THE GOLDWATER DOCTRINE
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
Barry Goldwater, "The Conscience of a Conservative"
Would that the current President entered his office with a similar attitude.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
So You Want to Adopt a Baby?
Well, he/she won't be black unless you are.
I live a mite south of Los Angeles, but close enough that I hear about all the nonsense that happens up there, and see that part of it that spills over to OC. This adoption business has been around for a while, but it just came back into focus after a report of CBS' 60 Minutes recently.
I didn't see the program in question; I never watch any newsy-type stuff on the major networks any more because of their biases--and the fact that they won't admit to having them. In this case, I'm going by what Elder, who spoke to the issue on his radio show the other day, said. I trust Elder. His biases are closer to my own, and he's fully open about them.
Elder quoted individuals connected with the Black Social Workers' Association. Before I go any farther with that--Black Social Workers' Association?!? What's that all about? Is there also a White Social Workers' Association? An Asian Social Workers' Association? I doubt it. Yet more evidence that Bigotry has moved over to Black Street.
Seems the BSWA has declares that black children cannot be adopted by non-black families. Something they call "Cultural Genocide." Can we attempt to define "Cultural Genocide?" Is it that a black child who grows up in a white household won't be a good baxabaw player? Won't have rhythm? Will have a better chance to finish college with honors? What is it that the BSWA is trying to preserve by requiring that black children be adopted only by black families?
If there were thousands of black couples waiting patiently to adopt these black children, it wouldn't be so bad (although it'd still be racist). There aren't. There are thousands of orphaned black kids languishing in foster homes and other sorts of childrens' prisons all over Los Angeles (not to mention the rest of the country). There are thousands of non-black couples and families who wish to adopt a youngster and add him to their family. Many aren't particular about the youngster's race. Many are adopting foreign-born Asian kids because there aren't enough non-black American kids to fulfill the desires of the many couples wishing to adopt.
Because of the efforts of the racist BSWA, most orphaned black kids can't get adopted. There aren't enough black couples who want to/are qualified. BSWA seems to have taken the position that it's better that black children stay in state care and not be allowed to join caring families if both of the parents aren't black.
If anyone has any ideas why this is the case (other than black racism, which I've already mentioned) I stand prepared to be enlightened.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Well, he/she won't be black unless you are.
I live a mite south of Los Angeles, but close enough that I hear about all the nonsense that happens up there, and see that part of it that spills over to OC. This adoption business has been around for a while, but it just came back into focus after a report of CBS' 60 Minutes recently.
I didn't see the program in question; I never watch any newsy-type stuff on the major networks any more because of their biases--and the fact that they won't admit to having them. In this case, I'm going by what Elder, who spoke to the issue on his radio show the other day, said. I trust Elder. His biases are closer to my own, and he's fully open about them.
Elder quoted individuals connected with the Black Social Workers' Association. Before I go any farther with that--Black Social Workers' Association?!? What's that all about? Is there also a White Social Workers' Association? An Asian Social Workers' Association? I doubt it. Yet more evidence that Bigotry has moved over to Black Street.
Seems the BSWA has declares that black children cannot be adopted by non-black families. Something they call "Cultural Genocide." Can we attempt to define "Cultural Genocide?" Is it that a black child who grows up in a white household won't be a good baxabaw player? Won't have rhythm? Will have a better chance to finish college with honors? What is it that the BSWA is trying to preserve by requiring that black children be adopted only by black families?
If there were thousands of black couples waiting patiently to adopt these black children, it wouldn't be so bad (although it'd still be racist). There aren't. There are thousands of orphaned black kids languishing in foster homes and other sorts of childrens' prisons all over Los Angeles (not to mention the rest of the country). There are thousands of non-black couples and families who wish to adopt a youngster and add him to their family. Many aren't particular about the youngster's race. Many are adopting foreign-born Asian kids because there aren't enough non-black American kids to fulfill the desires of the many couples wishing to adopt.
Because of the efforts of the racist BSWA, most orphaned black kids can't get adopted. There aren't enough black couples who want to/are qualified. BSWA seems to have taken the position that it's better that black children stay in state care and not be allowed to join caring families if both of the parents aren't black.
If anyone has any ideas why this is the case (other than black racism, which I've already mentioned) I stand prepared to be enlightened.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Letter to ACLU
February 13, 2005
ACLU
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Attn: Ms. Nadine Strossen
Dear Ms. Strossen:
While I appreciate the ACLU and realize that such an organization--and perhaps several like organizations--are needed to stand up against the police state that's being constructed by the Federal government, I find that ACLU, as it is currently functioning, to be an utter failure. Rather than attack assaults on fundamental rights, such as one's right to use and dispose of one's life, money and property as one sees fit, privacy in one's business and other affairs and effects, and one's right to defend them, ACLU defends triviality.
ACLU has done a very good job defending the right to free speech and expression of various deviant groups--and I agree that the right to free speech is very important--but what ACLU misses is that there are TEN Amendments to the Constitution in the document we wistfully recall as the Bill of Rights.
When ACLU shows that they are aware of all ten Amendments, and begins to defend innocent individuals against the government in cases of victimless "crimes," property confiscations and invasions of privacy, not to mention right to bear arms cases, then I can't, in good conscience send a donation that'll only go to waste on relatively meaningless lawsuits.
Since I find organizations like ACLU and IJ theoretically valuable, I hope fervently that you'll pick your battles with a little more attention to rights that have more fundamental meaning to larger numbers of Americans.
Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
[Col. Hogan]
February 13, 2005
ACLU
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Attn: Ms. Nadine Strossen
Dear Ms. Strossen:
While I appreciate the ACLU and realize that such an organization--and perhaps several like organizations--are needed to stand up against the police state that's being constructed by the Federal government, I find that ACLU, as it is currently functioning, to be an utter failure. Rather than attack assaults on fundamental rights, such as one's right to use and dispose of one's life, money and property as one sees fit, privacy in one's business and other affairs and effects, and one's right to defend them, ACLU defends triviality.
ACLU has done a very good job defending the right to free speech and expression of various deviant groups--and I agree that the right to free speech is very important--but what ACLU misses is that there are TEN Amendments to the Constitution in the document we wistfully recall as the Bill of Rights.
When ACLU shows that they are aware of all ten Amendments, and begins to defend innocent individuals against the government in cases of victimless "crimes," property confiscations and invasions of privacy, not to mention right to bear arms cases, then I can't, in good conscience send a donation that'll only go to waste on relatively meaningless lawsuits.
Since I find organizations like ACLU and IJ theoretically valuable, I hope fervently that you'll pick your battles with a little more attention to rights that have more fundamental meaning to larger numbers of Americans.
Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
[Col. Hogan]
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Global Warming
There is no global warming.
If there is global warming, mankind didn't cause it.
If there is global warming, mankind can't do anything about it.
If there is global warming, it's part of a natural, probably cyclical phenomenon which takes place over millennia. We don't yet know, because we haven't had the technology capable of sufficiently accuracy for a long enough time to actually track these trends (if any). At some point in the future, perhaps we'll see the pendulum swing back to a cooler climate. Or not.
The handiest proof is easy enough to find. Crazed environmentalists would have us sift through volumes and volumes of data, alledgedly proving all manner of calamities just around the corner. Warmer weather. Melting polar icecaps raising the level of the oceans, causing widespread catastrophic flooding of coastal cities and surfing beaches. Extinction of species. Death and catastrophy to all.
Reams of other data can be found that show few or no such calamities in the offing. The data from many studies is inconclusive.
The proof is simply the following: The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, the .44 Magnum of volcanoes (it'll take your head clean off), shot more smoke and ash (read "greenhouse gases") into the air than all mankind has in the whole life of mankind. There were, of course, serious changes of many different kinds for many years after the eruption, but the fact is, the world survives. Evidence of this eruption can still be found, especially in the area, but the earth heals itself.
Volcanic eruptions happen every now and then. Krakatoa wasn't the only one, and there will be more. Many people living near these events will be killed, disruptions will happen. Afterwards, men will repair their stuff and nature will fall into a new (very temporary) stability.
A few years ago, the ever-vigilant news media was reporting that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. Global cooling, if you will. Well, it didn't happen. Global warming, in the sense meant by the crazed environmentalists, isn't either.
I don't know the actual text of the Kyoto Treaty, which we Americans are all doomed to hell for not having signed, but casual paying partial attention leads me to form the conclusion that the real reason for the treaty is to damage America (and, to a degree, other industrial nations) by causing us to have to severely alter our habits regarding the use of energy.
Well, they ask that, yet give a pass to many countries who, even though their hardscrabble populations use far less energy than we (per capita), their industrial habits are far dirtier than ours, and their countries are just....dirtier.
The reason for "Global Warming" is to drum up global support for the Kyoto Treaty. The reason for the Kyoto Treaty is to knock the United States and, to a lesser extent, other industrialized countries, down a peg or two. That and, more importantly, to hobble capitalism.
Well, capitalism has given me everything I own and am, so I'm for enhancing it.
Warmest (pun intended) regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
There is no global warming.
If there is global warming, mankind didn't cause it.
If there is global warming, mankind can't do anything about it.
If there is global warming, it's part of a natural, probably cyclical phenomenon which takes place over millennia. We don't yet know, because we haven't had the technology capable of sufficiently accuracy for a long enough time to actually track these trends (if any). At some point in the future, perhaps we'll see the pendulum swing back to a cooler climate. Or not.
The handiest proof is easy enough to find. Crazed environmentalists would have us sift through volumes and volumes of data, alledgedly proving all manner of calamities just around the corner. Warmer weather. Melting polar icecaps raising the level of the oceans, causing widespread catastrophic flooding of coastal cities and surfing beaches. Extinction of species. Death and catastrophy to all.
Reams of other data can be found that show few or no such calamities in the offing. The data from many studies is inconclusive.
The proof is simply the following: The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, the .44 Magnum of volcanoes (it'll take your head clean off), shot more smoke and ash (read "greenhouse gases") into the air than all mankind has in the whole life of mankind. There were, of course, serious changes of many different kinds for many years after the eruption, but the fact is, the world survives. Evidence of this eruption can still be found, especially in the area, but the earth heals itself.
Volcanic eruptions happen every now and then. Krakatoa wasn't the only one, and there will be more. Many people living near these events will be killed, disruptions will happen. Afterwards, men will repair their stuff and nature will fall into a new (very temporary) stability.
A few years ago, the ever-vigilant news media was reporting that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. Global cooling, if you will. Well, it didn't happen. Global warming, in the sense meant by the crazed environmentalists, isn't either.
I don't know the actual text of the Kyoto Treaty, which we Americans are all doomed to hell for not having signed, but casual paying partial attention leads me to form the conclusion that the real reason for the treaty is to damage America (and, to a degree, other industrial nations) by causing us to have to severely alter our habits regarding the use of energy.
Well, they ask that, yet give a pass to many countries who, even though their hardscrabble populations use far less energy than we (per capita), their industrial habits are far dirtier than ours, and their countries are just....dirtier.
The reason for "Global Warming" is to drum up global support for the Kyoto Treaty. The reason for the Kyoto Treaty is to knock the United States and, to a lesser extent, other industrialized countries, down a peg or two. That and, more importantly, to hobble capitalism.
Well, capitalism has given me everything I own and am, so I'm for enhancing it.
Warmest (pun intended) regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, February 11, 2005
.jpg)
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
My all-time favorite car. This is a Harley Earl concept, built in 1954. I guess they built a couple of them, and one of them made its way to the public sector when Mr Earl gave it to Mr E.L. Cord.
Somehow, it made its way to the Barrett-Jackson Auction in Scottsdale this past weekend. After a furious fifteen minutes of bidding, the car was sold to a representative of the Gateway Colorado Automobile Museum for $3 million. It was the highest-priced car of the weekend.
It was supposed to be Oldsmobile's answer to the Chevrolet Corvette, which had just been introduced the year before. Somehow, the project didn't make it to production. I wonder if Oldsmobile might still be in production, if it had.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Somehow, it made its way to the Barrett-Jackson Auction in Scottsdale this past weekend. After a furious fifteen minutes of bidding, the car was sold to a representative of the Gateway Colorado Automobile Museum for $3 million. It was the highest-priced car of the weekend.
It was supposed to be Oldsmobile's answer to the Chevrolet Corvette, which had just been introduced the year before. Somehow, the project didn't make it to production. I wonder if Oldsmobile might still be in production, if it had.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Freedom Summit, Sunday, 10 Oct.
I guess I'd better finish this tale before I grow old and forget my experiences of that day.
After breakfast I took a quick tour of the vendors' tables. I ended up at Claire Wolfe's table, at which I bought a few of her books, as I mentioned earlier. We had a conversation about her website and her blog. I got a quick look at L Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach," the new graphic version of Smith's 1980 novel, illustrated by Scott Beiser. Illustrated very well, I noticed--characters looking much as I imagined they might look. Ms Wolfe also informed me that Mr Smith was in the house--look for him this afternoon.
Barry Hess called the ball with a few announcements, then introduced the young lady whose name I can't recall (dammit), who spoke about the Free State Project. FSP has had a vote and decided that the Free State will be New Hampshire. "Twas not my choice, but I'm willing to listen. Ms FSP described the state, went over the relevent state laws re taxes, RKBA, work and business regs, etc. She actually did make the place sound pretty good, if you can deal with serious winter.
Next came Alan Bock. Mr Bock is a senior editorial writer for the Orange County (Calif) Register, and has a couple of books to his credit. I bought one of his books from him, "Showdown at Ruby Ridge," which he signed for me. We talked a bit abouyt the Register and his work there.
After lunch, as I headed back to the conference room, I spotted El Neil with a small group seated around the swimming pool wet bar. Of course, I went over there and introduced myself. He was with Scott Beiser and a few others. We talked about the new graphic novel, a copy of which he let me peruse further. We spoke about guns, his upcoming projects and a little about the screenplay I wrote for TPB. Others came and went, and before I knew it, I'd missed the rest of the speakers. There was a Women's Panel discussion and a humorist named Ken Schoolland. It's unfortunate that I missed this part of the Summit, but I've been hoping to meet El Neil for years, and regard it an equitable trade-off.
I spent the evening relaxing and reading, then hit the road in the morning for a pleasant, but uneventful drive home.
I'll recommend to anyone that the next Freedom Summit will be time and money well spent. Should Marc and Amy Victor, and Ernie and Donna Hancock, or any of the others involved in setting up the Freedom Summit read this, thanks a million!
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I guess I'd better finish this tale before I grow old and forget my experiences of that day.
After breakfast I took a quick tour of the vendors' tables. I ended up at Claire Wolfe's table, at which I bought a few of her books, as I mentioned earlier. We had a conversation about her website and her blog. I got a quick look at L Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach," the new graphic version of Smith's 1980 novel, illustrated by Scott Beiser. Illustrated very well, I noticed--characters looking much as I imagined they might look. Ms Wolfe also informed me that Mr Smith was in the house--look for him this afternoon.
Barry Hess called the ball with a few announcements, then introduced the young lady whose name I can't recall (dammit), who spoke about the Free State Project. FSP has had a vote and decided that the Free State will be New Hampshire. "Twas not my choice, but I'm willing to listen. Ms FSP described the state, went over the relevent state laws re taxes, RKBA, work and business regs, etc. She actually did make the place sound pretty good, if you can deal with serious winter.
Next came Alan Bock. Mr Bock is a senior editorial writer for the Orange County (Calif) Register, and has a couple of books to his credit. I bought one of his books from him, "Showdown at Ruby Ridge," which he signed for me. We talked a bit abouyt the Register and his work there.
After lunch, as I headed back to the conference room, I spotted El Neil with a small group seated around the swimming pool wet bar. Of course, I went over there and introduced myself. He was with Scott Beiser and a few others. We talked about the new graphic novel, a copy of which he let me peruse further. We spoke about guns, his upcoming projects and a little about the screenplay I wrote for TPB. Others came and went, and before I knew it, I'd missed the rest of the speakers. There was a Women's Panel discussion and a humorist named Ken Schoolland. It's unfortunate that I missed this part of the Summit, but I've been hoping to meet El Neil for years, and regard it an equitable trade-off.
I spent the evening relaxing and reading, then hit the road in the morning for a pleasant, but uneventful drive home.
I'll recommend to anyone that the next Freedom Summit will be time and money well spent. Should Marc and Amy Victor, and Ernie and Donna Hancock, or any of the others involved in setting up the Freedom Summit read this, thanks a million!
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, January 07, 2005
The Shopping Mall
I avoid the malls between Thanksgiving and about the fifth of January each year. Today, I went to Barnes and Noble to find a couple of calendars. You know, the ones I didn't get because I avoided the malls. Everything went well except that I didn't find a good classic car calendar. I did buy a couple of books to make up for it.
One thing that's always bugged me, and I noticed it once again today.
Why do people stand on escalators? You can observe in any mall (the other ten months of the year), people walking briskly this way and that, from store to store, buying their stuff, etc. Then they come to an escalator. They pause, look for just the right treadle, and step deliberately onto it, looking like they don't know quite what to expect.
They stand rigid as a store mannequin all the way down (or up), obviously planning their escape at the end of the ride. Tension rules. They haven't concentrated this intensely since finals in their senior year. They stand transfixed by the approaching bottom (or top). Get ready. Don't want to get sucked down under the floor. Even worse, they don't want to stumble or look awkward to nearby observers or (shudder) their friends!
Have you ever been in an airport that has a slidewalk? You can walk alongside of it at normal walking speed (and take all day to get to your gate) or you can step (ever so gingerly) onto the slidewalk and stand there and move along a little faster than walking speed, and get to the gate a bit faster. Or you can casually walk onto the slidewalk, keep on walking along on it (there are usually signs (stand on the right, walk on the left, or suchlike), smoothly, without breaking stride and get to the gate much faster. The fat schlubs and the first time fliers from the bacckwoods, who in other countries would have their chickens with them, stand to the right. Those of us who want to get somewhere fly by 'em like a Barchetta past a school bus.
Anyway, the same thing goes with escalators. Walk right down (or up) 'em as if they were stationary stairs. Breeze right past the paralyzed standees as if they're displays of umbrellas. Step off the bottom like Gene Kelly off the curb.
Or take the elevator.....
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
I avoid the malls between Thanksgiving and about the fifth of January each year. Today, I went to Barnes and Noble to find a couple of calendars. You know, the ones I didn't get because I avoided the malls. Everything went well except that I didn't find a good classic car calendar. I did buy a couple of books to make up for it.
One thing that's always bugged me, and I noticed it once again today.
Why do people stand on escalators? You can observe in any mall (the other ten months of the year), people walking briskly this way and that, from store to store, buying their stuff, etc. Then they come to an escalator. They pause, look for just the right treadle, and step deliberately onto it, looking like they don't know quite what to expect.
They stand rigid as a store mannequin all the way down (or up), obviously planning their escape at the end of the ride. Tension rules. They haven't concentrated this intensely since finals in their senior year. They stand transfixed by the approaching bottom (or top). Get ready. Don't want to get sucked down under the floor. Even worse, they don't want to stumble or look awkward to nearby observers or (shudder) their friends!
Have you ever been in an airport that has a slidewalk? You can walk alongside of it at normal walking speed (and take all day to get to your gate) or you can step (ever so gingerly) onto the slidewalk and stand there and move along a little faster than walking speed, and get to the gate a bit faster. Or you can casually walk onto the slidewalk, keep on walking along on it (there are usually signs (stand on the right, walk on the left, or suchlike), smoothly, without breaking stride and get to the gate much faster. The fat schlubs and the first time fliers from the bacckwoods, who in other countries would have their chickens with them, stand to the right. Those of us who want to get somewhere fly by 'em like a Barchetta past a school bus.
Anyway, the same thing goes with escalators. Walk right down (or up) 'em as if they were stationary stairs. Breeze right past the paralyzed standees as if they're displays of umbrellas. Step off the bottom like Gene Kelly off the curb.
Or take the elevator.....
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, December 31, 2004
Happy New Year!
Here's hoping 2005 will be a year in which a trend of arguably about 100 years will be reversed. Here's hoping 2005 will end leaving us in a freer society than did 2004. Ok, maybe I'm being rediculously optimistic, but I have this hope every year.
Maybe one year I'll be right.
May we all prosper in the coming year.
Col. Hogan
Here's hoping 2005 will be a year in which a trend of arguably about 100 years will be reversed. Here's hoping 2005 will end leaving us in a freer society than did 2004. Ok, maybe I'm being rediculously optimistic, but I have this hope every year.
Maybe one year I'll be right.
May we all prosper in the coming year.
Col. Hogan
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Open Letter to Undersecretary Jan Egeland
On behalf of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the people of the State of California, I hereby request disaster aid from the United Nations for Califonia flood relief. As you know, California has been inundated by well over six inches (15 cm) of rain these past days, and expects more in the near future.
Because of the holiday surfing and skiing trips of many Californians, they weren't in their home neighborhoods to work to mitigate the damage caused by billions of drops of falling water and the resultant flooding, wind damage and the need to rewash our millions of automobiles and trucks.
If you could forward a plea to Norway, Sweden, Germany, France and the OPEC nations that they should each send us all the assistance they can possibly afford, it will help to repair the damage, both to our stuff and to our psyches.
As a matter of convenience to the relief agancies and their staffs, we'd request that you not send clothing (painfully unstylish), food (horribly cooked and woefully underseasoned), or medical supplies (though hashish and marijuana will be gratefully accepted). Please send money--preferably in gold and silver (less perishable in wet conditions).
And pleas, oh please do not come yourselves. Many of you aren't up to the sandards of hygiene that Californians have come to expect--especially the French. We must, at all costs, avoid further contamination!
Thank you very much, Mr. Egeland, for all the generosity Europeans are known for.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
On behalf of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the people of the State of California, I hereby request disaster aid from the United Nations for Califonia flood relief. As you know, California has been inundated by well over six inches (15 cm) of rain these past days, and expects more in the near future.
Because of the holiday surfing and skiing trips of many Californians, they weren't in their home neighborhoods to work to mitigate the damage caused by billions of drops of falling water and the resultant flooding, wind damage and the need to rewash our millions of automobiles and trucks.
If you could forward a plea to Norway, Sweden, Germany, France and the OPEC nations that they should each send us all the assistance they can possibly afford, it will help to repair the damage, both to our stuff and to our psyches.
As a matter of convenience to the relief agancies and their staffs, we'd request that you not send clothing (painfully unstylish), food (horribly cooked and woefully underseasoned), or medical supplies (though hashish and marijuana will be gratefully accepted). Please send money--preferably in gold and silver (less perishable in wet conditions).
And pleas, oh please do not come yourselves. Many of you aren't up to the sandards of hygiene that Californians have come to expect--especially the French. We must, at all costs, avoid further contamination!
Thank you very much, Mr. Egeland, for all the generosity Europeans are known for.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Monday, December 27, 2004
THE BOMBER
Several months ago I bought a very nice looking 1956 Buick Roadmaster coupe. I've wanted a classic car for some time (since I sold the '57 Cadillac I had in the mid-90's), and I finally saw an opportunity to get one. I call it The Bomber because 1) it's a big, imposing, yet beautiful car that makes the little genericars shrink in fear and 2) during WWII, when the feral government forced US automakers to stop producing cars and turn to military equipment production, the Buick factory built bombers. My Roadmaster has a chrome gadget on top of each fender that is called, by Buick afficianadoes, bombsights.
I got the car for a relatively low price, knowing that it needs a bit of fixin here and there. It runs and drives pretty well, and it looks very nice, but you can tell a lot of the work that was done to restore it to its current state was done kind of cheaply and not correctly.
No matter. I intended to do a number of modifications anyway, to make the car driveable in today's modern world. I'm in the midst of those now.
I just got it back from a shop that rebuilt the suspension and replaced the old drum brakes with modern disc brakes. Now, it can stop. Next, I look for some snazzy wheels.
One of these days, I'll take the time to figure out how to post photos to this blog, then I'll show the thing off a mite.
More as the project progresses.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Several months ago I bought a very nice looking 1956 Buick Roadmaster coupe. I've wanted a classic car for some time (since I sold the '57 Cadillac I had in the mid-90's), and I finally saw an opportunity to get one. I call it The Bomber because 1) it's a big, imposing, yet beautiful car that makes the little genericars shrink in fear and 2) during WWII, when the feral government forced US automakers to stop producing cars and turn to military equipment production, the Buick factory built bombers. My Roadmaster has a chrome gadget on top of each fender that is called, by Buick afficianadoes, bombsights.
I got the car for a relatively low price, knowing that it needs a bit of fixin here and there. It runs and drives pretty well, and it looks very nice, but you can tell a lot of the work that was done to restore it to its current state was done kind of cheaply and not correctly.
No matter. I intended to do a number of modifications anyway, to make the car driveable in today's modern world. I'm in the midst of those now.
I just got it back from a shop that rebuilt the suspension and replaced the old drum brakes with modern disc brakes. Now, it can stop. Next, I look for some snazzy wheels.
One of these days, I'll take the time to figure out how to post photos to this blog, then I'll show the thing off a mite.
More as the project progresses.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Airport Security
Because of thousands of complaints by women with bruises and hickeys on and between their breasts, abdomens and rib areas, and the looming threat of a lawsuit by ACLU attorneys, Airport Security Nazis have been ordered to stop playing with women's breasts at airline security checkpoints. Freelance skinmag photographers have also been ordered out of the area.
Resignations by disgruntled security screeners are up sharply amid complaints that the job "just ain't no fun anymore." International Sisterhood of Gropers union officials are threatening a walkout if the order isn't rescinded immediately.
Meanwhile, crotch groping continues as usual, although a vocal minority continue requesting handwashing facilities be installed at convenient locations.
I'll give you follow-up stories as they become available......
Col. Hogan
Because of thousands of complaints by women with bruises and hickeys on and between their breasts, abdomens and rib areas, and the looming threat of a lawsuit by ACLU attorneys, Airport Security Nazis have been ordered to stop playing with women's breasts at airline security checkpoints. Freelance skinmag photographers have also been ordered out of the area.
Resignations by disgruntled security screeners are up sharply amid complaints that the job "just ain't no fun anymore." International Sisterhood of Gropers union officials are threatening a walkout if the order isn't rescinded immediately.
Meanwhile, crotch groping continues as usual, although a vocal minority continue requesting handwashing facilities be installed at convenient locations.
I'll give you follow-up stories as they become available......
Col. Hogan
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
"Giving Something Back"
How many times have you heard a top-tier actor, sports figure or other celebrity refer to a charitable act as "giving something back" to the community? Of course, if the celebrity happens to be a leftist, it's usually referring to something they did to coax others to ante up. But that's not my point.
I want to analyze (briefly) the meaning of the act of "giving something back."
I first heard the term from a baxabaw player. It may have been Magic Johnson (of magic johnson fame), but I can't recall. Whoever it was, he made a point to mention that he grew up in a poor neighborhood (hood, in the jargon), and now that he's successful, he wanted to "give something back."
"Giving something back" sort of implies that you've taken something away. I can't in my wildest imagination come up with what Magic Johnson might have taken from his educationally, financially and philosophically deprived hood that brought him to his current degree of success, but I'm sure it didn't involve anything that pouring a few tens of thousands of dollars into the hood can repay. Of course, it's a fact that the gift is obviously helpful and welcome in the community, but it's hardly any kind of payback. The fallacy is further amplified by the fact that celebrities "give something back" to people and places of whom-which they know nothing. I don't think this is the trail to enlightenment........
The "real deal" is this. None--not one--nary a singularity of these celebrities really really believes he/she is worth anywhere near the amount he earns. Well, I think there might be one somewhere, but I haven't found him. Or her. He'll see one of his old pals in the hood, sitting on the stoop sipping on a brown paper bag, and think "there, but for the grace of (fill in the name of your favorite invisible friend) go I." He completely (this is where I run to the end of my meager amount of psychological expertise) blanks out the years of hard work, practice, study, drilling, trials, lessons and the astounding degree of sustained discipline that got him to his lofty level, and assumes that what he did could've happened to anybody.
Through decades of hard work and perserverence, I've managed to lift myself out of the gutter and elevated myself to almost halfway up the face of the curb. I know that it's I who have done it and that I deserve every quarter they toss me.
If I find a deserving cause to which to donate, I will. It won't be "giving something back," it'll be good ol' fashioned Good Will.
Col. Hogan
How many times have you heard a top-tier actor, sports figure or other celebrity refer to a charitable act as "giving something back" to the community? Of course, if the celebrity happens to be a leftist, it's usually referring to something they did to coax others to ante up. But that's not my point.
I want to analyze (briefly) the meaning of the act of "giving something back."
I first heard the term from a baxabaw player. It may have been Magic Johnson (of magic johnson fame), but I can't recall. Whoever it was, he made a point to mention that he grew up in a poor neighborhood (hood, in the jargon), and now that he's successful, he wanted to "give something back."
"Giving something back" sort of implies that you've taken something away. I can't in my wildest imagination come up with what Magic Johnson might have taken from his educationally, financially and philosophically deprived hood that brought him to his current degree of success, but I'm sure it didn't involve anything that pouring a few tens of thousands of dollars into the hood can repay. Of course, it's a fact that the gift is obviously helpful and welcome in the community, but it's hardly any kind of payback. The fallacy is further amplified by the fact that celebrities "give something back" to people and places of whom-which they know nothing. I don't think this is the trail to enlightenment........
The "real deal" is this. None--not one--nary a singularity of these celebrities really really believes he/she is worth anywhere near the amount he earns. Well, I think there might be one somewhere, but I haven't found him. Or her. He'll see one of his old pals in the hood, sitting on the stoop sipping on a brown paper bag, and think "there, but for the grace of (fill in the name of your favorite invisible friend) go I." He completely (this is where I run to the end of my meager amount of psychological expertise) blanks out the years of hard work, practice, study, drilling, trials, lessons and the astounding degree of sustained discipline that got him to his lofty level, and assumes that what he did could've happened to anybody.
Through decades of hard work and perserverence, I've managed to lift myself out of the gutter and elevated myself to almost halfway up the face of the curb. I know that it's I who have done it and that I deserve every quarter they toss me.
If I find a deserving cause to which to donate, I will. It won't be "giving something back," it'll be good ol' fashioned Good Will.
Col. Hogan
Thursday, December 02, 2004
O'Reilly on Drugs
I was listening to Bill O'Reilly on the radio this morning. While talking about a particular drug dealer who got a very long (mandated) prison sentence, he was going off on callers who disagree with the "War on Drugs," referred to by the honest as the War on the Bill of Rights.
The only justification he offered for his utterly unreasoned stance was "for the children."
Sorry. Even when my kids were young, I thought that making the world child-safe was a ridiculous idea, both because it can't be done and because the world would then suck for adults. Sorry kids, there are more of us than you. Not only that, but soon you kids'll be grown up and you'll be hating life in the nerf-world, too.
Parents, you have to keep your kids away from drugs. Your kids aren't my problem. To repeat, you keep your kids away from drugs.
You say you can't watch your kids all the time? Well, you're right. Fortunately, you don't have to. What you have to do is be with the kids a lot (read just about all the time) in their first four or five years. Read to them, teach them, stimulate them to learn. As they grow and learn, they become more capable of independent action.
You can't stay home with the kids? Your work won't let you be home with the baby? You can't be home when the kids get out of school? Then why did you have kids?
Well ok. A lot of the problems aren't being addressed. I don't think I can address all of them here, but the big one is taxes.
Up to about the middle of the last century, most mothers stayed home, took care of the homes and the kids, and generally supported the family while the father went to work and brought home the bacon.
Before you start detailing in your minds all the problems for Mommy in this arrangement, let's observe that it wasn't all plums and posies for Daddy, either. Before we start throwing blame around for the way the two sexes were built and the way the societies of man have arranged themselves since first sentience. The way to escape currently lies in personal responsibility: If you don't want children DON'T HAVE ANY.
That's a good plan for those few of us who haven't started late, (already have a family), but for those who have....well you have a family and that's your priority. Deal.
There are several reasons why it's come to this. The biggest one is government. We all pay (that is, those of us that are productive) around half of our productivity to the police state--up from around ten percent in the fifties. We're told that it's an exchange for various services that could be provided by no one but government.
Not true.
The services in question were provided far better (leaving aside technological progress) back then than now, in spite of all the money currently being taken from you.
Not only is government very poor at providing these services, but they "charge" a lot of money for them. And, your freedom. Writer L Neil Smith estimates, maybe conservatively, that these services, crime prevention, streets and roads, schools, medical care, etc, etc, along with all the other goods and services we buy, would cost about one-eighth the current costs were ther no taxes and no government regulation.
How does this relate to O'Reilly and his desire to keep drugs away from kids? Well, for openers, would alleviate the need for both parents to work outside the home. The one that stays home can teach the benefits of a moral, productive, purposeful life to the youngsters, she (or he) can be there when Zachariah, Jr asks the critical questions about hockey and why he shouldn't stick the cute girl's ponytail into the inkwell. She can be around to discuss the changes that are happening in budding young Myrtle's body and how to get the ink out of her hair.
Drugs, other than aspirin and the odd dosage given by the family doctor, won't become an issue because the kids will have already been forewarned and forearmed properly by their parents, not by anonymous jack-booted thugs from DEA at your neighborhood children's prison. And they'll have better things to do. Fuddling the brain with short-circuit inducing chemicals will be seen as a waste of the time he could be spending building his (or her) own personal aircraft. Or flying it across town to meet that special speed skating champion who'll need a massage after the race. They'll be learning to live and prosper in an adult world.
We don't need a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Poverty" that purposefully gives society both more drugs and more poverty. Mostly, we need to be left alone.
Col. Hogan
I was listening to Bill O'Reilly on the radio this morning. While talking about a particular drug dealer who got a very long (mandated) prison sentence, he was going off on callers who disagree with the "War on Drugs," referred to by the honest as the War on the Bill of Rights.
The only justification he offered for his utterly unreasoned stance was "for the children."
Sorry. Even when my kids were young, I thought that making the world child-safe was a ridiculous idea, both because it can't be done and because the world would then suck for adults. Sorry kids, there are more of us than you. Not only that, but soon you kids'll be grown up and you'll be hating life in the nerf-world, too.
Parents, you have to keep your kids away from drugs. Your kids aren't my problem. To repeat, you keep your kids away from drugs.
You say you can't watch your kids all the time? Well, you're right. Fortunately, you don't have to. What you have to do is be with the kids a lot (read just about all the time) in their first four or five years. Read to them, teach them, stimulate them to learn. As they grow and learn, they become more capable of independent action.
You can't stay home with the kids? Your work won't let you be home with the baby? You can't be home when the kids get out of school? Then why did you have kids?
Well ok. A lot of the problems aren't being addressed. I don't think I can address all of them here, but the big one is taxes.
Up to about the middle of the last century, most mothers stayed home, took care of the homes and the kids, and generally supported the family while the father went to work and brought home the bacon.
Before you start detailing in your minds all the problems for Mommy in this arrangement, let's observe that it wasn't all plums and posies for Daddy, either. Before we start throwing blame around for the way the two sexes were built and the way the societies of man have arranged themselves since first sentience. The way to escape currently lies in personal responsibility: If you don't want children DON'T HAVE ANY.
That's a good plan for those few of us who haven't started late, (already have a family), but for those who have....well you have a family and that's your priority. Deal.
There are several reasons why it's come to this. The biggest one is government. We all pay (that is, those of us that are productive) around half of our productivity to the police state--up from around ten percent in the fifties. We're told that it's an exchange for various services that could be provided by no one but government.
Not true.
The services in question were provided far better (leaving aside technological progress) back then than now, in spite of all the money currently being taken from you.
Not only is government very poor at providing these services, but they "charge" a lot of money for them. And, your freedom. Writer L Neil Smith estimates, maybe conservatively, that these services, crime prevention, streets and roads, schools, medical care, etc, etc, along with all the other goods and services we buy, would cost about one-eighth the current costs were ther no taxes and no government regulation.
How does this relate to O'Reilly and his desire to keep drugs away from kids? Well, for openers, would alleviate the need for both parents to work outside the home. The one that stays home can teach the benefits of a moral, productive, purposeful life to the youngsters, she (or he) can be there when Zachariah, Jr asks the critical questions about hockey and why he shouldn't stick the cute girl's ponytail into the inkwell. She can be around to discuss the changes that are happening in budding young Myrtle's body and how to get the ink out of her hair.
Drugs, other than aspirin and the odd dosage given by the family doctor, won't become an issue because the kids will have already been forewarned and forearmed properly by their parents, not by anonymous jack-booted thugs from DEA at your neighborhood children's prison. And they'll have better things to do. Fuddling the brain with short-circuit inducing chemicals will be seen as a waste of the time he could be spending building his (or her) own personal aircraft. Or flying it across town to meet that special speed skating champion who'll need a massage after the race. They'll be learning to live and prosper in an adult world.
We don't need a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Poverty" that purposefully gives society both more drugs and more poverty. Mostly, we need to be left alone.
Col. Hogan
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Now the evil bastards get to feel you up as an addendum to the price of your ticket. The feral gov't has finally gone too far! Well, actually, they went too far a long time ago, but in the interest of making it harder and harder to travel outside the bounds of government approval, they can now check your genitals for bombs.
If this post seems a bit disjointed, it's because, once again, I'm angry, angry, angry!
I'm hoping that individuals, especially women, will quit flying commercial airlines. I have, in the past year or so, said that I won't fly unless I really have to. Now, I'm changing it. If I can't get there without taking a commercial flight, I ain't going. Period.
But, sez my evil twin, That's just what they want. Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?
Oops, there goes another Amendment (flush).
Col. Hogan
If this post seems a bit disjointed, it's because, once again, I'm angry, angry, angry!
I'm hoping that individuals, especially women, will quit flying commercial airlines. I have, in the past year or so, said that I won't fly unless I really have to. Now, I'm changing it. If I can't get there without taking a commercial flight, I ain't going. Period.
But, sez my evil twin, That's just what they want. Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?
Oops, there goes another Amendment (flush).
Col. Hogan
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Back to the Freedom Summit.
After a quick breakfast, I found that several individuals were already milling about in the patio area around the entrance to the convention room. I picked up my badge and went inside to check out the vendors. While I made up a mental list of things I would buy later, people started to find seats.
Ernie took the dais and made a few announcements, mostly having to do with Arizona politics as it relates to the upcoming elections. He welcomed everyone and introduced Barry Hess, who was to MC the event.
The first speaker way Doug Casey, a man who makes enough money in market speculation to finance his travelling habit. He spoke on the world view of the terrorist/Iraq/Afghanistan situation.
An elderly gentleman who calls himself Lazarus Long was next. He had a Power Point presentation of a New Country he plans to build on a sand bar in the Caribbean. The presentation wasn't very convincing.
Jim Peron, an American who lived in South Africa for a time and now lives in New Zealand, spoke about the government of New Zealand, its taxes and its receptiveness to immigration, and the ease of starting a business or working there. He made it sound pretty good.
Charles Goyette is a talk show host on a Phoenix radio station. He has a somewhat gloomy view of the future of freedom in America, with some suggestions of things that might happen that might make the outlook a little brighter. I spoke with him briefly after his speech and found him to be very sharp and quite a bit more upbeat than his speech seemed to indicate. I wish I could listen to his show. I could listen on the net, except he's on while I'm at work.
Claire Wolfe is a pretty hard-core underground person who's been writing about the approaching police state for years. "101 Things to Do Until the Revolution" and "The State vs the People," for example. She was the next speaker, and spoke about creating online "gulching" communities, insulating yourself from the bad guys, etc. I did get a couple of chances to chat with her. She was good enough to sign a couple of her books for me.
Mary Ruwart spoke about the federal gov't's role in soaring prescription drug prices. Ms Ruwart is a pharmaceutical research scientist who has first-hand knowledge of the outrageous degree of regulation under which pharmaceutical firms must attempt to work.
Justin Raimondo, a policy analist for the Center for Libertarian Studies gave an impassioned speech in opposition to the Iraq war and a plea that all libertarians oppose it in any way they can.
Now, I have no sympathy for the old Iraqi government, but I'm not in the least satisfied with the blarney coming from Washington DC regarding this "War on Terror." I'm even less satisfied with the feds having set up apparatus by which they can control our movement, our travel, our work, our education and our health care (well beyond what had been done by previous administrations) and by which they can collect information on each and every one of us in just about any area of our lives. Any of that bunk they tell you about needing the approval of the courts to tap your phones or raid your computer files falls completely apart when you realize from whom the judges' paychecks come.
Ah, another digression......
We had a break to freshen up and to engage in conversation as pleased each of us, until it was time for the evening's hjigh point: Dinner and the keynote speech.
After a very good dinner, George Smith took the dais. He spoke on the dangers of the NeoCons, as they have strong influence on President Bush and the direction of the federal government is currently heading. Gone is any pretense of limiting the size of gov't or any pretense of moving in the direction of freedom (except, of course, in rhetoric). George also made a point to observe the increase in importance relicious faith has in the President's personal philisophy--and how that fits with the doctrines of the NeoCons.
So....after the speech, and after a conversations with a number of attendees, I trundled off to rest up for the final day. It's a good weekend!
Col. Hogan
After a quick breakfast, I found that several individuals were already milling about in the patio area around the entrance to the convention room. I picked up my badge and went inside to check out the vendors. While I made up a mental list of things I would buy later, people started to find seats.
Ernie took the dais and made a few announcements, mostly having to do with Arizona politics as it relates to the upcoming elections. He welcomed everyone and introduced Barry Hess, who was to MC the event.
The first speaker way Doug Casey, a man who makes enough money in market speculation to finance his travelling habit. He spoke on the world view of the terrorist/Iraq/Afghanistan situation.
An elderly gentleman who calls himself Lazarus Long was next. He had a Power Point presentation of a New Country he plans to build on a sand bar in the Caribbean. The presentation wasn't very convincing.
Jim Peron, an American who lived in South Africa for a time and now lives in New Zealand, spoke about the government of New Zealand, its taxes and its receptiveness to immigration, and the ease of starting a business or working there. He made it sound pretty good.
Charles Goyette is a talk show host on a Phoenix radio station. He has a somewhat gloomy view of the future of freedom in America, with some suggestions of things that might happen that might make the outlook a little brighter. I spoke with him briefly after his speech and found him to be very sharp and quite a bit more upbeat than his speech seemed to indicate. I wish I could listen to his show. I could listen on the net, except he's on while I'm at work.
Claire Wolfe is a pretty hard-core underground person who's been writing about the approaching police state for years. "101 Things to Do Until the Revolution" and "The State vs the People," for example. She was the next speaker, and spoke about creating online "gulching" communities, insulating yourself from the bad guys, etc. I did get a couple of chances to chat with her. She was good enough to sign a couple of her books for me.
Mary Ruwart spoke about the federal gov't's role in soaring prescription drug prices. Ms Ruwart is a pharmaceutical research scientist who has first-hand knowledge of the outrageous degree of regulation under which pharmaceutical firms must attempt to work.
Justin Raimondo, a policy analist for the Center for Libertarian Studies gave an impassioned speech in opposition to the Iraq war and a plea that all libertarians oppose it in any way they can.
Now, I have no sympathy for the old Iraqi government, but I'm not in the least satisfied with the blarney coming from Washington DC regarding this "War on Terror." I'm even less satisfied with the feds having set up apparatus by which they can control our movement, our travel, our work, our education and our health care (well beyond what had been done by previous administrations) and by which they can collect information on each and every one of us in just about any area of our lives. Any of that bunk they tell you about needing the approval of the courts to tap your phones or raid your computer files falls completely apart when you realize from whom the judges' paychecks come.
Ah, another digression......
We had a break to freshen up and to engage in conversation as pleased each of us, until it was time for the evening's hjigh point: Dinner and the keynote speech.
After a very good dinner, George Smith took the dais. He spoke on the dangers of the NeoCons, as they have strong influence on President Bush and the direction of the federal government is currently heading. Gone is any pretense of limiting the size of gov't or any pretense of moving in the direction of freedom (except, of course, in rhetoric). George also made a point to observe the increase in importance relicious faith has in the President's personal philisophy--and how that fits with the doctrines of the NeoCons.
So....after the speech, and after a conversations with a number of attendees, I trundled off to rest up for the final day. It's a good weekend!
Col. Hogan
Friday, November 19, 2004
I've been hearing on the TV and radio news about a new tax proposal being proposed here in Stalag California. Rather than continuing to tax gasoline at higher and ever higher levels, they propose to tax drivers by the miles they drive. This would necesitate some sort of a sensor placed in each car, presumably tamper-proof, that will broadcast each car's mileage as it happens.
Now.........I have some questions.
How long.....we all know how greedy and money-hungry government is at every level.....how long......after the mileage tax is up to $3.50 a mile and no one will tolerate any more.....how long......until they add just a teeeny tineeey tax per gallon of gas once again? This is supposed to be instead of the state gas tax, but there will still be the outrageously confiscatory federal gas tax, verdad?
As the mileage tax gets increased again and again, shall we expect to see more state sponsored bond initiatives to establish (extablish, IYAAVOPS) and extend light rail systems all around the state? Sooner rather than later? After all, what they dearly, dearly want, is to get us out of our independent, individualistic automobiles and onto crowded, stinking, regimented public transit. The better to get the teeming masses to the internment camps at need, don't you know.
As the state begins to track the mileage of each and every inmate of the Stalag, how long will it be until the begin to sell the collected data on individuals' driving habits to commercial interests?
Now, we know the feds. The feds are the most greedy, nasty, underhanded bunch of thugs in the history of the world (in part, because of the heavy technology they command), and will very soon be tapping into state data on our driving habits for their own nefarious purposes. Like where you go to hide your cache of gold. Like where your cousin, the underground barterer lives. Like where you pick up the ganja.
Kind of makes the old question, "Your papers, please?" obsolete, doesn't it?
Col. Hogan
Now.........I have some questions.
How long.....we all know how greedy and money-hungry government is at every level.....how long......after the mileage tax is up to $3.50 a mile and no one will tolerate any more.....how long......until they add just a teeeny tineeey tax per gallon of gas once again? This is supposed to be instead of the state gas tax, but there will still be the outrageously confiscatory federal gas tax, verdad?
As the mileage tax gets increased again and again, shall we expect to see more state sponsored bond initiatives to establish (extablish, IYAAVOPS) and extend light rail systems all around the state? Sooner rather than later? After all, what they dearly, dearly want, is to get us out of our independent, individualistic automobiles and onto crowded, stinking, regimented public transit. The better to get the teeming masses to the internment camps at need, don't you know.
As the state begins to track the mileage of each and every inmate of the Stalag, how long will it be until the begin to sell the collected data on individuals' driving habits to commercial interests?
Now, we know the feds. The feds are the most greedy, nasty, underhanded bunch of thugs in the history of the world (in part, because of the heavy technology they command), and will very soon be tapping into state data on our driving habits for their own nefarious purposes. Like where you go to hide your cache of gold. Like where your cousin, the underground barterer lives. Like where you pick up the ganja.
Kind of makes the old question, "Your papers, please?" obsolete, doesn't it?
Col. Hogan
?????Riddle me this, Batman??????
Is it more rational, or more reasonable to let your morality be dictated by an book written by an unknown number of unnamed individuals in monestaries in Europe in the Dark Ages, or to discover morality for yourself, building upon the thinking of philosophers over the Ages, augmented by your own thinking, observations and introspection?
Conservatives repeatedly make the word "morality" synonymous with "the word of god." If your morality doesn't come from that alledgedly holy tome, it can't possibly be moral, good or proper. Or even civilized. Yet no pair of these conservatives can agree wholly upon what the bible says. Or what some of its admonitions mean, exactly. Or how to deal with the contradictions between how a topic is treated in one book, as opposed to how the same topic is treated in another.
Makes my petty disagreements with say, Murray Rothbard, seem minor by comparison. We would both agree to the evil of the initiation of force against others. We both would agree to the goodness of treating those with whom you deal politely and honestly. After that, the rest becomes small change.
Col. Hogan
Is it more rational, or more reasonable to let your morality be dictated by an book written by an unknown number of unnamed individuals in monestaries in Europe in the Dark Ages, or to discover morality for yourself, building upon the thinking of philosophers over the Ages, augmented by your own thinking, observations and introspection?
Conservatives repeatedly make the word "morality" synonymous with "the word of god." If your morality doesn't come from that alledgedly holy tome, it can't possibly be moral, good or proper. Or even civilized. Yet no pair of these conservatives can agree wholly upon what the bible says. Or what some of its admonitions mean, exactly. Or how to deal with the contradictions between how a topic is treated in one book, as opposed to how the same topic is treated in another.
Makes my petty disagreements with say, Murray Rothbard, seem minor by comparison. We would both agree to the evil of the initiation of force against others. We both would agree to the goodness of treating those with whom you deal politely and honestly. After that, the rest becomes small change.
Col. Hogan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
