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
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Friday, April 22, 2005
State of Fear
Global warming is a hoax.
If you haven't yet read State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, I'd highly recommend it. State of Fear is a novel about an environemntally sympathetic attorney who works for a very wealthy man who generously supports environmental causes. As the story rolls along, the lawyer is pushed, kicking and screaming all the way, into the realization that there is no environmental crisis.
One of the cool things about this novel is that the results of several (real) studies are included that cast severe doubts on environmentalists claims. Little wonder that real life environmental hangers-on like Robert Kennedy, Jr get so utterly livid when these studies are brought up. What environmentalists don't do is answer these problematic studies.
What's up with Kennedy, Jr's voice anyway?
The point of this book, though, is not entirely related to the Big Lie of Global Warming. A larger point was brought out by a minor character in the story. He points out that virtually all government officials and media outlets act in concert to keep us in a state of fear.
Anything you eat can kill you. The air is bad. We're suffering more extreme weather all around the world. Each year there are more and more hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. and they're more and more severe.
Anything to keep the state of fear high.
We don't have epidemics anymore. Now they're pandemics.
Anything to keep the state of fear high.
Meanwhile, we're living in more comfort and more luxury--even the poorest of us--than any society in history. Our life expectancy and quality of life could not be imagined even by Americans of an earlier era, never mind Romans, Egyptians and Greeks at the height of their respective empires.
Folks, they're only increasing the state of fear to make it easier to restrict our freedom and keep us all in line. Don't fall for it.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Global warming is a hoax.
If you haven't yet read State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, I'd highly recommend it. State of Fear is a novel about an environemntally sympathetic attorney who works for a very wealthy man who generously supports environmental causes. As the story rolls along, the lawyer is pushed, kicking and screaming all the way, into the realization that there is no environmental crisis.
One of the cool things about this novel is that the results of several (real) studies are included that cast severe doubts on environmentalists claims. Little wonder that real life environmental hangers-on like Robert Kennedy, Jr get so utterly livid when these studies are brought up. What environmentalists don't do is answer these problematic studies.
What's up with Kennedy, Jr's voice anyway?
The point of this book, though, is not entirely related to the Big Lie of Global Warming. A larger point was brought out by a minor character in the story. He points out that virtually all government officials and media outlets act in concert to keep us in a state of fear.
Anything you eat can kill you. The air is bad. We're suffering more extreme weather all around the world. Each year there are more and more hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. and they're more and more severe.
Anything to keep the state of fear high.
We don't have epidemics anymore. Now they're pandemics.
Anything to keep the state of fear high.
Meanwhile, we're living in more comfort and more luxury--even the poorest of us--than any society in history. Our life expectancy and quality of life could not be imagined even by Americans of an earlier era, never mind Romans, Egyptians and Greeks at the height of their respective empires.
Folks, they're only increasing the state of fear to make it easier to restrict our freedom and keep us all in line. Don't fall for it.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Convertibles in Southern California
This is my third convertible. It's a 1975 Oldsmobile Delta 88. It's a great car: smooth and fast for a big car. Not only that, but it's comfortable with the top down.
I often notice a very odd thing with convertibles here in SoCal. Most people, when they drive with the top down, leave the windows up. Wierd! The other thing, some of the newer luxo-droptops have a kind of a screen that goes up behind the seats. It really looks funny--I call it a girly screen because the obvious reason for it is to keep any trace of moving air from touching the lady's hair.
You might as well have a Datsun sedan.
Now, I have long hair--the standard issue biker's pony tail. I love it when it blows in the wind. I usually drive with the top and windows down, and no girly screen.
The Olds is my third convertible. Right after I got out of the Navy, I had a '55 Ford Sunliner. A really cool car, but my brother rolled it over. Fortunately, he wasn't hurt.
After I moved to Anaheim, I bought a 1959 Triumph TR3 roadster. I loved that car! The top only went up when it rained. It was low, quick and noisy.
None of them had a girly screen. The Triumph didn't even have windows--just plastic side screens you kept in the itty bitty trunk that could be snapped onto the doors if you were feeling puny. I only used them once, when driving across the Mojave when the temp was less than 40 and the crosswind was more than that.
After the Triumph, it was all motorcycles for many years.
The Olds is an nice, comfortable old-timer's convertible that's comfortable cruising from here to Phoenix and in stop-and-go on the way to work.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Vigilance at the Border
Anyone paying the least bit of attention to the current news knows about the group of mostly middle-aged men and women assembled on the US-Mexico border, observing and reporting border crossings by illegal aliens.
They call themselves Minutemen.
Now, I'm not against anyone going anywhere, if it'll make life easier for 'em. If a Mexican or Canadian can live better here than in his home town, fine. As long as they're productive and support themselves. If the US wasn't a welfare state, we wouldn't have an illegal alien problem. It is, and an activist judiciary has decided for us that aliens get "free" stuff, same as those who were born here, so we have an illegal alien problem--paying for all the free stuff.
While ignoring the real problem and its solutions, the feds and most Republicans complain endlessly about the porosity of our border. Yet, the Republicans are in charge! Who's going to do anything about it? The Republicans, the self-proclaimed leaders in personal responsibility and smaller government, own the White House, the House of Reps and the Senate. They all agree that the border is open to any "terrorist" that wants to sneak in that way. Yet they do nothing.
Meanwhile, a few hundred volunteers, the Minutemen, spread out over twenty-odd miles of the Arizona border and observe and report. Illegal entries in that formerly heavy traffic area have been virtually shut down. Amazing what a handful of individuals with a clearly defined purpose can do.
The President, along with nearly every leftist politician, pundit and journalist, calls them vigilantes, racists and worse. If they're vigilantes, then let's hear it for vigilantes!
"What's a vigilante?" one might ask. Vigilantism is characterized as groups of men taking the law into their own hands. Or mobs, as the statists like to refer to We, the People. In fact, it's individuals and groups of individuals acting to enforce their rights when government can't or won't. It's an oft-ignored fact that, in the wild, wild west, most vigilante action was correct--just as the law and courts would've done if they'd done their job. Very few innocent men were punished by vigilante groups. I'd bet, truth be known, fewer per capita than the government's courts, over the decades.
According to the founding documents and the writings of individualist philosophers throughout history, each individual owns his life. By extension, he also owns his property. As must be, for this right to property to mean anything, he must have the right to protect and defend his life and his property. Unfortunately, if a few neighbors act to protect themselves or their property, they're called Vigilantes.
But, let's look at how a government is started.
Since men often form associations to give themselves the strength of numbers, groups of men often do so to cooperatively protect all of their property, hiring or appointing some individuals to perform guard and sentry tasks, thus allowing some of them to be able to work their property without worry, and to be able to sleep at night. We call that a government.
While our government was formed up in an unprecidented manner, and started out much like the free association mentioned above, it has grown far, far beyond any bounds that'd be approved by Jefferson, Adams, et al. Besides having been warped into a welfare/police state, we also see that it just cannot do anything well.
Among many things, they can't control the border. Billions of dollars a year go to INS and the Border Patrol, and they can't even come close to doing their jobs.
Meanwhile, a few ordinary Americans, volunteers, vigilantes, whatever we want to call 'em, can take care of it amid federal foundering.
Maybe it'd be better if we dispense with those failed agencies, repeal the stupid anti-gun laws (that'd be all of them, my friends) and let those folks who own land on the border--who are those same "vigilantes" (as dubbed by parasitical statists)--protect their property as they have a natural right to do. Then we can let folks who come here from other countries enter through normal channels, in the knowledge that if they are honest, and work for their living in their own way and support themselves and their families, there'll never again be a "border problem."
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Anyone paying the least bit of attention to the current news knows about the group of mostly middle-aged men and women assembled on the US-Mexico border, observing and reporting border crossings by illegal aliens.
They call themselves Minutemen.
Now, I'm not against anyone going anywhere, if it'll make life easier for 'em. If a Mexican or Canadian can live better here than in his home town, fine. As long as they're productive and support themselves. If the US wasn't a welfare state, we wouldn't have an illegal alien problem. It is, and an activist judiciary has decided for us that aliens get "free" stuff, same as those who were born here, so we have an illegal alien problem--paying for all the free stuff.
While ignoring the real problem and its solutions, the feds and most Republicans complain endlessly about the porosity of our border. Yet, the Republicans are in charge! Who's going to do anything about it? The Republicans, the self-proclaimed leaders in personal responsibility and smaller government, own the White House, the House of Reps and the Senate. They all agree that the border is open to any "terrorist" that wants to sneak in that way. Yet they do nothing.
Meanwhile, a few hundred volunteers, the Minutemen, spread out over twenty-odd miles of the Arizona border and observe and report. Illegal entries in that formerly heavy traffic area have been virtually shut down. Amazing what a handful of individuals with a clearly defined purpose can do.
The President, along with nearly every leftist politician, pundit and journalist, calls them vigilantes, racists and worse. If they're vigilantes, then let's hear it for vigilantes!
"What's a vigilante?" one might ask. Vigilantism is characterized as groups of men taking the law into their own hands. Or mobs, as the statists like to refer to We, the People. In fact, it's individuals and groups of individuals acting to enforce their rights when government can't or won't. It's an oft-ignored fact that, in the wild, wild west, most vigilante action was correct--just as the law and courts would've done if they'd done their job. Very few innocent men were punished by vigilante groups. I'd bet, truth be known, fewer per capita than the government's courts, over the decades.
According to the founding documents and the writings of individualist philosophers throughout history, each individual owns his life. By extension, he also owns his property. As must be, for this right to property to mean anything, he must have the right to protect and defend his life and his property. Unfortunately, if a few neighbors act to protect themselves or their property, they're called Vigilantes.
But, let's look at how a government is started.
Since men often form associations to give themselves the strength of numbers, groups of men often do so to cooperatively protect all of their property, hiring or appointing some individuals to perform guard and sentry tasks, thus allowing some of them to be able to work their property without worry, and to be able to sleep at night. We call that a government.
While our government was formed up in an unprecidented manner, and started out much like the free association mentioned above, it has grown far, far beyond any bounds that'd be approved by Jefferson, Adams, et al. Besides having been warped into a welfare/police state, we also see that it just cannot do anything well.
Among many things, they can't control the border. Billions of dollars a year go to INS and the Border Patrol, and they can't even come close to doing their jobs.
Meanwhile, a few ordinary Americans, volunteers, vigilantes, whatever we want to call 'em, can take care of it amid federal foundering.
Maybe it'd be better if we dispense with those failed agencies, repeal the stupid anti-gun laws (that'd be all of them, my friends) and let those folks who own land on the border--who are those same "vigilantes" (as dubbed by parasitical statists)--protect their property as they have a natural right to do. Then we can let folks who come here from other countries enter through normal channels, in the knowledge that if they are honest, and work for their living in their own way and support themselves and their families, there'll never again be a "border problem."
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Social Insecurity
I just read a couple of paragraphs from"Nealz News," at www.boortz.com . Neal has a talk show syndicated mostly back east. Mr. Boortz makes more sense than any other talk show guy in the country, that I know of. I certainly wish he was on a Southern California radio station.
In yesterday's Newz, he mentioned the fact that Bush's proposed Social Security reform is pretty much dead because the Democrats are against it, and the Republicans are showing their characteristic spineless aspect, citing the upcoming elections a mere 18 months away.
I could write reams about Republicans, but suffice it to say that they're so scared of the next elections that they literally won't do anything. Allow me to add that I don't think this is all bad. Generally speaking, the less that Congress does, the better off we all are. Full gridlock in that evil place is a nearly ideal state for we who are the productive sector.
There is only one thing that can be done to help Americans with respect to Social Security. End it. We're a lot more sophisticated now that folks were back in the '30s. We know that we have to provide for our own retirement. We know that custom has shifted away from adults in a family caring for their parents after they can no longer work. We're too independent. It'd be unthinkable for me, some time in the future, to move in with one of my sons for the rest of my life. I think a lot of us are like that.
Corporations used to offer pensions to their faithful, long-time employees. Maybe some of them still do that, but increasingly they're withdrawing that benefit because of the expense. Many are offering profit-sharing or 401k's in which they match your deposits up to a certain maximum. Actually, that's how I got mine started.
Social Security isn't enough. Not only isn't it enough, but it sucks money out of your paycheck that might be used to build a real retirement. If I had the money that goes down the Social Security rathole, I could have a helluva 401k.
We have to remember that SS is in financial trouble. Sometime, possible while I'm still alive, SS will no longer take in as much as it has to pay out. Then, or before then, changes will have to be made. These changes will have to be tax increases or cuts in benefits--or a combination. We also have to remember that there are no guarantees. SS is not legally required to give anybody a single dime.
SS takes over $200 a month from your check each month, more or less, depending on your earnings. SS encourages us to forget that our employers must match that. That's money our employers would be adding to our paychecks if not for the SS. Also, if you die before you've gotten your money back, you lose! The remainder doesn't go into your estate, it goes into Uncle Sam's pocket, to be used buying $800 toilet seats.
$400 a month (more or less) that could be used to build a veritable rich man's estate! I'll have to try, sometime, to calculate how much money I'd have today, if my SS money had been invested conservatively for these many years.
I want my money back!!!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I just read a couple of paragraphs from"Nealz News," at www.boortz.com . Neal has a talk show syndicated mostly back east. Mr. Boortz makes more sense than any other talk show guy in the country, that I know of. I certainly wish he was on a Southern California radio station.
In yesterday's Newz, he mentioned the fact that Bush's proposed Social Security reform is pretty much dead because the Democrats are against it, and the Republicans are showing their characteristic spineless aspect, citing the upcoming elections a mere 18 months away.
I could write reams about Republicans, but suffice it to say that they're so scared of the next elections that they literally won't do anything. Allow me to add that I don't think this is all bad. Generally speaking, the less that Congress does, the better off we all are. Full gridlock in that evil place is a nearly ideal state for we who are the productive sector.
There is only one thing that can be done to help Americans with respect to Social Security. End it. We're a lot more sophisticated now that folks were back in the '30s. We know that we have to provide for our own retirement. We know that custom has shifted away from adults in a family caring for their parents after they can no longer work. We're too independent. It'd be unthinkable for me, some time in the future, to move in with one of my sons for the rest of my life. I think a lot of us are like that.
Corporations used to offer pensions to their faithful, long-time employees. Maybe some of them still do that, but increasingly they're withdrawing that benefit because of the expense. Many are offering profit-sharing or 401k's in which they match your deposits up to a certain maximum. Actually, that's how I got mine started.
Social Security isn't enough. Not only isn't it enough, but it sucks money out of your paycheck that might be used to build a real retirement. If I had the money that goes down the Social Security rathole, I could have a helluva 401k.
We have to remember that SS is in financial trouble. Sometime, possible while I'm still alive, SS will no longer take in as much as it has to pay out. Then, or before then, changes will have to be made. These changes will have to be tax increases or cuts in benefits--or a combination. We also have to remember that there are no guarantees. SS is not legally required to give anybody a single dime.
SS takes over $200 a month from your check each month, more or less, depending on your earnings. SS encourages us to forget that our employers must match that. That's money our employers would be adding to our paychecks if not for the SS. Also, if you die before you've gotten your money back, you lose! The remainder doesn't go into your estate, it goes into Uncle Sam's pocket, to be used buying $800 toilet seats.
$400 a month (more or less) that could be used to build a veritable rich man's estate! I'll have to try, sometime, to calculate how much money I'd have today, if my SS money had been invested conservatively for these many years.
I want my money back!!!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
One Broadway Plaza
Normally, a new office building would be an unmitigated positve. Who could argue against a huge new building that will house new businesses and add to the visual impact of a city which to date has too little about which to boast.
Don't get me wrong: I like Santa Ana, but it's mostly residential and mostly lower middle- to middle-class. No Central Park, no Disneyland, no National Hockey League team and no beaches. There is a zoo.
The problem with all this is that we're asked to vote (local Prop A) on whether the building is to be built. Dudes and dudettes, what's that all about?? We know that a developer has to jump through dozens if not hundreds of hoops to get city, county and state approval for every doorknob and flush handle. He has to pay untold bribes and kiss some horribly ugly butts to get all these approvals.
Then, he has to wait until the unwashed, uninformed, unconcerned masses approve the project, or not? Who'd risk so much capital under these conditions?
What I haven't been able to learn--mostly my own fault, for lack ot time--is who's paying for all this. The developer and his investors? Or taxpayers?
The proponents, seemingly just about every local civil servant and elected official in the county, make enormous claims as to the benefits to be expected when this building is built. They are much like the claims made for just about every local referendum the city gov't proposes. We, of course wait in rapt silence whlle these claims become reality.
It will pay for millions in street improvements. Fer sure Santa Ana needs street improvements.
It will fund additional police and fire fighters. More traffic citations and huge red trucks to pull over and let pass.
It will create jobs. New donut shops for the police and fire fighters.
It will improve our city. Our city has nowhere to go but up.
It will help balance the city budget, at no cost to taxpayers. Even after spending all that new money on the streets, police and fire fighters?
Opponents cite such heart-rending problems as the spectre of large portions of downtown Santa Ana spending big portions of the day in the shade (of the new building) and the ever popular obscene increases in street traffic. The obvious solution to which will prove to be a new light rail system a la San Diego, which we'll all be asked to vote on in a couple of years.
Then, we'll learn how a new light rail system will help pay for street improvements, more police and more fire fighters.
Well, after this exhaustive, in-depth analysis, I still wonder why we voters are being asked whether a new private office building should be built.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Normally, a new office building would be an unmitigated positve. Who could argue against a huge new building that will house new businesses and add to the visual impact of a city which to date has too little about which to boast.
Don't get me wrong: I like Santa Ana, but it's mostly residential and mostly lower middle- to middle-class. No Central Park, no Disneyland, no National Hockey League team and no beaches. There is a zoo.
The problem with all this is that we're asked to vote (local Prop A) on whether the building is to be built. Dudes and dudettes, what's that all about?? We know that a developer has to jump through dozens if not hundreds of hoops to get city, county and state approval for every doorknob and flush handle. He has to pay untold bribes and kiss some horribly ugly butts to get all these approvals.
Then, he has to wait until the unwashed, uninformed, unconcerned masses approve the project, or not? Who'd risk so much capital under these conditions?
What I haven't been able to learn--mostly my own fault, for lack ot time--is who's paying for all this. The developer and his investors? Or taxpayers?
The proponents, seemingly just about every local civil servant and elected official in the county, make enormous claims as to the benefits to be expected when this building is built. They are much like the claims made for just about every local referendum the city gov't proposes. We, of course wait in rapt silence whlle these claims become reality.
It will pay for millions in street improvements. Fer sure Santa Ana needs street improvements.
It will fund additional police and fire fighters. More traffic citations and huge red trucks to pull over and let pass.
It will create jobs. New donut shops for the police and fire fighters.
It will improve our city. Our city has nowhere to go but up.
It will help balance the city budget, at no cost to taxpayers. Even after spending all that new money on the streets, police and fire fighters?
Opponents cite such heart-rending problems as the spectre of large portions of downtown Santa Ana spending big portions of the day in the shade (of the new building) and the ever popular obscene increases in street traffic. The obvious solution to which will prove to be a new light rail system a la San Diego, which we'll all be asked to vote on in a couple of years.
Then, we'll learn how a new light rail system will help pay for street improvements, more police and more fire fighters.
Well, after this exhaustive, in-depth analysis, I still wonder why we voters are being asked whether a new private office building should be built.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Corruption in the Traffic Department
At every signalized intersection in Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego (and in probably just about every city of over 50,000 population in the country) are these saw-cut circles in the pavement, in which are cemented wire loops that are traffic sensors. They sense the mass of metal that is a car or truck, though some of them miss smaller motorcycles.
Originally, they were installed to allow the signals to remain green on major boulevards during periods (e.g. at night) when there was little or no traffic on the minor intersecting streets. If a car comes up to the sensor loop on the minor street, it will trip the sensor and shortly give him a green light.
Recent years, they've installed even more of these sensors in between these intersections at strategic locations. The plan is to tie the city's sensor system to computers, which can be programmed to regulate signals on the entire street grid to move traffic efficiently during various trafic conditions.
Those of us who travel the streets in motor vehicles daily wonder what happened.
Every intersection is another red light at which we have to stop and burn expensive gasoline for up to two minutes until the signal turns green. Then you move a block or two to the next red light.....and repeat.
Why, when driving along Beach Boulevard or Figueroa or El Cajon Boulevard, or any of hundreds of other arterial streets in Southern California or elsewhere, can't the signals be regulated for smooth traffic flow?
Well, friends, I've found out the reason.
Relying on traffic data from all those pavement sensors, any reasonably intelligent computer wiz with a knowledge of the city and with these data could develop programming that would regulate the signals to maximize traffic movement under the conditions of the day and of the time of the day. It'd be complicated in some areas, but generally traffic goes to business districts and industrial areas in weekday mornings, and away from them in the afternoons. Not quite as simple as that, but you get the idea.
When your light turns green, and the next one turns yellow as you approach it--and that happens signal after signal you know it ain't random, folks.
It's corruption in the various city traffic departments. Civil servants in these departments have solicited and received large payments from corrupt executives in oil companies to keep literally every car stopped at idle at as many signals as possible, for as much time as possible to counter the effects of the higher fuel efficiency of modern, smaller cars.
Well, of course I'm being facetious. I don't really think civil servants are in a collusive relationsip with the oil companies--oil companies are already colluding with the feds!
The real reason is that, to a civil servant, the incentive is to do nothing at all, or at best do the barest minimum that will keep him paid and employed until he can achieve the fine retirement pension we all are forced to give him. Doing nothing at all is best because if he does nothing, he will do nothing that he can get in trouble for.
The reason the traffic grid is so screwed up is this simple fact: No civil servant will get paid a dime more if he fixes the problem, so why bother?
Perhaps we have to look at it in a different way. In whose interest is it that traffic flow efficiently? Of course, it's in the interest of all of us, so why don't those who we (supposedly) pay to take care of this do such a horrible job?
We re-elect our politicians over and over whether they do their job or not--none of them do. They have agendas that run counter to ours--they'd rather we be shipped to and from approved places by cattle car. Private autos let us do what we want. The politicians, deep down, don't want that.
No help there.
Something different has to be done. I'm working on it. You should be, too.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
At every signalized intersection in Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego (and in probably just about every city of over 50,000 population in the country) are these saw-cut circles in the pavement, in which are cemented wire loops that are traffic sensors. They sense the mass of metal that is a car or truck, though some of them miss smaller motorcycles.
Originally, they were installed to allow the signals to remain green on major boulevards during periods (e.g. at night) when there was little or no traffic on the minor intersecting streets. If a car comes up to the sensor loop on the minor street, it will trip the sensor and shortly give him a green light.
Recent years, they've installed even more of these sensors in between these intersections at strategic locations. The plan is to tie the city's sensor system to computers, which can be programmed to regulate signals on the entire street grid to move traffic efficiently during various trafic conditions.
Those of us who travel the streets in motor vehicles daily wonder what happened.
Every intersection is another red light at which we have to stop and burn expensive gasoline for up to two minutes until the signal turns green. Then you move a block or two to the next red light.....and repeat.
Why, when driving along Beach Boulevard or Figueroa or El Cajon Boulevard, or any of hundreds of other arterial streets in Southern California or elsewhere, can't the signals be regulated for smooth traffic flow?
Well, friends, I've found out the reason.
Relying on traffic data from all those pavement sensors, any reasonably intelligent computer wiz with a knowledge of the city and with these data could develop programming that would regulate the signals to maximize traffic movement under the conditions of the day and of the time of the day. It'd be complicated in some areas, but generally traffic goes to business districts and industrial areas in weekday mornings, and away from them in the afternoons. Not quite as simple as that, but you get the idea.
When your light turns green, and the next one turns yellow as you approach it--and that happens signal after signal you know it ain't random, folks.
It's corruption in the various city traffic departments. Civil servants in these departments have solicited and received large payments from corrupt executives in oil companies to keep literally every car stopped at idle at as many signals as possible, for as much time as possible to counter the effects of the higher fuel efficiency of modern, smaller cars.
Well, of course I'm being facetious. I don't really think civil servants are in a collusive relationsip with the oil companies--oil companies are already colluding with the feds!
The real reason is that, to a civil servant, the incentive is to do nothing at all, or at best do the barest minimum that will keep him paid and employed until he can achieve the fine retirement pension we all are forced to give him. Doing nothing at all is best because if he does nothing, he will do nothing that he can get in trouble for.
The reason the traffic grid is so screwed up is this simple fact: No civil servant will get paid a dime more if he fixes the problem, so why bother?
Perhaps we have to look at it in a different way. In whose interest is it that traffic flow efficiently? Of course, it's in the interest of all of us, so why don't those who we (supposedly) pay to take care of this do such a horrible job?
We re-elect our politicians over and over whether they do their job or not--none of them do. They have agendas that run counter to ours--they'd rather we be shipped to and from approved places by cattle car. Private autos let us do what we want. The politicians, deep down, don't want that.
No help there.
Something different has to be done. I'm working on it. You should be, too.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Music for Dumb People
I heard a country song today. I don't recall the name of it or who's singing, but it has a telling phrase inside--one which illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding shared by many, maybe most working people. The phrase is "...my thankless job...."
"My thankless job." The singer goes on to mention, with rapt anticipation, the joy of driving his pickup truck after work. Other stuff too, but oh, that pickup!
Doesn't the ignorant bastard know that his pay from the "thankless job" bought him that delightful pickup? Isn't the pay a form of thanks (in a manner of speaking)?
The tone, of course, is that he doesn't like his job, knowing that many will identify with that 'cause most of us don't like our jobs. Well, don't include me in that. I like my job very much--not that I can't imagine a better one, but I do like it. I've never understood why so many people keep at jobs they don't like for the long term. One should take lousy jobs when one is young, not yet educated and not yet experienced. As one gains knowledge and experience, one markets one's new tools and abilities to personal advantage, moving ever closer to the place in the working world one sees as his ideal.
We in the higher intellectual circles call that "goal-seeking."
Years ago, during the fabled Cesar Chaves farm workers strike, in which we were all admonished not to buy California-grown table grapes, I allowed myself to chat with a picketer who was handing out leaflets in front of my neighborhood supermarket. We had a sort of a debate in which he asserted that grape picking is hard, back-breaking work and farm owners should pay more.
I complained that it would increase the price of grapes. He pointed to a 50ish member of the picketers indicating that this man has a large family to feed. I returned that grape picking might best be performed by the young, as a temporary, entry level job. Older people should have progressed to better, higher-paying, less physically demanding work. The young man (who had never picked a grape in his life (softer hands than mine) told me that the older man liked picking grapes and aspired to nothing else.
Well at that, I went in and bought some grapes. I don't suffer liars well.
A productive individual is a business. He has to define what he has to sell, he has to ever work toward improving his product, he has to advertise himself and make the best deal he can. When hired, he has to do his best to fulfill the terms of the contract he's made, while making sure the buyer of his services (the boss) is aware of his abilities and that, if his renumeration doesn't progress along with the quality of his skills, he's liable to go shopping for another buyer.
I'm not going to say much about unions here, because I regard a union member to be a worker who's afraid to stand up on his hind legs and make his own deals.
One can take a job that one doesn't like, but he should know that he'll be moving on as soon as possible. He should arrange his life toward that goal.
Back to the "thankless job." The guy with the problem is the worker (as portrayed by the singer). He doesn't like his job. Boo hoo. I hate to see a grown man whine. The idea of getting a better job never occurs to these guys.
Why do you think I call Country music, "music for dumb people?"
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I heard a country song today. I don't recall the name of it or who's singing, but it has a telling phrase inside--one which illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding shared by many, maybe most working people. The phrase is "...my thankless job...."
"My thankless job." The singer goes on to mention, with rapt anticipation, the joy of driving his pickup truck after work. Other stuff too, but oh, that pickup!
Doesn't the ignorant bastard know that his pay from the "thankless job" bought him that delightful pickup? Isn't the pay a form of thanks (in a manner of speaking)?
The tone, of course, is that he doesn't like his job, knowing that many will identify with that 'cause most of us don't like our jobs. Well, don't include me in that. I like my job very much--not that I can't imagine a better one, but I do like it. I've never understood why so many people keep at jobs they don't like for the long term. One should take lousy jobs when one is young, not yet educated and not yet experienced. As one gains knowledge and experience, one markets one's new tools and abilities to personal advantage, moving ever closer to the place in the working world one sees as his ideal.
We in the higher intellectual circles call that "goal-seeking."
Years ago, during the fabled Cesar Chaves farm workers strike, in which we were all admonished not to buy California-grown table grapes, I allowed myself to chat with a picketer who was handing out leaflets in front of my neighborhood supermarket. We had a sort of a debate in which he asserted that grape picking is hard, back-breaking work and farm owners should pay more.
I complained that it would increase the price of grapes. He pointed to a 50ish member of the picketers indicating that this man has a large family to feed. I returned that grape picking might best be performed by the young, as a temporary, entry level job. Older people should have progressed to better, higher-paying, less physically demanding work. The young man (who had never picked a grape in his life (softer hands than mine) told me that the older man liked picking grapes and aspired to nothing else.
Well at that, I went in and bought some grapes. I don't suffer liars well.
A productive individual is a business. He has to define what he has to sell, he has to ever work toward improving his product, he has to advertise himself and make the best deal he can. When hired, he has to do his best to fulfill the terms of the contract he's made, while making sure the buyer of his services (the boss) is aware of his abilities and that, if his renumeration doesn't progress along with the quality of his skills, he's liable to go shopping for another buyer.
I'm not going to say much about unions here, because I regard a union member to be a worker who's afraid to stand up on his hind legs and make his own deals.
One can take a job that one doesn't like, but he should know that he'll be moving on as soon as possible. He should arrange his life toward that goal.
Back to the "thankless job." The guy with the problem is the worker (as portrayed by the singer). He doesn't like his job. Boo hoo. I hate to see a grown man whine. The idea of getting a better job never occurs to these guys.
Why do you think I call Country music, "music for dumb people?"
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Weapons of Self-Destruction
This just in:
The U.S. feral government has just announced the sale of F-16 fighter-bombers to Pakistan. Cited was the wish to enhance the alliance between the two countries.
I'm thinking about starting a pool to guess the day these F-16's will be used against the United States.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
This just in:
The U.S. feral government has just announced the sale of F-16 fighter-bombers to Pakistan. Cited was the wish to enhance the alliance between the two countries.
I'm thinking about starting a pool to guess the day these F-16's will be used against the United States.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, March 25, 2005
The **ahem, harumph** Media
Ladies and gentlemen, Terri Schiavo is still dead! May she soon get a chance to rest in peace.
Meanwhile, for the second sequential week, we can hardly get a bit of real news for poor Terri's friends, supporters and relatives crying into one news camera after another. Talk shows, both TV and radio, are all Terri, all the time. A crazed, Prozac-addled youngster kills nine, then himself. The day after the initial news story, there's barely a mention anymore. Terri's still hangin' in there. Her parents are still whining into every camera they can find.
Maybe I ought not be so nasty. How'd I feel if she were my daughter?
I guess a lot of my ire needs to be focused upon the hypocritical, cowardly politicians who rush resolutions of support for Terri--resolutions that are mostly symbolic but really do nothing to help. Mostly they're trying, along with pundits and the "evil" talk show guys, to make the judges the bad guys.
Judges do seriously deserve some scrutiny; they do take some incredible liberties with what little bit of freedom we have left.
In this case, though, the politicians make sympathetic, but ineffectual noises while artfully avoiding anything that might help--except holler about Bill Kkklinton's horrible choices in judicial appointments.
Meanwhile, Robert Blake has completely faded from memory, the Weise kid won't cause new gun control laws this time (yay!), and Michael Jackson is thinking about suing the TV networks for lack of coverage.They've cut coverage of the 600-team NCAA baxabaw tournament. Baseball has slipped far behind the Schiavo Watch as America's Pasttime. Weather? Look out the window. Traffic reports? You're on your own. We're talkin' about Terri this week.
Meanwhile, Terri Schiavo is still dead.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Ladies and gentlemen, Terri Schiavo is still dead! May she soon get a chance to rest in peace.
Meanwhile, for the second sequential week, we can hardly get a bit of real news for poor Terri's friends, supporters and relatives crying into one news camera after another. Talk shows, both TV and radio, are all Terri, all the time. A crazed, Prozac-addled youngster kills nine, then himself. The day after the initial news story, there's barely a mention anymore. Terri's still hangin' in there. Her parents are still whining into every camera they can find.
Maybe I ought not be so nasty. How'd I feel if she were my daughter?
I guess a lot of my ire needs to be focused upon the hypocritical, cowardly politicians who rush resolutions of support for Terri--resolutions that are mostly symbolic but really do nothing to help. Mostly they're trying, along with pundits and the "evil" talk show guys, to make the judges the bad guys.
Judges do seriously deserve some scrutiny; they do take some incredible liberties with what little bit of freedom we have left.
In this case, though, the politicians make sympathetic, but ineffectual noises while artfully avoiding anything that might help--except holler about Bill Kkklinton's horrible choices in judicial appointments.
Meanwhile, Robert Blake has completely faded from memory, the Weise kid won't cause new gun control laws this time (yay!), and Michael Jackson is thinking about suing the TV networks for lack of coverage.They've cut coverage of the 600-team NCAA baxabaw tournament. Baseball has slipped far behind the Schiavo Watch as America's Pasttime. Weather? Look out the window. Traffic reports? You're on your own. We're talkin' about Terri this week.
Meanwhile, Terri Schiavo is still dead.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Terri Schiavo
She's gazing down at all the commotion, asking her friend, "Why are they making such a fuss about my old body? It's pretty obvious that I've left it long ago."
If you believe in that sort of thing. Actually, she's just gone. It's sad, really. Her dead body, heart still beating and lungs still breathing because a quirk left a small part of her brain still functioning because she's still receiving nourishment--or was, until a couple of days ago.
I don't know why her husband is so adamant about putting an end to her bodily functions. Money? Maybe. A sincere desire to fulfill her verbally stated wishes? Maybe. Every excuse that's been given has an answer. He's been offered a ton of money just to go away and leave Terri in the care of her parents.
But, she's dead. She's been dead for most of the past fifteen years.
Obviously, Terri's case is a tragedy, and it's upsetting to hear about things like this...difficult to imagine how I'd handle it.
The think that hits me most is the way the conservative politicians and media people are going crazy over this situation. I wouldn't have thought anything would get 'em away from the "War on Terror,"(aka building the perfect police state) and the Michael Jackson trial.
Florida law give Terri's guardianship to her husband. Her husband says she told him that should anything like this happen, she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way. He wants the medics to work her will--all gone over by numerous doctors, lawyers and judges and found to be in accordance with Florida law, and consistent with Terri's body's condition.
Talk show guys rail over the suffering caused by Terri's body's being starved and denied water! Federal Congressfools obsess over the fact that they have no control over the situation, yet try to take control anyway.
I'm reminding myself of a series of scenes in the movie, "Rollerball." The first one, with James Caan playing the lead role. His teammate, "Moonpie," I guess some kind of defenseman, gets clobbered by an overly aggressive member of the other team. He takes Moonpie's helmet off and deals him a skullcrushing blow. Moonpie is left in a vegetative state on life support.
Jonathon, Caan's character, somehow, becomes the go to guy for permission to pull the plug on Moonpie. Jonathon says no, and had Moonpie moved to a special, atrium-like room, where he can rest under the blue sky forever. But Moonpie was dead! Heart kept beating and lungs kept breathing by marvalous technology, but no brainwaves and no action/reaction. Just like Terri.
Can't Congress quit this futile waste of time and get down to their real job: the serious business of saving major-league baseball fron Demon Drugs??
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
She's gazing down at all the commotion, asking her friend, "Why are they making such a fuss about my old body? It's pretty obvious that I've left it long ago."
If you believe in that sort of thing. Actually, she's just gone. It's sad, really. Her dead body, heart still beating and lungs still breathing because a quirk left a small part of her brain still functioning because she's still receiving nourishment--or was, until a couple of days ago.
I don't know why her husband is so adamant about putting an end to her bodily functions. Money? Maybe. A sincere desire to fulfill her verbally stated wishes? Maybe. Every excuse that's been given has an answer. He's been offered a ton of money just to go away and leave Terri in the care of her parents.
But, she's dead. She's been dead for most of the past fifteen years.
Obviously, Terri's case is a tragedy, and it's upsetting to hear about things like this...difficult to imagine how I'd handle it.
The think that hits me most is the way the conservative politicians and media people are going crazy over this situation. I wouldn't have thought anything would get 'em away from the "War on Terror,"(aka building the perfect police state) and the Michael Jackson trial.
Florida law give Terri's guardianship to her husband. Her husband says she told him that should anything like this happen, she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way. He wants the medics to work her will--all gone over by numerous doctors, lawyers and judges and found to be in accordance with Florida law, and consistent with Terri's body's condition.
Talk show guys rail over the suffering caused by Terri's body's being starved and denied water! Federal Congressfools obsess over the fact that they have no control over the situation, yet try to take control anyway.
I'm reminding myself of a series of scenes in the movie, "Rollerball." The first one, with James Caan playing the lead role. His teammate, "Moonpie," I guess some kind of defenseman, gets clobbered by an overly aggressive member of the other team. He takes Moonpie's helmet off and deals him a skullcrushing blow. Moonpie is left in a vegetative state on life support.
Jonathon, Caan's character, somehow, becomes the go to guy for permission to pull the plug on Moonpie. Jonathon says no, and had Moonpie moved to a special, atrium-like room, where he can rest under the blue sky forever. But Moonpie was dead! Heart kept beating and lungs kept breathing by marvalous technology, but no brainwaves and no action/reaction. Just like Terri.
Can't Congress quit this futile waste of time and get down to their real job: the serious business of saving major-league baseball fron Demon Drugs??
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Trip to the Range
This Sunday past I took Jim to the range to refresh his memory regarding handgun safety. As an added bonus, we decided to take Sherry's son Casey, who is 14. He's played with soft-air and BB guns, but never a firearm.
Since it's been a long time for Jim, and teenagers can be a mite flakey at times, we had a nice lecture on "The Rules" before we left. You know, check the weapon thoroughly to make sure it's not loaded, keep the weapons pointed downrange at all times, keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you're ready to fire, etc.
I knew Jim would be ok, I showed him this stuff years ago. I wasn't sure about Casey. But, as Sherry said--he actually listened to my blathering.
I brought my two Para-Ordnance .45's, a Taurus 9mm and a Ruger Standard .22. I showed them both the operations of the pistols: how to load them, where the safeties are and what a sight picture looks like. I showed them how to unload them, clear the actions and told them what to do in case of a jam.
I first let Casey load and fire the Ruger. He hit nothing--the paper target was the safest place downrange right then, so I talked further about the sight picture and critiqued his stance and grip. He fired a couple of magazines and began to improve. Jim tried the Taurus, then one of the .45's.
In the end, Jim preferred the Ruger (he'd actually fired the gun before, when he was a kid) and didn't care for the punisment of the .45 on his hand. The Para Carry is kind of a kicker, as small as it is. Casey ended up liking the Taurus best. He actually asked for another box of cartridges after going through two boxes (less the 20 rounds I fired and the ten Jim fired). Jim popped off more than three boxes of .22's. I fired mostly .45's (my favorite) dividing my time between the Carry and the P13.
It was a good time and I was pleased that Jim recalled the lessons of his childhood and that Casey paid attention and took the guns seriously.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
This Sunday past I took Jim to the range to refresh his memory regarding handgun safety. As an added bonus, we decided to take Sherry's son Casey, who is 14. He's played with soft-air and BB guns, but never a firearm.
Since it's been a long time for Jim, and teenagers can be a mite flakey at times, we had a nice lecture on "The Rules" before we left. You know, check the weapon thoroughly to make sure it's not loaded, keep the weapons pointed downrange at all times, keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you're ready to fire, etc.
I knew Jim would be ok, I showed him this stuff years ago. I wasn't sure about Casey. But, as Sherry said--he actually listened to my blathering.
I brought my two Para-Ordnance .45's, a Taurus 9mm and a Ruger Standard .22. I showed them both the operations of the pistols: how to load them, where the safeties are and what a sight picture looks like. I showed them how to unload them, clear the actions and told them what to do in case of a jam.
I first let Casey load and fire the Ruger. He hit nothing--the paper target was the safest place downrange right then, so I talked further about the sight picture and critiqued his stance and grip. He fired a couple of magazines and began to improve. Jim tried the Taurus, then one of the .45's.
In the end, Jim preferred the Ruger (he'd actually fired the gun before, when he was a kid) and didn't care for the punisment of the .45 on his hand. The Para Carry is kind of a kicker, as small as it is. Casey ended up liking the Taurus best. He actually asked for another box of cartridges after going through two boxes (less the 20 rounds I fired and the ten Jim fired). Jim popped off more than three boxes of .22's. I fired mostly .45's (my favorite) dividing my time between the Carry and the P13.
It was a good time and I was pleased that Jim recalled the lessons of his childhood and that Casey paid attention and took the guns seriously.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Libertarianism
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
--As penned by Libertarianism's scribe laureate, L Neil Smith.
While various individuals from the center to the fringes of libertarianism attempt various strategies in the search for a free society, the above quote is what defines us.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag Califirnia
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
--As penned by Libertarianism's scribe laureate, L Neil Smith.
While various individuals from the center to the fringes of libertarianism attempt various strategies in the search for a free society, the above quote is what defines us.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag Califirnia
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
A Little of the Sports What's Fit to Report
I guess it must be true that most sports reporters are ex-jocks who got clocked a few too many times. Things are looking....well, I guess boringly predictable in the wide world of sports this year.
The NHL has taken a season off to further marginalize itself with those (unlike myself) who don't regard hockey as the only sport worth watching. There are many sports that are fun to play, but only one that's fun to watch. So, in those rare moments in the late night and early morning hours when there isn't a baxabaw game to put on the screen, we're treated to .... poker .... and .... billiards .... and the ever tedious dog shows.
Nobody seems to know that, between the US and Canada, there are several minor hockey leagues, any of which would be fun to watch and who would undoubtedly allow ESPN's cameras in the house for a lot less than does the NHL. Ditto the European leagues, which compete on a level very near that of the NHL. There are college teams all over the northern US and Canada which are televised locally. While the skill level is somewhat below professional levels, fan loyalty is very high and the youngsters (both men and women) play with reckless enthusiasm.
Why can't Fox Sports and ESPN put some of them on the tube nationally? Because of the hordes of billiards fans? Sure.
I've pretty much stayed away from sports this year, with the exception of the Long Beach Ice Dogs. I detest baxabaw. Foopbaw has too many rules, and the players stand around most of the time. Beisbol hasn't been very, very good to me. I may start watching it again after they get their drug rules sorted out, one way or the other.
Many of these sports'd be fun to play, but to watch 'em? C'mon.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I guess it must be true that most sports reporters are ex-jocks who got clocked a few too many times. Things are looking....well, I guess boringly predictable in the wide world of sports this year.
The NHL has taken a season off to further marginalize itself with those (unlike myself) who don't regard hockey as the only sport worth watching. There are many sports that are fun to play, but only one that's fun to watch. So, in those rare moments in the late night and early morning hours when there isn't a baxabaw game to put on the screen, we're treated to .... poker .... and .... billiards .... and the ever tedious dog shows.
Nobody seems to know that, between the US and Canada, there are several minor hockey leagues, any of which would be fun to watch and who would undoubtedly allow ESPN's cameras in the house for a lot less than does the NHL. Ditto the European leagues, which compete on a level very near that of the NHL. There are college teams all over the northern US and Canada which are televised locally. While the skill level is somewhat below professional levels, fan loyalty is very high and the youngsters (both men and women) play with reckless enthusiasm.
Why can't Fox Sports and ESPN put some of them on the tube nationally? Because of the hordes of billiards fans? Sure.
I've pretty much stayed away from sports this year, with the exception of the Long Beach Ice Dogs. I detest baxabaw. Foopbaw has too many rules, and the players stand around most of the time. Beisbol hasn't been very, very good to me. I may start watching it again after they get their drug rules sorted out, one way or the other.
Many of these sports'd be fun to play, but to watch 'em? C'mon.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Homeland Insecurity
After the murders of Sept. 11, 2001 ( a day that will, too, live in infamy.), and after what seemed to be very sincere pronouncements, by the President, of outrage and promises that he'll use all the power of his office to capture or kill those responsible, the federal government slouched down to its normal business-as-usual, don't rock the boat mentality.
Certainly, attempts were made to bring allies to our side (with more success than the ever-hypercritical Democrats will ever admit), the military was deployed to Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden was thought to be headquartered. Bin Laden wasn't found, but as usual, we'll leave Afghanistan better off than we found it (less a few thousand lives). For reasons yet (in my opinion) to be revealed, we next attacked Iraq.
There are plusses and minuses to the military attacks upon the Middle East. Certainly, we had to go after the evil bastards that did this thing. Equally certainly, we pulled our punches and attempted to wage a "politically correct" war, feeding those we're fighting and going out of our way to avoid inflicting and more collateral damage than "necessary." Had we gone in with the full resolve we'd used in WWII, we might be done by now.
But what this message is about isn't our war in the Middle East. It's about the federal government's war on Americans. Immediately upon the settlement of some of the dust from the collapse of the towers, calls went out to "Tighten Security!" And what did that come to mean? Taking the tools illegally brought to bear against Americans accused of using drugs, and applying them to all Americans(!!). It gets worse: in the interest of political correctness, they applied these unConstitutional tools and techniques mainly on Americans who are not of the muslim persuasion(!?). Li'l o'ladies are groped and strip searched, their knitting needles confiscated, while young, middle-eastern men with baggy coats are let through with a nod.
Airline security is the responsibility of the airlines, not the federal government. Local police have a role in it, but not the federal government. Read the Constitution. Tell me where it says that the federal government is authorized (by We the People) to police, patrol and guard private institutions within the country's borders. While you're at it, read the First, Second....hell, read all the Amendments. If you don't see the outrage being perpetrated upon We the People by the federal government, then government schools have indeed done their job well.
What's the first thing government does when faced with a crisis? Create a new department. Homeland Security. Sounds ever so nice. Security in the homeland. The Constitution suggests--no, mandates--that it's the job of the military to protect the country from foreign invaders. It's because of these new programs with new names that distract the military from its job that they're ineffective when a threat does appear. Many departments in many agencies--the easier to have someone to blame when the job doesn't get done.
We have colored flags to tell us how severe is the current danger. That's stylish. Then, they tell us not to be alarmed. Go about your business as if all is well.
The first thing the President should have done is written an executive order legalizing the carry and use of firearms and other weapons by those capable of handling them. The feds could pave the way legally for classes in citizen's arrests to be set up for those wishing to become involved. Individuals could thus be expected to take control of their property and their businesses and see to it that nothing untoward happens thereon. Privatizing more of America's land would be a good idea, too. Individuals take better care of their property than do government employees.
He should remove sactions against oil drilling and, as our domestic supplies improve, we should taper off our purchases of oil from middle-eastern dictatorships. We should begin dealing with foreign sellers of goods and services on a value-for-value basis, with no government involvement.
In their rush to complete the erection of the perfect police state, the Administration has pushed us in the opposite direction, taking more freedom from the individual and gathering more power into the hands of the state. What the President does not know, or chooses to ignore, is that by concentrating power in the hands of few, he places the country in greater danger. He takes millions of perfectly good "soldiers" out of the battle by disarming them and dumbing them down.
So much for the President's interest in the welfare of the country. By concentrating power around himself, he weakens it.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
After the murders of Sept. 11, 2001 ( a day that will, too, live in infamy.), and after what seemed to be very sincere pronouncements, by the President, of outrage and promises that he'll use all the power of his office to capture or kill those responsible, the federal government slouched down to its normal business-as-usual, don't rock the boat mentality.
Certainly, attempts were made to bring allies to our side (with more success than the ever-hypercritical Democrats will ever admit), the military was deployed to Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden was thought to be headquartered. Bin Laden wasn't found, but as usual, we'll leave Afghanistan better off than we found it (less a few thousand lives). For reasons yet (in my opinion) to be revealed, we next attacked Iraq.
There are plusses and minuses to the military attacks upon the Middle East. Certainly, we had to go after the evil bastards that did this thing. Equally certainly, we pulled our punches and attempted to wage a "politically correct" war, feeding those we're fighting and going out of our way to avoid inflicting and more collateral damage than "necessary." Had we gone in with the full resolve we'd used in WWII, we might be done by now.
But what this message is about isn't our war in the Middle East. It's about the federal government's war on Americans. Immediately upon the settlement of some of the dust from the collapse of the towers, calls went out to "Tighten Security!" And what did that come to mean? Taking the tools illegally brought to bear against Americans accused of using drugs, and applying them to all Americans(!!). It gets worse: in the interest of political correctness, they applied these unConstitutional tools and techniques mainly on Americans who are not of the muslim persuasion(!?). Li'l o'ladies are groped and strip searched, their knitting needles confiscated, while young, middle-eastern men with baggy coats are let through with a nod.
Airline security is the responsibility of the airlines, not the federal government. Local police have a role in it, but not the federal government. Read the Constitution. Tell me where it says that the federal government is authorized (by We the People) to police, patrol and guard private institutions within the country's borders. While you're at it, read the First, Second....hell, read all the Amendments. If you don't see the outrage being perpetrated upon We the People by the federal government, then government schools have indeed done their job well.
What's the first thing government does when faced with a crisis? Create a new department. Homeland Security. Sounds ever so nice. Security in the homeland. The Constitution suggests--no, mandates--that it's the job of the military to protect the country from foreign invaders. It's because of these new programs with new names that distract the military from its job that they're ineffective when a threat does appear. Many departments in many agencies--the easier to have someone to blame when the job doesn't get done.
We have colored flags to tell us how severe is the current danger. That's stylish. Then, they tell us not to be alarmed. Go about your business as if all is well.
The first thing the President should have done is written an executive order legalizing the carry and use of firearms and other weapons by those capable of handling them. The feds could pave the way legally for classes in citizen's arrests to be set up for those wishing to become involved. Individuals could thus be expected to take control of their property and their businesses and see to it that nothing untoward happens thereon. Privatizing more of America's land would be a good idea, too. Individuals take better care of their property than do government employees.
He should remove sactions against oil drilling and, as our domestic supplies improve, we should taper off our purchases of oil from middle-eastern dictatorships. We should begin dealing with foreign sellers of goods and services on a value-for-value basis, with no government involvement.
In their rush to complete the erection of the perfect police state, the Administration has pushed us in the opposite direction, taking more freedom from the individual and gathering more power into the hands of the state. What the President does not know, or chooses to ignore, is that by concentrating power in the hands of few, he places the country in greater danger. He takes millions of perfectly good "soldiers" out of the battle by disarming them and dumbing them down.
So much for the President's interest in the welfare of the country. By concentrating power around himself, he weakens it.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
