Surf's up, Dude!
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Smart Tsunami
Anyone who's heard the Southern California Emergency Alert System knows what I'm talking about: the never-ending, several-times-a-day on every radio station announcements that're like sandpaper on the eardrums.
They seem to be designed to make you change the radio station before your ears start bleeding, and they're always drills. A General Quarters call at three AM would be sweet music compared to these hideous blasts. Did I mention that they're always drills? "If this were an actual emergency we'd play it even louder!"
Well, yesterday at about 8:10 PM they played it on TV. And again at 8:20. And yet again at about 8:30. It was interrupting my intense viewing of a rerun of The Gilmore Girls. It came out with those same awful buzzes that they use on radio, then a message flashed onscreen that you should tune to Channel 6 for details on the emergency. Since my neighborhood seemed not to be either burning, flooded, tilting or shaking, I paid it little attention, except the anger of having The Gilmore Girls interrupted.
Finally, my curiosity got the best of me, and I tuned in Channel 6.
It was a tsunami warning. I suppose, since *The Big One* in the south Pacific, we're all supposed to panic and get in our cars and high-tail it to Big Bear. But since I live five miles from the beach ( as the seagull flies), I didn't really think I had much to worry about.
I went to Drudge after turning back to The Gilmore Girls.
Drudge had a link to Earthquake Central, who was showing a 7.0, in the Pacific 80 miles southwest of Crescent City. While hoping that othing serious was happening to the good folks in Crescent City, I also noted that Crescent City is a good deal north of lovely Santa Ana.
Ladies and gentlemen, attend: the tsunami, had there been one, would have had to whoosh over 600 miles, curving around Cape Mendocino and Point Conception, then make a hard left (over 90 degrees) in order to slam into the Los Angeles and Orange County beaches. That, my friends, would require both intelligence and purpose--that is, a smart tsunami.
Aside: does anyone know what the word tsunami means in English?
Well, we had no tsunami, and apparently no one else did, either. Knock me over with a feather.
Which brings me back to The Gilmore Girls. Why did the brainiacs at the plush penthouse offices of SoCal Emergency Alert Center decide they had to interrupt my TV viewing with a bogus emergency that any moron could tell was a non-starter? Why does the Emergency Alert buzzer sound so hideously annoying that one's first and second impulse is to change the station or hit the mute button? Why couldn't they give the emergency message during the abundant commercial periods rather than during programming?
I think there are grounds for the establishment of a Blue Ribbon Panel to investigate these shortcomings and answer these and other questions, and they should do so before the next emergency.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Anyone who's heard the Southern California Emergency Alert System knows what I'm talking about: the never-ending, several-times-a-day on every radio station announcements that're like sandpaper on the eardrums.
They seem to be designed to make you change the radio station before your ears start bleeding, and they're always drills. A General Quarters call at three AM would be sweet music compared to these hideous blasts. Did I mention that they're always drills? "If this were an actual emergency we'd play it even louder!"
Well, yesterday at about 8:10 PM they played it on TV. And again at 8:20. And yet again at about 8:30. It was interrupting my intense viewing of a rerun of The Gilmore Girls. It came out with those same awful buzzes that they use on radio, then a message flashed onscreen that you should tune to Channel 6 for details on the emergency. Since my neighborhood seemed not to be either burning, flooded, tilting or shaking, I paid it little attention, except the anger of having The Gilmore Girls interrupted.
Finally, my curiosity got the best of me, and I tuned in Channel 6.
It was a tsunami warning. I suppose, since *The Big One* in the south Pacific, we're all supposed to panic and get in our cars and high-tail it to Big Bear. But since I live five miles from the beach ( as the seagull flies), I didn't really think I had much to worry about.
I went to Drudge after turning back to The Gilmore Girls.
Drudge had a link to Earthquake Central, who was showing a 7.0, in the Pacific 80 miles southwest of Crescent City. While hoping that othing serious was happening to the good folks in Crescent City, I also noted that Crescent City is a good deal north of lovely Santa Ana.
Ladies and gentlemen, attend: the tsunami, had there been one, would have had to whoosh over 600 miles, curving around Cape Mendocino and Point Conception, then make a hard left (over 90 degrees) in order to slam into the Los Angeles and Orange County beaches. That, my friends, would require both intelligence and purpose--that is, a smart tsunami.
Aside: does anyone know what the word tsunami means in English?
Well, we had no tsunami, and apparently no one else did, either. Knock me over with a feather.
Which brings me back to The Gilmore Girls. Why did the brainiacs at the plush penthouse offices of SoCal Emergency Alert Center decide they had to interrupt my TV viewing with a bogus emergency that any moron could tell was a non-starter? Why does the Emergency Alert buzzer sound so hideously annoying that one's first and second impulse is to change the station or hit the mute button? Why couldn't they give the emergency message during the abundant commercial periods rather than during programming?
I think there are grounds for the establishment of a Blue Ribbon Panel to investigate these shortcomings and answer these and other questions, and they should do so before the next emergency.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
The Importance of Art
A few years ago, Caltrans began a program of attaching cast concrete objects d'art on the sound walls alongside the freeway shoulders in urban areas. These squares were often colored depictions of flowers or sea life. At the time, a relatively small number of spending watchdogs questioned the expenditure in letters to editors, but Caltrans whipped out excuses 1 though 23 why the art was relatively inexpensive and aesthetically pleasing. There was further blather about stress reduction for commuters, and even a redution of accidents caused by boredom.
Fact is, while dodging cell phone addicts and high speed map readers, not to mention newspaper readers, one hardly has time to notice the art plaques on the sound walls. I haven't cared enough to research what Caltrans pays for these useless subsidies for hack artists, but knowing the state of Califorina, they didn't get them from the WalMart sale bins.
Sunday past, Debbie and I were motoring up to "The Belly of the Beast," aka Los Angeles, in the Great White Whale and what did we see on the sound walls alongside the northbound San Gabriel Freeway but a long series of these relatively tasteless rectangles of deliberately generic-looking flowers. The continuing interest in the positive aesthetic effects of these representations of no kind of flowers on this earth or any other, is to be noted in the fact that they'd also planted very thick and clingy vines below these walls. The vines were well on the way to fully covering the concrete flowers.
O! Woe!
I'm gonna miss those flower plaques, and all the money deducted from my paycheck represented thereby.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
A few years ago, Caltrans began a program of attaching cast concrete objects d'art on the sound walls alongside the freeway shoulders in urban areas. These squares were often colored depictions of flowers or sea life. At the time, a relatively small number of spending watchdogs questioned the expenditure in letters to editors, but Caltrans whipped out excuses 1 though 23 why the art was relatively inexpensive and aesthetically pleasing. There was further blather about stress reduction for commuters, and even a redution of accidents caused by boredom.
Fact is, while dodging cell phone addicts and high speed map readers, not to mention newspaper readers, one hardly has time to notice the art plaques on the sound walls. I haven't cared enough to research what Caltrans pays for these useless subsidies for hack artists, but knowing the state of Califorina, they didn't get them from the WalMart sale bins.
Sunday past, Debbie and I were motoring up to "The Belly of the Beast," aka Los Angeles, in the Great White Whale and what did we see on the sound walls alongside the northbound San Gabriel Freeway but a long series of these relatively tasteless rectangles of deliberately generic-looking flowers. The continuing interest in the positive aesthetic effects of these representations of no kind of flowers on this earth or any other, is to be noted in the fact that they'd also planted very thick and clingy vines below these walls. The vines were well on the way to fully covering the concrete flowers.
O! Woe!
I'm gonna miss those flower plaques, and all the money deducted from my paycheck represented thereby.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Long May It Wave
Of course I love America, the land, the people, the capitalist system (distorted as it is), and the opportunities still afforded those who intelligently seek them. What I don't like about America is the government. Everything the government does makes things a little worse; makes living a little harder. Government, and those who are employed therein, have forgotten that they are working for Americans, and they are a tool to do the things Americans want them to do, under the limits of the terms of our Contract--the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments.
In Great Britain, and many other countries, the king/queen/chief/emir/fuhrer/tsar.....and even president, is the supreme entity and the people work for his benefit. The United States was founded to put an end to this obvious tripe, but little by little, we've forgotten.
More and more, as each generation graduates from the government schools, it's deeper ingrained that the federal government is the ruler and the people must obey its edicts. The Constitution is largely ignored and the meaning of the Bill of Rights is diminished.
Part of the propaganda that prepares youngsters to accept the supreme power of the federal government is The Pledge of Allegiance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist baptist minister in 1892. It was first published in The Youth's Companion magazine later that year, in a shorter form that that to which we've become accustomed. It's been altered slightly a few times since, the most recent change made by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954, in which he added the words, "under god." He didn't specify which god, but I assume he meant Thor, the Norse god of war, who seems to be today's most closely followed god by Washington DC.
The Pledge was clearly devised, by Mr Bellamy, to be a propaganda tool to indoctrinate our youth in the government's schools to accept the (alleged) superiority of government over the masses.
When I was in school, we recited the Pledge each and every morning at the beginning of the school day. We placed our hands over our hearts and recited the words aloud, having memorized them in first grade. I recall when they told us the pledge had been changed, that we had to add the words "under god" after "one nation." In what may have been my first act of political rebellion, I never accepted those two added words. I didn't think they belonged.
Years later, I realized that a pledge to the ever-growing federal government, the entity represented by the flag in this context, doesn't belong. It was adopted as a declaration of subservience of the people to the state.
Mr Bellamy knew what he was doing, and it seems to be working. Increasingly, over the decades, most Americans have become used to their accepted subservience.
Sad.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Of course I love America, the land, the people, the capitalist system (distorted as it is), and the opportunities still afforded those who intelligently seek them. What I don't like about America is the government. Everything the government does makes things a little worse; makes living a little harder. Government, and those who are employed therein, have forgotten that they are working for Americans, and they are a tool to do the things Americans want them to do, under the limits of the terms of our Contract--the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments.
In Great Britain, and many other countries, the king/queen/chief/emir/fuhrer/tsar.....and even president, is the supreme entity and the people work for his benefit. The United States was founded to put an end to this obvious tripe, but little by little, we've forgotten.
More and more, as each generation graduates from the government schools, it's deeper ingrained that the federal government is the ruler and the people must obey its edicts. The Constitution is largely ignored and the meaning of the Bill of Rights is diminished.
Part of the propaganda that prepares youngsters to accept the supreme power of the federal government is The Pledge of Allegiance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist baptist minister in 1892. It was first published in The Youth's Companion magazine later that year, in a shorter form that that to which we've become accustomed. It's been altered slightly a few times since, the most recent change made by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954, in which he added the words, "under god." He didn't specify which god, but I assume he meant Thor, the Norse god of war, who seems to be today's most closely followed god by Washington DC.
The Pledge was clearly devised, by Mr Bellamy, to be a propaganda tool to indoctrinate our youth in the government's schools to accept the (alleged) superiority of government over the masses.
When I was in school, we recited the Pledge each and every morning at the beginning of the school day. We placed our hands over our hearts and recited the words aloud, having memorized them in first grade. I recall when they told us the pledge had been changed, that we had to add the words "under god" after "one nation." In what may have been my first act of political rebellion, I never accepted those two added words. I didn't think they belonged.
Years later, I realized that a pledge to the ever-growing federal government, the entity represented by the flag in this context, doesn't belong. It was adopted as a declaration of subservience of the people to the state.
Mr Bellamy knew what he was doing, and it seems to be working. Increasingly, over the decades, most Americans have become used to their accepted subservience.
Sad.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
The Persecution of Mary Jane
Actually, 'twas during the tenure of the evil Franklin Delano Roosevelt that the decision was made. The decision was to have the Supreme Court that FDR kept in his hip pocket to declare any transaction, whether in any way interstate or not--even the sale of milk, for example, from a Norco dairy farm to a Santa Ana grocery store--subject to Interstate Commerce regulations.
This was all reaffirmed Friday by the Supreme Court that GWB keeps in his hip pocket as they decided that the possession of marijuana for medical purposes, legalized by referenda in California and several other states shall be declared illegal under Interstate Commerce rules.
I don't like the fact that the Supremes, not to mention all the other state and federal appeals courts, can look at questionable decisions made by questionable judges over the over two centuries of the existence of the Republic, and use them as precedents to make all manner of unConstitutional decisions that mainly benefit the government and the politicians. It's pretty clear to me that we'd all be better off if these rattlebrained judges were constrained to simply and only consult the Constitution and its Amendments for guidance in deciding Constitutional questions. If any of you legal eagle knows exactly why judges were ever allowed to make decisions based on the mistakes of other judges, I'd appreciate enlightenment.
Meanwhile, thousands are going to suffer and, perhaps, die because of one erroneous decision of six of nine self-important idiots in black dresses.
Having made an exhaustive search of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I find no language that allows our Representatives to in any way limit that which we voluntarily ingest. I'm sorry. It just ain't in there. No amount of study will bring such a moronic notion into view.
Even if it did, well, everyone who's paying attention knows that man's rights don't come from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the courts, the President, our Representatives on any level, nor even from a majority vote. Man's rights exist in his nature as a rational being and cannot be taken away except by means of an initiation of force by another.
Really, it's no more complicated than that.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Actually, 'twas during the tenure of the evil Franklin Delano Roosevelt that the decision was made. The decision was to have the Supreme Court that FDR kept in his hip pocket to declare any transaction, whether in any way interstate or not--even the sale of milk, for example, from a Norco dairy farm to a Santa Ana grocery store--subject to Interstate Commerce regulations.
This was all reaffirmed Friday by the Supreme Court that GWB keeps in his hip pocket as they decided that the possession of marijuana for medical purposes, legalized by referenda in California and several other states shall be declared illegal under Interstate Commerce rules.
I don't like the fact that the Supremes, not to mention all the other state and federal appeals courts, can look at questionable decisions made by questionable judges over the over two centuries of the existence of the Republic, and use them as precedents to make all manner of unConstitutional decisions that mainly benefit the government and the politicians. It's pretty clear to me that we'd all be better off if these rattlebrained judges were constrained to simply and only consult the Constitution and its Amendments for guidance in deciding Constitutional questions. If any of you legal eagle knows exactly why judges were ever allowed to make decisions based on the mistakes of other judges, I'd appreciate enlightenment.
Meanwhile, thousands are going to suffer and, perhaps, die because of one erroneous decision of six of nine self-important idiots in black dresses.
Having made an exhaustive search of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I find no language that allows our Representatives to in any way limit that which we voluntarily ingest. I'm sorry. It just ain't in there. No amount of study will bring such a moronic notion into view.
Even if it did, well, everyone who's paying attention knows that man's rights don't come from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the courts, the President, our Representatives on any level, nor even from a majority vote. Man's rights exist in his nature as a rational being and cannot be taken away except by means of an initiation of force by another.
Really, it's no more complicated than that.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, June 03, 2005
Click it or Ripoff
Sheriff Lou Baca, alleged sheriff of Los Angeles County, is once again having his annual whine-in at the Supervisors' offices for more money to run his already bloated agency. He wants yet another county referendum to increase the sales tax to buy more politically correct, but largely ineffectual officers to cruise the ever shrinking county (as the cities annex more land) looking for schlubs who aren't wearing seat belts in their cars.
I guess all those intersection red-light enforcement cameras aren't paying off as well as he thought, eh? Fade in to the Sheriff's fancy hardwood-panelled conference room with the seven-figure teak conference table (seating for thirty).
Sheriff: "Dammit, those assholes are actually stopping for the red lights!
Ass't Sheriff: Yes, but there's a marked increase in rear-end collisions at thos intersections.
Sheriff: Who cares? We can't fine anyone for a rear-ender. Let's increase the fine for not wearing a seat belt.
Coincidentally, the state, in order not to lose federal highway funds that they'll use to fund the recent state senate and assembly salary hikes, has ordered a statewide program to increase seat belt compliance.
Folks, I'm not used to this. I don't usually let stuff get to me, but here we are in the midst of a war against a bunch of savages that couldn't even manufacture the turbans on their heads without Western help, battling against a government that's spending more money messing with its own citizens than effectively fighting the evil "terrorists" who are battling us with weapons we politely gave 'em, and I gotta remember to buckle my seat belt?
O! The pressure!
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Sheriff Lou Baca, alleged sheriff of Los Angeles County, is once again having his annual whine-in at the Supervisors' offices for more money to run his already bloated agency. He wants yet another county referendum to increase the sales tax to buy more politically correct, but largely ineffectual officers to cruise the ever shrinking county (as the cities annex more land) looking for schlubs who aren't wearing seat belts in their cars.
I guess all those intersection red-light enforcement cameras aren't paying off as well as he thought, eh? Fade in to the Sheriff's fancy hardwood-panelled conference room with the seven-figure teak conference table (seating for thirty).
Sheriff: "Dammit, those assholes are actually stopping for the red lights!
Ass't Sheriff: Yes, but there's a marked increase in rear-end collisions at thos intersections.
Sheriff: Who cares? We can't fine anyone for a rear-ender. Let's increase the fine for not wearing a seat belt.
Coincidentally, the state, in order not to lose federal highway funds that they'll use to fund the recent state senate and assembly salary hikes, has ordered a statewide program to increase seat belt compliance.
Folks, I'm not used to this. I don't usually let stuff get to me, but here we are in the midst of a war against a bunch of savages that couldn't even manufacture the turbans on their heads without Western help, battling against a government that's spending more money messing with its own citizens than effectively fighting the evil "terrorists" who are battling us with weapons we politely gave 'em, and I gotta remember to buckle my seat belt?
O! The pressure!
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
HR 1528
Called "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005," Rep James Sensenbrenner's new bill promises to convert once-free Americans into stoolies, spying on their neighbors and reporting any "illicit acts" observed, like Soviets used to be encouraged to do during the life of the USSR.
Children have already been admonished to report any adult drug activity to their government school teachers. One might wonder how many parents have been rousted and perhaps arrested during a child's anger tantrum.
Since it'd be impossible for George Bush's police state to watch everyone, all the time, what could be better than to get everyone to watch everyone else, and report in whenever they see someone breaking the law. Since, at any given moment, under the American legal system as it's evolved under the Patriot Act, everyone is breaking some law or another at any given time; it's all covered!
Therefore, if this stunningly unConstitutional bill becomes law, it'll be illegal not to turn someone in if you see him engaged in any (real or imagined) drug activity under pain of at least two years in prison, if I see anyone committing these dastardly acts, I just plan to turn in someone I don't like. So, be nice!
Rumor has it that the feds are going to put all law-abiding Americans in Kansas, and the rest of the United States will be the George W Bush Memorial Federal Prison. Logical analysis requires me to conclude that Kansas will remain a desolate, empty wasteland.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Called "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005," Rep James Sensenbrenner's new bill promises to convert once-free Americans into stoolies, spying on their neighbors and reporting any "illicit acts" observed, like Soviets used to be encouraged to do during the life of the USSR.
Children have already been admonished to report any adult drug activity to their government school teachers. One might wonder how many parents have been rousted and perhaps arrested during a child's anger tantrum.
Since it'd be impossible for George Bush's police state to watch everyone, all the time, what could be better than to get everyone to watch everyone else, and report in whenever they see someone breaking the law. Since, at any given moment, under the American legal system as it's evolved under the Patriot Act, everyone is breaking some law or another at any given time; it's all covered!
Therefore, if this stunningly unConstitutional bill becomes law, it'll be illegal not to turn someone in if you see him engaged in any (real or imagined) drug activity under pain of at least two years in prison, if I see anyone committing these dastardly acts, I just plan to turn in someone I don't like. So, be nice!
Rumor has it that the feds are going to put all law-abiding Americans in Kansas, and the rest of the United States will be the George W Bush Memorial Federal Prison. Logical analysis requires me to conclude that Kansas will remain a desolate, empty wasteland.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Monday, May 30, 2005
My first Hot Rod
I was blown away, this afternoon. I was browsing in eBay looking at old cars and checking their prices. I looked at several Chevrolets from the '40's and '50's, then at some old Pontiacs. Finally, I checked Oldsmobiles, for old times' sake.
The first, and so far, only hotrod I've built was a 1937 Oldsmobile sedan. The car was stone stock, running and driveable when I bought it in San Diego in 1986. I drove it that way for a while, but eventually I realized that I needed to start my plan to rebuild the car with an updated drive train so that it could be driven daily.
With the help and experience of my old friend, Ken Gunzelman, I put a mid-1970's GM drive train on the car, then did a little work on the body.
It ran great! I drove it all around San Diego for a couple of years, and to Lake Havasu once. 'Twas a joy to drive.
When we moved from San Diego to Los Angeles, I sold it. I didn't want to, but money was a needed commodity at the time.
Well, back to eBay. There, in the Oldsmobile listings, was my car. Rebuilt to look somewhat different than when I had it, I wouldn't have recognized it, except for one thing: It still has the same license plate.
I'd never have done many of the things the current owner did to the car, but it still looks good....kinda.
Chokes me up a mite.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I was blown away, this afternoon. I was browsing in eBay looking at old cars and checking their prices. I looked at several Chevrolets from the '40's and '50's, then at some old Pontiacs. Finally, I checked Oldsmobiles, for old times' sake.
The first, and so far, only hotrod I've built was a 1937 Oldsmobile sedan. The car was stone stock, running and driveable when I bought it in San Diego in 1986. I drove it that way for a while, but eventually I realized that I needed to start my plan to rebuild the car with an updated drive train so that it could be driven daily.
With the help and experience of my old friend, Ken Gunzelman, I put a mid-1970's GM drive train on the car, then did a little work on the body.
It ran great! I drove it all around San Diego for a couple of years, and to Lake Havasu once. 'Twas a joy to drive.
When we moved from San Diego to Los Angeles, I sold it. I didn't want to, but money was a needed commodity at the time.
Well, back to eBay. There, in the Oldsmobile listings, was my car. Rebuilt to look somewhat different than when I had it, I wouldn't have recognized it, except for one thing: It still has the same license plate.
I'd never have done many of the things the current owner did to the car, but it still looks good....kinda.
Chokes me up a mite.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Cuts like a......er......
British government-employed medical doctors, reacting to a report that crime is on the increase (in the wake of the confiscation of firearms in Great Britain), and that much of the crime involves the use of knives, including long, pointed kitchen knives, suggest that, according to restauranteurs, long, pointed knives aren't needed to prepare food. Thus, the doctors suggest doing away with them throughout Great Britain.
I have a modest proposal which should more than satisfy British government-employed doctors. This, of course, follows guidelines cobbled into place by the U.S. federal government's Home Security Administration to effect safety in airports and on airliners throughout the United States.
First, all food processors, restaurant chefs and their staffs, butchers and others whose employment requires the use of edged instruments have to be placed under the employ of the Crown. Next, all sharp, pointed and edged objects must be confiscated from throughout Great Britain and placed in the care of the Crown, or destroyed.
Food offered to the public for sale must be prepared in bite-sized bits, so that knives aren't needed in the home. The Queen's scribes shall develop cookbooks to teach the public how to cook wonderful stews and casseroles according to safer, injury-free cooking methods. No cutting, slicing, dicing or peeling need be done, except by qualified, trained technicians in the Queen's food industry.
This, in order to keep the Queen's subjects safe from an implement that had been plaguing Britain since the Dark Days of our Celtic, Roman and Germanic ancestors. Knives. We now have it within our means to put an end to this scourge once and for all.
We hereby announce a merger between the Wilkinson Steel Company and the Dunlop Rubber Company to produce semi-flexible table paddles for the home for use spreading marmalades, butter and other foods. These paddles will not be brittle or breakable, like plastics, nor dangerous, like knives.
The crown intends to eradicate violent injury and death by means of unnecessary and dangerous implements post haste, and if the elimination of both guns and knives will not do it, there is till one more step to be taken.
Unfortunately, David Carr of Samizdata has made it public, and now both British doctors and the Crown know what they must do: the next step is to do away with opposable thumbs.
They've killed Freedom! Those Bastards!
Warm Regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
British government-employed medical doctors, reacting to a report that crime is on the increase (in the wake of the confiscation of firearms in Great Britain), and that much of the crime involves the use of knives, including long, pointed kitchen knives, suggest that, according to restauranteurs, long, pointed knives aren't needed to prepare food. Thus, the doctors suggest doing away with them throughout Great Britain.
I have a modest proposal which should more than satisfy British government-employed doctors. This, of course, follows guidelines cobbled into place by the U.S. federal government's Home Security Administration to effect safety in airports and on airliners throughout the United States.
First, all food processors, restaurant chefs and their staffs, butchers and others whose employment requires the use of edged instruments have to be placed under the employ of the Crown. Next, all sharp, pointed and edged objects must be confiscated from throughout Great Britain and placed in the care of the Crown, or destroyed.
Food offered to the public for sale must be prepared in bite-sized bits, so that knives aren't needed in the home. The Queen's scribes shall develop cookbooks to teach the public how to cook wonderful stews and casseroles according to safer, injury-free cooking methods. No cutting, slicing, dicing or peeling need be done, except by qualified, trained technicians in the Queen's food industry.
This, in order to keep the Queen's subjects safe from an implement that had been plaguing Britain since the Dark Days of our Celtic, Roman and Germanic ancestors. Knives. We now have it within our means to put an end to this scourge once and for all.
We hereby announce a merger between the Wilkinson Steel Company and the Dunlop Rubber Company to produce semi-flexible table paddles for the home for use spreading marmalades, butter and other foods. These paddles will not be brittle or breakable, like plastics, nor dangerous, like knives.
The crown intends to eradicate violent injury and death by means of unnecessary and dangerous implements post haste, and if the elimination of both guns and knives will not do it, there is till one more step to be taken.
Unfortunately, David Carr of Samizdata has made it public, and now both British doctors and the Crown know what they must do: the next step is to do away with opposable thumbs.
They've killed Freedom! Those Bastards!
Warm Regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, May 27, 2005
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
