Saturday, July 05, 2014

World Cup Soccer Rule Changes

It's All About Player Safety


Now that the World Cup is in the quarterfinal stages, it might be time to look at some ways to improve safety for players.

Scarcely a minute goes by without a player falling to the turf clutching at himself, his face twisted into paroxysms of agony at some brutal injury or other.  This sometimes results in a free kick.  Usually that player's insensitive coach will leave the injured player in the game to carry on as best he can.

What other sport allows their players to prance about in beach attire and risk injury like soccer does?  What other sport requires players who've been grievously injured as these players apparently are, to continue playing?  None, that's what.  Not ice hockey.  Not American football, certainly.  

So your Ostrich Killer, in the hopes that his suggestions will save at least one soccer player a serious injury, proposes a few minor changes.

1.  First, there are many violent collisions.  These are dangerous.  Hockey and American football players know this, which is why they wear the equipment they wear.  So soccer players should do the same - a hockey type helmet with a faceplate to reduce the chances of concussion and fingers in the eyes.  Padding about the shoulders and thighs and rib cage and hips would be also be prudent minimums.  For more ideas on player protection, FIFA might consider consulting the Pussification Committee of the NFL.

2.  Some rule changes would help reduce the number of players being so brutally knocked to the ground.  
  A.  A player who does not rejoin play within 10 seconds after hitting the ground for any reason would be required to leave the match.  His team could replace him, but that player will not be allowed back into the match, so that medical staff can have sufficient time to do a thorough exam to determine the extent of his injuries.
  B.  A player receiving a yellow card will be required to leave the match, but can be replaced.  A red carded player will still be required to leave the match without replacement.
  C.  Any team receiving two red cards during a match will forfeit the match and suffer other penalties as the league may deem appropriate.
Again, other rule changes may benefit the players, and the NFL Pussification Committee could be a valuable resource for suggestions.

Yes, it grieves your Ostrich Killer to see the awful mayhem, the agonies so apparent on the faces of the injured, and he hopes that FIFA and other controlling bodies will adopt his modest proposals.  After all, it's for the good of the players.

Coffee calls.

Thursday, July 03, 2014

OBAMA'S WARS

BHO WAGES UNRELENTING WARS!

What? Obama?  Wars?  What wars?

Why, his wars on -
of course.  But you knew about them, right?  And there are many others, some of them documented in this blog's archives.  Browse among them if you're curious.

This president is doing everything in his power to act on his contempt for this country's security, economy, energy, cheap food supply, military, Constitution, privacy, traditions, and our historical way of life in general.  He is an America-hater, a person who thinks America's place as the Golden City in the Sky needs to be downgraded to Slum in the Dump.  He is doing everything he can to bring that about.  His actions are plain and there to see, to anyone who can see that the emperor has no clothing.  He has as his enablers and accomplices many in the liberal establishment in congress, and leading the department of justice.  Prosecuting him for crimes and misdemeanors will be difficult without the help of the department of justice, and you can bet they will not cooperate.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Assembling the Counter-revolutionary Forces

Federal Armies Being Amassed

Recently the Posse Comitatus laws were 'amended' by Congress to allow use of the US Military against the citizens of the United States, within the United States.  Additionally, many federal agencies are arming themselves.  The Department of Homeland Security alone has ordered two billion rounds of small arms ammo, enough for 30 years of a Vietnam-level conflict, and 2,700 mine-resistant armored personnel carriers. 

Should not the informed and engaged citizen do likewise?  Should we not acquire personal firearms and ammo stocks and otherwise prepare to join a new American revolution, should it come?  Wouldn't that be prudent?  Wouldn't that be in the American tradition?

Guns are bad, though.  Right?  Don't you hear that daily from democrats?  From liberals?  From 'progressives?'

It should come as no surprise that most democrats are anti-gun.  Democrats are big government acolytes, and big government requires citizen cooperation or submission, or - gasp - compulsion.  Compelling an armed citizenry is more difficult than compelling a disarmed citizenry.  Duh.

The framers of our Constitution, fresh from shooting tyrants in order to win our freedoms, understood that guns are for shooting tyrants.  That's why they wrote the Second Amendment as they did - to guarantee that future generations of Americans would be able to shoot tyrants again if needed.  The Second Amendment is not about making sure we can shoot Bambi or burglars.  The Second Amendment is what assures that all the other amendments stay in place.

Most democrats want to subjugate the population of this country to government rule.  That's why they are waging wars against anonymity, against personal mobility, against economical food, against energy independence, against the accumulation of wealth, against privacy, and above all against the expression of truth and thoughts.  But to subjugate a large population of armed citizens - well, how to go about it?

They implement the Czechoslovakian model

To summarize the Czechoslovakian mode., you find out where the guns are.  You do that through registration and such seemingly innocuous means as 'background checks' before allowing a purchase, or having your doctor ask your children during a sports physical if there are guns in your house, or having teachers ask the same sorts of questions, etc.  All that info goes into databases.  And our government is nothing if not able to access any databases they like.  That's why they require those questions be asked.

Next, you generate as much anti-gun sentiment as possible.  That's hard to do, except in areas where people don't hunt or sport shoot.  Big cities and their immediate suburbs, in other words.  But those areas are home to close to half of Americans.  The other half have their share of anti-gun thinkers too, although far fewer.  So to generate even more anti-gun sentiment, the democrats fan the flames of fear by leveraging every gun-related event.  They view Columbine and other such tragedies as golden opportunities, getting legislation passed that would have done nothing to prevent such tragedies but 'felt good' and satisfied the idiot citizen's wish that 'somebody do something.'  You can depend on some democrat - always a democrat, by the way - to be the first to propose new legislation following any gun-related tragedy.

Finally, you confiscate.  At first you do this by confiscating weapons from people who commit felonies.  Then you confiscate weapons from people who commit misdemeanors.  Then you confiscate from people whose medical records contain any hint of mental abnormality.  Then you confiscate from people who write blogs like this one.  You boil the confiscation frog slowly and incrementally, lest you alarm the armed populace.  You do it 'for the good of Americans.'  You take generations to do it, and you grease the skids through media and public indoctrination centers, commonly known as 'schools.'  Who needs guns, after all?  We have police to protect us.  So give us your guns and we'll protect you.  We'll protect Bambi and Peter Cottontail too.  You don't want Bambi and Peter Cottontail shot do you?  And your neighbors will feel safer too.

Who will protect us?  Turns out we also have Homeland Security agents with two billion rounds of small arms ammo and 2,700 mine-resistant armored vehicles to protect us from terrorists.  They must know something about terrorists that we don't, to be armed to the teeth like that.  The ammo alone is enough to supply a Vietnam-level war for 30 years.  And we have the USDA armed agents to protect us.  The Post office.  Seldom does a week pass that we don't read of another federal agency arming itself.  Why?  Against who?

Now even the military can be used against American citizens.  However, the military is made up of patriots, and a president attempting to invoke their might against the citizenry may well instead provoke the military into taking action against the government itself as they uphold their oath to protect the Constitution against 'enemies, foreign and domestic.'  In this case the federal government would be the domestic enemy.  So what forces could the federal government use against its citizens?  Homeland Security, The USDA, Post Office, and any number of other federal departments, whose allegiance to their government paycheck is strong and their appreciation for traditional American freedoms weak. 

Obama and the democrats are building an army of federal agents that can be used against its citizens.  They fear that at some point we will start shooting the agents of tyranny, as our founding fathers meant for us to do when necessary.  They want an army they can depend on.

So of course a disarmed citizenry would be helpful.  

Your Ostrich Killer's advice: don't disarm, and don't cooperate with the forces and agencies who would help enable disarming our citizenry.

A second cup of coffee is calling me . . .

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Tilting at the Climate Change Windmill

Dr. Strangelove Had it Right

Recently your beloved Ostrich Killer engaged in discussions with several global warming / climate change Chicken Littles.  These people have some things in common, to wit:

1.  Science doesn't matter, anecdotes do.
2.  Science doesn't matter, politics do.
3.  A belief that today's climate is the only correct climate for Earth.
4.  Cost doesn't matter.

Yes, these people are true ostriches when it comes to science.  I call them 'enviro-wackos' and I once wrote a poem about the way they think:

Don't bore me with facts 
I don't want to believe.
When you tell me the truth, 
There's plots up your sleeve.

Earth does have a history and cycles, fellow skeptics.  Looking at the geological record, the Earth has a long and rich history of hundred-million year or so warm cycles interrupted by (relatively) short cooling cycles, during each of which the average global temperature was in the neighborhood of 75 degrees Fahrenheit.  It is currently in the neighborhood of 57 degrees Fahrenheit and on the upswing from a low of about 55 degrees, during which low man sprang forth.  This upswing possibly indicates another warming cycle is starting.  ALL of Earth's warming cycles preceded man's appearance on the planet.  Life thrived during most of those cycles.  Continents broke up, moved, re-formed, broke up again . . . Life went on, evolved, and so did the Earth.

And these Chicken Littles think we can do something, anything to prevent the next warming cycle?  Please!

But why should we prevent it, even if we could?  Would that not be - gasp! - unnatural?

Is it not likely that man will also thrive at 75 degrees?  Are we so fragile and unable to adapt / cope that breaking a sweat will make us extinct?  Or are we merely concerned that our coastal cities will gradually move inland to higher ground over a few dozen / hundred / thousand centuries?

What price are we willing to pay to tilt at the global warming windmill?  To erect a "STOP" sign in front of an approaching avalanche?

Global warming, based on geological history, is cyclical and inevitable.  What difference do a few decades one way or another make when one is talking about a hundred million years?  They're less than a rounding error.  And man's impact on those decades - if any - is so far looking like less than a rounding error on that rounding error.

So I'm all for enjoying life and cheap energy.  Cheap energy allows societal growth for less fortunate nations.  Cheap energy allows for mobility, powers industry,feeds people and enables cultivation of grain so I can enjoy a Buckhorn now and then.  Cheap energy gets me down to my boat and back.  Raise the cost of energy and people die.  Simple as that.  But to an enviro-wacko gaea worshipper, that's okay because humans are a scourge on their holy planet.


What is cheap energy?  The EPA says that, for electrical generation, hydro-electric is cheapest, followed by nuclear, followed by oil / coal.  They don't even rate 'green' (windmills, solar, geothermal, warp drives, etc.) sources of energy, probably because they're off the scale in costs and almost invisible in terms of contribution.  So logically we should dam more rivers, build breeder reactor power plants, and drill baby drill.  Because no matter what we do, the next cycle will come anyway.  So, as Dr. Strangelove would advise, stop worrying and learn to love the climate.

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Consumer Activism

Back Up Your Thinking With Your Spending


Recently there was a big annual parade scheduled in Boston.  St. Patrick's Day Parade, as I recall.  Many businesses provide sponsorship to that parade.  This time, though, a homosexual activist organization wanted to march and advertise their sexual proclivities and, presumably, recruit.  The parade organizers decided that would not be especially family-friendly, and therefore denied that group a permit to march.  That group protested, to no avail.

Several sponsors pulled their sponsorships to show their displeasure with the parade organizer's decision.  Among them were Samuel Adams brewery, Heineken brewery, and Guiness brewery.

I guess St. Patrick and his followers liked beer. 

In any event, this pulling of sponsorships over this particular issue offended me.  So now I don't buy Samuel Adams beer, which I truly do like and which I have bought many gallons of over the years, nor do I buy Heineken or Guiness, neither of which particularly impress me.

So I got to thinking - I have a history of being selective with my dollars.  For example, I wouldn't buy a Government Motors car if they were free; nor would I buy a Fiat - ooops, I mean Chrysler product.  They took bailout money from the taxpayer and gave it to their unions.  My money.  Your money.  And even if they hadn't, they won't stand behind their products unless people die and they're caught with their hands in the cookie jar.  Or they are owned now, in the case of Chrysler, by a company notorious in the world as a producer of shoddy products, only marginally better than the now Fiat-owned Yugo or the East German Trabant.

Entertainment - I have a whole list of entertainers I won't go to see on the silver screen.  I'm told that is stupid of me, that I should overlook their actions and words and enjoy their performances.  But to my way of thinking their performances are just entertainment.  I can be entertained just as well by others, and I don't want these idiots getting one dime from me.

There are many other examples of my selective spending, or my activist spending, or my personal boycotts.  The point is that I'm making decisions on what to support with my money, and what to impoverish.  Certain television channels don't get viewed in my house.  Ditto radio stations.  

Do you do something similar?  If not, next time you're spending discretionary dollars, think about what your money is supporting.  Pay attention to issues and public statements and actions.  When you do you'll find yourself making choices, and that's healthy for both you and your family, and for our society.

My second cup of coffee is calling.  You're welcome.

Monday, April 28, 2014

That Racist Rant - a Perspective

When is a Private Conversation Public?

The owner of the LA Clippers NBA basketball team allegedly said some pretty unpleasant things recently.  You've probably heard about it - he allegedly told his free-spirited girlfriend to be racially selective about who she brings into his presence.  The NBA is investigating.  Obama has chimed in, half-cocked as usual.  People are shocked.  His players are p.o.'ed, since most of them are black and those that aren't are offended on behalf of their black team mates.  

He allegedly said it to her during a private telephone conversation.  The word 'allegedly' is used because the jury is still out on whether the recording has been altered, and if it has been, how much.  

Who among us has not said something offensive during what we had reason to believe was a private conversation?  Who among us might be vulnerable to career termination if some of our words are altered and then used out of context?

How many of us would like to see and hear our private conversations, altered or not, on the 5 o'clock news?

Are important business people not entitled to expect a reasonable level of personal privacy?

Aren't there laws that make recording and broadcasting someone's telephone conversations without their consent illegal?  The feds and local police need warrants to be able to do that.  Did the person who recorded and broadcast this conversation have the necessary authority and a warrant?  Your ostrich killer doubts it.  And your ostrich killer wonders why he is the only one asking these questions.

So I don't care what he said.  In fact, I don't care what most people say.  I only care what they do.  But I am offended by the breach of his personal privacy.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Ostrich Killer Cyber Security Tips

Your Online Security

Not a day goes by without the news carrying some story about a breach of cyber security.  That's security of any device you have that uses either cell phone connections or the internet.

You probably have concerns about that.  What's on your computer / tablet / phone that you wouldn't want the universe in general and your friends and family in particular to see?  Anything?  

Are you working on a novel?  Do you want someone else to finish it and publish it before you do?

And what about those stupid pictures?  Or those diary entries?  Or your password list? Copies of your tax returns?  Other financial data?

You probably have your own concerns about some of the files on your computer.  You probably also have an old computer laying around somewhere.  So what's the simplest way to protect yourself?

Your Ostrich Killer has a list of simple things you can do.

1.  If you have a Windows-based computer, download and install Microsoft Security Essentials from microsoft.com onto your networked computer.  It's free.
2.  Dredge that old computer out of your closet and dust it off.  Turn it on, see that it still works, but do NOT connect it to any network.  Using the Network Manager in your 'My Computer' link, disable all network devices on that old computer.  
3.  Transfer ALL your files - documents, spreadsheets, tax returns, diaries, etc - anything you've created, in other words - to that old computer,using a USB stick or SD card.  Do NOT use a shared drive!  This old computer probably has older software.  Good news: most programs are file-compatible backwards.  That means if you're running, say, Office 2010 on your 'new' computer, the files you've created will still work in Office 2007 on your old computer.  If you're uncertain, save those files on your 'new computer' in a file format compatible with your old computer's software before you transfer the files.  It's a good policy to set your file format saving defaults on all software to be at least one generation older than the software supports.
4.  Once you've accomplished this file transfer, do all your work from now on using this old computer.  If you want to send a file you've created on your old computer out to the internet somewhere, copy it to a USB stick and transfer it to your 'new' computer, then send it.
5.  It goes without saying that you need to set your computer to automatically lock itself after a few moments - I use 2 minutes - of inactivity so that you will have to log in to use it.  That will help keep curious passers-by honest.  Nothing keeps an honest man honest like the inability to be dishonest.

Pretty simple, yes?  But there are catches, obvious ones:
1. Email and browsing and searching and facebooking cannot be kept hack-free by you, because all of them require being on the internet.  You'll have to trust your providers to keep them secure.  Good luck.  BTW, going to the library to use their networked computers will do you little good: you still have to log in to your email or facebook or other accounts.  Once you've done that - well, you get the picture.
2.  That cell phone?  Put nothing on it that you wouldn't want to see on the eleven o'clock news.  Consider using it the same way you used a phone in 1980: leave it at home sitting on your desk.  The world kept going around back then even when you were away from a phone.  It still will.  Good luck.  Oh, a bit of news to some of you: a cell phone, even turned off, can be tracked.  It can be listened to.  It can take pictures.  Its files can be viewed.  Didn't know that?  Now you do.
3.  Tablets are basically worthless unless connected to wifi.  Use them with the same caution you would use your cell phone.  Do NOT buy a tablet that can use cell phone connectivity, for the reasons just outlined above.  Wifi only, and keep that turned off until you want to use it.  Walking into your local tavern, for example, with your tablet's wifi turned on will broadcast to any number of App providers (Angry Birds and others) your location.  You want your habits to be known?  You want your contact list copied?  Some people don't care, others do.  The good news is that both groups get to decide.
4.  All digital devices that connect to a network have provisions for security.  Use them.  You don't want some stranger logging in to your banking app, for example, or email accounts should you forget and leave your device at the tavern.

That leaves one last device to secure:  your car.

What?  Your car?  Yes, indeed.  Does your car have Onstar or a similar, perhaps manufacturer-linked 'service?'  That means you can be tracked even if you leave your cell phone at home.  You can be listened to.  Hell, an ad ran on TV a couple years ago advertising Onstar, where the cops were able to stop a stolen car by calling Onstar and having them disable it.  You like that?  Can you imagine how that could be used in a police state?  That ad quietly disappeared, by the way.  Your navigation system?  Linked to.  Addresses input to the system: linked to.  So my advice, when you buy that next car, is to be hard-nosed about having NO devices in the car that can transmit ANYTHING.  It's a car, after all, not a spy.

The feds understand you value your privacy.  That's why they want to install more sophisticated 'black boxes' on all cars and vehicles.

Good luck.  And now, one last cup of coffee.