License? LICENSE? I don't need no steenkeeng license!!
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Driving as Privilege
Every time I hear some petty, money-sucking bureaucrat saying that driving is a privilege, not a right, my impulse is to find that parasitic pig crossing a street somewhere in front of me and to introduce him to the undercarriage of my two-and-one-half ton gas guzzler.
How dare they?
Our nation's first official document, The Declaration of Independence, asserts that we Americans possess "....certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness....." Now I ask you--be honest. In today's world, how can you pursue happiness without a car? Happiness moves a lot faster today than it used to.
From before the birth of the nation until well after the turn of the Twentieth Century, men and women drove carriages, wagons and rode horses without anyone questioning their right to do so. For years after the invention and first public use of the automobile, they were driven on and off public roads without anyone questioning their drivers' right to do so.
At some point during the early history of the automobile, one of these parasitic slimeballs saw yet another way to separate the Productive American from his dollars: he persuaded his fellow blood suckers that they could declare driving a privilege, revocable at government whim--then make Mr and Ms Productive American pay for the privilege.
Why weren't these thieving subhumans hanged from the bridges built by the aforementioned Productive Americans, and over which these Productive Americans drove their new-fangled horseless carriages?
We're living with the results today. Almost no one objects when these thugs reassert the lie that driving is a privilege, not a right.
Our responsibility in the event of a mishap can easily be guaranteed by our insurance company; state and (soon to be) federal government has no role here, other than adjudication of disputed claims.
Worse, the federal government is, as we lounge in front of our HDTVs , in the process of converting our driver's licenses into national ID cards.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Every time I hear some petty, money-sucking bureaucrat saying that driving is a privilege, not a right, my impulse is to find that parasitic pig crossing a street somewhere in front of me and to introduce him to the undercarriage of my two-and-one-half ton gas guzzler.
How dare they?
Our nation's first official document, The Declaration of Independence, asserts that we Americans possess "....certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness....." Now I ask you--be honest. In today's world, how can you pursue happiness without a car? Happiness moves a lot faster today than it used to.
From before the birth of the nation until well after the turn of the Twentieth Century, men and women drove carriages, wagons and rode horses without anyone questioning their right to do so. For years after the invention and first public use of the automobile, they were driven on and off public roads without anyone questioning their drivers' right to do so.
At some point during the early history of the automobile, one of these parasitic slimeballs saw yet another way to separate the Productive American from his dollars: he persuaded his fellow blood suckers that they could declare driving a privilege, revocable at government whim--then make Mr and Ms Productive American pay for the privilege.
Why weren't these thieving subhumans hanged from the bridges built by the aforementioned Productive Americans, and over which these Productive Americans drove their new-fangled horseless carriages?
We're living with the results today. Almost no one objects when these thugs reassert the lie that driving is a privilege, not a right.
Our responsibility in the event of a mishap can easily be guaranteed by our insurance company; state and (soon to be) federal government has no role here, other than adjudication of disputed claims.
Worse, the federal government is, as we lounge in front of our HDTVs , in the process of converting our driver's licenses into national ID cards.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
The Constitution and the Law
If the lawmakers would follow the US Constitution, I'd have little to complain about. Not that I wouldn't complain anyway....... While I'm continually amazed at the vision and foresight of the Founders, there were a few errors made.
The Founders even made a provision for just such an eventuality: the means to amend the document. Not impossible, but not too easy.
Which is one of the reasons why I'm so uneasy about the future of the Republic.
When Congress decided to make alcoholic beverages illegal throughout the nation (an incredibly stupid idea, to be sure), they went about it in the proper way. Recognizing that any law against production and consumption of alcohol would be unConstitutional, they proceeded through the rigors of amending the Constitution with the Eighteenth Amendment. A few years later, of course, they did it all again to repeal the Eighteenth with the Twenty-First. I'll drink to that!
Today, we're still involved in what has inaccurately been dubbed "The War on Drugs." Making the use and sale of drugs illegal is every bit as unConstitutional and Alcohol Prohibition would've been, but few in government are willing to admit this. No Constitutional Amendment has been proposed. Government simply enforces this collection of unConstitutional laws with the force of arms, using local police agencies as well as the FBI and several newly and unConstitutionally-created federal police agencies. In less than thirty years' time, the drug war has become so complicated and all-encompassing in law enforcement that government is rendered unable to enforce laws that are properly within its Constitutional role. As in the case of alcohol prohibition, violent criminals run virtually unchecked in society.
More recently, since the destruction of New York's World Trade Center, defense against any future attacks of that sort has caused the Federal government to redouble its creation of unConstitutional laws.
Our new "war," the War on Terror," has caused the creation of even more unConstitutional federal police agencies. Not surprisingly, there is almost no concern for Constitutional Rule of Law. The Federal government issues edicts and orders as if there were no Constitution at all. It seems, in order to fight against islamic dictatorship, we have to become a christian dictatorship.
Government officials and news people, in order to justify these outrages, cite precedent after precedent. Unfortunatly for those who recall and desire a more libertarian life, this seems to satisfy everyone. Government continues along its path to a police state.
What I'd like to propose is that lawmakers no longer be allowed to consider precedent law cases that may or may not be in accordance with the Constitution. I propose that every new bill under consideration be tested against the Constitution itself.
Shall Congress pass an act that creates a federal department of education? Where, in the Constitution, does one find authorization fort the federal government to be involved in the education of American people? I don't find any such authorization. The federal department of education should be abolished.
I'm watching the news right now. They're talking about making drivers' licenses harder to get by requiring four forms of ID. Now, I'm not sure I even have four forms if ID, unless you count my..........driver's license.
Do I think it'll happen? Not anytime soon. There is, so far, no will to repair the broken government. it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
If the lawmakers would follow the US Constitution, I'd have little to complain about. Not that I wouldn't complain anyway....... While I'm continually amazed at the vision and foresight of the Founders, there were a few errors made.
The Founders even made a provision for just such an eventuality: the means to amend the document. Not impossible, but not too easy.
Which is one of the reasons why I'm so uneasy about the future of the Republic.
When Congress decided to make alcoholic beverages illegal throughout the nation (an incredibly stupid idea, to be sure), they went about it in the proper way. Recognizing that any law against production and consumption of alcohol would be unConstitutional, they proceeded through the rigors of amending the Constitution with the Eighteenth Amendment. A few years later, of course, they did it all again to repeal the Eighteenth with the Twenty-First. I'll drink to that!
Today, we're still involved in what has inaccurately been dubbed "The War on Drugs." Making the use and sale of drugs illegal is every bit as unConstitutional and Alcohol Prohibition would've been, but few in government are willing to admit this. No Constitutional Amendment has been proposed. Government simply enforces this collection of unConstitutional laws with the force of arms, using local police agencies as well as the FBI and several newly and unConstitutionally-created federal police agencies. In less than thirty years' time, the drug war has become so complicated and all-encompassing in law enforcement that government is rendered unable to enforce laws that are properly within its Constitutional role. As in the case of alcohol prohibition, violent criminals run virtually unchecked in society.
More recently, since the destruction of New York's World Trade Center, defense against any future attacks of that sort has caused the Federal government to redouble its creation of unConstitutional laws.
Our new "war," the War on Terror," has caused the creation of even more unConstitutional federal police agencies. Not surprisingly, there is almost no concern for Constitutional Rule of Law. The Federal government issues edicts and orders as if there were no Constitution at all. It seems, in order to fight against islamic dictatorship, we have to become a christian dictatorship.
Government officials and news people, in order to justify these outrages, cite precedent after precedent. Unfortunatly for those who recall and desire a more libertarian life, this seems to satisfy everyone. Government continues along its path to a police state.
What I'd like to propose is that lawmakers no longer be allowed to consider precedent law cases that may or may not be in accordance with the Constitution. I propose that every new bill under consideration be tested against the Constitution itself.
Shall Congress pass an act that creates a federal department of education? Where, in the Constitution, does one find authorization fort the federal government to be involved in the education of American people? I don't find any such authorization. The federal department of education should be abolished.
I'm watching the news right now. They're talking about making drivers' licenses harder to get by requiring four forms of ID. Now, I'm not sure I even have four forms if ID, unless you count my..........driver's license.
Do I think it'll happen? Not anytime soon. There is, so far, no will to repair the broken government. it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Beggars in the Streets
My dad told me that men would beg on the street corners in the cities during the Great Depression, back in the 1930's. He also said that it was uncommon and that usually they'd beg just for their next meal if they had no money for food. They'd beg for the price of a meal to give themselves strength to keep looking for work. Sometimes, they'd go to the residential areas and to the farms and ask to chop firewood, or to repair fences or other work, just for a meal.
The operative phrase here is trying to find work. Begging for a living, if it ever happened, was rare.
Throughout the 40's, 50's and 60's. Begging was rare, according to Dad, because it was easy to find work in those days. I saw begging in many parts of Europe when I was there in the 60's, but I also travelled extensively around the US in those years, and never saw street beggars here.
I think the hippies started it. It was during the late 60's when I started seeing young people begging in the streets. That tapered off as the hippies finally decided they should get jobs.
But now, the past fifteen years or so, we find street begging and panhandling on the increase. If I take the streets home from work instead of the freeway, it seems like I'll see two or three beggars in the boulevard medians or on the sidewalks at big intersections every day. Quite a few of them aren't young--most appear to be in their 40's and 50's.
I often wonder how much money they get, standing on the street corner begging from the cars that stop for red lights. They used to carry signs saying "Will work for food," but I guess too many people took 'em up on it, because I haven't seen that one lately.
I stopped right in front of one once, at a street corner. I pointed out the "Help Wanted" sign on a burger joint right behind him. He got very angry. I had to show him my pepper spray to get him to back off.
Point is, there are planty of jobs to be had. Flippin' burgers might not be a lucrative career, but it can be a good start.
The point is, we're Americans. Americans don't beg. Egyptians beg. Mexicans beg. Sri Lankans beg. Americans work. Americans invent things. Americans build things.
I'm starting to think America's falling apart.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
My dad told me that men would beg on the street corners in the cities during the Great Depression, back in the 1930's. He also said that it was uncommon and that usually they'd beg just for their next meal if they had no money for food. They'd beg for the price of a meal to give themselves strength to keep looking for work. Sometimes, they'd go to the residential areas and to the farms and ask to chop firewood, or to repair fences or other work, just for a meal.
The operative phrase here is trying to find work. Begging for a living, if it ever happened, was rare.
Throughout the 40's, 50's and 60's. Begging was rare, according to Dad, because it was easy to find work in those days. I saw begging in many parts of Europe when I was there in the 60's, but I also travelled extensively around the US in those years, and never saw street beggars here.
I think the hippies started it. It was during the late 60's when I started seeing young people begging in the streets. That tapered off as the hippies finally decided they should get jobs.
But now, the past fifteen years or so, we find street begging and panhandling on the increase. If I take the streets home from work instead of the freeway, it seems like I'll see two or three beggars in the boulevard medians or on the sidewalks at big intersections every day. Quite a few of them aren't young--most appear to be in their 40's and 50's.
I often wonder how much money they get, standing on the street corner begging from the cars that stop for red lights. They used to carry signs saying "Will work for food," but I guess too many people took 'em up on it, because I haven't seen that one lately.
I stopped right in front of one once, at a street corner. I pointed out the "Help Wanted" sign on a burger joint right behind him. He got very angry. I had to show him my pepper spray to get him to back off.
Point is, there are planty of jobs to be had. Flippin' burgers might not be a lucrative career, but it can be a good start.
The point is, we're Americans. Americans don't beg. Egyptians beg. Mexicans beg. Sri Lankans beg. Americans work. Americans invent things. Americans build things.
I'm starting to think America's falling apart.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
My own Personal Morality
Morality: 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2. A system of ideas of right or wrong conduct. 3. Virtuous conduct.
In a previous post, I mentioned the fact that theists and conservatives regard morality as a chiselled-in-stone message handed down by their deity through their priests and their holy writings. No thinking--just hear, read and comply.
On the other hand, secularists and leftists offer that morality comes from oh, "society" or "whatever you feel is right." "If it feels good, do it," was the hippie morality of the Viet Nam War era.
Well, morality isn't chiselled tablets lugged down from a mountaintop, nor can it be made up as one goes along, on the whim of the moment. Morality is an absolute system based on the requirements of man qua man.
Morality is what each individual must discover for himself. The better he becomes at discovering the morality proper to man, the better his life will be.
When I say absolute, though, I don't mean that every choice is one of life or death. It rarely is. We live on a more-or-less benevolent planet. Or, perhaps I should put it this way: we've adapted ourselves to be able to live on planet Earth because we've had to. We've done it well. Decade by decade, we're continually getting better at it (most of us, anyway). We've built "cushions," in an attempt to protect ourselves against many kinds of errors.
The fact remains, in spite of the "cushions," even a small error can, and occasionally does, kill someone. Avoiding errors is good.
Morality, along with a careful understanding of the facts of reality (also absolute) will help him avoid errors. The better one's understanding of the facts of reality and the facts of morality, the better will be his system of "cushions."
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Morality: 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2. A system of ideas of right or wrong conduct. 3. Virtuous conduct.
In a previous post, I mentioned the fact that theists and conservatives regard morality as a chiselled-in-stone message handed down by their deity through their priests and their holy writings. No thinking--just hear, read and comply.
On the other hand, secularists and leftists offer that morality comes from oh, "society" or "whatever you feel is right." "If it feels good, do it," was the hippie morality of the Viet Nam War era.
Well, morality isn't chiselled tablets lugged down from a mountaintop, nor can it be made up as one goes along, on the whim of the moment. Morality is an absolute system based on the requirements of man qua man.
Morality is what each individual must discover for himself. The better he becomes at discovering the morality proper to man, the better his life will be.
When I say absolute, though, I don't mean that every choice is one of life or death. It rarely is. We live on a more-or-less benevolent planet. Or, perhaps I should put it this way: we've adapted ourselves to be able to live on planet Earth because we've had to. We've done it well. Decade by decade, we're continually getting better at it (most of us, anyway). We've built "cushions," in an attempt to protect ourselves against many kinds of errors.
The fact remains, in spite of the "cushions," even a small error can, and occasionally does, kill someone. Avoiding errors is good.
Morality, along with a careful understanding of the facts of reality (also absolute) will help him avoid errors. The better one's understanding of the facts of reality and the facts of morality, the better will be his system of "cushions."
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Democrat vs Republican--an Hour of Cspan
I voted Libertarian last year. This after wavering between voting Libertarian and not voting. Sometimes I wonder why I vote at all. Many intellectuals make excellent arguments, both practical and moral, why one should not vote. "Sanction of the victim." "It only encourages them." I can't disagree.
I guess I vote because I want to post a mark against the many outrages placed before us by that utterly evil body of parasites that wrongly makes most of our decisions for us. As I mentioned in a previous entry, I was recently asked to decide whether an individual be allowed to build an office building on his own property (!). I'm not sure how many more times I'll be able to be a part of the making of the outrageous and immoral choices placed before us on each ballot.
I'm now watching the second of two appearances on Cspan. The first was an interview by several newsmen of ex-Rep. Newt Gingrich, the second a speech before a Democrat group by Sen. Joe Biden.
I have my issues with both parties, but I have a long-standing emotional preference for Republicans. I wrestled with this for a long time, and finally realized that it's because Republicans actually address issues (though they are rarely fully correct) and Democrats go no farther than hand out distorted, sour-grape criticism of their version of what Republicans do.
Gingrich faced about six news reporters and was asked several questions about the problems faced by Americans. He answered the questions, indicating what Republicans (and himself) have done in recent years, what they've tried to do and been unable to do, and what they'll put forward in the future. He spoke in an agreeable, rational manner and what he said made sense internally (though it was largely philosophically wrong).
Biden, on the other hand, spent the entire speech saying nothing of substance. He schmoozed the room. He acknowledged the politicians in the audience, and told a story about a well-respected Senator from their state, sure to please. Finally, he launched into short-bite criticisms of various Republican initiatives. At no time did he mention or propose any sort of solution to any of the problems. At no time did he mention any proposed solutions by any other Democrat. At no time did the Senator attempt to use his rational faculty in any way. It was all emotion.
While Gingrich's answers to questions posed made little sense to those of us who'd prefer to take control of our own lives and property, they made sense in his context. Which means, it makes sense. While liberty lovers will recognize that Gingrich is wrong, they can at least grant that if someone like Gingrich were given a freedom-oriented context, he could perform logically within that context--one hopes.
Democrats, most of them, act as though they'd spit in the eye of reason in any context.
It seems pointless to look for anything intelligent within the Democrat Party, but I think I'll at least keep an eye on the Republicans. I don't, however, think there's anyone in either party that will get a vote from me in the next couple of elections, at least.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I voted Libertarian last year. This after wavering between voting Libertarian and not voting. Sometimes I wonder why I vote at all. Many intellectuals make excellent arguments, both practical and moral, why one should not vote. "Sanction of the victim." "It only encourages them." I can't disagree.
I guess I vote because I want to post a mark against the many outrages placed before us by that utterly evil body of parasites that wrongly makes most of our decisions for us. As I mentioned in a previous entry, I was recently asked to decide whether an individual be allowed to build an office building on his own property (!). I'm not sure how many more times I'll be able to be a part of the making of the outrageous and immoral choices placed before us on each ballot.
I'm now watching the second of two appearances on Cspan. The first was an interview by several newsmen of ex-Rep. Newt Gingrich, the second a speech before a Democrat group by Sen. Joe Biden.
I have my issues with both parties, but I have a long-standing emotional preference for Republicans. I wrestled with this for a long time, and finally realized that it's because Republicans actually address issues (though they are rarely fully correct) and Democrats go no farther than hand out distorted, sour-grape criticism of their version of what Republicans do.
Gingrich faced about six news reporters and was asked several questions about the problems faced by Americans. He answered the questions, indicating what Republicans (and himself) have done in recent years, what they've tried to do and been unable to do, and what they'll put forward in the future. He spoke in an agreeable, rational manner and what he said made sense internally (though it was largely philosophically wrong).
Biden, on the other hand, spent the entire speech saying nothing of substance. He schmoozed the room. He acknowledged the politicians in the audience, and told a story about a well-respected Senator from their state, sure to please. Finally, he launched into short-bite criticisms of various Republican initiatives. At no time did he mention or propose any sort of solution to any of the problems. At no time did he mention any proposed solutions by any other Democrat. At no time did the Senator attempt to use his rational faculty in any way. It was all emotion.
While Gingrich's answers to questions posed made little sense to those of us who'd prefer to take control of our own lives and property, they made sense in his context. Which means, it makes sense. While liberty lovers will recognize that Gingrich is wrong, they can at least grant that if someone like Gingrich were given a freedom-oriented context, he could perform logically within that context--one hopes.
Democrats, most of them, act as though they'd spit in the eye of reason in any context.
It seems pointless to look for anything intelligent within the Democrat Party, but I think I'll at least keep an eye on the Republicans. I don't, however, think there's anyone in either party that will get a vote from me in the next couple of elections, at least.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, April 22, 2005
State of Fear
Global warming is a hoax.
If you haven't yet read State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, I'd highly recommend it. State of Fear is a novel about an environemntally sympathetic attorney who works for a very wealthy man who generously supports environmental causes. As the story rolls along, the lawyer is pushed, kicking and screaming all the way, into the realization that there is no environmental crisis.
One of the cool things about this novel is that the results of several (real) studies are included that cast severe doubts on environmentalists claims. Little wonder that real life environmental hangers-on like Robert Kennedy, Jr get so utterly livid when these studies are brought up. What environmentalists don't do is answer these problematic studies.
What's up with Kennedy, Jr's voice anyway?
The point of this book, though, is not entirely related to the Big Lie of Global Warming. A larger point was brought out by a minor character in the story. He points out that virtually all government officials and media outlets act in concert to keep us in a state of fear.
Anything you eat can kill you. The air is bad. We're suffering more extreme weather all around the world. Each year there are more and more hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. and they're more and more severe.
Anything to keep the state of fear high.
We don't have epidemics anymore. Now they're pandemics.
Anything to keep the state of fear high.
Meanwhile, we're living in more comfort and more luxury--even the poorest of us--than any society in history. Our life expectancy and quality of life could not be imagined even by Americans of an earlier era, never mind Romans, Egyptians and Greeks at the height of their respective empires.
Folks, they're only increasing the state of fear to make it easier to restrict our freedom and keep us all in line. Don't fall for it.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Global warming is a hoax.
If you haven't yet read State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, I'd highly recommend it. State of Fear is a novel about an environemntally sympathetic attorney who works for a very wealthy man who generously supports environmental causes. As the story rolls along, the lawyer is pushed, kicking and screaming all the way, into the realization that there is no environmental crisis.
One of the cool things about this novel is that the results of several (real) studies are included that cast severe doubts on environmentalists claims. Little wonder that real life environmental hangers-on like Robert Kennedy, Jr get so utterly livid when these studies are brought up. What environmentalists don't do is answer these problematic studies.
What's up with Kennedy, Jr's voice anyway?
The point of this book, though, is not entirely related to the Big Lie of Global Warming. A larger point was brought out by a minor character in the story. He points out that virtually all government officials and media outlets act in concert to keep us in a state of fear.
Anything you eat can kill you. The air is bad. We're suffering more extreme weather all around the world. Each year there are more and more hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. and they're more and more severe.
Anything to keep the state of fear high.
We don't have epidemics anymore. Now they're pandemics.
Anything to keep the state of fear high.
Meanwhile, we're living in more comfort and more luxury--even the poorest of us--than any society in history. Our life expectancy and quality of life could not be imagined even by Americans of an earlier era, never mind Romans, Egyptians and Greeks at the height of their respective empires.
Folks, they're only increasing the state of fear to make it easier to restrict our freedom and keep us all in line. Don't fall for it.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Convertibles in Southern California
This is my third convertible. It's a 1975 Oldsmobile Delta 88. It's a great car: smooth and fast for a big car. Not only that, but it's comfortable with the top down.
I often notice a very odd thing with convertibles here in SoCal. Most people, when they drive with the top down, leave the windows up. Wierd! The other thing, some of the newer luxo-droptops have a kind of a screen that goes up behind the seats. It really looks funny--I call it a girly screen because the obvious reason for it is to keep any trace of moving air from touching the lady's hair.
You might as well have a Datsun sedan.
Now, I have long hair--the standard issue biker's pony tail. I love it when it blows in the wind. I usually drive with the top and windows down, and no girly screen.
The Olds is my third convertible. Right after I got out of the Navy, I had a '55 Ford Sunliner. A really cool car, but my brother rolled it over. Fortunately, he wasn't hurt.
After I moved to Anaheim, I bought a 1959 Triumph TR3 roadster. I loved that car! The top only went up when it rained. It was low, quick and noisy.
None of them had a girly screen. The Triumph didn't even have windows--just plastic side screens you kept in the itty bitty trunk that could be snapped onto the doors if you were feeling puny. I only used them once, when driving across the Mojave when the temp was less than 40 and the crosswind was more than that.
After the Triumph, it was all motorcycles for many years.
The Olds is an nice, comfortable old-timer's convertible that's comfortable cruising from here to Phoenix and in stop-and-go on the way to work.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Vigilance at the Border
Anyone paying the least bit of attention to the current news knows about the group of mostly middle-aged men and women assembled on the US-Mexico border, observing and reporting border crossings by illegal aliens.
They call themselves Minutemen.
Now, I'm not against anyone going anywhere, if it'll make life easier for 'em. If a Mexican or Canadian can live better here than in his home town, fine. As long as they're productive and support themselves. If the US wasn't a welfare state, we wouldn't have an illegal alien problem. It is, and an activist judiciary has decided for us that aliens get "free" stuff, same as those who were born here, so we have an illegal alien problem--paying for all the free stuff.
While ignoring the real problem and its solutions, the feds and most Republicans complain endlessly about the porosity of our border. Yet, the Republicans are in charge! Who's going to do anything about it? The Republicans, the self-proclaimed leaders in personal responsibility and smaller government, own the White House, the House of Reps and the Senate. They all agree that the border is open to any "terrorist" that wants to sneak in that way. Yet they do nothing.
Meanwhile, a few hundred volunteers, the Minutemen, spread out over twenty-odd miles of the Arizona border and observe and report. Illegal entries in that formerly heavy traffic area have been virtually shut down. Amazing what a handful of individuals with a clearly defined purpose can do.
The President, along with nearly every leftist politician, pundit and journalist, calls them vigilantes, racists and worse. If they're vigilantes, then let's hear it for vigilantes!
"What's a vigilante?" one might ask. Vigilantism is characterized as groups of men taking the law into their own hands. Or mobs, as the statists like to refer to We, the People. In fact, it's individuals and groups of individuals acting to enforce their rights when government can't or won't. It's an oft-ignored fact that, in the wild, wild west, most vigilante action was correct--just as the law and courts would've done if they'd done their job. Very few innocent men were punished by vigilante groups. I'd bet, truth be known, fewer per capita than the government's courts, over the decades.
According to the founding documents and the writings of individualist philosophers throughout history, each individual owns his life. By extension, he also owns his property. As must be, for this right to property to mean anything, he must have the right to protect and defend his life and his property. Unfortunately, if a few neighbors act to protect themselves or their property, they're called Vigilantes.
But, let's look at how a government is started.
Since men often form associations to give themselves the strength of numbers, groups of men often do so to cooperatively protect all of their property, hiring or appointing some individuals to perform guard and sentry tasks, thus allowing some of them to be able to work their property without worry, and to be able to sleep at night. We call that a government.
While our government was formed up in an unprecidented manner, and started out much like the free association mentioned above, it has grown far, far beyond any bounds that'd be approved by Jefferson, Adams, et al. Besides having been warped into a welfare/police state, we also see that it just cannot do anything well.
Among many things, they can't control the border. Billions of dollars a year go to INS and the Border Patrol, and they can't even come close to doing their jobs.
Meanwhile, a few ordinary Americans, volunteers, vigilantes, whatever we want to call 'em, can take care of it amid federal foundering.
Maybe it'd be better if we dispense with those failed agencies, repeal the stupid anti-gun laws (that'd be all of them, my friends) and let those folks who own land on the border--who are those same "vigilantes" (as dubbed by parasitical statists)--protect their property as they have a natural right to do. Then we can let folks who come here from other countries enter through normal channels, in the knowledge that if they are honest, and work for their living in their own way and support themselves and their families, there'll never again be a "border problem."
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Anyone paying the least bit of attention to the current news knows about the group of mostly middle-aged men and women assembled on the US-Mexico border, observing and reporting border crossings by illegal aliens.
They call themselves Minutemen.
Now, I'm not against anyone going anywhere, if it'll make life easier for 'em. If a Mexican or Canadian can live better here than in his home town, fine. As long as they're productive and support themselves. If the US wasn't a welfare state, we wouldn't have an illegal alien problem. It is, and an activist judiciary has decided for us that aliens get "free" stuff, same as those who were born here, so we have an illegal alien problem--paying for all the free stuff.
While ignoring the real problem and its solutions, the feds and most Republicans complain endlessly about the porosity of our border. Yet, the Republicans are in charge! Who's going to do anything about it? The Republicans, the self-proclaimed leaders in personal responsibility and smaller government, own the White House, the House of Reps and the Senate. They all agree that the border is open to any "terrorist" that wants to sneak in that way. Yet they do nothing.
Meanwhile, a few hundred volunteers, the Minutemen, spread out over twenty-odd miles of the Arizona border and observe and report. Illegal entries in that formerly heavy traffic area have been virtually shut down. Amazing what a handful of individuals with a clearly defined purpose can do.
The President, along with nearly every leftist politician, pundit and journalist, calls them vigilantes, racists and worse. If they're vigilantes, then let's hear it for vigilantes!
"What's a vigilante?" one might ask. Vigilantism is characterized as groups of men taking the law into their own hands. Or mobs, as the statists like to refer to We, the People. In fact, it's individuals and groups of individuals acting to enforce their rights when government can't or won't. It's an oft-ignored fact that, in the wild, wild west, most vigilante action was correct--just as the law and courts would've done if they'd done their job. Very few innocent men were punished by vigilante groups. I'd bet, truth be known, fewer per capita than the government's courts, over the decades.
According to the founding documents and the writings of individualist philosophers throughout history, each individual owns his life. By extension, he also owns his property. As must be, for this right to property to mean anything, he must have the right to protect and defend his life and his property. Unfortunately, if a few neighbors act to protect themselves or their property, they're called Vigilantes.
But, let's look at how a government is started.
Since men often form associations to give themselves the strength of numbers, groups of men often do so to cooperatively protect all of their property, hiring or appointing some individuals to perform guard and sentry tasks, thus allowing some of them to be able to work their property without worry, and to be able to sleep at night. We call that a government.
While our government was formed up in an unprecidented manner, and started out much like the free association mentioned above, it has grown far, far beyond any bounds that'd be approved by Jefferson, Adams, et al. Besides having been warped into a welfare/police state, we also see that it just cannot do anything well.
Among many things, they can't control the border. Billions of dollars a year go to INS and the Border Patrol, and they can't even come close to doing their jobs.
Meanwhile, a few ordinary Americans, volunteers, vigilantes, whatever we want to call 'em, can take care of it amid federal foundering.
Maybe it'd be better if we dispense with those failed agencies, repeal the stupid anti-gun laws (that'd be all of them, my friends) and let those folks who own land on the border--who are those same "vigilantes" (as dubbed by parasitical statists)--protect their property as they have a natural right to do. Then we can let folks who come here from other countries enter through normal channels, in the knowledge that if they are honest, and work for their living in their own way and support themselves and their families, there'll never again be a "border problem."
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Social Insecurity
I just read a couple of paragraphs from"Nealz News," at www.boortz.com . Neal has a talk show syndicated mostly back east. Mr. Boortz makes more sense than any other talk show guy in the country, that I know of. I certainly wish he was on a Southern California radio station.
In yesterday's Newz, he mentioned the fact that Bush's proposed Social Security reform is pretty much dead because the Democrats are against it, and the Republicans are showing their characteristic spineless aspect, citing the upcoming elections a mere 18 months away.
I could write reams about Republicans, but suffice it to say that they're so scared of the next elections that they literally won't do anything. Allow me to add that I don't think this is all bad. Generally speaking, the less that Congress does, the better off we all are. Full gridlock in that evil place is a nearly ideal state for we who are the productive sector.
There is only one thing that can be done to help Americans with respect to Social Security. End it. We're a lot more sophisticated now that folks were back in the '30s. We know that we have to provide for our own retirement. We know that custom has shifted away from adults in a family caring for their parents after they can no longer work. We're too independent. It'd be unthinkable for me, some time in the future, to move in with one of my sons for the rest of my life. I think a lot of us are like that.
Corporations used to offer pensions to their faithful, long-time employees. Maybe some of them still do that, but increasingly they're withdrawing that benefit because of the expense. Many are offering profit-sharing or 401k's in which they match your deposits up to a certain maximum. Actually, that's how I got mine started.
Social Security isn't enough. Not only isn't it enough, but it sucks money out of your paycheck that might be used to build a real retirement. If I had the money that goes down the Social Security rathole, I could have a helluva 401k.
We have to remember that SS is in financial trouble. Sometime, possible while I'm still alive, SS will no longer take in as much as it has to pay out. Then, or before then, changes will have to be made. These changes will have to be tax increases or cuts in benefits--or a combination. We also have to remember that there are no guarantees. SS is not legally required to give anybody a single dime.
SS takes over $200 a month from your check each month, more or less, depending on your earnings. SS encourages us to forget that our employers must match that. That's money our employers would be adding to our paychecks if not for the SS. Also, if you die before you've gotten your money back, you lose! The remainder doesn't go into your estate, it goes into Uncle Sam's pocket, to be used buying $800 toilet seats.
$400 a month (more or less) that could be used to build a veritable rich man's estate! I'll have to try, sometime, to calculate how much money I'd have today, if my SS money had been invested conservatively for these many years.
I want my money back!!!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I just read a couple of paragraphs from"Nealz News," at www.boortz.com . Neal has a talk show syndicated mostly back east. Mr. Boortz makes more sense than any other talk show guy in the country, that I know of. I certainly wish he was on a Southern California radio station.
In yesterday's Newz, he mentioned the fact that Bush's proposed Social Security reform is pretty much dead because the Democrats are against it, and the Republicans are showing their characteristic spineless aspect, citing the upcoming elections a mere 18 months away.
I could write reams about Republicans, but suffice it to say that they're so scared of the next elections that they literally won't do anything. Allow me to add that I don't think this is all bad. Generally speaking, the less that Congress does, the better off we all are. Full gridlock in that evil place is a nearly ideal state for we who are the productive sector.
There is only one thing that can be done to help Americans with respect to Social Security. End it. We're a lot more sophisticated now that folks were back in the '30s. We know that we have to provide for our own retirement. We know that custom has shifted away from adults in a family caring for their parents after they can no longer work. We're too independent. It'd be unthinkable for me, some time in the future, to move in with one of my sons for the rest of my life. I think a lot of us are like that.
Corporations used to offer pensions to their faithful, long-time employees. Maybe some of them still do that, but increasingly they're withdrawing that benefit because of the expense. Many are offering profit-sharing or 401k's in which they match your deposits up to a certain maximum. Actually, that's how I got mine started.
Social Security isn't enough. Not only isn't it enough, but it sucks money out of your paycheck that might be used to build a real retirement. If I had the money that goes down the Social Security rathole, I could have a helluva 401k.
We have to remember that SS is in financial trouble. Sometime, possible while I'm still alive, SS will no longer take in as much as it has to pay out. Then, or before then, changes will have to be made. These changes will have to be tax increases or cuts in benefits--or a combination. We also have to remember that there are no guarantees. SS is not legally required to give anybody a single dime.
SS takes over $200 a month from your check each month, more or less, depending on your earnings. SS encourages us to forget that our employers must match that. That's money our employers would be adding to our paychecks if not for the SS. Also, if you die before you've gotten your money back, you lose! The remainder doesn't go into your estate, it goes into Uncle Sam's pocket, to be used buying $800 toilet seats.
$400 a month (more or less) that could be used to build a veritable rich man's estate! I'll have to try, sometime, to calculate how much money I'd have today, if my SS money had been invested conservatively for these many years.
I want my money back!!!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
One Broadway Plaza
Normally, a new office building would be an unmitigated positve. Who could argue against a huge new building that will house new businesses and add to the visual impact of a city which to date has too little about which to boast.
Don't get me wrong: I like Santa Ana, but it's mostly residential and mostly lower middle- to middle-class. No Central Park, no Disneyland, no National Hockey League team and no beaches. There is a zoo.
The problem with all this is that we're asked to vote (local Prop A) on whether the building is to be built. Dudes and dudettes, what's that all about?? We know that a developer has to jump through dozens if not hundreds of hoops to get city, county and state approval for every doorknob and flush handle. He has to pay untold bribes and kiss some horribly ugly butts to get all these approvals.
Then, he has to wait until the unwashed, uninformed, unconcerned masses approve the project, or not? Who'd risk so much capital under these conditions?
What I haven't been able to learn--mostly my own fault, for lack ot time--is who's paying for all this. The developer and his investors? Or taxpayers?
The proponents, seemingly just about every local civil servant and elected official in the county, make enormous claims as to the benefits to be expected when this building is built. They are much like the claims made for just about every local referendum the city gov't proposes. We, of course wait in rapt silence whlle these claims become reality.
It will pay for millions in street improvements. Fer sure Santa Ana needs street improvements.
It will fund additional police and fire fighters. More traffic citations and huge red trucks to pull over and let pass.
It will create jobs. New donut shops for the police and fire fighters.
It will improve our city. Our city has nowhere to go but up.
It will help balance the city budget, at no cost to taxpayers. Even after spending all that new money on the streets, police and fire fighters?
Opponents cite such heart-rending problems as the spectre of large portions of downtown Santa Ana spending big portions of the day in the shade (of the new building) and the ever popular obscene increases in street traffic. The obvious solution to which will prove to be a new light rail system a la San Diego, which we'll all be asked to vote on in a couple of years.
Then, we'll learn how a new light rail system will help pay for street improvements, more police and more fire fighters.
Well, after this exhaustive, in-depth analysis, I still wonder why we voters are being asked whether a new private office building should be built.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Normally, a new office building would be an unmitigated positve. Who could argue against a huge new building that will house new businesses and add to the visual impact of a city which to date has too little about which to boast.
Don't get me wrong: I like Santa Ana, but it's mostly residential and mostly lower middle- to middle-class. No Central Park, no Disneyland, no National Hockey League team and no beaches. There is a zoo.
The problem with all this is that we're asked to vote (local Prop A) on whether the building is to be built. Dudes and dudettes, what's that all about?? We know that a developer has to jump through dozens if not hundreds of hoops to get city, county and state approval for every doorknob and flush handle. He has to pay untold bribes and kiss some horribly ugly butts to get all these approvals.
Then, he has to wait until the unwashed, uninformed, unconcerned masses approve the project, or not? Who'd risk so much capital under these conditions?
What I haven't been able to learn--mostly my own fault, for lack ot time--is who's paying for all this. The developer and his investors? Or taxpayers?
The proponents, seemingly just about every local civil servant and elected official in the county, make enormous claims as to the benefits to be expected when this building is built. They are much like the claims made for just about every local referendum the city gov't proposes. We, of course wait in rapt silence whlle these claims become reality.
It will pay for millions in street improvements. Fer sure Santa Ana needs street improvements.
It will fund additional police and fire fighters. More traffic citations and huge red trucks to pull over and let pass.
It will create jobs. New donut shops for the police and fire fighters.
It will improve our city. Our city has nowhere to go but up.
It will help balance the city budget, at no cost to taxpayers. Even after spending all that new money on the streets, police and fire fighters?
Opponents cite such heart-rending problems as the spectre of large portions of downtown Santa Ana spending big portions of the day in the shade (of the new building) and the ever popular obscene increases in street traffic. The obvious solution to which will prove to be a new light rail system a la San Diego, which we'll all be asked to vote on in a couple of years.
Then, we'll learn how a new light rail system will help pay for street improvements, more police and more fire fighters.
Well, after this exhaustive, in-depth analysis, I still wonder why we voters are being asked whether a new private office building should be built.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Corruption in the Traffic Department
At every signalized intersection in Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego (and in probably just about every city of over 50,000 population in the country) are these saw-cut circles in the pavement, in which are cemented wire loops that are traffic sensors. They sense the mass of metal that is a car or truck, though some of them miss smaller motorcycles.
Originally, they were installed to allow the signals to remain green on major boulevards during periods (e.g. at night) when there was little or no traffic on the minor intersecting streets. If a car comes up to the sensor loop on the minor street, it will trip the sensor and shortly give him a green light.
Recent years, they've installed even more of these sensors in between these intersections at strategic locations. The plan is to tie the city's sensor system to computers, which can be programmed to regulate signals on the entire street grid to move traffic efficiently during various trafic conditions.
Those of us who travel the streets in motor vehicles daily wonder what happened.
Every intersection is another red light at which we have to stop and burn expensive gasoline for up to two minutes until the signal turns green. Then you move a block or two to the next red light.....and repeat.
Why, when driving along Beach Boulevard or Figueroa or El Cajon Boulevard, or any of hundreds of other arterial streets in Southern California or elsewhere, can't the signals be regulated for smooth traffic flow?
Well, friends, I've found out the reason.
Relying on traffic data from all those pavement sensors, any reasonably intelligent computer wiz with a knowledge of the city and with these data could develop programming that would regulate the signals to maximize traffic movement under the conditions of the day and of the time of the day. It'd be complicated in some areas, but generally traffic goes to business districts and industrial areas in weekday mornings, and away from them in the afternoons. Not quite as simple as that, but you get the idea.
When your light turns green, and the next one turns yellow as you approach it--and that happens signal after signal you know it ain't random, folks.
It's corruption in the various city traffic departments. Civil servants in these departments have solicited and received large payments from corrupt executives in oil companies to keep literally every car stopped at idle at as many signals as possible, for as much time as possible to counter the effects of the higher fuel efficiency of modern, smaller cars.
Well, of course I'm being facetious. I don't really think civil servants are in a collusive relationsip with the oil companies--oil companies are already colluding with the feds!
The real reason is that, to a civil servant, the incentive is to do nothing at all, or at best do the barest minimum that will keep him paid and employed until he can achieve the fine retirement pension we all are forced to give him. Doing nothing at all is best because if he does nothing, he will do nothing that he can get in trouble for.
The reason the traffic grid is so screwed up is this simple fact: No civil servant will get paid a dime more if he fixes the problem, so why bother?
Perhaps we have to look at it in a different way. In whose interest is it that traffic flow efficiently? Of course, it's in the interest of all of us, so why don't those who we (supposedly) pay to take care of this do such a horrible job?
We re-elect our politicians over and over whether they do their job or not--none of them do. They have agendas that run counter to ours--they'd rather we be shipped to and from approved places by cattle car. Private autos let us do what we want. The politicians, deep down, don't want that.
No help there.
Something different has to be done. I'm working on it. You should be, too.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
At every signalized intersection in Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego (and in probably just about every city of over 50,000 population in the country) are these saw-cut circles in the pavement, in which are cemented wire loops that are traffic sensors. They sense the mass of metal that is a car or truck, though some of them miss smaller motorcycles.
Originally, they were installed to allow the signals to remain green on major boulevards during periods (e.g. at night) when there was little or no traffic on the minor intersecting streets. If a car comes up to the sensor loop on the minor street, it will trip the sensor and shortly give him a green light.
Recent years, they've installed even more of these sensors in between these intersections at strategic locations. The plan is to tie the city's sensor system to computers, which can be programmed to regulate signals on the entire street grid to move traffic efficiently during various trafic conditions.
Those of us who travel the streets in motor vehicles daily wonder what happened.
Every intersection is another red light at which we have to stop and burn expensive gasoline for up to two minutes until the signal turns green. Then you move a block or two to the next red light.....and repeat.
Why, when driving along Beach Boulevard or Figueroa or El Cajon Boulevard, or any of hundreds of other arterial streets in Southern California or elsewhere, can't the signals be regulated for smooth traffic flow?
Well, friends, I've found out the reason.
Relying on traffic data from all those pavement sensors, any reasonably intelligent computer wiz with a knowledge of the city and with these data could develop programming that would regulate the signals to maximize traffic movement under the conditions of the day and of the time of the day. It'd be complicated in some areas, but generally traffic goes to business districts and industrial areas in weekday mornings, and away from them in the afternoons. Not quite as simple as that, but you get the idea.
When your light turns green, and the next one turns yellow as you approach it--and that happens signal after signal you know it ain't random, folks.
It's corruption in the various city traffic departments. Civil servants in these departments have solicited and received large payments from corrupt executives in oil companies to keep literally every car stopped at idle at as many signals as possible, for as much time as possible to counter the effects of the higher fuel efficiency of modern, smaller cars.
Well, of course I'm being facetious. I don't really think civil servants are in a collusive relationsip with the oil companies--oil companies are already colluding with the feds!
The real reason is that, to a civil servant, the incentive is to do nothing at all, or at best do the barest minimum that will keep him paid and employed until he can achieve the fine retirement pension we all are forced to give him. Doing nothing at all is best because if he does nothing, he will do nothing that he can get in trouble for.
The reason the traffic grid is so screwed up is this simple fact: No civil servant will get paid a dime more if he fixes the problem, so why bother?
Perhaps we have to look at it in a different way. In whose interest is it that traffic flow efficiently? Of course, it's in the interest of all of us, so why don't those who we (supposedly) pay to take care of this do such a horrible job?
We re-elect our politicians over and over whether they do their job or not--none of them do. They have agendas that run counter to ours--they'd rather we be shipped to and from approved places by cattle car. Private autos let us do what we want. The politicians, deep down, don't want that.
No help there.
Something different has to be done. I'm working on it. You should be, too.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Music for Dumb People
I heard a country song today. I don't recall the name of it or who's singing, but it has a telling phrase inside--one which illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding shared by many, maybe most working people. The phrase is "...my thankless job...."
"My thankless job." The singer goes on to mention, with rapt anticipation, the joy of driving his pickup truck after work. Other stuff too, but oh, that pickup!
Doesn't the ignorant bastard know that his pay from the "thankless job" bought him that delightful pickup? Isn't the pay a form of thanks (in a manner of speaking)?
The tone, of course, is that he doesn't like his job, knowing that many will identify with that 'cause most of us don't like our jobs. Well, don't include me in that. I like my job very much--not that I can't imagine a better one, but I do like it. I've never understood why so many people keep at jobs they don't like for the long term. One should take lousy jobs when one is young, not yet educated and not yet experienced. As one gains knowledge and experience, one markets one's new tools and abilities to personal advantage, moving ever closer to the place in the working world one sees as his ideal.
We in the higher intellectual circles call that "goal-seeking."
Years ago, during the fabled Cesar Chaves farm workers strike, in which we were all admonished not to buy California-grown table grapes, I allowed myself to chat with a picketer who was handing out leaflets in front of my neighborhood supermarket. We had a sort of a debate in which he asserted that grape picking is hard, back-breaking work and farm owners should pay more.
I complained that it would increase the price of grapes. He pointed to a 50ish member of the picketers indicating that this man has a large family to feed. I returned that grape picking might best be performed by the young, as a temporary, entry level job. Older people should have progressed to better, higher-paying, less physically demanding work. The young man (who had never picked a grape in his life (softer hands than mine) told me that the older man liked picking grapes and aspired to nothing else.
Well at that, I went in and bought some grapes. I don't suffer liars well.
A productive individual is a business. He has to define what he has to sell, he has to ever work toward improving his product, he has to advertise himself and make the best deal he can. When hired, he has to do his best to fulfill the terms of the contract he's made, while making sure the buyer of his services (the boss) is aware of his abilities and that, if his renumeration doesn't progress along with the quality of his skills, he's liable to go shopping for another buyer.
I'm not going to say much about unions here, because I regard a union member to be a worker who's afraid to stand up on his hind legs and make his own deals.
One can take a job that one doesn't like, but he should know that he'll be moving on as soon as possible. He should arrange his life toward that goal.
Back to the "thankless job." The guy with the problem is the worker (as portrayed by the singer). He doesn't like his job. Boo hoo. I hate to see a grown man whine. The idea of getting a better job never occurs to these guys.
Why do you think I call Country music, "music for dumb people?"
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I heard a country song today. I don't recall the name of it or who's singing, but it has a telling phrase inside--one which illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding shared by many, maybe most working people. The phrase is "...my thankless job...."
"My thankless job." The singer goes on to mention, with rapt anticipation, the joy of driving his pickup truck after work. Other stuff too, but oh, that pickup!
Doesn't the ignorant bastard know that his pay from the "thankless job" bought him that delightful pickup? Isn't the pay a form of thanks (in a manner of speaking)?
The tone, of course, is that he doesn't like his job, knowing that many will identify with that 'cause most of us don't like our jobs. Well, don't include me in that. I like my job very much--not that I can't imagine a better one, but I do like it. I've never understood why so many people keep at jobs they don't like for the long term. One should take lousy jobs when one is young, not yet educated and not yet experienced. As one gains knowledge and experience, one markets one's new tools and abilities to personal advantage, moving ever closer to the place in the working world one sees as his ideal.
We in the higher intellectual circles call that "goal-seeking."
Years ago, during the fabled Cesar Chaves farm workers strike, in which we were all admonished not to buy California-grown table grapes, I allowed myself to chat with a picketer who was handing out leaflets in front of my neighborhood supermarket. We had a sort of a debate in which he asserted that grape picking is hard, back-breaking work and farm owners should pay more.
I complained that it would increase the price of grapes. He pointed to a 50ish member of the picketers indicating that this man has a large family to feed. I returned that grape picking might best be performed by the young, as a temporary, entry level job. Older people should have progressed to better, higher-paying, less physically demanding work. The young man (who had never picked a grape in his life (softer hands than mine) told me that the older man liked picking grapes and aspired to nothing else.
Well at that, I went in and bought some grapes. I don't suffer liars well.
A productive individual is a business. He has to define what he has to sell, he has to ever work toward improving his product, he has to advertise himself and make the best deal he can. When hired, he has to do his best to fulfill the terms of the contract he's made, while making sure the buyer of his services (the boss) is aware of his abilities and that, if his renumeration doesn't progress along with the quality of his skills, he's liable to go shopping for another buyer.
I'm not going to say much about unions here, because I regard a union member to be a worker who's afraid to stand up on his hind legs and make his own deals.
One can take a job that one doesn't like, but he should know that he'll be moving on as soon as possible. He should arrange his life toward that goal.
Back to the "thankless job." The guy with the problem is the worker (as portrayed by the singer). He doesn't like his job. Boo hoo. I hate to see a grown man whine. The idea of getting a better job never occurs to these guys.
Why do you think I call Country music, "music for dumb people?"
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Weapons of Self-Destruction
This just in:
The U.S. feral government has just announced the sale of F-16 fighter-bombers to Pakistan. Cited was the wish to enhance the alliance between the two countries.
I'm thinking about starting a pool to guess the day these F-16's will be used against the United States.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
This just in:
The U.S. feral government has just announced the sale of F-16 fighter-bombers to Pakistan. Cited was the wish to enhance the alliance between the two countries.
I'm thinking about starting a pool to guess the day these F-16's will be used against the United States.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, March 25, 2005
The **ahem, harumph** Media
Ladies and gentlemen, Terri Schiavo is still dead! May she soon get a chance to rest in peace.
Meanwhile, for the second sequential week, we can hardly get a bit of real news for poor Terri's friends, supporters and relatives crying into one news camera after another. Talk shows, both TV and radio, are all Terri, all the time. A crazed, Prozac-addled youngster kills nine, then himself. The day after the initial news story, there's barely a mention anymore. Terri's still hangin' in there. Her parents are still whining into every camera they can find.
Maybe I ought not be so nasty. How'd I feel if she were my daughter?
I guess a lot of my ire needs to be focused upon the hypocritical, cowardly politicians who rush resolutions of support for Terri--resolutions that are mostly symbolic but really do nothing to help. Mostly they're trying, along with pundits and the "evil" talk show guys, to make the judges the bad guys.
Judges do seriously deserve some scrutiny; they do take some incredible liberties with what little bit of freedom we have left.
In this case, though, the politicians make sympathetic, but ineffectual noises while artfully avoiding anything that might help--except holler about Bill Kkklinton's horrible choices in judicial appointments.
Meanwhile, Robert Blake has completely faded from memory, the Weise kid won't cause new gun control laws this time (yay!), and Michael Jackson is thinking about suing the TV networks for lack of coverage.They've cut coverage of the 600-team NCAA baxabaw tournament. Baseball has slipped far behind the Schiavo Watch as America's Pasttime. Weather? Look out the window. Traffic reports? You're on your own. We're talkin' about Terri this week.
Meanwhile, Terri Schiavo is still dead.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Ladies and gentlemen, Terri Schiavo is still dead! May she soon get a chance to rest in peace.
Meanwhile, for the second sequential week, we can hardly get a bit of real news for poor Terri's friends, supporters and relatives crying into one news camera after another. Talk shows, both TV and radio, are all Terri, all the time. A crazed, Prozac-addled youngster kills nine, then himself. The day after the initial news story, there's barely a mention anymore. Terri's still hangin' in there. Her parents are still whining into every camera they can find.
Maybe I ought not be so nasty. How'd I feel if she were my daughter?
I guess a lot of my ire needs to be focused upon the hypocritical, cowardly politicians who rush resolutions of support for Terri--resolutions that are mostly symbolic but really do nothing to help. Mostly they're trying, along with pundits and the "evil" talk show guys, to make the judges the bad guys.
Judges do seriously deserve some scrutiny; they do take some incredible liberties with what little bit of freedom we have left.
In this case, though, the politicians make sympathetic, but ineffectual noises while artfully avoiding anything that might help--except holler about Bill Kkklinton's horrible choices in judicial appointments.
Meanwhile, Robert Blake has completely faded from memory, the Weise kid won't cause new gun control laws this time (yay!), and Michael Jackson is thinking about suing the TV networks for lack of coverage.They've cut coverage of the 600-team NCAA baxabaw tournament. Baseball has slipped far behind the Schiavo Watch as America's Pasttime. Weather? Look out the window. Traffic reports? You're on your own. We're talkin' about Terri this week.
Meanwhile, Terri Schiavo is still dead.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Terri Schiavo
She's gazing down at all the commotion, asking her friend, "Why are they making such a fuss about my old body? It's pretty obvious that I've left it long ago."
If you believe in that sort of thing. Actually, she's just gone. It's sad, really. Her dead body, heart still beating and lungs still breathing because a quirk left a small part of her brain still functioning because she's still receiving nourishment--or was, until a couple of days ago.
I don't know why her husband is so adamant about putting an end to her bodily functions. Money? Maybe. A sincere desire to fulfill her verbally stated wishes? Maybe. Every excuse that's been given has an answer. He's been offered a ton of money just to go away and leave Terri in the care of her parents.
But, she's dead. She's been dead for most of the past fifteen years.
Obviously, Terri's case is a tragedy, and it's upsetting to hear about things like this...difficult to imagine how I'd handle it.
The think that hits me most is the way the conservative politicians and media people are going crazy over this situation. I wouldn't have thought anything would get 'em away from the "War on Terror,"(aka building the perfect police state) and the Michael Jackson trial.
Florida law give Terri's guardianship to her husband. Her husband says she told him that should anything like this happen, she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way. He wants the medics to work her will--all gone over by numerous doctors, lawyers and judges and found to be in accordance with Florida law, and consistent with Terri's body's condition.
Talk show guys rail over the suffering caused by Terri's body's being starved and denied water! Federal Congressfools obsess over the fact that they have no control over the situation, yet try to take control anyway.
I'm reminding myself of a series of scenes in the movie, "Rollerball." The first one, with James Caan playing the lead role. His teammate, "Moonpie," I guess some kind of defenseman, gets clobbered by an overly aggressive member of the other team. He takes Moonpie's helmet off and deals him a skullcrushing blow. Moonpie is left in a vegetative state on life support.
Jonathon, Caan's character, somehow, becomes the go to guy for permission to pull the plug on Moonpie. Jonathon says no, and had Moonpie moved to a special, atrium-like room, where he can rest under the blue sky forever. But Moonpie was dead! Heart kept beating and lungs kept breathing by marvalous technology, but no brainwaves and no action/reaction. Just like Terri.
Can't Congress quit this futile waste of time and get down to their real job: the serious business of saving major-league baseball fron Demon Drugs??
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
She's gazing down at all the commotion, asking her friend, "Why are they making such a fuss about my old body? It's pretty obvious that I've left it long ago."
If you believe in that sort of thing. Actually, she's just gone. It's sad, really. Her dead body, heart still beating and lungs still breathing because a quirk left a small part of her brain still functioning because she's still receiving nourishment--or was, until a couple of days ago.
I don't know why her husband is so adamant about putting an end to her bodily functions. Money? Maybe. A sincere desire to fulfill her verbally stated wishes? Maybe. Every excuse that's been given has an answer. He's been offered a ton of money just to go away and leave Terri in the care of her parents.
But, she's dead. She's been dead for most of the past fifteen years.
Obviously, Terri's case is a tragedy, and it's upsetting to hear about things like this...difficult to imagine how I'd handle it.
The think that hits me most is the way the conservative politicians and media people are going crazy over this situation. I wouldn't have thought anything would get 'em away from the "War on Terror,"(aka building the perfect police state) and the Michael Jackson trial.
Florida law give Terri's guardianship to her husband. Her husband says she told him that should anything like this happen, she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way. He wants the medics to work her will--all gone over by numerous doctors, lawyers and judges and found to be in accordance with Florida law, and consistent with Terri's body's condition.
Talk show guys rail over the suffering caused by Terri's body's being starved and denied water! Federal Congressfools obsess over the fact that they have no control over the situation, yet try to take control anyway.
I'm reminding myself of a series of scenes in the movie, "Rollerball." The first one, with James Caan playing the lead role. His teammate, "Moonpie," I guess some kind of defenseman, gets clobbered by an overly aggressive member of the other team. He takes Moonpie's helmet off and deals him a skullcrushing blow. Moonpie is left in a vegetative state on life support.
Jonathon, Caan's character, somehow, becomes the go to guy for permission to pull the plug on Moonpie. Jonathon says no, and had Moonpie moved to a special, atrium-like room, where he can rest under the blue sky forever. But Moonpie was dead! Heart kept beating and lungs kept breathing by marvalous technology, but no brainwaves and no action/reaction. Just like Terri.
Can't Congress quit this futile waste of time and get down to their real job: the serious business of saving major-league baseball fron Demon Drugs??
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Trip to the Range
This Sunday past I took Jim to the range to refresh his memory regarding handgun safety. As an added bonus, we decided to take Sherry's son Casey, who is 14. He's played with soft-air and BB guns, but never a firearm.
Since it's been a long time for Jim, and teenagers can be a mite flakey at times, we had a nice lecture on "The Rules" before we left. You know, check the weapon thoroughly to make sure it's not loaded, keep the weapons pointed downrange at all times, keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you're ready to fire, etc.
I knew Jim would be ok, I showed him this stuff years ago. I wasn't sure about Casey. But, as Sherry said--he actually listened to my blathering.
I brought my two Para-Ordnance .45's, a Taurus 9mm and a Ruger Standard .22. I showed them both the operations of the pistols: how to load them, where the safeties are and what a sight picture looks like. I showed them how to unload them, clear the actions and told them what to do in case of a jam.
I first let Casey load and fire the Ruger. He hit nothing--the paper target was the safest place downrange right then, so I talked further about the sight picture and critiqued his stance and grip. He fired a couple of magazines and began to improve. Jim tried the Taurus, then one of the .45's.
In the end, Jim preferred the Ruger (he'd actually fired the gun before, when he was a kid) and didn't care for the punisment of the .45 on his hand. The Para Carry is kind of a kicker, as small as it is. Casey ended up liking the Taurus best. He actually asked for another box of cartridges after going through two boxes (less the 20 rounds I fired and the ten Jim fired). Jim popped off more than three boxes of .22's. I fired mostly .45's (my favorite) dividing my time between the Carry and the P13.
It was a good time and I was pleased that Jim recalled the lessons of his childhood and that Casey paid attention and took the guns seriously.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
This Sunday past I took Jim to the range to refresh his memory regarding handgun safety. As an added bonus, we decided to take Sherry's son Casey, who is 14. He's played with soft-air and BB guns, but never a firearm.
Since it's been a long time for Jim, and teenagers can be a mite flakey at times, we had a nice lecture on "The Rules" before we left. You know, check the weapon thoroughly to make sure it's not loaded, keep the weapons pointed downrange at all times, keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you're ready to fire, etc.
I knew Jim would be ok, I showed him this stuff years ago. I wasn't sure about Casey. But, as Sherry said--he actually listened to my blathering.
I brought my two Para-Ordnance .45's, a Taurus 9mm and a Ruger Standard .22. I showed them both the operations of the pistols: how to load them, where the safeties are and what a sight picture looks like. I showed them how to unload them, clear the actions and told them what to do in case of a jam.
I first let Casey load and fire the Ruger. He hit nothing--the paper target was the safest place downrange right then, so I talked further about the sight picture and critiqued his stance and grip. He fired a couple of magazines and began to improve. Jim tried the Taurus, then one of the .45's.
In the end, Jim preferred the Ruger (he'd actually fired the gun before, when he was a kid) and didn't care for the punisment of the .45 on his hand. The Para Carry is kind of a kicker, as small as it is. Casey ended up liking the Taurus best. He actually asked for another box of cartridges after going through two boxes (less the 20 rounds I fired and the ten Jim fired). Jim popped off more than three boxes of .22's. I fired mostly .45's (my favorite) dividing my time between the Carry and the P13.
It was a good time and I was pleased that Jim recalled the lessons of his childhood and that Casey paid attention and took the guns seriously.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Libertarianism
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
--As penned by Libertarianism's scribe laureate, L Neil Smith.
While various individuals from the center to the fringes of libertarianism attempt various strategies in the search for a free society, the above quote is what defines us.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag Califirnia
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
--As penned by Libertarianism's scribe laureate, L Neil Smith.
While various individuals from the center to the fringes of libertarianism attempt various strategies in the search for a free society, the above quote is what defines us.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag Califirnia
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
A Little of the Sports What's Fit to Report
I guess it must be true that most sports reporters are ex-jocks who got clocked a few too many times. Things are looking....well, I guess boringly predictable in the wide world of sports this year.
The NHL has taken a season off to further marginalize itself with those (unlike myself) who don't regard hockey as the only sport worth watching. There are many sports that are fun to play, but only one that's fun to watch. So, in those rare moments in the late night and early morning hours when there isn't a baxabaw game to put on the screen, we're treated to .... poker .... and .... billiards .... and the ever tedious dog shows.
Nobody seems to know that, between the US and Canada, there are several minor hockey leagues, any of which would be fun to watch and who would undoubtedly allow ESPN's cameras in the house for a lot less than does the NHL. Ditto the European leagues, which compete on a level very near that of the NHL. There are college teams all over the northern US and Canada which are televised locally. While the skill level is somewhat below professional levels, fan loyalty is very high and the youngsters (both men and women) play with reckless enthusiasm.
Why can't Fox Sports and ESPN put some of them on the tube nationally? Because of the hordes of billiards fans? Sure.
I've pretty much stayed away from sports this year, with the exception of the Long Beach Ice Dogs. I detest baxabaw. Foopbaw has too many rules, and the players stand around most of the time. Beisbol hasn't been very, very good to me. I may start watching it again after they get their drug rules sorted out, one way or the other.
Many of these sports'd be fun to play, but to watch 'em? C'mon.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I guess it must be true that most sports reporters are ex-jocks who got clocked a few too many times. Things are looking....well, I guess boringly predictable in the wide world of sports this year.
The NHL has taken a season off to further marginalize itself with those (unlike myself) who don't regard hockey as the only sport worth watching. There are many sports that are fun to play, but only one that's fun to watch. So, in those rare moments in the late night and early morning hours when there isn't a baxabaw game to put on the screen, we're treated to .... poker .... and .... billiards .... and the ever tedious dog shows.
Nobody seems to know that, between the US and Canada, there are several minor hockey leagues, any of which would be fun to watch and who would undoubtedly allow ESPN's cameras in the house for a lot less than does the NHL. Ditto the European leagues, which compete on a level very near that of the NHL. There are college teams all over the northern US and Canada which are televised locally. While the skill level is somewhat below professional levels, fan loyalty is very high and the youngsters (both men and women) play with reckless enthusiasm.
Why can't Fox Sports and ESPN put some of them on the tube nationally? Because of the hordes of billiards fans? Sure.
I've pretty much stayed away from sports this year, with the exception of the Long Beach Ice Dogs. I detest baxabaw. Foopbaw has too many rules, and the players stand around most of the time. Beisbol hasn't been very, very good to me. I may start watching it again after they get their drug rules sorted out, one way or the other.
Many of these sports'd be fun to play, but to watch 'em? C'mon.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Homeland Insecurity
After the murders of Sept. 11, 2001 ( a day that will, too, live in infamy.), and after what seemed to be very sincere pronouncements, by the President, of outrage and promises that he'll use all the power of his office to capture or kill those responsible, the federal government slouched down to its normal business-as-usual, don't rock the boat mentality.
Certainly, attempts were made to bring allies to our side (with more success than the ever-hypercritical Democrats will ever admit), the military was deployed to Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden was thought to be headquartered. Bin Laden wasn't found, but as usual, we'll leave Afghanistan better off than we found it (less a few thousand lives). For reasons yet (in my opinion) to be revealed, we next attacked Iraq.
There are plusses and minuses to the military attacks upon the Middle East. Certainly, we had to go after the evil bastards that did this thing. Equally certainly, we pulled our punches and attempted to wage a "politically correct" war, feeding those we're fighting and going out of our way to avoid inflicting and more collateral damage than "necessary." Had we gone in with the full resolve we'd used in WWII, we might be done by now.
But what this message is about isn't our war in the Middle East. It's about the federal government's war on Americans. Immediately upon the settlement of some of the dust from the collapse of the towers, calls went out to "Tighten Security!" And what did that come to mean? Taking the tools illegally brought to bear against Americans accused of using drugs, and applying them to all Americans(!!). It gets worse: in the interest of political correctness, they applied these unConstitutional tools and techniques mainly on Americans who are not of the muslim persuasion(!?). Li'l o'ladies are groped and strip searched, their knitting needles confiscated, while young, middle-eastern men with baggy coats are let through with a nod.
Airline security is the responsibility of the airlines, not the federal government. Local police have a role in it, but not the federal government. Read the Constitution. Tell me where it says that the federal government is authorized (by We the People) to police, patrol and guard private institutions within the country's borders. While you're at it, read the First, Second....hell, read all the Amendments. If you don't see the outrage being perpetrated upon We the People by the federal government, then government schools have indeed done their job well.
What's the first thing government does when faced with a crisis? Create a new department. Homeland Security. Sounds ever so nice. Security in the homeland. The Constitution suggests--no, mandates--that it's the job of the military to protect the country from foreign invaders. It's because of these new programs with new names that distract the military from its job that they're ineffective when a threat does appear. Many departments in many agencies--the easier to have someone to blame when the job doesn't get done.
We have colored flags to tell us how severe is the current danger. That's stylish. Then, they tell us not to be alarmed. Go about your business as if all is well.
The first thing the President should have done is written an executive order legalizing the carry and use of firearms and other weapons by those capable of handling them. The feds could pave the way legally for classes in citizen's arrests to be set up for those wishing to become involved. Individuals could thus be expected to take control of their property and their businesses and see to it that nothing untoward happens thereon. Privatizing more of America's land would be a good idea, too. Individuals take better care of their property than do government employees.
He should remove sactions against oil drilling and, as our domestic supplies improve, we should taper off our purchases of oil from middle-eastern dictatorships. We should begin dealing with foreign sellers of goods and services on a value-for-value basis, with no government involvement.
In their rush to complete the erection of the perfect police state, the Administration has pushed us in the opposite direction, taking more freedom from the individual and gathering more power into the hands of the state. What the President does not know, or chooses to ignore, is that by concentrating power in the hands of few, he places the country in greater danger. He takes millions of perfectly good "soldiers" out of the battle by disarming them and dumbing them down.
So much for the President's interest in the welfare of the country. By concentrating power around himself, he weakens it.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
After the murders of Sept. 11, 2001 ( a day that will, too, live in infamy.), and after what seemed to be very sincere pronouncements, by the President, of outrage and promises that he'll use all the power of his office to capture or kill those responsible, the federal government slouched down to its normal business-as-usual, don't rock the boat mentality.
Certainly, attempts were made to bring allies to our side (with more success than the ever-hypercritical Democrats will ever admit), the military was deployed to Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden was thought to be headquartered. Bin Laden wasn't found, but as usual, we'll leave Afghanistan better off than we found it (less a few thousand lives). For reasons yet (in my opinion) to be revealed, we next attacked Iraq.
There are plusses and minuses to the military attacks upon the Middle East. Certainly, we had to go after the evil bastards that did this thing. Equally certainly, we pulled our punches and attempted to wage a "politically correct" war, feeding those we're fighting and going out of our way to avoid inflicting and more collateral damage than "necessary." Had we gone in with the full resolve we'd used in WWII, we might be done by now.
But what this message is about isn't our war in the Middle East. It's about the federal government's war on Americans. Immediately upon the settlement of some of the dust from the collapse of the towers, calls went out to "Tighten Security!" And what did that come to mean? Taking the tools illegally brought to bear against Americans accused of using drugs, and applying them to all Americans(!!). It gets worse: in the interest of political correctness, they applied these unConstitutional tools and techniques mainly on Americans who are not of the muslim persuasion(!?). Li'l o'ladies are groped and strip searched, their knitting needles confiscated, while young, middle-eastern men with baggy coats are let through with a nod.
Airline security is the responsibility of the airlines, not the federal government. Local police have a role in it, but not the federal government. Read the Constitution. Tell me where it says that the federal government is authorized (by We the People) to police, patrol and guard private institutions within the country's borders. While you're at it, read the First, Second....hell, read all the Amendments. If you don't see the outrage being perpetrated upon We the People by the federal government, then government schools have indeed done their job well.
What's the first thing government does when faced with a crisis? Create a new department. Homeland Security. Sounds ever so nice. Security in the homeland. The Constitution suggests--no, mandates--that it's the job of the military to protect the country from foreign invaders. It's because of these new programs with new names that distract the military from its job that they're ineffective when a threat does appear. Many departments in many agencies--the easier to have someone to blame when the job doesn't get done.
We have colored flags to tell us how severe is the current danger. That's stylish. Then, they tell us not to be alarmed. Go about your business as if all is well.
The first thing the President should have done is written an executive order legalizing the carry and use of firearms and other weapons by those capable of handling them. The feds could pave the way legally for classes in citizen's arrests to be set up for those wishing to become involved. Individuals could thus be expected to take control of their property and their businesses and see to it that nothing untoward happens thereon. Privatizing more of America's land would be a good idea, too. Individuals take better care of their property than do government employees.
He should remove sactions against oil drilling and, as our domestic supplies improve, we should taper off our purchases of oil from middle-eastern dictatorships. We should begin dealing with foreign sellers of goods and services on a value-for-value basis, with no government involvement.
In their rush to complete the erection of the perfect police state, the Administration has pushed us in the opposite direction, taking more freedom from the individual and gathering more power into the hands of the state. What the President does not know, or chooses to ignore, is that by concentrating power in the hands of few, he places the country in greater danger. He takes millions of perfectly good "soldiers" out of the battle by disarming them and dumbing them down.
So much for the President's interest in the welfare of the country. By concentrating power around himself, he weakens it.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, February 24, 2005
THE GOLDWATER DOCTRINE
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
Barry Goldwater, "The Conscience of a Conservative"
Would that the current President entered his office with a similar attitude.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
Barry Goldwater, "The Conscience of a Conservative"
Would that the current President entered his office with a similar attitude.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
So You Want to Adopt a Baby?
Well, he/she won't be black unless you are.
I live a mite south of Los Angeles, but close enough that I hear about all the nonsense that happens up there, and see that part of it that spills over to OC. This adoption business has been around for a while, but it just came back into focus after a report of CBS' 60 Minutes recently.
I didn't see the program in question; I never watch any newsy-type stuff on the major networks any more because of their biases--and the fact that they won't admit to having them. In this case, I'm going by what Elder, who spoke to the issue on his radio show the other day, said. I trust Elder. His biases are closer to my own, and he's fully open about them.
Elder quoted individuals connected with the Black Social Workers' Association. Before I go any farther with that--Black Social Workers' Association?!? What's that all about? Is there also a White Social Workers' Association? An Asian Social Workers' Association? I doubt it. Yet more evidence that Bigotry has moved over to Black Street.
Seems the BSWA has declares that black children cannot be adopted by non-black families. Something they call "Cultural Genocide." Can we attempt to define "Cultural Genocide?" Is it that a black child who grows up in a white household won't be a good baxabaw player? Won't have rhythm? Will have a better chance to finish college with honors? What is it that the BSWA is trying to preserve by requiring that black children be adopted only by black families?
If there were thousands of black couples waiting patiently to adopt these black children, it wouldn't be so bad (although it'd still be racist). There aren't. There are thousands of orphaned black kids languishing in foster homes and other sorts of childrens' prisons all over Los Angeles (not to mention the rest of the country). There are thousands of non-black couples and families who wish to adopt a youngster and add him to their family. Many aren't particular about the youngster's race. Many are adopting foreign-born Asian kids because there aren't enough non-black American kids to fulfill the desires of the many couples wishing to adopt.
Because of the efforts of the racist BSWA, most orphaned black kids can't get adopted. There aren't enough black couples who want to/are qualified. BSWA seems to have taken the position that it's better that black children stay in state care and not be allowed to join caring families if both of the parents aren't black.
If anyone has any ideas why this is the case (other than black racism, which I've already mentioned) I stand prepared to be enlightened.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Well, he/she won't be black unless you are.
I live a mite south of Los Angeles, but close enough that I hear about all the nonsense that happens up there, and see that part of it that spills over to OC. This adoption business has been around for a while, but it just came back into focus after a report of CBS' 60 Minutes recently.
I didn't see the program in question; I never watch any newsy-type stuff on the major networks any more because of their biases--and the fact that they won't admit to having them. In this case, I'm going by what Elder, who spoke to the issue on his radio show the other day, said. I trust Elder. His biases are closer to my own, and he's fully open about them.
Elder quoted individuals connected with the Black Social Workers' Association. Before I go any farther with that--Black Social Workers' Association?!? What's that all about? Is there also a White Social Workers' Association? An Asian Social Workers' Association? I doubt it. Yet more evidence that Bigotry has moved over to Black Street.
Seems the BSWA has declares that black children cannot be adopted by non-black families. Something they call "Cultural Genocide." Can we attempt to define "Cultural Genocide?" Is it that a black child who grows up in a white household won't be a good baxabaw player? Won't have rhythm? Will have a better chance to finish college with honors? What is it that the BSWA is trying to preserve by requiring that black children be adopted only by black families?
If there were thousands of black couples waiting patiently to adopt these black children, it wouldn't be so bad (although it'd still be racist). There aren't. There are thousands of orphaned black kids languishing in foster homes and other sorts of childrens' prisons all over Los Angeles (not to mention the rest of the country). There are thousands of non-black couples and families who wish to adopt a youngster and add him to their family. Many aren't particular about the youngster's race. Many are adopting foreign-born Asian kids because there aren't enough non-black American kids to fulfill the desires of the many couples wishing to adopt.
Because of the efforts of the racist BSWA, most orphaned black kids can't get adopted. There aren't enough black couples who want to/are qualified. BSWA seems to have taken the position that it's better that black children stay in state care and not be allowed to join caring families if both of the parents aren't black.
If anyone has any ideas why this is the case (other than black racism, which I've already mentioned) I stand prepared to be enlightened.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Letter to ACLU
February 13, 2005
ACLU
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Attn: Ms. Nadine Strossen
Dear Ms. Strossen:
While I appreciate the ACLU and realize that such an organization--and perhaps several like organizations--are needed to stand up against the police state that's being constructed by the Federal government, I find that ACLU, as it is currently functioning, to be an utter failure. Rather than attack assaults on fundamental rights, such as one's right to use and dispose of one's life, money and property as one sees fit, privacy in one's business and other affairs and effects, and one's right to defend them, ACLU defends triviality.
ACLU has done a very good job defending the right to free speech and expression of various deviant groups--and I agree that the right to free speech is very important--but what ACLU misses is that there are TEN Amendments to the Constitution in the document we wistfully recall as the Bill of Rights.
When ACLU shows that they are aware of all ten Amendments, and begins to defend innocent individuals against the government in cases of victimless "crimes," property confiscations and invasions of privacy, not to mention right to bear arms cases, then I can't, in good conscience send a donation that'll only go to waste on relatively meaningless lawsuits.
Since I find organizations like ACLU and IJ theoretically valuable, I hope fervently that you'll pick your battles with a little more attention to rights that have more fundamental meaning to larger numbers of Americans.
Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
[Col. Hogan]
February 13, 2005
ACLU
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Attn: Ms. Nadine Strossen
Dear Ms. Strossen:
While I appreciate the ACLU and realize that such an organization--and perhaps several like organizations--are needed to stand up against the police state that's being constructed by the Federal government, I find that ACLU, as it is currently functioning, to be an utter failure. Rather than attack assaults on fundamental rights, such as one's right to use and dispose of one's life, money and property as one sees fit, privacy in one's business and other affairs and effects, and one's right to defend them, ACLU defends triviality.
ACLU has done a very good job defending the right to free speech and expression of various deviant groups--and I agree that the right to free speech is very important--but what ACLU misses is that there are TEN Amendments to the Constitution in the document we wistfully recall as the Bill of Rights.
When ACLU shows that they are aware of all ten Amendments, and begins to defend innocent individuals against the government in cases of victimless "crimes," property confiscations and invasions of privacy, not to mention right to bear arms cases, then I can't, in good conscience send a donation that'll only go to waste on relatively meaningless lawsuits.
Since I find organizations like ACLU and IJ theoretically valuable, I hope fervently that you'll pick your battles with a little more attention to rights that have more fundamental meaning to larger numbers of Americans.
Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
[Col. Hogan]
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Global Warming
There is no global warming.
If there is global warming, mankind didn't cause it.
If there is global warming, mankind can't do anything about it.
If there is global warming, it's part of a natural, probably cyclical phenomenon which takes place over millennia. We don't yet know, because we haven't had the technology capable of sufficiently accuracy for a long enough time to actually track these trends (if any). At some point in the future, perhaps we'll see the pendulum swing back to a cooler climate. Or not.
The handiest proof is easy enough to find. Crazed environmentalists would have us sift through volumes and volumes of data, alledgedly proving all manner of calamities just around the corner. Warmer weather. Melting polar icecaps raising the level of the oceans, causing widespread catastrophic flooding of coastal cities and surfing beaches. Extinction of species. Death and catastrophy to all.
Reams of other data can be found that show few or no such calamities in the offing. The data from many studies is inconclusive.
The proof is simply the following: The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, the .44 Magnum of volcanoes (it'll take your head clean off), shot more smoke and ash (read "greenhouse gases") into the air than all mankind has in the whole life of mankind. There were, of course, serious changes of many different kinds for many years after the eruption, but the fact is, the world survives. Evidence of this eruption can still be found, especially in the area, but the earth heals itself.
Volcanic eruptions happen every now and then. Krakatoa wasn't the only one, and there will be more. Many people living near these events will be killed, disruptions will happen. Afterwards, men will repair their stuff and nature will fall into a new (very temporary) stability.
A few years ago, the ever-vigilant news media was reporting that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. Global cooling, if you will. Well, it didn't happen. Global warming, in the sense meant by the crazed environmentalists, isn't either.
I don't know the actual text of the Kyoto Treaty, which we Americans are all doomed to hell for not having signed, but casual paying partial attention leads me to form the conclusion that the real reason for the treaty is to damage America (and, to a degree, other industrial nations) by causing us to have to severely alter our habits regarding the use of energy.
Well, they ask that, yet give a pass to many countries who, even though their hardscrabble populations use far less energy than we (per capita), their industrial habits are far dirtier than ours, and their countries are just....dirtier.
The reason for "Global Warming" is to drum up global support for the Kyoto Treaty. The reason for the Kyoto Treaty is to knock the United States and, to a lesser extent, other industrialized countries, down a peg or two. That and, more importantly, to hobble capitalism.
Well, capitalism has given me everything I own and am, so I'm for enhancing it.
Warmest (pun intended) regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
There is no global warming.
If there is global warming, mankind didn't cause it.
If there is global warming, mankind can't do anything about it.
If there is global warming, it's part of a natural, probably cyclical phenomenon which takes place over millennia. We don't yet know, because we haven't had the technology capable of sufficiently accuracy for a long enough time to actually track these trends (if any). At some point in the future, perhaps we'll see the pendulum swing back to a cooler climate. Or not.
The handiest proof is easy enough to find. Crazed environmentalists would have us sift through volumes and volumes of data, alledgedly proving all manner of calamities just around the corner. Warmer weather. Melting polar icecaps raising the level of the oceans, causing widespread catastrophic flooding of coastal cities and surfing beaches. Extinction of species. Death and catastrophy to all.
Reams of other data can be found that show few or no such calamities in the offing. The data from many studies is inconclusive.
The proof is simply the following: The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, the .44 Magnum of volcanoes (it'll take your head clean off), shot more smoke and ash (read "greenhouse gases") into the air than all mankind has in the whole life of mankind. There were, of course, serious changes of many different kinds for many years after the eruption, but the fact is, the world survives. Evidence of this eruption can still be found, especially in the area, but the earth heals itself.
Volcanic eruptions happen every now and then. Krakatoa wasn't the only one, and there will be more. Many people living near these events will be killed, disruptions will happen. Afterwards, men will repair their stuff and nature will fall into a new (very temporary) stability.
A few years ago, the ever-vigilant news media was reporting that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. Global cooling, if you will. Well, it didn't happen. Global warming, in the sense meant by the crazed environmentalists, isn't either.
I don't know the actual text of the Kyoto Treaty, which we Americans are all doomed to hell for not having signed, but casual paying partial attention leads me to form the conclusion that the real reason for the treaty is to damage America (and, to a degree, other industrial nations) by causing us to have to severely alter our habits regarding the use of energy.
Well, they ask that, yet give a pass to many countries who, even though their hardscrabble populations use far less energy than we (per capita), their industrial habits are far dirtier than ours, and their countries are just....dirtier.
The reason for "Global Warming" is to drum up global support for the Kyoto Treaty. The reason for the Kyoto Treaty is to knock the United States and, to a lesser extent, other industrialized countries, down a peg or two. That and, more importantly, to hobble capitalism.
Well, capitalism has given me everything I own and am, so I'm for enhancing it.
Warmest (pun intended) regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, February 11, 2005
.jpg)
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
My all-time favorite car. This is a Harley Earl concept, built in 1954. I guess they built a couple of them, and one of them made its way to the public sector when Mr Earl gave it to Mr E.L. Cord.
Somehow, it made its way to the Barrett-Jackson Auction in Scottsdale this past weekend. After a furious fifteen minutes of bidding, the car was sold to a representative of the Gateway Colorado Automobile Museum for $3 million. It was the highest-priced car of the weekend.
It was supposed to be Oldsmobile's answer to the Chevrolet Corvette, which had just been introduced the year before. Somehow, the project didn't make it to production. I wonder if Oldsmobile might still be in production, if it had.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Somehow, it made its way to the Barrett-Jackson Auction in Scottsdale this past weekend. After a furious fifteen minutes of bidding, the car was sold to a representative of the Gateway Colorado Automobile Museum for $3 million. It was the highest-priced car of the weekend.
It was supposed to be Oldsmobile's answer to the Chevrolet Corvette, which had just been introduced the year before. Somehow, the project didn't make it to production. I wonder if Oldsmobile might still be in production, if it had.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Freedom Summit, Sunday, 10 Oct.
I guess I'd better finish this tale before I grow old and forget my experiences of that day.
After breakfast I took a quick tour of the vendors' tables. I ended up at Claire Wolfe's table, at which I bought a few of her books, as I mentioned earlier. We had a conversation about her website and her blog. I got a quick look at L Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach," the new graphic version of Smith's 1980 novel, illustrated by Scott Beiser. Illustrated very well, I noticed--characters looking much as I imagined they might look. Ms Wolfe also informed me that Mr Smith was in the house--look for him this afternoon.
Barry Hess called the ball with a few announcements, then introduced the young lady whose name I can't recall (dammit), who spoke about the Free State Project. FSP has had a vote and decided that the Free State will be New Hampshire. "Twas not my choice, but I'm willing to listen. Ms FSP described the state, went over the relevent state laws re taxes, RKBA, work and business regs, etc. She actually did make the place sound pretty good, if you can deal with serious winter.
Next came Alan Bock. Mr Bock is a senior editorial writer for the Orange County (Calif) Register, and has a couple of books to his credit. I bought one of his books from him, "Showdown at Ruby Ridge," which he signed for me. We talked a bit abouyt the Register and his work there.
After lunch, as I headed back to the conference room, I spotted El Neil with a small group seated around the swimming pool wet bar. Of course, I went over there and introduced myself. He was with Scott Beiser and a few others. We talked about the new graphic novel, a copy of which he let me peruse further. We spoke about guns, his upcoming projects and a little about the screenplay I wrote for TPB. Others came and went, and before I knew it, I'd missed the rest of the speakers. There was a Women's Panel discussion and a humorist named Ken Schoolland. It's unfortunate that I missed this part of the Summit, but I've been hoping to meet El Neil for years, and regard it an equitable trade-off.
I spent the evening relaxing and reading, then hit the road in the morning for a pleasant, but uneventful drive home.
I'll recommend to anyone that the next Freedom Summit will be time and money well spent. Should Marc and Amy Victor, and Ernie and Donna Hancock, or any of the others involved in setting up the Freedom Summit read this, thanks a million!
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I guess I'd better finish this tale before I grow old and forget my experiences of that day.
After breakfast I took a quick tour of the vendors' tables. I ended up at Claire Wolfe's table, at which I bought a few of her books, as I mentioned earlier. We had a conversation about her website and her blog. I got a quick look at L Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach," the new graphic version of Smith's 1980 novel, illustrated by Scott Beiser. Illustrated very well, I noticed--characters looking much as I imagined they might look. Ms Wolfe also informed me that Mr Smith was in the house--look for him this afternoon.
Barry Hess called the ball with a few announcements, then introduced the young lady whose name I can't recall (dammit), who spoke about the Free State Project. FSP has had a vote and decided that the Free State will be New Hampshire. "Twas not my choice, but I'm willing to listen. Ms FSP described the state, went over the relevent state laws re taxes, RKBA, work and business regs, etc. She actually did make the place sound pretty good, if you can deal with serious winter.
Next came Alan Bock. Mr Bock is a senior editorial writer for the Orange County (Calif) Register, and has a couple of books to his credit. I bought one of his books from him, "Showdown at Ruby Ridge," which he signed for me. We talked a bit abouyt the Register and his work there.
After lunch, as I headed back to the conference room, I spotted El Neil with a small group seated around the swimming pool wet bar. Of course, I went over there and introduced myself. He was with Scott Beiser and a few others. We talked about the new graphic novel, a copy of which he let me peruse further. We spoke about guns, his upcoming projects and a little about the screenplay I wrote for TPB. Others came and went, and before I knew it, I'd missed the rest of the speakers. There was a Women's Panel discussion and a humorist named Ken Schoolland. It's unfortunate that I missed this part of the Summit, but I've been hoping to meet El Neil for years, and regard it an equitable trade-off.
I spent the evening relaxing and reading, then hit the road in the morning for a pleasant, but uneventful drive home.
I'll recommend to anyone that the next Freedom Summit will be time and money well spent. Should Marc and Amy Victor, and Ernie and Donna Hancock, or any of the others involved in setting up the Freedom Summit read this, thanks a million!
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, January 07, 2005
The Shopping Mall
I avoid the malls between Thanksgiving and about the fifth of January each year. Today, I went to Barnes and Noble to find a couple of calendars. You know, the ones I didn't get because I avoided the malls. Everything went well except that I didn't find a good classic car calendar. I did buy a couple of books to make up for it.
One thing that's always bugged me, and I noticed it once again today.
Why do people stand on escalators? You can observe in any mall (the other ten months of the year), people walking briskly this way and that, from store to store, buying their stuff, etc. Then they come to an escalator. They pause, look for just the right treadle, and step deliberately onto it, looking like they don't know quite what to expect.
They stand rigid as a store mannequin all the way down (or up), obviously planning their escape at the end of the ride. Tension rules. They haven't concentrated this intensely since finals in their senior year. They stand transfixed by the approaching bottom (or top). Get ready. Don't want to get sucked down under the floor. Even worse, they don't want to stumble or look awkward to nearby observers or (shudder) their friends!
Have you ever been in an airport that has a slidewalk? You can walk alongside of it at normal walking speed (and take all day to get to your gate) or you can step (ever so gingerly) onto the slidewalk and stand there and move along a little faster than walking speed, and get to the gate a bit faster. Or you can casually walk onto the slidewalk, keep on walking along on it (there are usually signs (stand on the right, walk on the left, or suchlike), smoothly, without breaking stride and get to the gate much faster. The fat schlubs and the first time fliers from the bacckwoods, who in other countries would have their chickens with them, stand to the right. Those of us who want to get somewhere fly by 'em like a Barchetta past a school bus.
Anyway, the same thing goes with escalators. Walk right down (or up) 'em as if they were stationary stairs. Breeze right past the paralyzed standees as if they're displays of umbrellas. Step off the bottom like Gene Kelly off the curb.
Or take the elevator.....
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I avoid the malls between Thanksgiving and about the fifth of January each year. Today, I went to Barnes and Noble to find a couple of calendars. You know, the ones I didn't get because I avoided the malls. Everything went well except that I didn't find a good classic car calendar. I did buy a couple of books to make up for it.
One thing that's always bugged me, and I noticed it once again today.
Why do people stand on escalators? You can observe in any mall (the other ten months of the year), people walking briskly this way and that, from store to store, buying their stuff, etc. Then they come to an escalator. They pause, look for just the right treadle, and step deliberately onto it, looking like they don't know quite what to expect.
They stand rigid as a store mannequin all the way down (or up), obviously planning their escape at the end of the ride. Tension rules. They haven't concentrated this intensely since finals in their senior year. They stand transfixed by the approaching bottom (or top). Get ready. Don't want to get sucked down under the floor. Even worse, they don't want to stumble or look awkward to nearby observers or (shudder) their friends!
Have you ever been in an airport that has a slidewalk? You can walk alongside of it at normal walking speed (and take all day to get to your gate) or you can step (ever so gingerly) onto the slidewalk and stand there and move along a little faster than walking speed, and get to the gate a bit faster. Or you can casually walk onto the slidewalk, keep on walking along on it (there are usually signs (stand on the right, walk on the left, or suchlike), smoothly, without breaking stride and get to the gate much faster. The fat schlubs and the first time fliers from the bacckwoods, who in other countries would have their chickens with them, stand to the right. Those of us who want to get somewhere fly by 'em like a Barchetta past a school bus.
Anyway, the same thing goes with escalators. Walk right down (or up) 'em as if they were stationary stairs. Breeze right past the paralyzed standees as if they're displays of umbrellas. Step off the bottom like Gene Kelly off the curb.
Or take the elevator.....
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, December 31, 2004
Happy New Year!
Here's hoping 2005 will be a year in which a trend of arguably about 100 years will be reversed. Here's hoping 2005 will end leaving us in a freer society than did 2004. Ok, maybe I'm being rediculously optimistic, but I have this hope every year.
Maybe one year I'll be right.
May we all prosper in the coming year.
Col. Hogan
Here's hoping 2005 will be a year in which a trend of arguably about 100 years will be reversed. Here's hoping 2005 will end leaving us in a freer society than did 2004. Ok, maybe I'm being rediculously optimistic, but I have this hope every year.
Maybe one year I'll be right.
May we all prosper in the coming year.
Col. Hogan
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Open Letter to Undersecretary Jan Egeland
On behalf of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the people of the State of California, I hereby request disaster aid from the United Nations for Califonia flood relief. As you know, California has been inundated by well over six inches (15 cm) of rain these past days, and expects more in the near future.
Because of the holiday surfing and skiing trips of many Californians, they weren't in their home neighborhoods to work to mitigate the damage caused by billions of drops of falling water and the resultant flooding, wind damage and the need to rewash our millions of automobiles and trucks.
If you could forward a plea to Norway, Sweden, Germany, France and the OPEC nations that they should each send us all the assistance they can possibly afford, it will help to repair the damage, both to our stuff and to our psyches.
As a matter of convenience to the relief agancies and their staffs, we'd request that you not send clothing (painfully unstylish), food (horribly cooked and woefully underseasoned), or medical supplies (though hashish and marijuana will be gratefully accepted). Please send money--preferably in gold and silver (less perishable in wet conditions).
And pleas, oh please do not come yourselves. Many of you aren't up to the sandards of hygiene that Californians have come to expect--especially the French. We must, at all costs, avoid further contamination!
Thank you very much, Mr. Egeland, for all the generosity Europeans are known for.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
On behalf of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the people of the State of California, I hereby request disaster aid from the United Nations for Califonia flood relief. As you know, California has been inundated by well over six inches (15 cm) of rain these past days, and expects more in the near future.
Because of the holiday surfing and skiing trips of many Californians, they weren't in their home neighborhoods to work to mitigate the damage caused by billions of drops of falling water and the resultant flooding, wind damage and the need to rewash our millions of automobiles and trucks.
If you could forward a plea to Norway, Sweden, Germany, France and the OPEC nations that they should each send us all the assistance they can possibly afford, it will help to repair the damage, both to our stuff and to our psyches.
As a matter of convenience to the relief agancies and their staffs, we'd request that you not send clothing (painfully unstylish), food (horribly cooked and woefully underseasoned), or medical supplies (though hashish and marijuana will be gratefully accepted). Please send money--preferably in gold and silver (less perishable in wet conditions).
And pleas, oh please do not come yourselves. Many of you aren't up to the sandards of hygiene that Californians have come to expect--especially the French. We must, at all costs, avoid further contamination!
Thank you very much, Mr. Egeland, for all the generosity Europeans are known for.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Monday, December 27, 2004
THE BOMBER
Several months ago I bought a very nice looking 1956 Buick Roadmaster coupe. I've wanted a classic car for some time (since I sold the '57 Cadillac I had in the mid-90's), and I finally saw an opportunity to get one. I call it The Bomber because 1) it's a big, imposing, yet beautiful car that makes the little genericars shrink in fear and 2) during WWII, when the feral government forced US automakers to stop producing cars and turn to military equipment production, the Buick factory built bombers. My Roadmaster has a chrome gadget on top of each fender that is called, by Buick afficianadoes, bombsights.
I got the car for a relatively low price, knowing that it needs a bit of fixin here and there. It runs and drives pretty well, and it looks very nice, but you can tell a lot of the work that was done to restore it to its current state was done kind of cheaply and not correctly.
No matter. I intended to do a number of modifications anyway, to make the car driveable in today's modern world. I'm in the midst of those now.
I just got it back from a shop that rebuilt the suspension and replaced the old drum brakes with modern disc brakes. Now, it can stop. Next, I look for some snazzy wheels.
One of these days, I'll take the time to figure out how to post photos to this blog, then I'll show the thing off a mite.
More as the project progresses.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Several months ago I bought a very nice looking 1956 Buick Roadmaster coupe. I've wanted a classic car for some time (since I sold the '57 Cadillac I had in the mid-90's), and I finally saw an opportunity to get one. I call it The Bomber because 1) it's a big, imposing, yet beautiful car that makes the little genericars shrink in fear and 2) during WWII, when the feral government forced US automakers to stop producing cars and turn to military equipment production, the Buick factory built bombers. My Roadmaster has a chrome gadget on top of each fender that is called, by Buick afficianadoes, bombsights.
I got the car for a relatively low price, knowing that it needs a bit of fixin here and there. It runs and drives pretty well, and it looks very nice, but you can tell a lot of the work that was done to restore it to its current state was done kind of cheaply and not correctly.
No matter. I intended to do a number of modifications anyway, to make the car driveable in today's modern world. I'm in the midst of those now.
I just got it back from a shop that rebuilt the suspension and replaced the old drum brakes with modern disc brakes. Now, it can stop. Next, I look for some snazzy wheels.
One of these days, I'll take the time to figure out how to post photos to this blog, then I'll show the thing off a mite.
More as the project progresses.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Airport Security
Because of thousands of complaints by women with bruises and hickeys on and between their breasts, abdomens and rib areas, and the looming threat of a lawsuit by ACLU attorneys, Airport Security Nazis have been ordered to stop playing with women's breasts at airline security checkpoints. Freelance skinmag photographers have also been ordered out of the area.
Resignations by disgruntled security screeners are up sharply amid complaints that the job "just ain't no fun anymore." International Sisterhood of Gropers union officials are threatening a walkout if the order isn't rescinded immediately.
Meanwhile, crotch groping continues as usual, although a vocal minority continue requesting handwashing facilities be installed at convenient locations.
I'll give you follow-up stories as they become available......
Col. Hogan
Because of thousands of complaints by women with bruises and hickeys on and between their breasts, abdomens and rib areas, and the looming threat of a lawsuit by ACLU attorneys, Airport Security Nazis have been ordered to stop playing with women's breasts at airline security checkpoints. Freelance skinmag photographers have also been ordered out of the area.
Resignations by disgruntled security screeners are up sharply amid complaints that the job "just ain't no fun anymore." International Sisterhood of Gropers union officials are threatening a walkout if the order isn't rescinded immediately.
Meanwhile, crotch groping continues as usual, although a vocal minority continue requesting handwashing facilities be installed at convenient locations.
I'll give you follow-up stories as they become available......
Col. Hogan
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
"Giving Something Back"
How many times have you heard a top-tier actor, sports figure or other celebrity refer to a charitable act as "giving something back" to the community? Of course, if the celebrity happens to be a leftist, it's usually referring to something they did to coax others to ante up. But that's not my point.
I want to analyze (briefly) the meaning of the act of "giving something back."
I first heard the term from a baxabaw player. It may have been Magic Johnson (of magic johnson fame), but I can't recall. Whoever it was, he made a point to mention that he grew up in a poor neighborhood (hood, in the jargon), and now that he's successful, he wanted to "give something back."
"Giving something back" sort of implies that you've taken something away. I can't in my wildest imagination come up with what Magic Johnson might have taken from his educationally, financially and philosophically deprived hood that brought him to his current degree of success, but I'm sure it didn't involve anything that pouring a few tens of thousands of dollars into the hood can repay. Of course, it's a fact that the gift is obviously helpful and welcome in the community, but it's hardly any kind of payback. The fallacy is further amplified by the fact that celebrities "give something back" to people and places of whom-which they know nothing. I don't think this is the trail to enlightenment........
The "real deal" is this. None--not one--nary a singularity of these celebrities really really believes he/she is worth anywhere near the amount he earns. Well, I think there might be one somewhere, but I haven't found him. Or her. He'll see one of his old pals in the hood, sitting on the stoop sipping on a brown paper bag, and think "there, but for the grace of (fill in the name of your favorite invisible friend) go I." He completely (this is where I run to the end of my meager amount of psychological expertise) blanks out the years of hard work, practice, study, drilling, trials, lessons and the astounding degree of sustained discipline that got him to his lofty level, and assumes that what he did could've happened to anybody.
Through decades of hard work and perserverence, I've managed to lift myself out of the gutter and elevated myself to almost halfway up the face of the curb. I know that it's I who have done it and that I deserve every quarter they toss me.
If I find a deserving cause to which to donate, I will. It won't be "giving something back," it'll be good ol' fashioned Good Will.
Col. Hogan
How many times have you heard a top-tier actor, sports figure or other celebrity refer to a charitable act as "giving something back" to the community? Of course, if the celebrity happens to be a leftist, it's usually referring to something they did to coax others to ante up. But that's not my point.
I want to analyze (briefly) the meaning of the act of "giving something back."
I first heard the term from a baxabaw player. It may have been Magic Johnson (of magic johnson fame), but I can't recall. Whoever it was, he made a point to mention that he grew up in a poor neighborhood (hood, in the jargon), and now that he's successful, he wanted to "give something back."
"Giving something back" sort of implies that you've taken something away. I can't in my wildest imagination come up with what Magic Johnson might have taken from his educationally, financially and philosophically deprived hood that brought him to his current degree of success, but I'm sure it didn't involve anything that pouring a few tens of thousands of dollars into the hood can repay. Of course, it's a fact that the gift is obviously helpful and welcome in the community, but it's hardly any kind of payback. The fallacy is further amplified by the fact that celebrities "give something back" to people and places of whom-which they know nothing. I don't think this is the trail to enlightenment........
The "real deal" is this. None--not one--nary a singularity of these celebrities really really believes he/she is worth anywhere near the amount he earns. Well, I think there might be one somewhere, but I haven't found him. Or her. He'll see one of his old pals in the hood, sitting on the stoop sipping on a brown paper bag, and think "there, but for the grace of (fill in the name of your favorite invisible friend) go I." He completely (this is where I run to the end of my meager amount of psychological expertise) blanks out the years of hard work, practice, study, drilling, trials, lessons and the astounding degree of sustained discipline that got him to his lofty level, and assumes that what he did could've happened to anybody.
Through decades of hard work and perserverence, I've managed to lift myself out of the gutter and elevated myself to almost halfway up the face of the curb. I know that it's I who have done it and that I deserve every quarter they toss me.
If I find a deserving cause to which to donate, I will. It won't be "giving something back," it'll be good ol' fashioned Good Will.
Col. Hogan
Thursday, December 02, 2004
O'Reilly on Drugs
I was listening to Bill O'Reilly on the radio this morning. While talking about a particular drug dealer who got a very long (mandated) prison sentence, he was going off on callers who disagree with the "War on Drugs," referred to by the honest as the War on the Bill of Rights.
The only justification he offered for his utterly unreasoned stance was "for the children."
Sorry. Even when my kids were young, I thought that making the world child-safe was a ridiculous idea, both because it can't be done and because the world would then suck for adults. Sorry kids, there are more of us than you. Not only that, but soon you kids'll be grown up and you'll be hating life in the nerf-world, too.
Parents, you have to keep your kids away from drugs. Your kids aren't my problem. To repeat, you keep your kids away from drugs.
You say you can't watch your kids all the time? Well, you're right. Fortunately, you don't have to. What you have to do is be with the kids a lot (read just about all the time) in their first four or five years. Read to them, teach them, stimulate them to learn. As they grow and learn, they become more capable of independent action.
You can't stay home with the kids? Your work won't let you be home with the baby? You can't be home when the kids get out of school? Then why did you have kids?
Well ok. A lot of the problems aren't being addressed. I don't think I can address all of them here, but the big one is taxes.
Up to about the middle of the last century, most mothers stayed home, took care of the homes and the kids, and generally supported the family while the father went to work and brought home the bacon.
Before you start detailing in your minds all the problems for Mommy in this arrangement, let's observe that it wasn't all plums and posies for Daddy, either. Before we start throwing blame around for the way the two sexes were built and the way the societies of man have arranged themselves since first sentience. The way to escape currently lies in personal responsibility: If you don't want children DON'T HAVE ANY.
That's a good plan for those few of us who haven't started late, (already have a family), but for those who have....well you have a family and that's your priority. Deal.
There are several reasons why it's come to this. The biggest one is government. We all pay (that is, those of us that are productive) around half of our productivity to the police state--up from around ten percent in the fifties. We're told that it's an exchange for various services that could be provided by no one but government.
Not true.
The services in question were provided far better (leaving aside technological progress) back then than now, in spite of all the money currently being taken from you.
Not only is government very poor at providing these services, but they "charge" a lot of money for them. And, your freedom. Writer L Neil Smith estimates, maybe conservatively, that these services, crime prevention, streets and roads, schools, medical care, etc, etc, along with all the other goods and services we buy, would cost about one-eighth the current costs were ther no taxes and no government regulation.
How does this relate to O'Reilly and his desire to keep drugs away from kids? Well, for openers, would alleviate the need for both parents to work outside the home. The one that stays home can teach the benefits of a moral, productive, purposeful life to the youngsters, she (or he) can be there when Zachariah, Jr asks the critical questions about hockey and why he shouldn't stick the cute girl's ponytail into the inkwell. She can be around to discuss the changes that are happening in budding young Myrtle's body and how to get the ink out of her hair.
Drugs, other than aspirin and the odd dosage given by the family doctor, won't become an issue because the kids will have already been forewarned and forearmed properly by their parents, not by anonymous jack-booted thugs from DEA at your neighborhood children's prison. And they'll have better things to do. Fuddling the brain with short-circuit inducing chemicals will be seen as a waste of the time he could be spending building his (or her) own personal aircraft. Or flying it across town to meet that special speed skating champion who'll need a massage after the race. They'll be learning to live and prosper in an adult world.
We don't need a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Poverty" that purposefully gives society both more drugs and more poverty. Mostly, we need to be left alone.
Col. Hogan
I was listening to Bill O'Reilly on the radio this morning. While talking about a particular drug dealer who got a very long (mandated) prison sentence, he was going off on callers who disagree with the "War on Drugs," referred to by the honest as the War on the Bill of Rights.
The only justification he offered for his utterly unreasoned stance was "for the children."
Sorry. Even when my kids were young, I thought that making the world child-safe was a ridiculous idea, both because it can't be done and because the world would then suck for adults. Sorry kids, there are more of us than you. Not only that, but soon you kids'll be grown up and you'll be hating life in the nerf-world, too.
Parents, you have to keep your kids away from drugs. Your kids aren't my problem. To repeat, you keep your kids away from drugs.
You say you can't watch your kids all the time? Well, you're right. Fortunately, you don't have to. What you have to do is be with the kids a lot (read just about all the time) in their first four or five years. Read to them, teach them, stimulate them to learn. As they grow and learn, they become more capable of independent action.
You can't stay home with the kids? Your work won't let you be home with the baby? You can't be home when the kids get out of school? Then why did you have kids?
Well ok. A lot of the problems aren't being addressed. I don't think I can address all of them here, but the big one is taxes.
Up to about the middle of the last century, most mothers stayed home, took care of the homes and the kids, and generally supported the family while the father went to work and brought home the bacon.
Before you start detailing in your minds all the problems for Mommy in this arrangement, let's observe that it wasn't all plums and posies for Daddy, either. Before we start throwing blame around for the way the two sexes were built and the way the societies of man have arranged themselves since first sentience. The way to escape currently lies in personal responsibility: If you don't want children DON'T HAVE ANY.
That's a good plan for those few of us who haven't started late, (already have a family), but for those who have....well you have a family and that's your priority. Deal.
There are several reasons why it's come to this. The biggest one is government. We all pay (that is, those of us that are productive) around half of our productivity to the police state--up from around ten percent in the fifties. We're told that it's an exchange for various services that could be provided by no one but government.
Not true.
The services in question were provided far better (leaving aside technological progress) back then than now, in spite of all the money currently being taken from you.
Not only is government very poor at providing these services, but they "charge" a lot of money for them. And, your freedom. Writer L Neil Smith estimates, maybe conservatively, that these services, crime prevention, streets and roads, schools, medical care, etc, etc, along with all the other goods and services we buy, would cost about one-eighth the current costs were ther no taxes and no government regulation.
How does this relate to O'Reilly and his desire to keep drugs away from kids? Well, for openers, would alleviate the need for both parents to work outside the home. The one that stays home can teach the benefits of a moral, productive, purposeful life to the youngsters, she (or he) can be there when Zachariah, Jr asks the critical questions about hockey and why he shouldn't stick the cute girl's ponytail into the inkwell. She can be around to discuss the changes that are happening in budding young Myrtle's body and how to get the ink out of her hair.
Drugs, other than aspirin and the odd dosage given by the family doctor, won't become an issue because the kids will have already been forewarned and forearmed properly by their parents, not by anonymous jack-booted thugs from DEA at your neighborhood children's prison. And they'll have better things to do. Fuddling the brain with short-circuit inducing chemicals will be seen as a waste of the time he could be spending building his (or her) own personal aircraft. Or flying it across town to meet that special speed skating champion who'll need a massage after the race. They'll be learning to live and prosper in an adult world.
We don't need a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Poverty" that purposefully gives society both more drugs and more poverty. Mostly, we need to be left alone.
Col. Hogan
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Now the evil bastards get to feel you up as an addendum to the price of your ticket. The feral gov't has finally gone too far! Well, actually, they went too far a long time ago, but in the interest of making it harder and harder to travel outside the bounds of government approval, they can now check your genitals for bombs.
If this post seems a bit disjointed, it's because, once again, I'm angry, angry, angry!
I'm hoping that individuals, especially women, will quit flying commercial airlines. I have, in the past year or so, said that I won't fly unless I really have to. Now, I'm changing it. If I can't get there without taking a commercial flight, I ain't going. Period.
But, sez my evil twin, That's just what they want. Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?
Oops, there goes another Amendment (flush).
Col. Hogan
If this post seems a bit disjointed, it's because, once again, I'm angry, angry, angry!
I'm hoping that individuals, especially women, will quit flying commercial airlines. I have, in the past year or so, said that I won't fly unless I really have to. Now, I'm changing it. If I can't get there without taking a commercial flight, I ain't going. Period.
But, sez my evil twin, That's just what they want. Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?
Oops, there goes another Amendment (flush).
Col. Hogan
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Back to the Freedom Summit.
After a quick breakfast, I found that several individuals were already milling about in the patio area around the entrance to the convention room. I picked up my badge and went inside to check out the vendors. While I made up a mental list of things I would buy later, people started to find seats.
Ernie took the dais and made a few announcements, mostly having to do with Arizona politics as it relates to the upcoming elections. He welcomed everyone and introduced Barry Hess, who was to MC the event.
The first speaker way Doug Casey, a man who makes enough money in market speculation to finance his travelling habit. He spoke on the world view of the terrorist/Iraq/Afghanistan situation.
An elderly gentleman who calls himself Lazarus Long was next. He had a Power Point presentation of a New Country he plans to build on a sand bar in the Caribbean. The presentation wasn't very convincing.
Jim Peron, an American who lived in South Africa for a time and now lives in New Zealand, spoke about the government of New Zealand, its taxes and its receptiveness to immigration, and the ease of starting a business or working there. He made it sound pretty good.
Charles Goyette is a talk show host on a Phoenix radio station. He has a somewhat gloomy view of the future of freedom in America, with some suggestions of things that might happen that might make the outlook a little brighter. I spoke with him briefly after his speech and found him to be very sharp and quite a bit more upbeat than his speech seemed to indicate. I wish I could listen to his show. I could listen on the net, except he's on while I'm at work.
Claire Wolfe is a pretty hard-core underground person who's been writing about the approaching police state for years. "101 Things to Do Until the Revolution" and "The State vs the People," for example. She was the next speaker, and spoke about creating online "gulching" communities, insulating yourself from the bad guys, etc. I did get a couple of chances to chat with her. She was good enough to sign a couple of her books for me.
Mary Ruwart spoke about the federal gov't's role in soaring prescription drug prices. Ms Ruwart is a pharmaceutical research scientist who has first-hand knowledge of the outrageous degree of regulation under which pharmaceutical firms must attempt to work.
Justin Raimondo, a policy analist for the Center for Libertarian Studies gave an impassioned speech in opposition to the Iraq war and a plea that all libertarians oppose it in any way they can.
Now, I have no sympathy for the old Iraqi government, but I'm not in the least satisfied with the blarney coming from Washington DC regarding this "War on Terror." I'm even less satisfied with the feds having set up apparatus by which they can control our movement, our travel, our work, our education and our health care (well beyond what had been done by previous administrations) and by which they can collect information on each and every one of us in just about any area of our lives. Any of that bunk they tell you about needing the approval of the courts to tap your phones or raid your computer files falls completely apart when you realize from whom the judges' paychecks come.
Ah, another digression......
We had a break to freshen up and to engage in conversation as pleased each of us, until it was time for the evening's hjigh point: Dinner and the keynote speech.
After a very good dinner, George Smith took the dais. He spoke on the dangers of the NeoCons, as they have strong influence on President Bush and the direction of the federal government is currently heading. Gone is any pretense of limiting the size of gov't or any pretense of moving in the direction of freedom (except, of course, in rhetoric). George also made a point to observe the increase in importance relicious faith has in the President's personal philisophy--and how that fits with the doctrines of the NeoCons.
So....after the speech, and after a conversations with a number of attendees, I trundled off to rest up for the final day. It's a good weekend!
Col. Hogan
After a quick breakfast, I found that several individuals were already milling about in the patio area around the entrance to the convention room. I picked up my badge and went inside to check out the vendors. While I made up a mental list of things I would buy later, people started to find seats.
Ernie took the dais and made a few announcements, mostly having to do with Arizona politics as it relates to the upcoming elections. He welcomed everyone and introduced Barry Hess, who was to MC the event.
The first speaker way Doug Casey, a man who makes enough money in market speculation to finance his travelling habit. He spoke on the world view of the terrorist/Iraq/Afghanistan situation.
An elderly gentleman who calls himself Lazarus Long was next. He had a Power Point presentation of a New Country he plans to build on a sand bar in the Caribbean. The presentation wasn't very convincing.
Jim Peron, an American who lived in South Africa for a time and now lives in New Zealand, spoke about the government of New Zealand, its taxes and its receptiveness to immigration, and the ease of starting a business or working there. He made it sound pretty good.
Charles Goyette is a talk show host on a Phoenix radio station. He has a somewhat gloomy view of the future of freedom in America, with some suggestions of things that might happen that might make the outlook a little brighter. I spoke with him briefly after his speech and found him to be very sharp and quite a bit more upbeat than his speech seemed to indicate. I wish I could listen to his show. I could listen on the net, except he's on while I'm at work.
Claire Wolfe is a pretty hard-core underground person who's been writing about the approaching police state for years. "101 Things to Do Until the Revolution" and "The State vs the People," for example. She was the next speaker, and spoke about creating online "gulching" communities, insulating yourself from the bad guys, etc. I did get a couple of chances to chat with her. She was good enough to sign a couple of her books for me.
Mary Ruwart spoke about the federal gov't's role in soaring prescription drug prices. Ms Ruwart is a pharmaceutical research scientist who has first-hand knowledge of the outrageous degree of regulation under which pharmaceutical firms must attempt to work.
Justin Raimondo, a policy analist for the Center for Libertarian Studies gave an impassioned speech in opposition to the Iraq war and a plea that all libertarians oppose it in any way they can.
Now, I have no sympathy for the old Iraqi government, but I'm not in the least satisfied with the blarney coming from Washington DC regarding this "War on Terror." I'm even less satisfied with the feds having set up apparatus by which they can control our movement, our travel, our work, our education and our health care (well beyond what had been done by previous administrations) and by which they can collect information on each and every one of us in just about any area of our lives. Any of that bunk they tell you about needing the approval of the courts to tap your phones or raid your computer files falls completely apart when you realize from whom the judges' paychecks come.
Ah, another digression......
We had a break to freshen up and to engage in conversation as pleased each of us, until it was time for the evening's hjigh point: Dinner and the keynote speech.
After a very good dinner, George Smith took the dais. He spoke on the dangers of the NeoCons, as they have strong influence on President Bush and the direction of the federal government is currently heading. Gone is any pretense of limiting the size of gov't or any pretense of moving in the direction of freedom (except, of course, in rhetoric). George also made a point to observe the increase in importance relicious faith has in the President's personal philisophy--and how that fits with the doctrines of the NeoCons.
So....after the speech, and after a conversations with a number of attendees, I trundled off to rest up for the final day. It's a good weekend!
Col. Hogan
Friday, November 19, 2004
I've been hearing on the TV and radio news about a new tax proposal being proposed here in Stalag California. Rather than continuing to tax gasoline at higher and ever higher levels, they propose to tax drivers by the miles they drive. This would necesitate some sort of a sensor placed in each car, presumably tamper-proof, that will broadcast each car's mileage as it happens.
Now.........I have some questions.
How long.....we all know how greedy and money-hungry government is at every level.....how long......after the mileage tax is up to $3.50 a mile and no one will tolerate any more.....how long......until they add just a teeeny tineeey tax per gallon of gas once again? This is supposed to be instead of the state gas tax, but there will still be the outrageously confiscatory federal gas tax, verdad?
As the mileage tax gets increased again and again, shall we expect to see more state sponsored bond initiatives to establish (extablish, IYAAVOPS) and extend light rail systems all around the state? Sooner rather than later? After all, what they dearly, dearly want, is to get us out of our independent, individualistic automobiles and onto crowded, stinking, regimented public transit. The better to get the teeming masses to the internment camps at need, don't you know.
As the state begins to track the mileage of each and every inmate of the Stalag, how long will it be until the begin to sell the collected data on individuals' driving habits to commercial interests?
Now, we know the feds. The feds are the most greedy, nasty, underhanded bunch of thugs in the history of the world (in part, because of the heavy technology they command), and will very soon be tapping into state data on our driving habits for their own nefarious purposes. Like where you go to hide your cache of gold. Like where your cousin, the underground barterer lives. Like where you pick up the ganja.
Kind of makes the old question, "Your papers, please?" obsolete, doesn't it?
Col. Hogan
Now.........I have some questions.
How long.....we all know how greedy and money-hungry government is at every level.....how long......after the mileage tax is up to $3.50 a mile and no one will tolerate any more.....how long......until they add just a teeeny tineeey tax per gallon of gas once again? This is supposed to be instead of the state gas tax, but there will still be the outrageously confiscatory federal gas tax, verdad?
As the mileage tax gets increased again and again, shall we expect to see more state sponsored bond initiatives to establish (extablish, IYAAVOPS) and extend light rail systems all around the state? Sooner rather than later? After all, what they dearly, dearly want, is to get us out of our independent, individualistic automobiles and onto crowded, stinking, regimented public transit. The better to get the teeming masses to the internment camps at need, don't you know.
As the state begins to track the mileage of each and every inmate of the Stalag, how long will it be until the begin to sell the collected data on individuals' driving habits to commercial interests?
Now, we know the feds. The feds are the most greedy, nasty, underhanded bunch of thugs in the history of the world (in part, because of the heavy technology they command), and will very soon be tapping into state data on our driving habits for their own nefarious purposes. Like where you go to hide your cache of gold. Like where your cousin, the underground barterer lives. Like where you pick up the ganja.
Kind of makes the old question, "Your papers, please?" obsolete, doesn't it?
Col. Hogan
?????Riddle me this, Batman??????
Is it more rational, or more reasonable to let your morality be dictated by an book written by an unknown number of unnamed individuals in monestaries in Europe in the Dark Ages, or to discover morality for yourself, building upon the thinking of philosophers over the Ages, augmented by your own thinking, observations and introspection?
Conservatives repeatedly make the word "morality" synonymous with "the word of god." If your morality doesn't come from that alledgedly holy tome, it can't possibly be moral, good or proper. Or even civilized. Yet no pair of these conservatives can agree wholly upon what the bible says. Or what some of its admonitions mean, exactly. Or how to deal with the contradictions between how a topic is treated in one book, as opposed to how the same topic is treated in another.
Makes my petty disagreements with say, Murray Rothbard, seem minor by comparison. We would both agree to the evil of the initiation of force against others. We both would agree to the goodness of treating those with whom you deal politely and honestly. After that, the rest becomes small change.
Col. Hogan
Is it more rational, or more reasonable to let your morality be dictated by an book written by an unknown number of unnamed individuals in monestaries in Europe in the Dark Ages, or to discover morality for yourself, building upon the thinking of philosophers over the Ages, augmented by your own thinking, observations and introspection?
Conservatives repeatedly make the word "morality" synonymous with "the word of god." If your morality doesn't come from that alledgedly holy tome, it can't possibly be moral, good or proper. Or even civilized. Yet no pair of these conservatives can agree wholly upon what the bible says. Or what some of its admonitions mean, exactly. Or how to deal with the contradictions between how a topic is treated in one book, as opposed to how the same topic is treated in another.
Makes my petty disagreements with say, Murray Rothbard, seem minor by comparison. We would both agree to the evil of the initiation of force against others. We both would agree to the goodness of treating those with whom you deal politely and honestly. After that, the rest becomes small change.
Col. Hogan
Sunday, November 14, 2004
At the beginning of October this year, I went to the Freedom Summit in Phoenix for a fun-filled weekend, listening to intellectuals give their warnings, their reasoning for them to learn more about what other libertarians are doing and to meet and chat with some of the people whose books I've read over the years.
This year, I'd arranged a lunch date with an old friend who lives in Phoenix. I arrived at the hotel earlier than I expected, after a wonderfully peaceful drive across the California desert overnight. The hotel graciously gave me my room at 8AM, upon my arrival. I was able to change, freshen up and relax a little before Anne arrived.
Anne turns out to be a joy to talk to. We chatted about a number of things: our mutual friends, what we each are doing and I asked her questions about the Phoenix area by way of gathering information to be useful for a possible move to the Phoenix area in a year or so. We talked about conditions in California and Arizona and how they differ. And how they are similar. Seems a lot of people, disturbed over how bad business and working conditions are in California, are moving themselves and their businesses to other states--not the least of which is Arizona. Unfortunately, after many of them move, they influence the politics of their new home that it becomes more like California. Libertarians in Arizona aren't very happy about ex-Californians influencing the politics of Arizona to bring California-style regulation and taxation to their state but it goes on, and I digress....
The first event in the Summit was the Friday evening Meet and Greet Dinner. The food was, er, pretty good. We heaped up our plates buffet-style, then went looking for a table among dozens of individuals and small groups of friends already seated.
I attended last year's event, but as it was my first, I had been very subdued and actually met very few people. While I ate alone at a table in the corner of the dining room, I eventually got into a delightful conversation with a Las Vegas firefighter and his teenaged son, and with George Smith, who was to be the Keynote Speaker at Saturday dinner. The Fireman, I believe, was an Objectivist-Conservative. His son, it's refreshing to note, seemed to be actively thinking along political/philosophic lines and was not at all the typical mush-minded gov't school liberal. It was wonderful to observe this young lad thinking and answering in a way that was not obviously the parrotting of civics and sociology teachers' bromides.
As can be done in Arizona, several of the attendees wore sidearms throughout the proceedings. I found this both novel and liberating. Oddly, counter to the assumptions of the sundry members of the gun control crowd, no one was injured or killed. An armed society is, indeed, a polite society. An interesting sidebar: The girl who took our tickets as we entered the dining room asked me why I was carrying a gun. The line was moving slowly, so I had a few moments to speak to her. My first remark was, "Because I can." After a moment of thought, I added, "The weapon is for self defense, which is my right. It will never be used in an act of agression."
She seemed to accept my comment, and didn't seem upset or nervous. Either she was very good at masking her negative feelings, or she had none.
This was a summary of Friday's events. I'll continue later.
This year, I'd arranged a lunch date with an old friend who lives in Phoenix. I arrived at the hotel earlier than I expected, after a wonderfully peaceful drive across the California desert overnight. The hotel graciously gave me my room at 8AM, upon my arrival. I was able to change, freshen up and relax a little before Anne arrived.
Anne turns out to be a joy to talk to. We chatted about a number of things: our mutual friends, what we each are doing and I asked her questions about the Phoenix area by way of gathering information to be useful for a possible move to the Phoenix area in a year or so. We talked about conditions in California and Arizona and how they differ. And how they are similar. Seems a lot of people, disturbed over how bad business and working conditions are in California, are moving themselves and their businesses to other states--not the least of which is Arizona. Unfortunately, after many of them move, they influence the politics of their new home that it becomes more like California. Libertarians in Arizona aren't very happy about ex-Californians influencing the politics of Arizona to bring California-style regulation and taxation to their state but it goes on, and I digress....
The first event in the Summit was the Friday evening Meet and Greet Dinner. The food was, er, pretty good. We heaped up our plates buffet-style, then went looking for a table among dozens of individuals and small groups of friends already seated.
I attended last year's event, but as it was my first, I had been very subdued and actually met very few people. While I ate alone at a table in the corner of the dining room, I eventually got into a delightful conversation with a Las Vegas firefighter and his teenaged son, and with George Smith, who was to be the Keynote Speaker at Saturday dinner. The Fireman, I believe, was an Objectivist-Conservative. His son, it's refreshing to note, seemed to be actively thinking along political/philosophic lines and was not at all the typical mush-minded gov't school liberal. It was wonderful to observe this young lad thinking and answering in a way that was not obviously the parrotting of civics and sociology teachers' bromides.
As can be done in Arizona, several of the attendees wore sidearms throughout the proceedings. I found this both novel and liberating. Oddly, counter to the assumptions of the sundry members of the gun control crowd, no one was injured or killed. An armed society is, indeed, a polite society. An interesting sidebar: The girl who took our tickets as we entered the dining room asked me why I was carrying a gun. The line was moving slowly, so I had a few moments to speak to her. My first remark was, "Because I can." After a moment of thought, I added, "The weapon is for self defense, which is my right. It will never be used in an act of agression."
She seemed to accept my comment, and didn't seem upset or nervous. Either she was very good at masking her negative feelings, or she had none.
This was a summary of Friday's events. I'll continue later.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Well, I just heard about the accidental (?) strafing of a government school in New Jersey by a National Guard F-16. Fortunately, it happened late at night and no one was hurt.
News of the event brought immediately to mind a number of conversations I've had in recent years about the Second Amendment, gun rights and government's role in the defense of Americans.
I've long been an advocate of our right to weapons of self defense. By this I've always meant our right to own and carry handguns, and to own more powerful weapons such as semi-automatic long guns and maybe light automatic rifles (submachine guns, etc.) for possible battle in a full breakdown of society of a rebellion against a likely future (did I say future?) police state.
The F-16 story reminds me that I've taken it a step further in the past couple of years or so--this thanks and a tip of the ol' fedora to author L Neil Smith, a man who's many long steps along the path to the understanding of human freedom than am I.
I'm now of the opinion that man has the right to own and, if necessary, use any weapon that he deems useful in defense of his person, loved ones and property. Any weapon.
The argument goes: You mean you want your next door neighbor to have a nuclear (nucular, IYAAVOPS) bomb in his basement? Thinking I'll wilt and hide under the sofa. Well, no such luck, sports fans. My answer to this strange scenario is thus: I already do have such a neighbor. But wait! It gets worse.
The guy in that F-16 is my next door neighbor and he has weapons far and above what I'm legally allowed to own, and he's one dumb son of a bitch! I guarantee you that if I had the means and the legal "permission" to own a fully armed F-16, I wouldn't be flitting around shooting up government schools! Whether it's a Ruger Standard .22 pistol or a fully automatic .50 caliber machine gun, you don't shoot it unless you know where the bullets are going.
The fact is, our friendly neighborhood police state won't give us the legal prerogative to use such weapons. They do give them to brain-dead 22-year-old marching morons who are supposed to use them when ordered to do so, without even knowing why or against whom.
Personally, I think I'd prefer to trust my next door neighbor--as long as I can have one, too.
Col. Hogan
waynesdirtylab@msn.com
News of the event brought immediately to mind a number of conversations I've had in recent years about the Second Amendment, gun rights and government's role in the defense of Americans.
I've long been an advocate of our right to weapons of self defense. By this I've always meant our right to own and carry handguns, and to own more powerful weapons such as semi-automatic long guns and maybe light automatic rifles (submachine guns, etc.) for possible battle in a full breakdown of society of a rebellion against a likely future (did I say future?) police state.
The F-16 story reminds me that I've taken it a step further in the past couple of years or so--this thanks and a tip of the ol' fedora to author L Neil Smith, a man who's many long steps along the path to the understanding of human freedom than am I.
I'm now of the opinion that man has the right to own and, if necessary, use any weapon that he deems useful in defense of his person, loved ones and property. Any weapon.
The argument goes: You mean you want your next door neighbor to have a nuclear (nucular, IYAAVOPS) bomb in his basement? Thinking I'll wilt and hide under the sofa. Well, no such luck, sports fans. My answer to this strange scenario is thus: I already do have such a neighbor. But wait! It gets worse.
The guy in that F-16 is my next door neighbor and he has weapons far and above what I'm legally allowed to own, and he's one dumb son of a bitch! I guarantee you that if I had the means and the legal "permission" to own a fully armed F-16, I wouldn't be flitting around shooting up government schools! Whether it's a Ruger Standard .22 pistol or a fully automatic .50 caliber machine gun, you don't shoot it unless you know where the bullets are going.
The fact is, our friendly neighborhood police state won't give us the legal prerogative to use such weapons. They do give them to brain-dead 22-year-old marching morons who are supposed to use them when ordered to do so, without even knowing why or against whom.
Personally, I think I'd prefer to trust my next door neighbor--as long as I can have one, too.
Col. Hogan
waynesdirtylab@msn.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
