It's a gas, gas, gas!
We've been hearing/reading about how the price of gas is going down (though it's still high) for the past couple of weeks or so. Here in the Stalag, it was running in the neighborhood of $2.60 a gallon and has fallen to around $2.35 in recent days. Rejoice!
A couple of things worth noting: Adjusted for inflation, gas still costs less than it did in the "gas shortage" days of the Carter Presidency--the mid-late 1970's. Even though Reagan brought Carter's inflation more-or-less under control, we still get around 3% or so annual decrease in the value of the dollar. Far less than Carter's and Nixon's inflation, but it still adds up over the years. The other thing? Every time the price of gas goes up, it reaches a new (short term) high. Every time it backs off, it doesn't decline quite as far as it had been. Unless there's a very unusual change in the supply/demand situation, we won't be seeing gas retailing at less than $2.00 ever again.
President Bush has made some noises like maybe we'll do some more domestic drilling in Alaska and other places, but it's just rhetoric. George Bush has been saying many things, but little gets done. I could dredge up and remind all of you of the fact that Republicans are craven cowards who are well-trained by their Masters (the Democrats) to hang their spines in a special spine-check room in the foyer of the Capitol Building. In fact, I think I will.
What everyone's forgetting, and what was talked about quite a bit back in the periodic gas spikes in the 1980's, is the gas tax. During the Reagan Presidency, when many of us were talking about doing away with the gas tax a a part of the rhetoric directed toward shrinking the size of government. In spite of mixed messages from Washington, some of us actually thought that might happen. Hah!
It was during this time that there was one of these gas price spikes. I think the price went all the way up to about $1.25! The working poor were lamenting how they'd ever be able to afford gas to get to work.
Meanwhile, the fedral gas tax is 18.4 cents a gallon and the California state gas tax is about 37 cents a gallon. That's 55 cents a gallon folks.
Both libertarians and most conservatives began talking about reducing or eliminating the gas tax. It actually was talked about on the floor of the House and on the national news. Had Congress actually brought a bill to the floor, it might've been voted on. But, alas, the House was under the control of the Democrats, and they were all talking about increasing the gas tax to fund additional mass transit
Fast forward to 2005. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House. Again, we've had a sudden increase in the price of gas.
Nobody's even mentioned the gas tax. Nobody!
They've killed Fredom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, May 27, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Sunday, May 22, 2005
"Public" Schools and the Bill of Rights
A recent column from Chuck Muth refers to the fact that people in the middle- and upper-class 'burbs realize that the inner city kids aren't getting much in the way of a usable education, but their government schools are just fine, thank you very much. Hence the resistance to the idea of school choice in the comfy classes.
Complacency was the order of the day when they were in school, and as long as their kids can succeed in college and join the jacket-and-necktie set, well, they prefer no change even to change for the better. The wealthier of them (those who aren't working sixty or more hours a week to keep the Mercedes and the $700k+ home) will attend cocktail parties where they'll discuss what's to be done about those unfortunates in the city.
But, school choice? Never!
I'm a reluctant member of the middle class. No, I don't wear a necktie, but I could if I could figure out how to tie one. I flunked knots in Cub Scouts.
I went to a government school that was then and still is considered one of the best. When I was in attending, we were exposed to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and were given a teacher-biased view on what they meant. Years later, as I became interested, I studied the Revolutionary period and the history of the early years of the Republic. I've reread the documents more than once and have read the analyses of several individuals far more learned on the subject than I.
My high school teachers, my history, civics and American government class teachers didn't really get it either. When they spoke of the First, what was emphasized was that you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. The Second? You have the right to get a license and go hunting, in accordance with state and federal law. I could go on, but you get the picture.
Today, it's different. It may vary from state to state, but here in the Stalag, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are spoken of by teachers and government as a template for government to follow, as it's deemed convenient. They light-heartedly speak of the Constitution as a changing, flexible document, the original language of which is hardly suitable to our modern era.
The Bill of Rights, except for the First and probably the Fifth Amendments, are approached with a degree of chortling dirision to outright hostility.
Hence, we come to the post 9/11 era, in which virtually any atrocity by government is tolerated (if not joyfully accepted) if it promises security. Be clear: it doesn't have to achieve security, it only has to promise security.
Perhaps the young don't remember when you could hand the attendant your airline ticket, then walk across the tarmac to the steps, climb them and board the plane with nothing more than a smiling greeting from the stewardess (that's what we used to call flight attendants). You could have your Lone Ranger four-blade-with-a-bottle-opener jackknife in your pocket and no one thought twice about it, even if you used it, while sitting in your seat, (shudder) to trim the fuzzy ends off your shoe laces.
You could walk to the edge of town, carrying your .22 over your shoulder like a soldier, to the slough where you could kill a few tin cans (please don't shoot any birds, children!).
You could (in my state) buy a car at the age of twelve without your parents' knowledge and wrench on it until you were old enough to get a driving permit (fourteen at the time). Of course, Dad had to register and insure the car. If anyone says they saw me driving the car before I got my permit, it was actually a guy that looked a lot like me, in a car very similar to mine.
Each year, at the end of the school session, the plan was to take my paper route money and buy as many firecrackers, Roman candles, bottle rockets and spinners for the 4th of July. Of course, most of the firecrackers didn't make it to the holiday, but enough of them did.Point is, it was legal. We all did it.
I could continue this list, 'cause we've lost a lot of freedom, even in my lifetime.
But why do you imagine we've allowed those monsters in Washington, Sacramento and Albany to do this to us?
Government schools, as noted above, have been preparing us to unquestioningly accept government authority for generations. Parents have accepted the mistaken notion that the promise (but never the guarantee) of security has to be bought with a surrender of freedom.
What they haven't thought through is the nature of the kind of society they're handing off to their kids.
They've killed Freedom! Those Bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
A recent column from Chuck Muth refers to the fact that people in the middle- and upper-class 'burbs realize that the inner city kids aren't getting much in the way of a usable education, but their government schools are just fine, thank you very much. Hence the resistance to the idea of school choice in the comfy classes.
Complacency was the order of the day when they were in school, and as long as their kids can succeed in college and join the jacket-and-necktie set, well, they prefer no change even to change for the better. The wealthier of them (those who aren't working sixty or more hours a week to keep the Mercedes and the $700k+ home) will attend cocktail parties where they'll discuss what's to be done about those unfortunates in the city.
But, school choice? Never!
I'm a reluctant member of the middle class. No, I don't wear a necktie, but I could if I could figure out how to tie one. I flunked knots in Cub Scouts.
I went to a government school that was then and still is considered one of the best. When I was in attending, we were exposed to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and were given a teacher-biased view on what they meant. Years later, as I became interested, I studied the Revolutionary period and the history of the early years of the Republic. I've reread the documents more than once and have read the analyses of several individuals far more learned on the subject than I.
My high school teachers, my history, civics and American government class teachers didn't really get it either. When they spoke of the First, what was emphasized was that you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. The Second? You have the right to get a license and go hunting, in accordance with state and federal law. I could go on, but you get the picture.
Today, it's different. It may vary from state to state, but here in the Stalag, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are spoken of by teachers and government as a template for government to follow, as it's deemed convenient. They light-heartedly speak of the Constitution as a changing, flexible document, the original language of which is hardly suitable to our modern era.
The Bill of Rights, except for the First and probably the Fifth Amendments, are approached with a degree of chortling dirision to outright hostility.
Hence, we come to the post 9/11 era, in which virtually any atrocity by government is tolerated (if not joyfully accepted) if it promises security. Be clear: it doesn't have to achieve security, it only has to promise security.
Perhaps the young don't remember when you could hand the attendant your airline ticket, then walk across the tarmac to the steps, climb them and board the plane with nothing more than a smiling greeting from the stewardess (that's what we used to call flight attendants). You could have your Lone Ranger four-blade-with-a-bottle-opener jackknife in your pocket and no one thought twice about it, even if you used it, while sitting in your seat, (shudder) to trim the fuzzy ends off your shoe laces.
You could walk to the edge of town, carrying your .22 over your shoulder like a soldier, to the slough where you could kill a few tin cans (please don't shoot any birds, children!).
You could (in my state) buy a car at the age of twelve without your parents' knowledge and wrench on it until you were old enough to get a driving permit (fourteen at the time). Of course, Dad had to register and insure the car. If anyone says they saw me driving the car before I got my permit, it was actually a guy that looked a lot like me, in a car very similar to mine.
Each year, at the end of the school session, the plan was to take my paper route money and buy as many firecrackers, Roman candles, bottle rockets and spinners for the 4th of July. Of course, most of the firecrackers didn't make it to the holiday, but enough of them did.Point is, it was legal. We all did it.
I could continue this list, 'cause we've lost a lot of freedom, even in my lifetime.
But why do you imagine we've allowed those monsters in Washington, Sacramento and Albany to do this to us?
Government schools, as noted above, have been preparing us to unquestioningly accept government authority for generations. Parents have accepted the mistaken notion that the promise (but never the guarantee) of security has to be bought with a surrender of freedom.
What they haven't thought through is the nature of the kind of society they're handing off to their kids.
They've killed Freedom! Those Bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Mechanix Illustrated, Popular Science, et al
We didn't really have Playboy magazine in my town. There was one Novelty Store down by the railroad station that carried it, but if the clerk even saw one of my tender age moving toward that end of the magazine rack, it was "You 21? Lemme see your driver's license." For a long time, I didn't even know what I wasn't allowed to see.
Well, I might have been trying to sidle over to the adult rack from time to time, and I might've even succeeded a time or two, truth be told, but that wasn't why I hung out there. I couldn't afford to buy all the magazines I wanted, but if I bought one occasionally, he let me do some extended browsing.
There was Rod & Custom, Hot Rod, Car Craft and a few other custom car mags, most of which no longer exist. As a fledgeling car nut, these magazines were what life is for. I also looked over the SciFi pulps, as an avid Robert Heinlein reader.
Which finally leads me to the subject at hand. To see the products graphically that were described by the '50's SciFi writers in print, one read the science magazines.
Having read Heinlein's short story, "The Roads Must Roll," it was wonderful to see a fully illustrated Popular Science article on moving sidewalks. Those magazines employed some wonderful artists with terrific imaginations to come up with believable pictures of yet-to-be realized technolgy. Some time after I read his "Red Planet," one of these magazines had a fully illustrated article on what a base on Mars might look like.
One article from those years that really interested me followed a SciFi story I read in which included a verbal description of traffic problems in a city of the future in which people commuted in flying cars. Coincidentally, while this story was fresh in my mind, Mechanix Illustrated and Popular Mechanics had articles on car-plane convertibles--that is, cars onto which flight surfaces could be attached for flying, or removed for driving on the streets. This was in the mid-fifties!
To be sure, these were primitive attempts whose practicality was highly suspect, and which never did make it into the market, but it was a start. I was stoked!
Now, the bad news. The feds had a Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and a Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). Stories came out on (black and white) TV news and in newspapers about how it'd be impossible to allow the public at large to fly. It'd be a daily massacre, as these flying cars came crashing down on homes and commercial buildings.
Thus endeth the whole idea of aerocommuting. It just hasn't come up again. We're too stupid.
Today's computer technology can be directed toward automated air traffic control in urban situations, and aeronautic technology could have developed aircars that could fly in corridors over the cities if those early inventors had been able to improve their aircars and refine them over a period of these past few decades, but a declaration by short-sighted bureaucrats squelched the industry before it was even born.
Meanwhile, JFK's space program is stalled--I'll state that it's for two reasons: First, the federal government has spread itself into a host of areas for which there is no Constitutional mandate. Spreading itself too thin, they do nothing very well, not even those things that are within their Constitutional prerogatives. And second, space should've been handed over to the private sector immediately. By keeping NASA in charge, and simultaneously under the thumb of the military, the private sector was frozen out completely (except to manufacture components to the order of NASA and the Air Force). Private firms might not have acted as quickly, until they could see the possibility of profit, but once started, they'd act more quickly and cost-effectively than NASA by orders of magnitude.
I'm angry.
When I was twelve, I assumed that in my lifetime, I'd be flying to work daily and to the Grand Canyon for a vacation. I assumed that I'd have been to the moon a time or two and maybe even to Mars. I assumed that shaving would be a thing of the past and that clothing would be worn once and thrown away. I assumed that videophones would be the norm and that television would be truly three-dimensional. I could go on and on.
In the period between about 1880 and 1929, all manner of men and women were inventing things in their spare bedrooms and carriage houses. Inventions were hitting the market almost hourly. Some were wonderful, many were no good. The market made the decision--not the government.
We still have improving technology today, but it drags in many areas of endeavor. In others (electronics), improvements still come along at a pretty good pace. But relatively few individuals are coming up with new things in their garages any more. With the tax and regulation restrictions we have to suffer, it's a wonder anything gets done.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
We didn't really have Playboy magazine in my town. There was one Novelty Store down by the railroad station that carried it, but if the clerk even saw one of my tender age moving toward that end of the magazine rack, it was "You 21? Lemme see your driver's license." For a long time, I didn't even know what I wasn't allowed to see.
Well, I might have been trying to sidle over to the adult rack from time to time, and I might've even succeeded a time or two, truth be told, but that wasn't why I hung out there. I couldn't afford to buy all the magazines I wanted, but if I bought one occasionally, he let me do some extended browsing.
There was Rod & Custom, Hot Rod, Car Craft and a few other custom car mags, most of which no longer exist. As a fledgeling car nut, these magazines were what life is for. I also looked over the SciFi pulps, as an avid Robert Heinlein reader.
Which finally leads me to the subject at hand. To see the products graphically that were described by the '50's SciFi writers in print, one read the science magazines.
Having read Heinlein's short story, "The Roads Must Roll," it was wonderful to see a fully illustrated Popular Science article on moving sidewalks. Those magazines employed some wonderful artists with terrific imaginations to come up with believable pictures of yet-to-be realized technolgy. Some time after I read his "Red Planet," one of these magazines had a fully illustrated article on what a base on Mars might look like.
One article from those years that really interested me followed a SciFi story I read in which included a verbal description of traffic problems in a city of the future in which people commuted in flying cars. Coincidentally, while this story was fresh in my mind, Mechanix Illustrated and Popular Mechanics had articles on car-plane convertibles--that is, cars onto which flight surfaces could be attached for flying, or removed for driving on the streets. This was in the mid-fifties!
To be sure, these were primitive attempts whose practicality was highly suspect, and which never did make it into the market, but it was a start. I was stoked!
Now, the bad news. The feds had a Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and a Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). Stories came out on (black and white) TV news and in newspapers about how it'd be impossible to allow the public at large to fly. It'd be a daily massacre, as these flying cars came crashing down on homes and commercial buildings.
Thus endeth the whole idea of aerocommuting. It just hasn't come up again. We're too stupid.
Today's computer technology can be directed toward automated air traffic control in urban situations, and aeronautic technology could have developed aircars that could fly in corridors over the cities if those early inventors had been able to improve their aircars and refine them over a period of these past few decades, but a declaration by short-sighted bureaucrats squelched the industry before it was even born.
Meanwhile, JFK's space program is stalled--I'll state that it's for two reasons: First, the federal government has spread itself into a host of areas for which there is no Constitutional mandate. Spreading itself too thin, they do nothing very well, not even those things that are within their Constitutional prerogatives. And second, space should've been handed over to the private sector immediately. By keeping NASA in charge, and simultaneously under the thumb of the military, the private sector was frozen out completely (except to manufacture components to the order of NASA and the Air Force). Private firms might not have acted as quickly, until they could see the possibility of profit, but once started, they'd act more quickly and cost-effectively than NASA by orders of magnitude.
I'm angry.
When I was twelve, I assumed that in my lifetime, I'd be flying to work daily and to the Grand Canyon for a vacation. I assumed that I'd have been to the moon a time or two and maybe even to Mars. I assumed that shaving would be a thing of the past and that clothing would be worn once and thrown away. I assumed that videophones would be the norm and that television would be truly three-dimensional. I could go on and on.
In the period between about 1880 and 1929, all manner of men and women were inventing things in their spare bedrooms and carriage houses. Inventions were hitting the market almost hourly. Some were wonderful, many were no good. The market made the decision--not the government.
We still have improving technology today, but it drags in many areas of endeavor. In others (electronics), improvements still come along at a pretty good pace. But relatively few individuals are coming up with new things in their garages any more. With the tax and regulation restrictions we have to suffer, it's a wonder anything gets done.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Moslems, Muslims, Mooslims*
I was thinking about writing a big rant about those idiots at Newsweek, having irresponsibly published the (presumably erroneous, but who knows?) story about the American interrogators having desecrated the koran, qoran, goran at the Gitmo concentration camp, but it led me to a more important angle.
If I said I'm not particularly religious, I'd be soft-peddling. I was brought up episcopalian which as George Carlin once said, is catholic lite. That said, I can't remember ever actually believing in the existence of any sort of god. Ok, maybe Thor. This to let you know that, though I probably retain a little residual christian psychology, I have no particular religious bias.
I dislike them all.
That said, my topic du jour has to do with the way a couple of the world's major religions deal with life in the modern world.
Five centuries or so in the past, christians killed each other in the most hideous ways imaginable, and on the least pretext--usually based on the victim's presumed pietal challenges. Priests oversaw mass-murder factories in the dungeons below their own cathedrals. The local monarch helped out by conducting mass public executions of any of those who survived the torture chambers (usually by confessing to a capital crime).
Well, in today's world, christianity has mellowed. The main battle these days is whether or not there can be a nativity scene in the public square, or the ten commandments in the courthouse, or a christmas play at a government school. People are rarely killed, except for the occasional gynecologist.
On the other hand, if even a rumor of an act of sacrilege reaches the ears of any islamic witch doctor, all (islamic version of) hell breaks loose. Gee bloody had! People die. If they can't find any infidels to kill, they'll kill each other. These people (seemingly) are psychotic. American muslims seem a mite closer to sanity, but those wack-jobs in the Middle East seem to enjoy strapping dynamite to their own kids and sending them off to crowded places.
Salman Rushdie, to this day, probably doesn't take many long walks alone at night.
In a sane world, these psychos would suicide bomb themselves into early extinction. Unfortunately, American and European leftists seem to idolize these (I'm not sure if I should call them) people.
As little as four or five years ago American leftists roundly opined that Israel could do virtually no worng. How times change.
I'm rambling a mite, but I find it apalling that European and American leftists can forgive any arab atrocity, yet if a few perverts embarass some arab prisoners, and it trumps Treblinka.
*Ken, your quarter is in the mail.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I was thinking about writing a big rant about those idiots at Newsweek, having irresponsibly published the (presumably erroneous, but who knows?) story about the American interrogators having desecrated the koran, qoran, goran at the Gitmo concentration camp, but it led me to a more important angle.
If I said I'm not particularly religious, I'd be soft-peddling. I was brought up episcopalian which as George Carlin once said, is catholic lite. That said, I can't remember ever actually believing in the existence of any sort of god. Ok, maybe Thor. This to let you know that, though I probably retain a little residual christian psychology, I have no particular religious bias.
I dislike them all.
That said, my topic du jour has to do with the way a couple of the world's major religions deal with life in the modern world.
Five centuries or so in the past, christians killed each other in the most hideous ways imaginable, and on the least pretext--usually based on the victim's presumed pietal challenges. Priests oversaw mass-murder factories in the dungeons below their own cathedrals. The local monarch helped out by conducting mass public executions of any of those who survived the torture chambers (usually by confessing to a capital crime).
Well, in today's world, christianity has mellowed. The main battle these days is whether or not there can be a nativity scene in the public square, or the ten commandments in the courthouse, or a christmas play at a government school. People are rarely killed, except for the occasional gynecologist.
On the other hand, if even a rumor of an act of sacrilege reaches the ears of any islamic witch doctor, all (islamic version of) hell breaks loose. Gee bloody had! People die. If they can't find any infidels to kill, they'll kill each other. These people (seemingly) are psychotic. American muslims seem a mite closer to sanity, but those wack-jobs in the Middle East seem to enjoy strapping dynamite to their own kids and sending them off to crowded places.
Salman Rushdie, to this day, probably doesn't take many long walks alone at night.
In a sane world, these psychos would suicide bomb themselves into early extinction. Unfortunately, American and European leftists seem to idolize these (I'm not sure if I should call them) people.
As little as four or five years ago American leftists roundly opined that Israel could do virtually no worng. How times change.
I'm rambling a mite, but I find it apalling that European and American leftists can forgive any arab atrocity, yet if a few perverts embarass some arab prisoners, and it trumps Treblinka.
*Ken, your quarter is in the mail.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, May 13, 2005
Riding Around in Cars
I always feel very sorry for young parents these days, strapping their little tykes into those ungainly contraptions they call "child safety seats." Every trip to the nearby market must begin with a two-minute strap-in session--if the youngster is in a cooperative mood--per child! Then, after you drive a quarter of a mile to the market, Mother must go through another two-minutes per child getting them out of the seats and out of the car.
I feel even more sorry for the poor little kids.
The "authorities" claim that the children will fare better in a collision in these seats. Undoubtedly, they will as long as the car doesn't either burn or become submerged. See, the "safety seats" can't be undone by the kids themselves. By law. Parents can't opt to eschew these seats because they're the law.
I've read the US Constitution, but I can't find where the feds are charged with making decisions on our safety or overruling those we make for ourselves.
Arrogance.
In many cases, and for many parents, these safety seats might make good sense--especially for babies and toddlers.
Now, if you're a nazi sympethizer, cover your eyes: I'm going to write something outrageous.
Let each parent make up his or her own mind. There. I said it, and I'm glad.
The problems with "child safety seats" make a long list, starting here:
They separate the kids from their parents, isolating the kids in the back seat.
They confine the kids to a small space, limiting their mobility.
As mentioned above, they render the kids helpless in the event of a fire or a submersion.
The difficulty of getting the kids out of the car and putting them back leads to temptation to just leave the kids in the car "for a couple of minutes," while car thieves can take the kids along with the car, or heat inside the car can kill. That stuff pops up in the news all the time.
Kids can conspire to murder their parents when they're older, for revenge because of endless hours of boredom in the back seat.
You wouldn't think this would be true, but I've observed many, many parents--both moms and dads, driving recklessly with kids in the back seat. Way more recklessly than I've ever dared to do with passengers in the car. Running red lights, really fast driving (80 mph, 90 mph and more). Unsafe, sudden lane changes. Talking on cell phones. Eating, drinking, reading maps!
Reeking confidence in their Navigators and Suburbans, with air bags in front and safety seats in back, these invincible beings snap their kids little heads back and forth in high-speed maneuvers, secure that nothing can go wrong.
Far better, each of us should drive carefully and safely--that is, keeping his full focus on the task at hand (driving), remembering that he has precious cargo and devoting 100% of his mind to his car, his surroundings and his car. He can think about his money troubles after the car is parked and the kids are safely in the house.
Whether a parent decides for or against "child safety seats" is up to each individual. Government should butt out--it's none of their business.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I always feel very sorry for young parents these days, strapping their little tykes into those ungainly contraptions they call "child safety seats." Every trip to the nearby market must begin with a two-minute strap-in session--if the youngster is in a cooperative mood--per child! Then, after you drive a quarter of a mile to the market, Mother must go through another two-minutes per child getting them out of the seats and out of the car.
I feel even more sorry for the poor little kids.
The "authorities" claim that the children will fare better in a collision in these seats. Undoubtedly, they will as long as the car doesn't either burn or become submerged. See, the "safety seats" can't be undone by the kids themselves. By law. Parents can't opt to eschew these seats because they're the law.
I've read the US Constitution, but I can't find where the feds are charged with making decisions on our safety or overruling those we make for ourselves.
Arrogance.
In many cases, and for many parents, these safety seats might make good sense--especially for babies and toddlers.
Now, if you're a nazi sympethizer, cover your eyes: I'm going to write something outrageous.
Let each parent make up his or her own mind. There. I said it, and I'm glad.
The problems with "child safety seats" make a long list, starting here:
They separate the kids from their parents, isolating the kids in the back seat.
They confine the kids to a small space, limiting their mobility.
As mentioned above, they render the kids helpless in the event of a fire or a submersion.
The difficulty of getting the kids out of the car and putting them back leads to temptation to just leave the kids in the car "for a couple of minutes," while car thieves can take the kids along with the car, or heat inside the car can kill. That stuff pops up in the news all the time.
Kids can conspire to murder their parents when they're older, for revenge because of endless hours of boredom in the back seat.
You wouldn't think this would be true, but I've observed many, many parents--both moms and dads, driving recklessly with kids in the back seat. Way more recklessly than I've ever dared to do with passengers in the car. Running red lights, really fast driving (80 mph, 90 mph and more). Unsafe, sudden lane changes. Talking on cell phones. Eating, drinking, reading maps!
Reeking confidence in their Navigators and Suburbans, with air bags in front and safety seats in back, these invincible beings snap their kids little heads back and forth in high-speed maneuvers, secure that nothing can go wrong.
Far better, each of us should drive carefully and safely--that is, keeping his full focus on the task at hand (driving), remembering that he has precious cargo and devoting 100% of his mind to his car, his surroundings and his car. He can think about his money troubles after the car is parked and the kids are safely in the house.
Whether a parent decides for or against "child safety seats" is up to each individual. Government should butt out--it's none of their business.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Your Papers, Please! Addendum.....
Part of what the feds are saying to sell us this evil National ID (they call it "Real ID"--anything to avoid calling it a National ID), is that it'll be standardized nationally and that it can't be counterfeited. But, nobody's ever been able to make a document that can't be counterfieted. Probably never will.
It will be harder and more expensive, though. The bad news: they won't have to. All the desperado has to do is find a person whom he more-or-less resembles, kill that poor sap, steal his "Real ID," and step into the fellow's life--as much as is necessary to suit his evil purpose. After all, who's going to question a "Real ID?"
Scenarios might include: killing the family and living in their home for a little while, making a "big score" theft then disappearing; using the victim's credit cards, etc to fulfill some dastardly plan; and many other things you might or might not imagine.
Unintended consequences.
In a more rational world, ID wouldn't be necessary. We'd know who we deal with, or it's cash on the barrelhead. I don't need ID to know who my friends are. My friends don't ask me for ID.
That's the way it should be.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Part of what the feds are saying to sell us this evil National ID (they call it "Real ID"--anything to avoid calling it a National ID), is that it'll be standardized nationally and that it can't be counterfeited. But, nobody's ever been able to make a document that can't be counterfieted. Probably never will.
It will be harder and more expensive, though. The bad news: they won't have to. All the desperado has to do is find a person whom he more-or-less resembles, kill that poor sap, steal his "Real ID," and step into the fellow's life--as much as is necessary to suit his evil purpose. After all, who's going to question a "Real ID?"
Scenarios might include: killing the family and living in their home for a little while, making a "big score" theft then disappearing; using the victim's credit cards, etc to fulfill some dastardly plan; and many other things you might or might not imagine.
Unintended consequences.
In a more rational world, ID wouldn't be necessary. We'd know who we deal with, or it's cash on the barrelhead. I don't need ID to know who my friends are. My friends don't ask me for ID.
That's the way it should be.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Your Papers, Please?
Like the Third Reich before it, the current Reich in Washington DC is working feverishly, as fast as they think the semi-conscious citizenry will allow it, to create a new, high-tech uber state.
It started a long time ago, as any semi-serious reading of US History will show, but it really intensified with the "war on drugs," during the 1980's and '90's. The "war on drugs" was really a War on the Bill of Rights. A quick reading of the BOR will clearly bring out wholesale violations of the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. A second look shows violations of the First (no positive epictions of drug use in the media), the Second (denying the right to weapons use on the least pretext) Third (creation of ultra-militarized police sub-agencies) and Fifth (plea bargaining to encourage self-incrimination). Every blood-sucking parasite above GS10 in the Reich should be fired and thrown into a prison cell (after receiving the the full due process they've been ignoring for the past thirty-plus years) for draconian violation of their oaths of office, as well as the thousands of counts of legal violations they've perpetrated against the poor folks that have been unfortunate enough to have blundered into the legal system of a government gone totalitarian.
Victims of the "war on drugs" routinely have their property confiscated, often without ever being charged with a crime.
If all this isn't enough, the destruction of the World Trade towers has ushered in an intensification of the destruction of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Now, along with the "war on drugs, we're also fighting a "war on terror."
Problem is, most of the weapons of the "wot," --"homeland security," the "patriot act" and a dozen or more other assaults on American freedom, are all aimed at US!
We're after bin Laden and the evil al queda bunch, and I have nothing against that--if we pursue them with diligence and intelligence--but why further restrict the liberty of Americans? The answer has to be to further advance the agenda of creating the perfect police state. Given the evidence, what other conclusion can be reached?
The current atrocity is the Congressional effort to create a National ID Card. They had a fairly god National ID in the Social Security card. You can't do many things in a bank without giving them your SS number, for example. This is utterly unConstitutional. Note that until a certain fairly recent date, SS cards carried the admonition, "Not to Be Used for Purposes of Identification." And of diminishing effectiveness as well, given that SS cards are very easy to counterfeit.
The federal nazis are now about to require that the states federalize their Driver's Licenses. From what I read, this means a national standardization with your "permanent record" on the data strip on the back.
Any cop, banker, employer, doctor or librarian will be able to know everything about you--more than you want them to know. Then, we can just wait patiently until the identity thieves weasel their way into your life.
Then, even worse, we'll see a new crime: someone who wants illegal ID can just find someone similar-looking, kill him, and take his ID.
There are many ways this could go which haven't yet occurred to me. None of them are good, short of a full voter rejection of these usurptions. With nearly everyone philosophically asleep after their bout with the government schools, that's not likely to happen.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Like the Third Reich before it, the current Reich in Washington DC is working feverishly, as fast as they think the semi-conscious citizenry will allow it, to create a new, high-tech uber state.
It started a long time ago, as any semi-serious reading of US History will show, but it really intensified with the "war on drugs," during the 1980's and '90's. The "war on drugs" was really a War on the Bill of Rights. A quick reading of the BOR will clearly bring out wholesale violations of the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. A second look shows violations of the First (no positive epictions of drug use in the media), the Second (denying the right to weapons use on the least pretext) Third (creation of ultra-militarized police sub-agencies) and Fifth (plea bargaining to encourage self-incrimination). Every blood-sucking parasite above GS10 in the Reich should be fired and thrown into a prison cell (after receiving the the full due process they've been ignoring for the past thirty-plus years) for draconian violation of their oaths of office, as well as the thousands of counts of legal violations they've perpetrated against the poor folks that have been unfortunate enough to have blundered into the legal system of a government gone totalitarian.
Victims of the "war on drugs" routinely have their property confiscated, often without ever being charged with a crime.
If all this isn't enough, the destruction of the World Trade towers has ushered in an intensification of the destruction of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Now, along with the "war on drugs, we're also fighting a "war on terror."
Problem is, most of the weapons of the "wot," --"homeland security," the "patriot act" and a dozen or more other assaults on American freedom, are all aimed at US!
We're after bin Laden and the evil al queda bunch, and I have nothing against that--if we pursue them with diligence and intelligence--but why further restrict the liberty of Americans? The answer has to be to further advance the agenda of creating the perfect police state. Given the evidence, what other conclusion can be reached?
The current atrocity is the Congressional effort to create a National ID Card. They had a fairly god National ID in the Social Security card. You can't do many things in a bank without giving them your SS number, for example. This is utterly unConstitutional. Note that until a certain fairly recent date, SS cards carried the admonition, "Not to Be Used for Purposes of Identification." And of diminishing effectiveness as well, given that SS cards are very easy to counterfeit.
The federal nazis are now about to require that the states federalize their Driver's Licenses. From what I read, this means a national standardization with your "permanent record" on the data strip on the back.
Any cop, banker, employer, doctor or librarian will be able to know everything about you--more than you want them to know. Then, we can just wait patiently until the identity thieves weasel their way into your life.
Then, even worse, we'll see a new crime: someone who wants illegal ID can just find someone similar-looking, kill him, and take his ID.
There are many ways this could go which haven't yet occurred to me. None of them are good, short of a full voter rejection of these usurptions. With nearly everyone philosophically asleep after their bout with the government schools, that's not likely to happen.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, May 06, 2005
Independence Day
Well, maybe I'm a little less patriotic than I used to be--I still love the country and always will, but the country whose politics I love is gone. From historical readings, I'm guessing that the political United States I'd love is that which existed between about 1880 and 1910. That, my friends, was a FREE AMERICA. I'll probably write about it sometime. I liked growing up in the 1950's, in retrospect, but there's always the danger of selective memory. You remember the good stuff.
Not much of the liberty America's Founders set up for us is left, and more of it disappears with every election.
My enjoyment of Independence Day is an old habit I'm not sure I want to change. I enjoy the get-togethers with friends, the bbq's. I enjoy the Sousa marches and the fireworks.
I really used to like the fireworks--the skyrockets, the Roman candles and the firecrackers.
Used to?
Look, these sterile, polically correct, sit-on-your-ass-and-watch municipal light shows are about as far from the good ol' family 4th 0f July cul de sac celebration as a Yankees ballgame is from neighborhood softball at the park: The Yankees play a lot better baseball, but softball with friends is more fun.
They say it's because of fires. Throughout my first twenty years of life, I don't recall a serious fire caused by fireworks in my town. We could buy and use any fireworks until I was entering my teens, then some of the local money-sucking parasites decided that some firecrackers were too powerful for us poor dumb peons.
Yeah, I know there were a few kids who blew off a finger or two, but y'know, they have parents, and parents should teach 'em. Mine did. I even blew up my share of tin cans and ant hills.
It's a little different here in Southern California, with the dry brush in the hills. It means we have to be more careful how and where we light our fireworks off. It doesn't mean fireworks should be outlawed.
Property owners should pay attention. Brushy land and the houses and other buildings thereon should be insured against fire. Insurance companies should use tort law to exact reimbursement from careless fireworks users. That should force responsibility in fireworks use in the neighborhood and pretty much end the problem.
Empty-headed bureaucrats can't see that. Rather than think of a way in which Productive Americans can enjoy their holiday, they'd rather just stop the fun with the force of the police and establish fines, to help pay for their extravagant vacations.
They've killed freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Well, maybe I'm a little less patriotic than I used to be--I still love the country and always will, but the country whose politics I love is gone. From historical readings, I'm guessing that the political United States I'd love is that which existed between about 1880 and 1910. That, my friends, was a FREE AMERICA. I'll probably write about it sometime. I liked growing up in the 1950's, in retrospect, but there's always the danger of selective memory. You remember the good stuff.
Not much of the liberty America's Founders set up for us is left, and more of it disappears with every election.
My enjoyment of Independence Day is an old habit I'm not sure I want to change. I enjoy the get-togethers with friends, the bbq's. I enjoy the Sousa marches and the fireworks.
I really used to like the fireworks--the skyrockets, the Roman candles and the firecrackers.
Used to?
Look, these sterile, polically correct, sit-on-your-ass-and-watch municipal light shows are about as far from the good ol' family 4th 0f July cul de sac celebration as a Yankees ballgame is from neighborhood softball at the park: The Yankees play a lot better baseball, but softball with friends is more fun.
They say it's because of fires. Throughout my first twenty years of life, I don't recall a serious fire caused by fireworks in my town. We could buy and use any fireworks until I was entering my teens, then some of the local money-sucking parasites decided that some firecrackers were too powerful for us poor dumb peons.
Yeah, I know there were a few kids who blew off a finger or two, but y'know, they have parents, and parents should teach 'em. Mine did. I even blew up my share of tin cans and ant hills.
It's a little different here in Southern California, with the dry brush in the hills. It means we have to be more careful how and where we light our fireworks off. It doesn't mean fireworks should be outlawed.
Property owners should pay attention. Brushy land and the houses and other buildings thereon should be insured against fire. Insurance companies should use tort law to exact reimbursement from careless fireworks users. That should force responsibility in fireworks use in the neighborhood and pretty much end the problem.
Empty-headed bureaucrats can't see that. Rather than think of a way in which Productive Americans can enjoy their holiday, they'd rather just stop the fun with the force of the police and establish fines, to help pay for their extravagant vacations.
They've killed freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
