THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE IS A CLOWN SHOW

Okay, maybe not in all categories. Anything science-related is probably worthy of pride if one is awarded the Nobel. Even the Economics prize is worth an extra hat size for the winner.

But the Peace prize is a farce of the most astonishing sort.

Take Algore getting the Nobel Peace award for producing a fantasy film. Even if what the film depicted were remotely true or plausible, how does it relate to peace? But Algore is not the only puzzling prize winner. He is no exception. Review the list for yourself and see. Peace? Only sporadically - seemingly at random - do the prize-winning actions of a winner intersect with an improvement in the potential for world peace.

Here is what appears to be the recipe for awarding the Peace prize:
1. The award of the prize must fractionally destabilize the world further.
2. The prize may be awarded for any action that does not fit the other Nobel prize categories.
3. Where convenient, the award of the prize should prove an affront to most Americans.

How else do you explain Algore and Jimmy Carter getting the prize, but not Ronald Reagan, under whose watch the Berlin wall came down and the Soviet empire began to unravel?

But you can draw your own conclusions. Review the list and think about it.

Your friendly ostrich killer is returning to his lair.

AMADINAWACKJOB HANDED HIS LUNCH BY LIBERAL UNIVERSITY!

As a conservative (you didn't know that, right?) I am always surprised when a liberal appears to 'get it.' I would love to be similarly surprised on a regular basis, but unfortunately that hasn't happened and probably won't until long after the local mall sells snowballs imported from hell.

But back to Amadidnawackjob. Columbia's president, Dr. Bollinger, smacked him with a faceful of clearthink and plainspeech. Columbia University is a well-known liberal institution, but more than that it is an American institution. Welcome to reality, President Amadinawackjob. If you haven't heard or read Dr. Bollinger's welcoming speech, treat yourself to doing so. Check it out here.

Mr. Amadinawackjob is a front man for the real power in Iran. A figurehead. A talking head, a mouthpiece who serves at the pleasure of the equally wacked-out and widely despised clerical leadership of Iran. Your friendly Ostrich Killer wonders what the disgrace of Iran's president and Iran's policies at the hands of a supposedly liberal university in the United States, something seen and heard and applauded by the entire world, portends for the hopefully dim future of Mr. Amadinawackjob.

So join me, and hoist a cold one to Dr. Bollinger and Columbia U, and say "Good One!"

Homosexual Behavior: Genetics or Choice?

Having pondered this question for some time, your friendly Ostrich Killer has come up with the definitive answer to the question of whether homosexuality is the results of genetics, or of choice. You'll need go no further than this blog to understand the final answer - the definitive answer - which you can then use in discussions with folks less informed than you will be.

Here is the answer: it doesn't matter. Either way it's a chosen behavior.

??? - oh, really? You say, eyebrows up. That's no answer!

Allow me to expand. First, none of us can view what resides inside anyone else's skull, so we are restricted in the definition of homosexuality to describing behavior. That is important. One is not a homosexual unless and until one behaves as a homosexual.

So, let's assume for arguments' sake that an inclination to indulge in homosexual behavior is a result of genetics. But we are humans, the only rational creatures. We can think, reason, make choices about how we behave. We, unlike insects or sea cucumbers or furry animals, are not slaves to our chromosomes. We have will power. We can evaluate alternatives and make difficult choices. Therefore, there is nothing that stands in the way of a person who might experience genetically amplified homosexual feelings from choosing to behave as a heterosexual. To carry it one step further, it becomes obvious that sexual behaviors are choices, genetics or no genetics. Genetics, in short, are irrelevant when it comes to making choices.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is a matter of choice even if there might be a genetic link. Humans choose. Homosexuals, being humans, choose to behave in a homosexual manner.

That's why it doesn't matter whether or not homosexual behavior is encouraged by genetics. It is a chosen behavior.

Hate Crime - Mind Reading???

Two identical murders are committed. In one, the perpetrator is silent. In the other, the perpetrator says 'Take that, nigger!'

The latter would be labeled a hate crime and the perpetrator punished more severely than the other perp.

Why?

Aren't both victims equally dead?

Aren't laws about behavior, not thoughts?

Don't you wonder about the justification for the extra punishment of the second perp?

Obviously, the extra punishment is for what he said - or, as some might have you believe, for hating. - - - Amazing. Punishing for an emotion. What's next, folks?

Let's make this straw man even more interesting: perp one is white, perp two is black. Both victims are black. Do we have a hate crime? If not, what is the special distinction? That a black can't commit a hate crime against another black?

Go ahead and play with this straw man for yourself. Ask yourself questions 'what if'. Don't be surprised to come to the conclusion that 'hate crimes' are just crimes with politically incorrect overtones to them. Don't be surprised that you come to the conclusion that 'hate crimes' should be taken off the book, and behavior serve as the only criteria for determining if a crime has been committed.

Punish behavior, not thought. Even the most astute jurist cannot read minds.

Punish behavior, not speech. We're all entitled to free speech, even offensive speech.

Take hate crimes off the books. Tell your elected officials to do it.

If you don't, don't be surprised to learn you've committed one someday.

Terrorism and the abridgement of free speech

Okay, call me stupid, but when a government bends over to avoid calling a spade a spade in order to not offend the people who are attacking its citizens, is that not surrender?

Today Britain has rearranged their vocabulary to pander to the islamic (non-caps intentional) rabble within its borders. Let's not say 'islamic terrorist', is the official British line under their new PM.

I wonder what sort of adjective they'll use to describe terrorists? Middle Eastern? Iranian? Misguided? Or will they only label terrorists if they are not islamic (such as, Anti-islamic terrorism, should someone attack a muslim?)

At some point citizens will decide for themselves what to call these people, and begin taking care of the problem that resides in the hearts of any population of muslims in a more direct manner. Unfortunately, that point will likely not be reached until many thousands of innocent citizens of western countries have died in horrible attacks.

Stay tuned. You know it's coming. And if you are not an ostrich you know what, eventually, must be done about the problem. Prepare yourselves and your families.

DEALING WITH THE IRRATIONAL LEFT

A friend of mine recently (5/21/07) sent a public email to me, some of which I'll print unedited in italics below:

1. The president is not automatically entitled to our respect. He has to earn it just like everyone else. If you work at it you can also earn our respect.
2. Republicans took cheap shots at Clinton's wife from day one and she was not in public office.
3. Bush cannot be impeached because the Democrats do not have a majority. Clinton was impeached because the Republicans had a majority. Clinton committed adultery. Bush is responsible the death of thousands of innocent people. There is a huge different in their sins.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That's it. So as a start of a topic thread, which will continue in future posts, I'd like to deal with each numbered item of wrong-thinking.

Item 1 - respect. Stop and think: don't we all automatically accord everyone, even the perfect stranger, respect until they demonstrate they don't merit it? Yet this person says we have to earn respect before we can have any. That's backwards, don't you think?

Item 2: Mrs. Bill Clinton, from day one, involved herself in politics - remember Hillary Care? - so, as a public figure and voluntarily embroiled in the politics of this nation, she was a bona fide subject for discussion and comment.

Item 3: Bush cannot be impeached because the democrats don't have a majority? Did this friend of mine miss the last election? The democrats control both houses of congress. The real reason that they cannot impeach Bush is because Bush has committed no 'high crimes and misdemeanors', a requirement before impeachment proceedings can begin. And the democrats know it, much to their frustration. And about Clinton - he was not impeached for adultery, he was impeached because he was guilty of a felony: to wit, lying to a Federal Grand Jury. Finally, those thousands of innocent people killed: has my friend ever heard of a war in which only the military suffer casualties? Does he live somewhere down a rabbit hole?

My friend, unfortunately, is typical of the irrational left. They will loudly and wildly spout the most flagrant disinformation and challenge you to change their minds. These people do not care a whit for facts; they operate solely on adrenaline and hatred of anything Republican or conservative, and they consider 'spinning' to be a sport instead of a synonym for lying. So changing their minds by providing the simple truth in fact form is a pointless drill, and political discussion with these people is as good a use of one's time and energy as discussing with a brick wall.

Nonetheless, here are some facts:
1. Bush did not lie.
2. There were WMD in Iraq.
3. Al Qaeda was and is in Iraq.

I guess that'll do for now, folks. Your friendly Ostrich Killer is heading back to the bungalow.

OBSERVATIONS ON DIET AND INTELLIGENCE

Seems to me that, generally speaking throughout the animal kingdom, the heirarchy of intelligence is as follows:

Herbivores (plant eaters) - lower intelligence.
Carnivores (meat eaters) - medium intelligence.
Omnivores (eats both meat and plants) - higher intelligence.

Pondering that observation, some of us might wonder if that applies within a species as well. Said another way, when an omnivore decides to eat only meat or plants, does that adversely impact their intelligence? Or is that decision a reflection of their intelligence? Sort of a chicken or egg question.

Speaking only about populations, then, is a vegetarian less intelligent than an omnivore?

If you contribute to this discussion please let us know if you are a vegetarian or an omnivore.

MICROSOFT GETS FINED BY EU AGAIN

There they go again, gold-digging in the deep pockets.

I wonder what the EU can do if Microsoft simply refuses to pay? Are they going to forbid European residents from using Windows operating systems and any other Microsoft products until Microsoft pays the bribe - er, fine? If not, what else can they do?

European computer users might object to not having any Microsoft products available to them. Entire industries that use Microsoft office products will shut down. European economies will take the hit. Those industries might have something to say to their governments.

The more I think about it, this is a potentially government-toppling situation, if neither side budges. I wonder if the EU has wargamed the consequences of their actions?

THE FRENCH ARE PULLING THEIR TROOPS OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!

- - - So?

Why Our Adversaries Win

It's no secret, folks. The entire world understands that the United States is unwilling to use its force to achieve its national goals. Put another way, we don't have the stomach for a fight.

We aren't willing to do what it takes to win. Every dictator, every petty tyrant, every would-be terrorist organization knows this. We'll bomb like crazy for a few days or weeks or even months, but we won't engage in an all-out effort to win. We'll seek some sort of negotiated 'balanced' solution instead of victory. We won't do WW2 again, where we simply hammered the enemy into submission and accepted only unconditional surrender.

It's a case of news-byte boredom, a product of the MTV generation who thinks global politics is just an exotic video game. Most Americans don't understand that winning also involves, in a war, killing and destroying. We're shocked at the bodies, at the destruction. We eventually grow bored by it, then demand that we stop the carnage even if that means defeat for our purposes. Listen to the leadership of the Democratic Party on this. They are committed to bringing about our defeat against terrorists! Against terrorists! And you voted them into office knowing this! Of course, not all of you did that, so the rest of this comment is for those of you who understand the ultimate price of defeat.

How to overcome? One way: go all out from day one in a war, hold nothing back, wreak utter devastation quickly while the news organizations are still trying to decide which sacrificial slobs to send to the front. Get the job done while the news is still fresh and the ostrich-beset Americans, of which there are far too many, get bored and want something else interesting to watch on TV.

But we won't do that. Not even for the safety of our country. So, folks, we're doomed as a country; we don't have the will to defend our interests. We still have the means, but we don't have the will. So it's over. It's just a matter of time, because we've shown the world that they're right, we don't have the stomach for a fight.

Get used to the idea, and start learning Chinese or Arabic.