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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.    

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.

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 . . . 

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.  

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.

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.  

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.

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.

'OCCUPIERS' ARE NO MYSTERY

WHO ARE THESE 'OCCUPIERS' OF WALL STREET AND OTHER PLACES?

  First, my apologies to my reader(s). It's been a long time, and I'll be sure to post more often, because, like myself, you are getting fed up and want to read the thoughts of someone else who's getting fed up.

  So let's start with who the people are who are sitting in - 'occupying' - the various sites. You know instinctively who they are, don't you? When you were in grade school you stole their lunch money and beat them up. In high school they hid out behind the shop building and did dope. They dropped out during their junior years to pursue other opportunities, often wrecking their cars to gain insurance windfalls. They went from one job to another - burger flipping, counter sales at the Party City, auto detailing and car washing, rake manager for landscapers - but were most often drawing unemployment and welfare payments or, more likely, living at home with Mommy.

  Yes, these are the people who never got over having their mommies feed them and wipe their butts. There they are, sitting in parks and sidewalks, but instead of Mommy they have George Soros and ANSWER and other insurrectionists feeding them, and the city picking up their butt wipes. They have their hands out for your money - somehow, it should be theirs if there is 'economic justice.' Not that they earned it, of course. But they're entitled to it anyway because they need it. Otherwise they'd have to learn a useful trade and become productive.

  Even worse, they have our Instigator in Chief, Mr. Obama, smiling and winking at them and assuring them that 'we are with you.' Big surprise. Guess who led 'Occupy Chicago' in 1988? Look it up.         Now try to imagine a US President backing an attempt at national insurrection. Does that boggle your mind, or what? Isn't the President supposed to help PUT DOWN insurrection? But it should be no surprise. After all, he was a 'community organizer' in Chicago, which is another name for 'rabble rouser,' 'insurrectionist,' 'trouble maker,' and 'fomenter of civil disobedience.'

  We don't have a President, but what we do have is a bunch of whining, tantrum-throwing brats holding their hands out for free food, free housing, and your money. Your Ostrich Killer's suggestion on how to deal with them? Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow . . .

HOW TO TELL A LIB FROM A CONSERVATIVE

But first, a definition of terms: A 'lib' is a liberal, a democrat, a leftist, a socialist, a big government advocate. A 'conservative' is a Constitutionalist, promotes free trade and business-for-profit, a small government strong defense advocate, a 'rightist' politically.

So, how to tell the two apart, assuming at least a little observation?

A 'Lib' decides how he / she should 'feel' about an issue, and takes that position and will not change her / his mind in the face of facts, no matter how compelling or numerous.

A 'Conservative' looks at the facts, mentally models them, and comes up with a thought-out position on the issue. A conservative re-evaluates their position when new facts are brought to light.

To summarize: a 'Lib' feels and facts don't matter; a Conservative thinks and facts are what matters.

I know most of you already knew that. But maybe someone who isn't already a fan of this blog will happen along and learn something.

You're welcome. Now, another cup of coffee . . .

GM SHAFTS BUYERS AGAIN

Hey, guess what? GM says that engineering or mechanical defects on automobiles built before their bankruptcy will not be corrected even if they are under warranty, because '. . . under the terms of the bankruptcy agreement, we don't have to. That was a different company. We're post-bankruptcy, and a different more enlightened and not responsible company."

Or similar words. Hard to believe? Read about it here.

So, if you're one of the 400,000 or so 2007 - 2008 Chevy Impala owners with defective spindle shafts, you - well, you're shafted. This is the official GM position. Oh, and the resale or trade-in value of your "old" GM vehicle? Tanked. In short, you are - I'll say it again - shafted. Who in their right mind would buy an unsupported used car that needs a factory recall that the factory refuses to recall? Who in their right mind would buy a product from any company, if they know in advance that the company has a history of not standing behind their products?

My take on the current typical GM buyer IQ is that it must be well below 100. If you're thinking of buying anything GM makes, and you're a regular reader of this blog, you're probably already thinking about what happens after the next round of Government Motors bankruptcies, coming soon to a dealership near you. If you aren't thinking about that, you probably don't read this blog very often. Welcome!

HOW TO KNOW IF AN ATTACK IS TERRORISM

The recent attacks in Israel, of military buses and vehicles, has been labeled 'terrorism.' Read the story here. Yes, it appears there may have also been civilian casualties.

Attacking a military target is not terrorism, folks. It is an act of warfare, a military strike. It does a disservice to public opinion to label every bombing, strafing, or shooting 'terrorism' when in fact what has taken place is a fairly conventional military operation.

Terrorists target helpless and vulnerable non-military people, preferably women and children and shoppers and tourists. Blowing up a busload of soldiers, especially those that shoot back as in the above cited story, is decidedly not terrorism.

So, media: call it what it is, and spare us the inflammatory headlines.

NUTRITION FREE FOOD - STOP THE INSANITY!

The typical American knowingly buys 'foods' that have no nutritional value. Examples: zero-calorie sodas (news flash: sugar is an essential nutrient), light beer (more news: wheat, barley, rice, water, hops are all foods), sugar-free candies, fat-free this or that, meat-free burgers, etc. And then we go out and buy gallon jugs of 'protein supplement' powders, energy drinks, and so on.

Why does our personal budget contain money for foods that lack discernible nutrition? Because we enjoy putting stuff into our mouths. Why are there fat people? You know, those who have 'glandular' or 'metabolic' problems. Another news flash: everything in that spare tire around our flabby waists first passed through our mouths. So is the answer buying nutrition-free foods? No. The answer is to save the money we'd spend on those foods, and instead eat good food, but only as much as our bodies actually need.

How do we know how much we need, you ask? It's simple thermodynamics. Running a body's machinery for an average day requires a certain amount of fuel, measured in calories. Any good calorie calculator will tell us how much we need. Then all we'll need is some way to count calories as we eat, so we'll know when to stop eating every day. So now we have the tools and the knowledge. What else do we need?

Will power. There's no web page for that. We either have it and can exercise it, or we don't. Our friends, neighbors, families, and anyone who sees us knows whether we have it or not. And so do we.

Remember: we can't pack on what doesn't go into our mouths. Forget excuses like genetics, glands, metabolism, blah blah blah. If it doesn't go into our mouths, it won't show up on our thighs. Simple as that.

And that's your Ostrich Killer's public service blog for the day. Hope you found it boring and unneeded.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

Read it here first, folks. Since raising income taxes even to 100% on every dollar made by "those who can afford to pay a little more" (Obama's words) will not generate even a half trillion dollars - much less revenue than needed - it's clear what's been waiting on Obama's back burner for the right time to serve it up.

Ready?

Asset taxes.

Sounds harmless, doesn't it? We already pay income taxes, why not 'Asset' Taxes?

Many of you know of states that already do that. They tax every sofa, every refrigerator, every this or that you own. Every year. It goes by a variety of names, sometimes called 'property taxes,' with property being defined as anything you have. In those states, you don't own anything. You have something, you have to pay what amounts to annual rent to the state in order to keep it.

Now try to imagine this on a federal basis. Taxes on everything you think you own. You'll pay sales taxes to the state to buy anything, in some states you'll continue to pay taxes every year on those things, and now - you'll pay a similar tax to the Federal government.

Imagine your 401K, your IRA, your Keogh plan, your corporate-funded vested retirement plan all being taxed over and above the income tax you'll pay as you start having to rely on them for your retirement. And keep in mind that anything they can tax, they can confiscate. They can 'Federalize.'

How to counter this threat? - - buy now, with cash or trade (any check / credit / debit transaction can be traced), items that will always be of value in a barter society, because that's where this country is headed; the 'alternative' economy is about to become the 'mainstream' economy. Think essentials useful for barter, not baubles. What items are essentials?

I propose to get an idea what those essentials might be, your Ostrich Killer recommends reading a best-selling novel titled 'One Second After.' Here are some of those essentials: First, some sort of skill valuable to a small community's survival. Next, and I make no apologies for this - standard caliber guns and ammo. By 'standard caliber' your Ostrich Killer means .22, .30-06, .223 (5.56 mm), 7.62 Nato, and high-base 12-gauge shotgun ammo. This will be very sought-after barter material, especially because sales of ammo and guns will be encumbered with massive new 'limits' and Federal paperwork / approval required.

Non-perishable food and health items will be valuable. Tools, especially garden implements. Power generation equipment. Let your imagination run, and read 'One Second After.'

Your Ostrich Killer hopes even more than you do that this prediction is wrong. But your Ostrich Killer has a very unfortunate record of making accurate predictions. Read this that I put together more than 10 years ago, and see for yourself.

POLITICS? or PERSONAL ATTACKS?

I have a friend who runs a personal blog much like this one, but which deals with different subject matter. However, there is a Politics subsection. In the latest posting there, this friend commented on how nothing defines the GOP better than Trump and Palin getting together for pizza at what some natives to that area have described as the worst pizza parlor - and opened by some Polish immigrant, can you imagine?

Like most of you, I find this sort of thinking repulsive. First, where's the political connection? Surely a choice of restaurants can't rate up there with, say, their views on the American economy. Secondly, aren't we a melting pot? Don't we applaud any immigrant successes? Such as a Pole founding a successful pizza restaurant?

Yet all we hear, day in and day out, is how the left is tolerant and inclusive and reeking of the stench of diversity. So what could be more diverse than a female governor, a male entrepreneur, and a Polish immigrant's family getting together over pizza? But no. The left is inclusive, I guess, but even they have limits. Poles? Beyond the pale, it would appear, especially if they are purveyors of pizza. That sort of cross-cultural assimilation simply can't be tolerated.

In thinking further, and reflecting upon the rhetoric from the left about potential GOP candidates for office, or GOP ideas, we hear that these candidates and ideas are an uninspiring lot, and lack charm, or in other ways are not appealing. But politics is about none of those. Politics is about the value of ideas, and the election of people who will help carry out the ideas and agendae that the electorate most support. Charm and inspiration aren't there. Neither of those built this country, with the possible exception of the inspiration of the freedoms that the phrase "with liberty and justice for all" brought with it.

So expect the election to be mostly personal attacks from the left, and policy attacks from the right. As usual.

BORN THIS WAY

Yes, tonight your intrepid Ostrich Killer will take on Lady GAGA, whose hit song with the above title would lead the airheads that will (shudder) become our next generation of leaders to think that homosexual behavior is an inevitable result of genetics.

But first, a 'Hats Off' to Tom, who surprised your Ostrich Killer one day recently by addressing me as "Hello, Ostrich Killer." Living proof that your Ostrich Killer now has at least two readers who recognize me on sight. I'd better see about enlarging my server space to accommodate all the readers.

But back to Lady GAGA. First off, I'm not sure the title 'Lady' is appropriate. She seems more like a campy sleaze in expensive make-up. The lady, as the saying goes, is no lady. But hey. That's just my take. Her message in the song is she's 'born this way' (homosexual) so she has no choice but to rejoice in behaving as a homosexual. I doubt that she actually does, but the lyrics would have us believe she does.

So let's examine the intellectual vacuum in which her assertion resides: that genetics dictates how we behave, and we're helpless to do anything about it. The fact that we have a brain matters not. The fact that we can reason things out matters not. The fact that we, as thinking and rational Humans (most of us), can CHOOSE how to behave matters not. No, she would have us believe, we're slaves to those implacable task-masters, our genes.

What utter crap. All behavior is a choice. Assuming mental acuity (let's not get into a discussion over whether homosexual behavior is a manifestation of some sort of mental disorder. I already get enough hate mail.), one chooses how to behave.

Sometimes we hear something like "I'm homosexual, but I know that to live a normal life I have to pretend to be straight, so I got married and have kids." News flash: we are how we behave. That's the ONLY criteria anyone has to determine what sort of person anyone is. Words mean nothing, what goes on between our ears is invisible to everyone, so only behavior matters. So to those out there who think they're really homosexual, good news: you're not, if you're not behaving like one.

Look at it from the other perspective: can you imagine a straight pretending to be homosexual, up to and including behavior? Most of us, if we could even get it up, would puke at the idea. So too, one might think, would a homosexual when trying to pretend to be straight. How would a guy even get it up for a woman, if he didn't feel desire? But most (about 85%, according to a recent survey) so-called homosexuals have had both straight and homosexual experiences. Complete without puking.

Hmmmm . . . .

So what's operating?

Behavioral choices. Not genetics.

Maybe Lady GAGA can record another hit single, "I Behave This Way."

OPEN LETTER TO MITT ROMNEY

You aspire to be President, sir, but you are evasive on your own record. As one who measures a man by his actions rather than his words, I have not seen you demonstrate any disappointment, remorse, or other evidence of second thoughts about Romney Care.

The state of which you were governor, and which implemented your health care plan (Romney Care, it's commonly called), is now in a financial shambles because of that care. Medical professionals are fleeing your state by the trainload. Every measurable patient satisfaction index is down dramatically. Wait times have become a joke.

Yet you remain silent.

What's going through your mind about this? I read your plan for improving health care for the nation. I have yet to hear or read of you repudiating your own state's health care system. So I have to wonder if we're going to trade in Obama Care for Romney Care, on a national basis? I mean, it wouldn't appear that you are bothered by the impact your health care plan is having on your home state. Can we expect that you'll care on a national scale?

If it's you or Obama, I'll vote for you. But the Primaries are another matter altogether. There, we will have several conservative candidates to select from. If I don't hear from you one way or another on Romney Care, you probably won't get my support in the primaries.

One last thought: health care is not a right. Check your US Constitution.

OBAMA AND LIBYA - - POLICY? WHAT POLICY? (posted April 11)

Let's see . . . paraphrasing him, we have (in chronological order):

1. "We're going to fire a s--tpot full of cruise missiles, but we're not going to put troops on the ground. No sir, we're not going to put troops on the ground, and that's my final word on the matter. Our objective is to stop the slaughter of innocent rebels by slaughtering Kadhafi military forces."

2. "It's American policy that Kadhafi has to go."

3. "This very limited military action does not have the removal of Kadhafi from office as an objective. But it's our policy that he has to go."

4. "Yes, that was a U.S. Air Force F-15 that crashed in Libya. It had mechanical problems. Sorry I didn't mention we'd be using Air Force and Navy aircraft in this effort."

5. "We apologize for the strafing of friendly rebels by the door gunner on the rescue aircraft retrieving the U.S. Air Crew from the crashed F-15."

6. "We are not going to put American troops on the ground in Libya. Nor is it our objective to force Colonel Kadhafi out of office. That is my position, and I'm sticking to it."

7. "The use of Special Operation troops in Libya will be temporary."

8. "The U.S. has withdrawn all its aircraft from operations over Libya, as the NATO forces have assumed responsibility for all operations including the No Fly zone."

9. "U.S. Air Force fighters under NATO command are being used to help enforce the No Fly zone."

April 15: This just in:

10. "On second thought, we're going to keep bombing until Colonel Kadhafi leaves office. Oh, and those U.S. Air Force fighters helping enforce the No Fly zone in the air? They are also being used to enforce a No Tread zone on the ground, as well as a No Artillery or other Libyan Military Assets zone on the ground."

Does anyone know what American forces are supposed to accomplish in this 'effort?' Can anyone identify just why we're involved at all? Can anyone explain how anyone can believe anything that comes out of Obama's mouth?

Let your friendly Ostrich Killer know.

THE OSTRICH KILLER'S BUDGET SAVER

All of us have our favorite ideas on how to bring spending in line. Let's face it - in our personal budgets, we either have to cut spending to match our income, or increase our income to match our spending. At the federal level, that means either less spending, or more taxes.

We all love taxes, don't we? As long as it's the other guy who gets taxed, not me. I'm no different. But since we can't all go untaxed, maybe we should look at how to cut spending.

So here's my list:

1. Entitlement programs: First, any entitlement program not funded by its beneficiaries are scrapped. Gone. Done. Including all those federal employees who work on those programs. Close the offices, sell the buildings. You get the idea. Next, any entitlement program funded by its beneficiaries are kept apart from the general fund and may NOT be used as collateral or otherwise leveraged for any purpose other than paying its beneficiaries. Further, only those who pay into these sorts of programs - such as Social Security - may receive benefits from it, and then only in proportion to their participation in funding their personal accounts. Personal accounts may be willed to beneficiaries other than oneself in the same manner insurance policies can. This means NO DEADBEATS, ILLEGALS, OR NON-PARTICIPANTS WILL GET A DIME OF FEDERAL MONEY. Productive citizens will, non-productive won't. Yes, that's social Darwinism. This will save in excess of a trillion dollars a year, all by itself.

2. Welfare programs: Hey, didn't you read paragraph 1, above? No federal welfare. Of any nature. If the states want to provide any form of welfare, more power to them. But they can expect productive people to leave those states for states where there is no welfare.

3. Social Engineering Programs: We're talking things like Planned Parenthood, NEA (both types - National Endowment for the Arts and the National Education Association), PBS, "cultural awareness and appreciation" brainwashing in public schools, any affirmative action programs, etc. Elimination of these programs will save more billions.

4. Foreign Aid: You may be surprised to read this, but I'm not opposed to foreign aid. I'm just opposed to how it's done, although it doesn't amount to many billions. In the Ostrich Killer's budget, all foreign aid would be in the form of in-kind help, targeted to specific non-politically affiliated organizations in the various countries meant to receive such aid. For example, aid to Ethiopia would likely include drilling and irrigation equipment, farming equipment, seeds, etc. But no dollars. And any in-kind materials sent to these organizations would be built or grown in the US. Further, those countries who are not whole-heartedly pro-American would receive no foreign aid of any type. Nor would we allow imports from those countries.

5. The Space Program: They need a lot more money if they're going to reduce the chances of killing more astronauts and still do meaningful exploration. The Ostrich Killer is a big fan of space exploration. So I'd start by doubling their budget. That might almost bring their budget up to an amount roughly equal to the annual pizza expenditures by our citizens.

6. National Defense: This is an area where the question is not "how much can we afford?" but "how much is required?" Without a decisively dominant military, we don't continue to exist as a country. We hear that we have a 25-year technology lead on the rest of the world when it comes to defense items. Well, let's make that 50 years. Sitting on our collective asses and enjoying that technological lead won't keep us safe.

7. Other Programs, Agencies, etc: A deep review of every government agency - dept of agriculture, education, commerce, interior, etc - will be undertaken with the abiding question "does this agency or organization benefit the country more than it costs?" at the top of the list of questions. Any who are doubtful will be canned. Doors closed. People fired.

Do you like the above? Send a copy to Obama. Don't like it? Send a copy to Obama.

IPAD AND IPAD2 REVIEW

Yes, you're reading a first for the Ostrich Killer's blog. A techno-review of a popular product type. Why? Let me tell you a story.

My kids gave my wife and me an iPad for Christmas. Naturally, we were impressed and pleased. But once we got it home we discovered the truth about this gadget. Here's what we found:

1. No USB port into which to plug anything useful - unless you went to an Apple store and bought one of their items. The port is of a proprietary sort, and can only fit Apple things.

2. No additional memory card slot.

3. No productivity programs - not even if you could use the non-standard keyboard displayed on the screen.

4. Anything you wanted to load into the iPad had to come from or through iTunes. We would have to open an iTunes account.

5. There was nothing of any value in iTunes when I went looking for productivity software. There were simple, micro-versions of word processors and spreadsheets that required using the useless, klutzy non-standard keyboard on the screen, but that's it. There were hundreds of apps that were mostly novelties and games, and that wouldn't work in an environment where one was not connected to the internet.

6. To do anything - even games - one had to download - and usually pay for - them from iTunes. To send a file to yourself, you first had to send it from your laptop to your iTunes email, where you could then get it for the iPad.

7. There was plenty of memory for a full-fledged operating system, but instead they had a non-compatible, minuscule reduced instruction set type of OS. There was plenty of RAM for installing actual programs, but there was no provision for that.

I suppose that, in the interest of full disclosure, I should report that I have little respect for Apple zombies. You know what an Apple zombie is - the guy who stands in line overnight to be sure of getting a new Apple gadget on the first day it's released. They're living proof that P.T. Barnum, or whoever, was right about there being a sucker born every minute. So far only Panasonic (Toughbook) and Itronix have come close to creating a useful tablet-type PC.

An iPad and other current generation tablet devices, such as the Motorola Xoom, have a long way to go yet. They won't be there, from the Ostrich Killer's perspective, until they:

1. Allow for the plug and play connection of standard peripherals (keyboards, mice, speakers, ethernet, etc.) through standard ports;

2. Allow for loading actual programs, not just cute little apps (why not an Apps window, all by itself, available through an icon click on the desktop, while the rest of the desktop is used for 'traditional' computing stuff?)

3. Enough environment headroom to allow for running real programs and storing their resulting files;

4. Built-in G4 or better cell connectivity;

5. Built-in GPS;

6. Grey scale option switch in lieu of color to free up RAM and prolong battery life;

7. Ability to switch OFF wifi and cell connectivity and operate in true stand-alone mode;

8. Weatherproofing, or at least the option of buying a true weatherproof case that will still allow operating the device.

Your Ostrich Killer says that Apple could give the iPads away and make money on everything people have to pay for from iTunes in order to make the iPad do anything fun or even marginally useful. Realizing that, the logical definition of an iPad is: a hand-held portal to the iTunes store. That's all it really is.

Nope. Tablet devices aren't there yet. Who'll be first to make something useful? Apple? I truly doubt it. They're into toys. And so are their customer, who delude themselves that they're 'cutting edge' or some other euphemism meaning they're visionaries among the blind.

THE FRIEND OF MY FRIEND

My mother told me once: "People will judge you by the company you keep." She meant if I hang out with losers, people would consider me a loser. Or if I fly in clouds with the fast movers, I'd be considered a fast mover and shaker too.

The same goes for international alliances. Sometimes political alliances are made up of pretty stinky parties. Which brings us to the topic above.

Who is this muslim brotherhood that is neck-deep in all the uprisings in the middle east - Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Libya? News flash - the Libyan rebel forces include Al Qaeda troops.

We blew up a couple hundred million dollars' worth of cruise missiles to help the Libyan rebel forces. Our men and women are at risk hourly in that conflict. Fighting on the same side as the Al Qaeda troops.

What do we know of the fighters in Libya? We know that they are being helped by Al Qaeda. So I wonder: is it just true that the friend of my friend is my friend, which makes Al Qaeda our ally in this conflict, or is it also true that the friend of my enemy is my enemy - which means we should switch sides and bomb the crap out of rebel forces, in hopes of killing a few Al Qaeda?

Your Ostrich Killer, who can never be accused of 20/20 hindsight, said from the very first day that our involvement was not based on adequate knowledge of just who we were helping. I guess the proof of that is becoming more obvious. We are fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda.

I understand that Wal Mart is now selling snowballs from hell. I saw a flock of pigs flying over the house yesterday. And I lived to see a President violate the Constitution by sending US forces to fight in a conflict that had no national security overtones, without first gaining the consent of Congress.

If Clinton can get impeached by lying about getting a BJ, what should happen to a President who knowingly and willfully sends American Forces into harm's way without Constitutionally required Congressional approval?

WHY DEVOUT MUSLIMS ARE SO GRUMPY

You've noticed it. They blow up airplanes. The kill thousands. They wage wars on themselves, and aspire to wage wars on the rest of us.

They are a truly grumpy group of people.

And now I know why. Yes, your Ostrich Killer will share that truth with you, my faithful readers, and the rest of the known universe.

First, a quote from none other than Benjamin Franklin: "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Knowing that, can you figure out the rest? Yes? Okay, but I have to explain for those others who aren't as bright as my average readers. So here goes:

The Koran forbids beer or any other alcohol. No exceptions. None.

Now, according to various authorities, there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom either cannot read or are allowed to read ONLY the Koran. Not all of them are devout (meaning not all of them deny themselves a beer now and then,) but many of them are. It is from this devout (non-beer drinking) group that we get the terrorists, the homicide bombers, the ranting lunatics who are always looking for someone else to kill. Clearly, they are not happy people. They are downright grumpy. And what can usually cheer up even the most grumpy of grumps? A chilled liter of beer, or two. It works for me. It works for you. It works for everyone else I know. Why not the followers of Islam?

So your Ostrich Killer has a new recipe for peace in the middle east: millions and millions of cans of beer, dropped out of high-flying airplanes into major cities and other densely populated islamic areas throughout the world.

Yes, one could call this foreign policy the Buy Them a Beer initiative.

Some of you are thinking "This is stupid. It can't be that simple."

Wrong-O! Reflect a moment on history. What civilizations invented numbers? Massive architecture? Huge libraries of knowledge? Yes, that's right: Arabs, mostly Egyptians. Egyptologists tell us that the going rate for a lowly pyramid laborer, back in the days of the Pharaohs, was a gallon of beer a day. Hell, no wonder those pyramids got built! Makes one wonder whether these laborers were really slaves after all. Maybe they just liked beer and volunteered, having little else more interesting to do.

But then along came Mohammed, and the Koran, and the "No Beer and No Fun" rules.

And the world of Islam instantly stopped innovating and inventing, and became stuck in the Bronze age and grew ever more grumpy. And they've been that way ever since. Doubt this? Point to ONE innovation benefiting mankind from followers of Islam in the last 1500 years.

The Beer Initiative. Think it over, then write your congress people. Email the white house. Set up a beer stand outside your local mosque, if you can find one.

THE CUBANIZATION OF EGYPT

Sorry for the invention of that word above, o Faithful Readers. Let your friendly Ostrich Killer define it for you, especially if you're less than, say, 65 years of age: 'Cubanization' refers to what happened in Pre-Castro Cuba, during the time Castro was staging a revolt. In the US during that time, we didn't know what to do: Castro seemed to be a popular revolutionary who offered some promise of a freer Cuba, although we also knew he had 'leftist' leanings. So as a country, our leaders elected the Ostrich approach to dealing with him: we stuck our collective heads in the sand and pretended all was well.

Of course history shows us that it wasn't.

History also shows us that we knew it wouldn't be.

But doing something would have been difficult, so we put our most optimistic faces on and applauded.

Just like we're doing in Egypt.

The outcome is very likely to be an Iran-like Islamic state that hates Western culture and thinks of us as enemies. That may very well spell the end of Israel's peaceful co-existence with Egypt, and will almost surely result in Egypt openly running arms and other supplies into Gaza so that the idiots living there can resume rocketing and otherwise provoking Israel.

So now you know what recent history hints may be the outcome.

Do you think that Barack Hussein Obama knows this? Two possible answers: Yes, he knows, in which case he is on the wrong side. Or No, he is unaware, which makes him ignorant and / or stupid.

You choose.

A SUCCESSFUL MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN NUKE PROGRAM?

The evidence is mounting that there has been a successful military strike on the Iranian nuclear program, setting it back perhaps two years. There are three things especially interesting about this strike: first, no one has stepped up to claim they carried it out. Secondly, Iran has not officially acknowledged it nor pointed its finger at any nation. Lastly, no one was killed or injured by the strike.

Sounds incredible, right? I had the same reaction. Then I read this news story.

A big ATTABOY to whoever is responsible for it. But it's only a couple years, at most. So better keep other options open. Nothing is permanent. Still - ATTABOY!

THE MAIN CASE AGAINST AN AIRBUS TANKER FOR THE U.S.

This one is so easy that it has to escape both the Pentagon and the GAO. It comes down to Who Can You Trust in a time of global crisis. Can we trust Europe, where Airbus is a government-subsidized welfare program, not to embargo parts and other support to Airbus tankers used to help the U.S. fight a war that the Europeans don't like?

Did France let us overfly their territory when we struck Libya?

The answers to both questions is "No."

Imagine a scenario where we have to fight an ally of Russia. We start to fight, Russia says to Europe that they'll shut off their oil pipeline if they provide any support at all, including parts for Airbus tankers and other European-built weapons. What do you think Europe would choose to do? No gas, no heat, no hot water for a whole continent . . .

There are any number of other scenarios that you, o reader of this blog, can imagine for yourselves. Many.

Really, this is a no-brainer. Why not buy Boeing tankers? Better aircraft, made here, supported here by red-blooded Americans.

THE BRISTOL PALIN DWTS PHENOM

Most of you probably don't care what happens on DWTS (Dancing With The Stars.) But for those of you who do care, allow your Ostrich Killer a few lines to philosophize.

Bristol Palin - Sarah's daughter - is no dancer. Oh, she'd be fine in a social setting dancing the latest steps, or in even more formal settings doing ballroom dancing. But professionally? No. And this is no insult. I'm sure even her most ardent fans would agree, as would she and her mother.

So why is she in the finals? Well, it's not because the judges gave her high marks. Week in, week out she reliably pulled down the lowest scores from the judges. But the call-in voters have saved her every time.

This proves that DWTS is not actually a dancing talent competition, something I believe I mentioned in an earlier blog entry about a year ago. No, DWST has a talent component, but the viewers can, and in Bristol's case did, make it a popularity contest.

That's unfortunate. It's good for ratings, of course, which the show is REALLY about, but it doesn't do the reputation of televised dance competitions much good.

Tonight Bristol has an opportunity to do something spectacular and brilliantly sportsmanlike: resign from the competition. Here's what she might say as she and her partner take the floor for their first dance tonight:

"I want to thank all the viewers who have voted for me over the weeks. It is both humbling and wonderful to have experienced all that I have experienced since coming on DWTS. But everyone knows I am not a skilled dancer, and this is a dance competition. So with my thanks and gratitude to all of you, and the staff of this show, and the judges who so patiently gave me advice through the weeks, I resign this competition. When my partner and I have finished our dance, we will retire to the competitor's lounge to await the outcome of the final dances and voting. I urge all my fans and everyone else who plans to vote to vote for the most skilled dancer. The name of this show is, after all, Dancing With The Stars. Thank you all."

MORE AIRPORT SCREENING TECHNOLOGY SUGGESTIONS

So the TSA admits that the peep-show scanners and in-your-pants and bras feel-ups can only detect stuff on the outside of our bodies - in fact, they moan and wring their hands about this obvious shortcoming.

Your Ostrich Killer suggests this is not an insurmountable problem. Here are some suggestions, all of which I'm sure our Dept of Homeland Harassment has on their table for consideration:

1. Full body x-rays complete w/ lots of radiation exposure.

2. Cavity sniffers - devices that are forced into all body cavities to do video tours and 'sample' the air in there. Tip to TSA inspectors: don't get confused about which sniffer goes in which cavity. Tip to virgins: if you travel, it won't be long before you won't be able to prove you've been a good girl.

3. In the name of 'safety,' elimination of all public air travel. Only bureaucrats and military would be able to fly. The rest of us would have to travel on the surface. (Note: their current intrusive searches are taking us in this direction already.)

4. Gastric lavage - otherwise called 'stomach pumping' - to see what, if any, potential toxins or explosives may have been ingested very recently.

5. Spectroscopic analysis of your toe jam to see if it is, in fact, toe jam or if it's C-4.

6. Those streaks in your underwear? Spectroscopic analysis . . .

7. Air travel uniforms - specific uniforms that must be worn by all travelers, that will react with visible color changes wherever suspicious chemicals or vapors touch it. Check in for your flight, adjourn to a changing room, get into your travel uniform in much the same way that a surgeon gets into his / her greens.

8. Need I say 'barefoot' from check in to baggage claim?

9. Genetic profiling - if apparently middle eastern, be EXCLUDED from 'random' scrutiny so that no charge of islamic profiling can be levied.

10. Chemical testing of bodily discharges to determine whether on not you're peeing or crapping anything incriminating. Note to future TSA employees: if you're looking for a s___ty job, this one is right up your alley.

TSA PEEP SHOWS AND BODY FEEL-UPS GOOD FOR BUSINESS

Yes, your Ostrich Killer guy has probably lost his marbles by thinking these feel-ups and peep shows are good for business, but I predict they are: good for AMTRAK, good for bus lines. Look for a resurrection in the snoring rate of manufacture of long-range touring / travel buses (Greyhound and Trailways), good for any business that provides other ways of getting to places in the Lower 48.

But what about international travel? There are ships . . .

Saw: a picture on Drudge a day or so ago, of a nun being felt up. Caption? "The Terrorists Have Won."

Learned: once you get in line to go through the pre-screening, you are not allowed BY LAW to change your mind. You must go through the pre-screening. Otherwise, like that fellow John Tyner who recorded his refusal to allow feel-up searching, the long arm of the TSA will reach out and prosecute you and fine you a few tens of thousands of dollars. So submit, you sheeple!

Decided: I like road trips and other surface travel more than being forced to show off the goodies.