure that if the several layers of government really need that much of my productivity, they can take care of the disaster victims, the poor, the lazy and all the unfortunates.

Except that they aren't doing that, either!

They take half of our prodictivity to "care" for the unfortunate victims and there are more of them now than ever before!

Well, that's where my charitable spirit went.

Remember, VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California