Friday, December 28, 2012

THE TEBOW TEMPEST

Why Tim Tebow Doesn't Start for the Jets

Let's take a dispassionate look at Tim Tebow, the quarterback.
- he took a floundering 1-4 Broncos team to the playoffs LAST YEAR with an end of season record of 8-8, and beat the Steelers in the first round of the playoffs.
- because the Broncos acquired Peyton Manning, he was traded to the Jets.  The Jets immediately announced that Tebow would be their second string quarterback.
- the Jets starter Mark Sanchez this season has a remarkable pass completion record, if one counts the number of his passes caught by players of the opposing teams.  The coach of the Jets has started a third-stringer a couple times to try to find a way to get some completions to his own team's receivers.  That hasn't worked.  So what does the coach do?  He announces that for the last game of the season, it'll be Mark Sanchez again.

One has to wonder: why not Tebow?  Why was the third-stringer started over the second stringer (Tebow?)

Oh, wait a moment.  There is one other item that wasn't listed above: Tebow is a Christian.  Worse, he's evangelical - meaning he lets people know he's Christian and does his human best to live up to the teachings of his faith.  He has a strong and faithful fan following.

Dispassionate analysis of Tebow's demonstrated football record would seem to indicate that he should have been starting at least a few games.  Why not give a proven winner a shot?

I think you, my faithful reader, can figure it out.  Yes, it's looking more and more like he isn't being given the opportunity his demonstrated football performances would seem to indicate he should be given because of his religiosity.  It would be unseemly, I suppose, to hear post-game quarterback interviews where the words 'God' and 'Faith' came up regularly.  Better, it would appear, to have those interviews with a losing quarterback who says something else - excuses, reasons, apologies for ineptitude, all the interceptions and losing, etc.  Yes, that's better.

Don't get me wrong here, o gentle reader.  I am not a Jets fan.  I'm not especially a Tebow fan.  But I am a fan of good football, and good football requires putting the best you have on the field.  I don't think anyone can honestly say that Sanchez and the third stringer are the best the Jets have.  But week after week, loss after loss, they have been on the field while Tebow - a proven winner in his first season with the Broncos - sat on the sidelines getting paid to do nothing.

This season I have watched more than my usual number of Jets games just to see how terribly Sanchez does.  And he has never failed to disappoint.  Morbid fascination drew me to watch game after game, wanting to see how long it would take for coach to pat Tebow on his head and tell him 'go out there and kick some ass, son.'  But no.  Never happened.  And it clearly should have.

Even usually diplomatic football broadcasters and commentators are aghast at the folly of the Jets misuse - or more accurately non-use - of Tim Tebow.  A weekend doesn't pass without most of them shaking their heads and wondering what is wrong.

What a waste.  And what a statement about at least the Jets coaching staff, if not football in general.  

Jets fans are right to be offended.  They spent good money to see the games, and what do they get?  Anyone but Tebow.  Ask a Jet fan sometime if they'd like to have seen Tebow start a few games in place of the inept Mark Sanchez.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Dumb Bombs for Dumb People

THE CASE FOR COLLATERAL DAMAGE

The most recent exchange of hostilities between the Gazans and the Israelis points up, your Ostrich Killer thinks, a philosophical flaw in the Israeli defensive posture: to avoid killing innocent palestinians when responding to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.

Much of that rocket fire is coming from places immediately adjacent to playgrounds, schools, mosques, markets, etc.  Why?  Lack of real estate?  No, it's so that when Israel returns fire there's a good chance the palestinians can show a wounded or dead baby, child, shopper, or damaged 'holy' place to the willing and eager CNN camera crews.

What were those people doing close to those launch sites in the first place?

How can they be thought of as 'innocent civilians' when they tolerate that tactic by their elected officials?  When the rocketeers locate rocket launchers next to their hospitals, why does the hospital staff and security not evict them?  That they don't makes them enablers, not innocents.  In the U.S., someone who enables a murder is an accomplice and can suffer the same penalty as a murderer.  Why should this sort of situation be any different?  By what sort of perverted PC logic can they be considered 'innocent?'  Why should they not share the same fate as those rocketeers?

So I suggest Israel re-think their collateral damage reduction philosophy, and instead reverse it so that there is a LOT of collateral damage.  Your ostrich killer would approve of carpet-bombing sites from B-52s flying at 50,000 feet, but Israel doesn't have those.  So a reasonable alternative might be deliveries of cluster bombs and napalm and fuel-air explosives and artillery-delivered area-denial minefields on those launch sites.  Yes, a lot of people might be killed.  But maybe, just maybe, other communities' citizens might not want the same fate for their communities, and maybe they'd drive out those rocket launching sites and thereby preserve their lives and the lives of their families.  If that sort of social ostracism catches on, there might actually be some sort of peace.

War is hell.  But it can't be waged without blood, and it can't be won without one side deciding it's had enough.  One more thought, and then you can go back to your coffee:  there is no point in prolonging the obvious.  If war is necessary, conduct it with maximum violence and destruction, so that it is over quickly.  In the long run, many lives will be saved.  The whole concept of 'proportional response' is ridiculous.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

HOW TO CONVERT A LIB TO A CONSERVATIVE

YOUR OSTRICH KILLER'S CONSERVATIVE COOKBOOK

Ingredients needed:
1.  a liberal brain (NOTE: while this may be a rare commodity, they do exist.)
2.  a catastrophic personal, financial or geopolitical event with crystal clear fallout.

We've all heard the conventional wisdom - that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged.  Or that if you're under 25 and not a liberal, you don't have a heart, but if you're over 35 and still a liberal you don't have a brain.

Both are true.  But neither says the obvious - that a liberal, confronted with inescapable reality and whose blinders have stopped working, will, assuming a brain between the ears, develop / invent conservatism all  by themselves.  They will become functioning conservatives, believing that they are still liberals.  Yet, in talking with them, the principles they promote will almost always be a combination of social liberalism mixed with conservative financial and geopolitical views.

Your ostrich killer is good with that.  As long as their brain continues to function they will come to see that there are consequences to even social liberalism.

So to my liberal readers, and their families, I suggest that if you agree that the above is most likely true, your ostrich killer has a suggestion: why wait for a catastrophe to bring you over to the conservative viewpoint?  You could become conservative now, and maybe even help fend off that catastrophe.  As a bonus, you'll make new thinking friends.

My duty is done.  Time for a beer.

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

ANOTHER DREAM INTERVIEW

A PRESS CONFERENCE WITH A TRUE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE

Reporter 1:  "Mr. Smith, what do you say to those many Americans who are out of work?"
Smith:  "Under my leadership the private sector business climate will improve, which will mean they will need more employees.  So vote for me if you want a better chance to get a job."

Reporter 2:  "Will you extend the federal safety nets for those long term unemployeds?"
Smith:  "No.  To those people, I suggest they become more aggressive about finding work.  Either that, or find a relative willing to support them.  Because I will work very hard to eliminate such safety nets.  It isn't the federal government's job to provide charity.  It isn't in the Constitution.  Some of you may have heard of it.  If not, Google it and read it."

Report 3:  "Aren't you afraid that taking that position will lose you votes from that group of voters?"
Smith:  "No.  They'd vote for my opponent anyway, assuming they're not too lazy to get off their asses long enough to vote.  People who are tired of paying support for the indigent, stupid, incapable and illiterate will appreciate my position on federal welfare."

Reporter 4:  "Mr. Smith, what do you say to those that advocate raising taxes on the rich in order to help balance our budget?"
Smith:  "I have a plan to balance our budget.  First, eliminate all entitlement programs.  That will reduce annual federal spending by over a trillion dollars.  Next, I'm in favor of reinforcing success; therefore I will propose and lobby strongly for a graduated tax plan, where the more money one makes, the lower their taxes rate becomes.  Those making over, say, a million dollars annually will pay no taxes at all.  Doing that will encourage entrepreneurial-ism and thus hiring.  More hiring means more people paying taxes."

Reporter 5 (Alarmed!):  "But wouldn't that be unfair to the poor and middle class?"
Smith:  "Would you rather encourage hard work and initiative, or sloth and mediocrity?  Part of the tax code's charter is to encourage certain types of fiscal behavior, and discourage others.  I think we should encourage hard work and success, don't you?"

Oh, well.  Another cup of coffee.

CONFRONTING THE OBVIOUS

THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN VOTERS -

1.  Pretend to believe an attractive lie so that they don't have to act on an unpleasant truth.
2.  Believe the major media.
3.  Think celebrities are smart about politics and should be listened to.
4.  Want to tax heavily anyone who doesn't depend on government.
5.  Have not grown up into adults - they think and act like little children, who only know what they want.
6.  Are the result of two generations of hate white America indoctrination in public schools.
7.  Will vote for anyone who promises 'free stuff.'  Just like a kid.
8.  Don't care about national security, or the security of our international friends.  Free stuff is much more important.
9.  Lack moral standards, and think this is a positive thing.
10.  Prefer to parrot slogans because it's easier than thinking.

Your Ostrich Killer knows you can add to this list.  Send your additions to me and I'll post them w/ credit.

It's a sad, sad day for America.

PUT A MAP OF THE WORLD ON YOUR WALL

FOUR YEARS TO A NEW DARK AGES

Elections have consequences.  Especially American elections.  Below is a list of the consequences you can expect to see.  Check this blog posting four years from now (if you still can) and see how close your Ostrich Killer came to a perfect prediction.  See if that map on your wall looks like ancient history.

Here we go:
1.  Israel will no longer exist.  There will be no live Jew in the middle east.  According to his actions, Obama hates the Jews.
2.  There will be no major centers of population left in the Middle East.  All will have been destroyed as Israel, going down swinging after a massive islamic invasion and attack w/ chemicals, goes nuke.  Damascus, Tripoli (both of them,) Beirut, Benghazi, Tehran, Bandar Abbas, Qum, Bushehr, Shiraz, Cairo, Port Said, Ismailia, Riyadh, and many others that are unfortunate enough to be situated near a significant military installation will be wiped off the map.  They will be reduced to glowing, glass-paved rubble.
3.  China will control all of the South China sea, including the Spratleys and any other islands they wish to control.  No one will contest them.  They will also have conquered Taiwan, and turned Japan into a cowering, fearful Finland-like nation who only asks 'How high?' when told by the Chinese to jump.  The same will be true for Australia and New Zealand.  Because the US won't prevent that.  Our president will not stand for anything other than tearing down this country to the lowest, meanest mediocrity he can.
4.  Private sector unemployment will skyrocket.  Only government job employment will improve.
5.  Russia, knowing full well ("I'll have more flexibility after my re-election" Obama told Medvedev) that the US will not intervene, will re-establish the old Soviet Union under the inspired and ruthless leadership of Putin.  All those east European, Balkan and other states that became separate countries on the collapse of the old Soviet Union will be re-captured without significant resistance.
6.  The rich will be taxed punitively.  Many will leave the country.  The jobs they would have created will not be created.
7.  At least one weapon of mass destruction will be deployed successfully in the US.  That means chemical or nuclear weapon, with hundreds of thousands dead.  We will do little except bury the dead and deplore the action.  Maybe we'll hunt down one man and execute him.
8.  The American military will have its nuclear arsenal whittled down by presidential order to less than 1% of its size thirty years ago.  Manpower will be reduced to such low levels that we will be unable to take significant military action anywhere except on training grounds in the US.  The Navy will not be any better off.  Military recruiters will not be able to meet even their dramatically reduced quotas.  Vast disillusionment in the ranks ("Why should I risk my neck fighting for something we aren't willing to win?") will send desertions to historic highs.
8.  America will print money in the trillions of dollars.  Prices will skyrocket accordingly - too many dollars chasing too few goods.  It's automatic.
9.  American businesses will either move overseas, be bought in place by foreign investors, or fail.  None will be immune.  Even mom and pop businesses will have to tighten their belts to survive - meaning layoffs.
10. If America isn't invaded and captured, it will only be because the invaders know that the ripe plum is ready to fall of its own weight.
11.  The price of energy will go so high that no one will be able to afford to move around in the country.

I could go on.  So could you.  Doing the math from above, how many millions of people around the world are going to die?

And all because we re-elected Obama.  Why did we re-elect Obama?  Because we have become a welfare state - a state where the citizenry holds out its hands for "free stuff" from government, and it doesn't matter what foreign policy issues there are.  Where does government get this "free stuff?"  From the producers in our economy, buying it with money that comes from the wallets of every living American.

Alexis de Toqueville's grim prediction is on the verge of being realized:  "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."  That day has long since come.

And now, to quote the obnoxious Rev. Wright, the chickens will come home to roost.

Goodbye, America.  It was a good run for awhile.  Now you're just another third world nation of beggars.

Friday, October 26, 2012

BUILDING A DEMOCRATIC VOTER

How to Create a Democrat

To keep liberals (democrats) in office, the leftist power elite (elected democrats and their socialist - commie pinko Soros-clone rich enablers) need people to vote democrat.  So they have this playbook that they pull out every time they get the chance.  This playbook tells them how to create a democratic voter base.  Here's how (outlined):

1. Divide and conquer.  This they do by first convincing blocks of people that they are victims.  Examples of such blocs include hyphenated voter blocs (Hispanic-American, African-American, Native-Americans, women, seniors, sexual extroverts and deviants, illegal aliens, etc. etc.)  The idea is to get them to believe that all others in America are somehow looking for ways to unfairly exploit them.
2. Promise to protect these various blocs from each other and the evil white blue-eyed male population.
3. Pass laws that provide these blocs a label of 'protected' so that any ills that befall them can be punished more severely than the same sort of offense perpetrated against a white blue-eyed male.
4. Provide money to these groups via any method possible (special programs such as Affirmative Action, welfare programs, abortion funding, free contraception, various 'subsidies' (wealth transfer programs) like health care, free college tuition, etc.)
5. Come election time, tell these folks that if they don't vote democrat, the money may stop.

Duh.

So who's a democrat?  Mostly they are people with their hands out for other people's money.

I know you already knew all this, o faithful reader.  But on the off chance that some lefty will drop by, your Ostrich Killer thought it would be amusing to let them know that we have them figured out.

Now, back to my beer.  Too late for coffee.

Friday, October 19, 2012

CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT

HUH?

When Gov. Romney, during the second presidential debate, said that Obama took 14 days to concede that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist action, Obama said that wasn't so, that he'd called it 'terror' the morning after the attack.

Then he pointed at Candy Crowley.  "Check the transcript," Obama said.

She shuffled through papers on her table and confirmed that he had called the attack 'terror' the morning after.

Later investigation revealed that Obama had not been talking about the Benghazi attack when he used the word 'terror,' but let's leave that aside.  Your Ostrich Killer has a few questions:

1.  How is is that Candy Crowley, the 'impartial' moderator, had those transcripts?
2.  Did she have supportive transcripts for Gov. Romney as well?
3.  If so, were both candidates allowed to provide her with transcripts and other documents?
4.  If yes, why haven't we heard that from anyone?  Why wasn't that made public knowledge prior to the debate?
5.  If Candy having transcripts was a surprise to Gov. Romney, how did Candy get those transcripts?
6.  How did Obama know she had those transcripts?
7.  Why did Gov. Romney look so surprised that she had transcripts?
8.  How was it that a question that prompted the invoking of those transcripts got asked?

Your Ostrich Killer smells a set-up and professional malpractice on the part of Candy Crowley, in conspiracy w/ President Obama.  He clearly knew she had transcripts; he probably provided them.  How else could he suggest she consult them?

It's gratifying that the day after the debate, she had to admit that the transcripts were taken out of context and that Gov. Romney had been correct.

What lingers is the willingness of Obama to stoop to any devious trick to try to survive the debates.  For what other purposes has he stooped to such low, Chicago - style tricks?

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

ASPIRING TO MEDIOCRITY

Humbling America, the Obama Way

It is stunning to review how an American President aspires to 'humbling' the country which he leads.  I cannot immediately recall any national leader of any country in the history of the world who wanted to REDUCE his country's economic power, its military power, its ability to defend itself, and its list of historical allies.

Obama took a country that was rolling comfortably along parallel to a distant economic cliff and turned it ninety degrees so that it will, if not quickly turned back to its former course, drive directly over that cliff. But turn is not in his plans; he wants to put the pedal to the metal.  He has stated that he wants to do to ALL businesses in America what he did to Government Motors and Chrysler.  What he did has resulted in Government Motors being owned by the taxpayer, who doesn't want it, to the tune of the better part of $100 billion.  Chrysler is scarcely better: it is now owned by that well-know quality conscious firm of Fiat Motors.  Not that Chrysler has been known for quality products for some time now, but ownership by Fiat is a step down even for them.

Wonderful.  Of the former Big 3 American automobile giants, only Ford remains as an American business enterprise with no taxpayer ownership or other obligations.  They make cars at their own expense, and they sell them at a profit.  Simple recipe that, combined with a minimum of Government oversight and an eye on quality, is working for them.  How long can Obama allow that to continue?

But enough about Ford and the other two.  Obama has asked the Pentagon to study reducing our nuclear inventory to 300.  That would be down from 31,225 in 1967 and 2,200 in 2010.  His goal is "a world without nuclear weapons" - which sounds laudable, but is in fact code for unilateral disarmament.

Humbling.  Prostrating America helpless in front of our enemies, as a show of good faith and trust.  We're good people, see?  No need to attack us, because we can't hurt you.  We'll do anything you say, because we can't back up our refusal . . .

You get the picture.  Moving America ever closer to third world status.

Our allies from BO (Before Obama) are now, at best, mere acquaintances.  Israel thinks they're alone in the world now, abandoned by America.  England ditto - Obama returned the bust of Churchill, remember?  Churchill, a bad example for FOOLs (Followers of Obama Logic.)  Canada wonders what in hell is going on, especially after the Keystone Pipeline fiasco.  Now our allies appear to be, at least in Obama's world view, the Muslim Brotherhood, Russia, and China.  I wonder how secure Taiwan feels these days?  Or Japan?

Do you think it's possible that our traditional enemies are seeing an historical opportunity in the Obama presidency?  Do you think they're likely to let it pass unexplored?

And we haven't even talked about driving up the cost of energy so much that the engines of commerce are starving.  People who commute to work are getting a double whammy: it costs them a lot more and their paychecks are lower than they were.  It costs industry more to power their lathes and tools, which they partly offset by reducing staff.  Can you spell 'lost jobs?'  But no drilling in the Gulf!  No, No!  And no new oil wells either.  No Keystone Pipeline.  No new nuke plants.  No new coal mining.  

What in hell do the Dems and Obama in particular think is supposed to power industries and homes?  Flower petals and choruses of Kumbya?  Or maybe (worse) endless verses of John Lennon whining out 'Imagine?'  Maybe the next Chevy model will the Chevy Fan, a car with a wind generator attached to the roof.  Or the Chevy Sail, with a mast - you get the idea.

Obama's view is that America needs to be humble, non-threatening, helpless, and no better and no worse than, say Greece or Kenya.  

He aspires to taking America from being the best in the world to being the average of the world.  He aspires to mediocrity.

If he succeeds, I wonder which country will then be the best in the world?

Your Ostrich Killer thinks he has made his points.  Thoughts?  Let me know.  Now, I need a third cup of coffee.

Friday, August 24, 2012

TODAY'S LEXICON ENTRIES

Another De-coding for Your Reading Pleasure

From time to time we all hear terms used and most times we just let them pass by, assuming we know what those terms mean.  But every once in awhile it's a good idea to take a look at how those terms are actually used, by whom, and why.

So here's a term or two to add to your growing lexicon of the evolving American ThinkSpeak language:

1.  Feminist (noun) Syn: Envious hater of femininity.  A term used by short, fat, ugly female liberals who are disproportionately lesbians to describe other equally repugnant liberal women.  There are no 'conservative' feminists.  A feminist, who has somehow found a blind male with no sense of smell, is far more likely to abort a baby than is a woman.

2.  Rich (adj) A term used by the Obama regime and the other America-hating Occupy dope-smoking welfare begging scumbags to describe another's financial comfort in relation to the person describing them as 'rich.'  A person or group is 'rich' if they have more than another party.  (noun) syn: Those who do not pay their fair share, as in 'The rich do not pay their fair share of taxes.'  (noun) syn: Cheats.  No one rich became rich legitimately, as in 'The rich steal from the poor.'  (noun) syn: Anyone who does not depend on government for regular fixes of money.  The political left hate the rich in part because the rich are not dependent on government for their day to day comfort, and see the rich as a threat to the political left because they help make other people rich too, and the fewer people who depend on the government for money, the fewer votes the left will get.  (adj) a pejorative term used exclusively by the left to fan the flames of class envy.  (adj) A term used by conservatives to express admiration for another's success.

3.  Fair Share (noun) syn: Anything a rich (def. above) party has that another does not.  Often used to describe the difference between minimal survival requirements and current comfort level for anyone not taking monthly government bribes in the form of money, food stamps, etc, as in 'The rich are not paying their fair share.'  If they did pay this 'fair share,' they would no longer be rich.  They would be just as poor as the typical welfare recipient, who would be worse off than ever because the rich can no longer hire or pay  workers.  The formerly rich would have to close factories and other businesses, because those would have been forfeited to the government at part of the 'fair share.'  The government would then give these businesses to political cronies and campaign donors.

4.  Social Justice (noun) syn: Taking the fruits of one's labors and giving them to those who do not labor.  A concept favored solely by those who hate America and lay about on their dope-smoking illiterate public schooled lazy asses and bitch about not having a summer home in the Hamptons.

It's too late in the day for coffee.  Your Ostrich Killer is now going to adjourn for a beer.  If you have suggestions for other words to add to this ever-expanding lexicon, please pass them along.  Thank you for stopping by.

Sunday, July 08, 2012

SHAME ON THE BLACK COMMUNITY OR THE MEDIA

WHICHEVER IS THE GUILTY PARTY - OR BOTH

   There's a dead black street thug.  A non-black guy (Zimmerman) shot him to death.  The black community's self-appointed race-baiting 'leadership' (Sharpton, Farakeen, Jackson) pretty much call for lynching Zimmerman. Oh, they were careful to avoid using those exact words.  But go back to the news archives for a few days after the killing and read them for yourselves.  They were inciting and soliciting murder.  Read it for yourselves.
   Never read anything in the Mainstream Media (MSM) about other blacks in the public arena saying anything about how wrong that is.  According to the media it doesn't seem to matter who did what and why - it's only important that a black street thug is dead and a non-black guy did the killing.  The facts don't matter.  The truth doesn't matter.  Why he's dead doesn't matter.  No, what matters is that a common-variety street thug who was black is dead by the actions of a non-black
   So what are we to think about this?  Your Ostrich Killer suspects that the MSM is waiting breathlessly for the murder of Zimmerman, the non-black killer of that street thug - a murder they will have assisted in bringing about through their one-sided coverage of the sentiment and anger of the black community.  I have to believe that murder and lynching is not a commonly held approach to determining the facts of what is at the bottom line a criminal investigation and trial in the American sense.  A charged party is innocent in our legal system until proven guilty.  But was there coverage of this side of the black community, the side of 'let's see what the facts are, and then if a trial is needed we'll hold that trial'?
   Did you see any of that in the MSM?
   Either the black community or the media - or both - should be hanging their heads in shame over this lynch-mob rhetoric.  If it's just the media's fault, then the black community needs to find a way to let the rest of the country know their true majority thinking - and they shouldn't do it through those disgraceful race-baiters who claim to represent the black community.  Nobody appointed or elected them to speak for 36 million blacks.  So speak up!  Sound like Americans instead of a mob.


   I still haven't had my second cup of coffee.  Can you tell?

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS VICTIMIZED BY WORK RULES

Your friendly Ostrich Killer was SHOCKED - Shocked, you hear? - to learn recently that at least one major airline has flight attendant compensation rules that few sane Americans would tolerate.  Not sure what that says about flight attendants, but hey.  Let me paint just one picture of how the flight attendants get paid at this particular major airline:

They dress, make their way to the airport without getting paid.  So? you say.  You commute to work every day and you don't get paid for that either.  And that's true.

Next, they sit like everyone else and wait their turn to board the aircraft.  They have to do this because they're not sure if boarding will begin a few minutes early.  No pay.  But there they are in the airport.  Airline rules say: "That's not your place of work."  No pay.

The flight is delayed.  They still sit there, time ticking by.  No pay.  And they can't leave under pain of firing.  They're not on the job, they're not getting paid, but they can't leave?

Eventually the flight arrives, they get to board.  They stow their luggage and do a bunch of cabin prep work.  And here's where it gets interesting:  the airplane door hasn't closed, so they don't get paid.  Wait, you say.  They're doing their jobs but they don't get paid?  That's right.  The door is still open.  No pay.

Finally here come the passengers.  Throngs of them.  The flight attendants help board them, show them their seats, stow outsized luggage somewhere (they always seem to have space somewhere), lift bags to the overhead for the feeble lame or lazy, smile and be pleasant.  But of course the doors are still open.  So they don't get paid.  WHAT???? All that work but still no pay?  That's right.  They're on the job for free so far.

The passengers are seated and discover that there is a storm in the area and departure will be delayed.  They sit at the terminal.  Flight attendants scurry up and down the aisles passing out free drinks and twigs and condolences.  They take verbal abuse because they're the nearest airline-related target.  The doors haven't closed.  Nearly 3 hours later the storm has passed enough that departure prep can begin.  The doors close.  NOW they start getting paid.

Some of us - I'm one of them - would say that's fine, if that's the rules and the flight attendants agree to work that way, that's their choice.  But doesn't it seem logical that they should be getting paid from the time they get to the boarding gate not more than an hour ahead of their scheduled flight, until they deplane at the destination?  There they are, on the job.

Your Ostrich Killer thinks that a good place to recruit dedicated, work-ethic enriched talent with supreme people skills and demonstrated learning ability would be on board an airliner.  There they are - talent, charm and intelligence on the hoof.  Go get them.

Yes, you executives out there.  Hire these people away from this nonsense!  Most can be had starting, for a hard worker, for less than $30k.  Offer to train them whatever technical skills they need to move up in your organizations.  They're looking for a way out - show them a way up instead.  Give them your card.  Ask them to send you a resume and describe briefly the type of work they'd do.  Mention your 401K plan, the health maintenance plan, the locations of your offices, other simple stuff.  Be encouraging.  And if you have concerns about your aging workforce, many of these flight attendants are in their early to mid 20s.  A little basic selectivity as to who you give your card to could be part of a solution, don't you think?

Yes, you do.  You're welcome!

Thursday, May 17, 2012

WHEN IS AN APP NOT AN APP?

Yes, this is another of the Ostrich Killer's tekky blather posts.  Every so often I get a bug up my behind about some aspect of technology, and just have to let others know what's what out there.  So - let's discuss what constitutes an "App."  You know - that thing a smart phone or tablet (such as iPad or many others) does when you touch one of those cute little icons on the screen.  You touch it, something happens.  They're called 'apps,' which is short for, I suppose, 'application.'

So when is an app not an app?  An application, to my admittedly curmudgeonish mind, is something a computer does when it is invoked / launched.  You're sitting at your PC right now, reading this.  You're running an app that is generically called a browser to do that.  The browser is resident on your PC.  You launch it on purpose.  

But what would happen if you weren't connected to the internet or a cell service?  The browser would launch, but it would return an error message saying, in effect, 'You dummy.  Hook up first.'  The application (browser) would run but show nothing else.

How to know if those cute little icons on your smart phone or tablet are apps?  Turn off the wifi.  Turn off the cell service.  Then try to launch the app.  If it still runs, it's a true application.  If it doesn't, it's just a hyperlink to a web page.

So when is an app not an app?  By now I hope you've come to the correct answer:  "When it's a hyperlink!"  Apps are resident, hyperlinked sites are not.  Put another way, an app that is nothing more than a hyperlink is no different than one of your browser's bookmarks.  But the gullible public has been sold the idea that they are somehow different, because they're cute and on the screen of the smart phone and / or tablet.  

Ah, marketing to the unwashed masses . . .  Your Ostrich Killer has done yet another public service.  You're welcome, and spread the word.    

Friday, March 09, 2012

PRICE OF LIGHT SKYROCKETS

MAYBE IT'S TIME TO GO BACK TO CANDLES AND BICYCLES
     Among the many attacks on low-cost energy waged by the Obama regime, probably none is more telling than the mandatory replacement of the 4-for-a-dollar incandescent lightbulbs you use in your home.  Yes, when they burn out you'll have to replace them with something a LOT more expensive.  How expensive?
     You know that your Ostrich Killer has the answer to that question, right?  So here it is: instead of 4 for $1, you can now expect to get 4 for $200.
     That should please the 'green' crowd almost as much as $6 a gallon gasoline.  Or killing the oil pipeline from Canada.
     Maybe the people who elected Obama last time will ask themselves, during the next election, if they can afford to drive to their local polling places.  Or, if they're using mail-in ballots, if they should make plans to fill them out during daytime so they won't have to use electricity to read them at night.  And hopefully that vast throng of stupid white people who voted for Obama last time because they thought that would prove they're not racists (it proved the exact opposite, of course) will now say to themselves something like 'Okay, I did something really stupid last election.  I voted skin color instead of qualifications' and vote more responsibly this time.
     Naaah.  As Ron White correctly points out, 'You can't fix stupid.'  So these delusional voters will find another excuse for not voting issues and qualifications.

Saturday, March 03, 2012

FRENCH AND AMERICAN JOURNALISTS KILLED

JOURNALISTS KILLED IN SYRIA


  So?  What did they expect?
  Did they think the Syrian gov't would treat them differently than they treat their own citizens?
  Here's a thought for you journalists out there:  covering wars is a dangerous business, especially when one or more of the combatants doesn't want that coverage.  Duh.
  You news agencies would be doing the population as a whole a big favor by sending young journalists who haven't had time to reproduce yet.  Those stupid enough to go could be culled from the gene pool, thereby improving our species.
  And now, another cup of coffee . . . 

Friday, February 24, 2012

RETURN AFGHANISTAN TO THE 12TH CENTURY

As We Leave, Return Afghanistan to its Former Pristine State

Obama wants us out.  The Afghans want us out.  Your Ostrich Killer wants us out - not because I don't believe in freedom, but because I believe that freedom is for those who are willing to fight for it, not against it.  It cannot be imposed, it can only be captured.


So where are the Afghani police and security forces during these hyped-up 'koran burning' riots?  Where is the Afghani leadership?  Why, with the rioters of course.  On their side.  And why?  Because the trash left behind by Afghani prisoners was about to be burned.


Well, ok.  Enough is enough.  I propose that as part of the overall withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, we return that country to its former pristine 12th century condition - you know, the condition it was in before American forces arrived.  


So we should start with roads, dams, power plants, rail lines, bridges and schools.  If we built them or even repaired them, take 'em all down.  Sewers?  Dynamite them.  These are people of the left hand, after all, and they didn't need sewers before we arrived.  You'll have to look that phrase up to truly understand, and your Ostrich Killer has too much class to describe it here.  Or you could drop me a note and ask, as my personal review of Google's search results don't return the proper descriptions.  Maybe Mr. Google is the polite sort.


Internet? Cell communications?  Factories?  Industrial facilities of any sort?  Motorized farm equipment?  Turn them to slag.  And then leave them to fight themselves as they have for millennia.  Drop incendaries on Opium poppy crops.  Wherever pockets of terrorism crop up, carpet-bomb them from 50,000 feet.  Don't waste smart bombs on dumb targets.  With a little luck and enough collateral damage, maybe the population will take steps to keep organized terror out of their communities.  If not, well - that's what Arclights and collateral damage are for.  Otherwise just leave them alone.


And good riddance.  

Thursday, February 23, 2012

PEACE RECIPE FOR THE MIDDLE EAST

THE CAB DRIVER IN TEL AVIV


Your Ostrich Killer just returned from Tel Aviv.  First time ever to that part of the world.  An Israeli taxi cab driver passed along a couple interesting thoughts:


First, he said "All we (Israelis) want is to be left alone.  If we were left alone we could be another Switzerland."


A few moments later he said "If the arabs put their weapons down today, there'd be peace in the Middle East today.  If the Jews put their weapons down today, there'd be no Jews tomorrow."


I wonder if our State Department ought to put this fellow on retainer.

Whitney Dead. Darn!

SPARE US ANY MORE MEDIA MASTURBATION ABOUT WHITNEY HOUSTON

Okay, someone should just say it:  she probably offed herself.  Poor little rich girl.  While your Ostrich Killer is as saddened as anyone else by suicide, the act alone is enough to deprive her of any honors.


Suicide is an act of hate, and people should line up to piss on the graves of those who commit it - they should NOT honor them.  It's a mortal sin.  Ask any major religion.


I'm being unfair?  She had golden tonsils.  It's true.  Very good singer.  Lousy wife.  Lousy mother.  Crack and coke head.  Juicer.  Kid in rehab or needing to be.  So other than being a good singer, of what use was she to her family or society?


None.  So let's stop all this whining and hand-wringing and eulogizing.  Say "it's too bad rehab didn't work for her," and move on.  There are other singers.  Some of them are actually decent human beings.


Good thing your Ostrich Killer hasn't had his second cup of coffee yet.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

WHAT EXACTLY IS 'INSTITUTIONAL RACISM?'

Your friendly Ostrich Killer only asks the above question so that he can answer it for all the people who SHOULD be reading this blog.  My regulars already know the answer, so my apologies to you.


To properly answer the question, we first have to agree that the word 'institution' means any structured system involving people, such as a university, or a government, or your local day care center.  All these institutions have policies or laws governing many things.  Including dealing with the race issue.


Okay, so now for the definition:  "Institutional Racism" is any enforceable policy or law that treats one group of people differently than another, based at least in part on their race.


End of definition.


What?  You have a question?  Oh - okay, it is true that Affirmative Action programs are institutional racism.  In fact, they're one of the very best examples of it.  Good point.  Oh, and yes, also the university preferential treatments of various races so that they can 'diversify and enrich' their student body population.  And so are so-called 'hiring preferences.'  And yes, Obama's recent address to black Americans, appealing for their support in the next election, was racist.  Can you imagine what the press would make of a white conservative appealing to white Americans? - - but the press is another topic, for another time.


Good points, all of them, o Gentle Reader.  As usual, you're spot on.  Now if we could only get the people who SHOULD be reading this blog to read it . . . And now, another cup of coffee.  You're welcome.  

Monday, February 06, 2012

TOM BRADY DOES NOT AN ENTIRE TEAM MAKE

A SAD SUPERBOWL


   First, let your Ostrich Killer make it clear that he didn't pull for one team or another.  He pulled for quality football.
We watched the team with probably the most talented quarterback in the history of the game lose to a lesser team - a team beaten by the Seattle Seaturkeys this season.  Why did New England lose?
   They lost because of a questionable franchise philosophy:  score a vast number of points, and it doesn't matter how many points the other team scores.  So it's offense, offense, offense - and just enough defense to slow down the other side.
But if you don't score a boatload of points - well, that's what happened.
   Many megabucks spent on offense, lip service to defense.  No interceptions by New England.  Few drive-stopping plays.  And just when New England couldn't afford it, three dropped passes in a row near the end of the game.
   A statistical certainty that happened at just the wrong time, despite Tom Brady setting the all-time consecutive pass completion record for a Super Bowl.
   This game is just another in a universe of examples of why balance is a necessity.  Mrs. Brady, Tom's wife, has it right.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

ALARMING FEMALE VIOLENCE INCREASE IN LAST DECADE


No, we're not talking about guys beating up gals.  We're talking about gals whupping up (or trying to) on everyone.  News stories lately say 'experts' are puzzled by this strange phenomenon.


But not your friendly Ostrich Killer.  Nope, I've got it all figured out, just like you probably do too.  


So this post is for the other readers out there.  The ones who should be reading this blog, not you.  


Here it is, all nice and tidy: the increased violence is a result of all those TV shows and movies where the hot babe kicks the living crap out of some big-muscled bad guy.  You've seen them on all the cop shows on TV, all those thrill shows at the box office.  Hot babes, kicking big guy butt.  So it's no wonder that the airheads in the audiences think Hey, I bet I could do that too!


And then they try it and get totally trounced.  Why?


Because a male the same weight as a female is about twice as strong as and can take several times the punishment that a female can.  That ain't sexism, folks, it's physiology.  


Another myth of 'equality' shattered, courtesy of your Ostrich Killer.  You're welcome.