No Chance That There's Any Context In Which This Is A Good Question

"How did you feel as you gripped the trigger of that gun." --Paula Zahn, Fox News.

This is a question asked by Ms Zahn of an unknown (by me) person about an unknown (by me) event. The nature of the event doesn't really matter to my thesis.

If she asks the question of a person who killed an intruder to protect his loved ones and/or property, she's showing a disdain for defensive action. How would she "feel" if she walked into her apartment to see her daughter being raped? "How could he do such a thing to me?"

Screw feelings! Kill the bastard!

If she asks the question of a murderer in a prison setting, she's appealing to the mentally unhealthy ghoulish curiosity of a sick person who ought to be in a loonie bin. I can imagine the murderer smiling lasciviously, perhaps drooling a bit, and saying, "I wanted to watch her die, dude!" and Ms Zahn imagining the tenement dweller watching and saying, over his beer, "Awright!"

Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry.

It's part of a promotional ad for Ms Zahn's daytime show on Fox News, which is apparently designed to play off Ms Zahn's past fame, even at the expense of her credibility during the decline of her career. It's not a dumb question. It's a question that tells far more about the questioner than it ever could about the interviewee. Why would any serious journalist even think about asking something hideous as that?

Does Ms Zahn know that by asking that question she's expressing bias? Does she know that she's telling the world that she'd rather see a young woman lying dead, face down in the mud, having been raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, than see her standing, gun in hand, over the dead body of her assailant?

It goes without saying that one doesn't grip the trigger of a gun. Ever.

These are just a few of the bits of the ugly soul of Ms Paula Zahn revealed by that short question.

We report, you roll over and play dead.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The Continuing Self Destruction of the Libertarian Party.....Continued

If I get all this correctly, it all started with a Resolution, one version of which can be found here, to be put to a vote during the National Convention, which calls on the federal government--the FBI, specifically--to ante up more resources for fighting child pornography--by spending less on adult victimless crimes. Sounds ok.....if you're stupid. While I might write out my reasons for saying so at some point, Reason Number One is: Never ask the federal government to increase spending on anything. They'll spend more money all right, and the result will be more child pornography.

The LP national office then sent out a press release, which can be found here. One candidate , Mary Ruwart, apparently expressed something negative about the wisdom of enjoining such a fringe issue (I think all rational individuals can agree to detest child pornography), and was called to task by Mark Schreiber, campaign manager for another candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, who apparently implied that Ms Ruwart was not opposed to child pornography. Writes Ms Ruwart:

Consequently, you can understand my shock when Mark Schreiber, "quoted" me as saying that "pedophilia is OK" in my book, Short Answers to the Tough Questions, this weekend at the Indiana LP Convention. Mr. Scribner is the campaign manager for LP presidential hopeful Wayne Allyn Root.

You can find her full comment here.

Now, you see why I continue to think the Libertarian Party is coming apart at the seams. LP has always held that its most important function is to try to educate the electorate that we'd all be better off with less government, not more; with more freedom and personal responsibility, not less. Running candidates is, rationally, more to allow the candidates to reach cameras and microphones that would otherwise be denied, to the purpose of letting the candidates make the case for smaller government to a larger audience than would otherwise be possible.

No rational person ever really thought that LP would elect a President. A few candidates for local offices have been elected, and that's great, but a President of the United States? C'mon!

All that aside, the detestable charge allegedly levelled by Mr Schreiber at Ms Ruwart, and his boss' failure to both apologize and sanction Schreiber, is just the kind of filthy politics we don't need in the LP. I guess my reaction will be to state that I will not vote for Mr Root, and that I will not return to the LP as long as either Mr Root or Mr Schreiber are involved.

I suggest that LP not nominate Mr Root for President, or for any other office.

There are liars, damned liars, and politicians.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The Continuing Self-Destruction of the Libertarian Party

For starters, I'll have to admit to a degree of ignorance regarding the recent events within my party of choice for these past thirty-five years. Though I've almost always voted for LP candidates come election day, I haven't belonged, nor been particularly active in the Party since after Roger MacBride's candidacy in 1976. Neither did I have the time and money to go chasing around the country to attend meetings and conventions, nor did ol' career builder me have the inclination to do so.

Standing at a long arm's length from the Party for these past many years, I often read of such things as political infighting, rule breaking and financial abuses in the upper offices. There were a number of embarrassing fiascoes highlighted by the attempted Presidential candidacy of radio talker Howard Stern, and the virtual "food fight" that was that year's nomination convention.

I was always a fan of the "Pledge," the signing of which was a a requirement for many years. It's also been controversial for almost as many years. many so-called libertarians in the Party wanted to do away with the Pledge, to make the Party more inclusive.

It was a deal breaker for me. If a prospective member can't honestly take that Pledge, then he's no libertarian. Period. Having recently thought of recommitting myself to the Party, I've heard that they, in fact, have withdrawn the requirement to sign the Pledge. Until that decision is reconsidered, I won't be involving myself.

I will still, however, continue to vote for LP candidates I find significantly more palatable than those of the two branches of the Boot On Your Neck Party.

A recent event has come to my attention, though, which will require some study and thought. Seems one of the candidates for the nomination for President has allegedly made some snide distortions of a statement of another candidate, regarding child pornography. This, we cannot have.

Candidates vying for the right to run for any office under the label, "Libertarian Party" must argue their differences honestly and honorably. When I find whether or not this candidate has distorted the truth, I'll make it public in a subsequent post. Anyone who will stoop that low to secure the party's nomination belongs with the Democrats or Republicans, where that sort of thing is normal.

Politics, when there's money to be stolen, is the home of thieves.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Never "Press 1 for English"

Private firms can do whatever they want (within limits), and have only to answer to their customers and clients. Most customers choose a firm for products and services based 'pon the quality of those goods, juxtaposed against their cost. That's as it should be.

One of the most annoying trends of our time is the practice of placing a recorded greeting on the answering machine, followed by a request to "Dial 1 for English." I refuse to "Dial--or Press--1 for English."

English has been the semi-official language of all of the various United States for almost all of our history. I'll give exception to the Hispanics native to the Southwestern states, since their ancestors may have lived in those areas when the land was a part of Mexico--although they should, and almost all do speak, read and write English now.

English is the language of technology, of commerce, and of tourism in most of the civilized world, and will likely remain so, if we can stop GW Bush from doing a Jimma Carter on the US Dollar.

Most of the technological marvels we take for granted have been translated from English to other languages; eg automovil, aeroplano, telefono, aire condicionador, refrijerador (Spanish, because that happens to be a language with which I'm familiar). There are similar words for these things in many other languages. Why? Because they were invented, developed and/or most bought and used in English-speaking countries.

A non-English-speaking resident of the United States can almost always count on living a life doing menial work for low pay.

In recognition of these facts, this primitive, but unabashedly agenda-driven tune seems appropriate.

Buenas noches, y mucha buena suerte a todos!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

If This Is Progressive....

I get more than annoyed whenever I hear some hack socialist refer to himself, or the so-called socialist movement, as "progressive." We all know that socialist stuff regularly becomes pejorative, because individuals with more sense start calling it what it is. At one time, for example, socialists were called "socialists," and it was a completely acceptable term. Wiser heads began analyzing what socialists really were, and more and more individuals saw socialists as straw-brains, disconnected from reality and living in a worlds in which they were "kings," perhaps "philosopher kings," wisely taking care of the needs and wants of the unthinking masses.


As level-headed individuals saw the reality of this silliness, "socialist" became a synonym for "airhead," or the like term of the day.


Because, at the time, the word "liberal" was a term that meant political progress toward more individual freedom (Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and many like-minded intellectuals were called "liberals"), the socialists of the day, over time, began to co-opt the word "liberal" as the preferred term to use in reference to themselves. Socialists thought it would make their plans for slow enslavement of unsuspecting individuals more socially palatable. Eventually, it caught on, and for a time, socialists falsely basked in the good will that really belonged to those who favor individual freedom.


Again, in more recent times, the term "liberal" has become pejorative. 'Tis a rare socialist who, while running for elective office or otherwise trying to curry popular favor, who will call himself a "liberal" today.


Hence, the current attempts to destroy the meaning of the word "progressive." Progressive, to most of us, means moving from a worse condition to a better one. From poverty to solvency. from sickness to health. Thus, socialists, no longer wishing to be called "liberals," are beginning to co-opt the term "progressive," as their reference to themselves.


Now, one might ask, can a philosophical system that reveres serfdom as an ideal--the notion of an elite group of overseers watching over the enslaved masses, deciding what are their needs, taking care of those needs in a bureaucratically blundering way, including shortages, rationing, soviet-style mis allocations (parkas to Miami, raincoats to Phoenix, snow shovels to Los Angeles, etc--really be called progressive?

Was the USSR ever progressive?

I have a better name for socialists, if they are that ashamed of what they are: thuggee. If they don't adopt this name or something similar, they're not only socialists, but liars.

Calling a spade a digging tool.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag Calif.