Thursday, July 31, 2014

Don't Think Your Vote Matters?

Ask The Citizens of Gaza

Many people don't vote.  Their reasons (excuses, actually) vary: 
1. I forgot.
2. Who cares? They're all the same.
3. I don't understand the issues, so I don't want to cancel the vote of someone who does.
4. I would, but why bother? The other side is going to win, according to the pollsters. (Or my side is going to win anyway, according to the pollsters.)
5.  One vote doesn't matter, and besides I have to work.

The list is much longer, but the end result is the same: that person doesn't vote.

A vote matters.

To the non-voters, I say I don't want to hear you bitching about political matters.  You haven't earned the right to complain.

In 2006 the citizens of Gaza elected a slate of Hamas candidates to run their tiny country.  Now, most of the civilized world and even some Arab countries have Hamas at the top of their Terrorist Organizations list, right there with Al Qaeda.

So the citizens voted to be run by a terrorist organization.

Now they are dying - not for the first time - from Israeli artillery and air strikes, retribution brought about because over the years the duly elected Gaza government has fired more than 10,000 rockets into Israel, trying to kill its citizens.  Hamas, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, has sent kidnap teams into Israel, terror squads into Israel.

And now Hamas is being killed by Israel.  As they die, they hide their rockets and weapons in hospitals and schools and shoot at Israeli from those facilities, hoping that Israel will strike them and kill school children and hospital patients.  Israel does.  The photos show up on their accomplice network, CNN.  Hell, Hamas shoots their own citizens if they dare to object to having rockets launched from their front yard.

Hamas wants as many of their countrymen to die as possible.  A huge pile of children's corpses would be, in their view, a triumph.

While I wonder now how many of the Gaza citizens might have voted differently had they thought more than ten seconds about who Hamas is, I have no sympathy for them.  They elected this government, now they get to reap the whirlwind.  

There are, to your otherwise lovable Ostrich Killer's thinking, no innocent voters just as there are no innocent non-voters.

But these idiots have a way to save themselves: get rid of Hamas.  Seek them out, kill them wherever they are found.  Then hold new elections and see if they can join the community of civilized nations.

Don't think a vote matters?  Many Gaza citizens might now argue with that sort of mindless bullshit thinking.

But wait, some might say.  That's Gaza.  We're Americans.

Yes, we are.  Look who is President.  Look what he is doing.  He is LITERALLY singlehandedly and in direct violation of the Constitution destroying the United States, because that is what he wants to do.  And the majority of the electorate (voters) want him to do that.  Apparently, because they elected him.  Twice.

Makes me wonder about the oft-cited wisdom of the American voter.  There is scant evidence of significant populations of such creatures in our pop-culture saturated society.

A vote matters.  Yours.  Mine.  The neighbor's. Take it seriously, and use your brain instead of your emotions.  Think.

As usual, some of my readers may wonder if I have my facts right.  As usual, they are free to verify them for themselves.  That is what Google is for.

Now, another beer.  Too late for coffee.

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



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.