Another Russian Invastion

Another Czechoslovakia?

Hungary, 1956.  Czechoslovakia, 1968.  Afghanistan, 1979.

And now, in 2014, Ukraine.

What are the lessons?

1.  The Soviet Union is dead, but Russia is still Russia.

2.  Russia can invade and the west will wring their hands and sit on their asses.

3.  It doesn't matter what the nations bordering Russia WANT as their government; it only matters what Russia wants for them to have.

4.  The west can no longer be trusted help any struggle for freedom.

5.  The Russians know this, and are going to take advantage of our Anointed One's foreign policy illiteracy to attempt to rebuild the Soviet empire.  Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe - so where better to start?

6.  Our Charismatic Ruler and his Alfred E. Neuman-like lickspittle enablers will continue to disarm America unilaterally, without regard to global threats, to below pre-WW2 levels so that even if we'd like to help, we won't be able to.  Even the defense of our shores and cities may not be feasible soon.

I'm beginning to believe our founding fathers fatally over-estimated the intelligence of the American electorate.  The evidence is overwhelming.

I need another cup of coffee.

Late Night Talk Shows Suck

JIMMY FALLON OUT OF HIS DEPTH

Now that your Ostrich Killer has watched Jay Leno's replacement for a few nights, I can save you the trouble of tuning in.  The show is just another far left drug and homo-friendly Obama-fawning propaganda-thru-humor platform for the extreme left.  Don't waste your time.

You will never hear deprecatory jokes about anything left now.  Jay Leno, at least, was balanced in this regard - he joked about everyone.  But NBC is a body and soul slave to Obama, and Leno was known to take some well-place shots at Obama through humor.  So Leno had to go.  You can't poke fun at the Glorious Leader.

Don't expect that that sort of humor from Fallon.

So no more late night talk shows for me.  I'm sick of having what I believe being misrepresented and joked about.  

I guess it's what we all should have expected.  People who grow up at the bosom of the entertainment industry come out the way Fallon and Letterman have.  Brain dead.

Coffee time.  Then nap so that I can be ready for late night re-runs of Duck Dynasty and Blue Bloods.

BENGHAZI AGAIN

Where Are the Survivors?

Has anyone heard from a single one of the people who survived the attack on Benghazi?

Does anyone know where even one of these survivors is?

Has there been testimony from a single one of them before a Congressional committee of any sort?

Does anyone even know the names of a single one of the survivors?

Doesn't it seem logical that some of these survivors should have said SOMETHING to SOMEONE?

If you are a relative or friend of any of these people, do you know where they are?  And have you been contacted by any federal entity about them?  Drop me a line if you know.

I heard the other day, from one of those frothing-at-the-mouth wild-eyed right wing radical radio hosts, that FEMA is building 'camps' complete with guard towers and barbed wire.

DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has ordered about 2 billion rounds of ammunition and 2,700 mine-resistant personnel carriers.

Neither DHS nor FEMA is constrained by Posse Comitatus laws.

Two and two results in an uncomfortable sum.

Finally, ask yourself the basic question of who benefits from silencing the survivors.  Remember that His Imperial Majesty has not accounted for his whereabouts nor his decisions, if any, during that situation, and that Hillary was his Secretary of State and involved up to her eyebrows.  Then vote accordingly at the next election.

JUST SAY NO

Executive Orders and You

His Imperial Majesty, the Anointed One, Barack Hussein Obama has announced that since the Congress is proving to be obstinate, he will rule the country via executive orders.  This is despite being advised that the power of his orders is questionable, especially when they amount to legislation - in effect, he is assuming the role of both executive and legislator.  A clear violation of the separation of powers specified in the Constitution.  

He and Eric Holder (his pet attorney general) have announced that some laws - they get to decide which ones - will not be enforced.

Huh?  They can pick and choose which laws have the power of law?

Okay.  They've set the precedent, so here is a logical extension of that sort of thinking:  they can decide which laws to enforce, I can decide which laws to obey.  Seems fair, doesn't it?  Of course it does.

And since Obama cannot constitutionally legislate, I can safely ignore his executive orders.  They lack legal authority.

So if you don't like a law or two, ignore them.  Ditto executive orders.  Just say no.

What's wrong with this logic?  You decide and let me know.

Another cup of coffee now.

DOING THE MATH

Parsing that Botox Commercial

There I was, recumbent in my lounger watching some forgotten TV show last night, when this Botox commercial pops up.  Should I have post-menopausal headaches, I am told, maybe Botox injections can help.

Leaving aside the obvious, the legal / scientific caveat pops up on the screen.  Let me write it down here, as close to word for word as I can remember:

"Botox prevents up to 9 headache days per month, versus up to 7 for placebo."

Just to make sure we're on the same page, a placebo is a medication that has no pharmacological value - is inert and harmless and the same as taking nothing at all.  Except for one thing - the person taking it THINKS they're taking medication and expects it to help.  If it helps, that is called the "placebo effect."  It helps because the person thinks it's helping.  In reality it is doing nothing at all.

At first that just bounced off my GAS (Give a S--t) filters, then it hit me:  Placebo 7, Botox 9.  That means that the up to 9 headache days per month prevented by Botox includes 7 days prevented by the placebo effect.  So the person buying the injections is paying for an additional 2 days.  Looked at another way, the Botox is statistically providing 22% of the relief-days the customer is experiencing, while the placebo effect is providing the other 78%. 

What does all this say about post-menopausal headaches?  Yes, your Ostrich Killer will tell you, passing along the wisdom of my mother whenever I complained of some non-injurious, non-feverish malaise:  "It's all in your head, Sweetheart.  Go out and play."

Good advice.

Of course you're going to point out that one cannot go out and buy a placebo, because doing so would subvert the value of a placebo.  One would know it is a placebo and would therefore NOT expect it to work - so of course it wouldn't.  That's the sort of thing that Joseph Heller would appreciate: if you don't know what you're buying it works, but if you do know it doesn't.

Truth in advertising.  Ain't it wonderful?  Now go out and play.

MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING

What The Seahawks Knew about Denver

This should have been obvious to us all, but for some reason that borders on the athletic equivalent of Political Correctness no one has said out loud.

So let your Ostrich Killer say it here:  the Seahawks knew that the entire Denver offensive scheme was built from the ground up to protect - literally - Payton Manning's neck.

Yes, his neck.  Remember that he had 4 neck surgeries after an injury a few years back.  He missed an entire playing season to have that injury surgically corrected.  He sat out an entire playing season to have these surgeries and give his neck time to heal.

Enter the Denver Broncos looking for a 'franchise' type quarterback.  With his doctor sternly warning him that he must protect himself, and must gain medical approval periodically to continue playing, he offers his help to the Broncos.

The Broncos want to protect his neck too, so they designed an offensive scheme to help do that.  They came up with some pretty good solutions:  very quick pass releases after the snap, for example.  Staying in the pocket - no scrambling - and making quick target decisions, for another.  Strong offensive line that nearly eliminated quarterback hits and sacks.

That worked during the regular season.  No one talked about it, other than occasionally remarking that he'd had 4 neck operations.  No one said that the Denver offensive scheme is "protect Manning's neck."

Along come the irreverent Seahawks, taking advantage of Manning's unwillingness to risk his neck by scrambling.  Manning is limited in what he can do: if his receivers are covered he has to take unfamiliar risks.  That means turnovers.

It didn't work.

How good would Denver be if they had a scrambling quarterback like Kapernick or Luck?  These guys can hit receivers too.  And they can protect their own necks with their legs.    

In the end, an offense lacking a running game and built to protect a fragile neck proved to be just too limited to survive a determined pass rush and smothering defensive secondary.  The pass rush in particular understood that if a quarterback is not going to scramble, then they can tighten the focus of their rushes.

On an unrelated note, let your Ostrich Killer be the first to suggest that the citizens of East Rutherford, New Jersey be awarded Honorary 12th Man status.  From all the noise and weather, the Seahawks can be forgiven for wondering if they were playing a home game.  Ditto for the Broncos, who might have wondered if they were in Seattle.  Bravo to you!

A Fantasy

Not Drug Induced, but Will Seem So

Your Ostrich Killer has spent about 30 years working, one way or another, for your US Government.  I've seen contracts and contract negotiations.  Over that span of time I've fantasized about how I would conduct negotiations with the government.  

Without further ado, let me share a short story that fantasy prompted:

I had a dream last night

And woke up smiling.

The dream went something like this, although I confess to expanding it for this short story:

The setting is the corporate offices of the owner of a major American manufacturer.  Six months earlier the Owner had bought the company at great expense.  He is the sole owner.  There are no shareholders, no board of directors. There are only two people in the owner's office, an assistant Secretary of Defense - named Pat - and the owner, named Bill.  The Assistant Secretary of Defense wants the manufacturer to bid on building a new type of weapon system.

  Bill: (upon completing his reading of a lengthy technical specifications and requirements for the future weapon system): "I don't know that we can build such a weapon system, sir."
  Pat: "We believe your firm may be the only one in the world capable of building such a weapon system.  You are the very best at what you do."
  Bill: "Thank you.  We and our customers agree."
  Pat: "We are puzzled why you didn't respond to the RFP (Request for Proposal) to undertake building that weapon system."
  Bill: "Doing business with the government is vastly unpleasant and overly complicated.  But even if that weren't so, the terms of the proposed contract are unsatisfactory."
  Pat (surprised): "But those are standard government contract terms!"
  Bill:  "Yes.  We know that."
  Pat: "You already have contracts in place under those terms!"
  Bill: "Yes we do.  They are leftovers from when this was a public company.  But this is my company now.  When we can legally and without penalty exit those contracts, we will.  The sooner we can contractually raise prices on existing contracts, we will.  They are insufficiently profitable."
  Pat: "But you must build this for us!  You are -"
  Bill (interrupting): "Yes. I know.  The only ones who might be able to."
  Pat: "Why won't you build it?  Profit?  Is that all?"
  Bill: "Yes."
  Pat: "The proposed standard contract provides for a three percent net profit.  That isn't enough?"
  Bill: "It allows up to three percent over a fixed price.  Not even God knows what such a weapon system will cost to produce, even if it is possible to produce it.  So a fixed price is a death sentence for any company that agrees to it.  But even if we could sell it at your fixed price, three percent is it not enough; it is not your business how much I make.  I do not allow my customers, not even government, to clutter my accounting department with civil servant bean counters.  I account to the IRS quarterly, just like any other business.  That is the sole extent of my interface with government accounting.  And that's the way I'll keep things."
  Pat (after thinking that over): "You won't land a lot of government contracts with that sort of thinking, Bill."
  Bill: "At some point government will realize that, in the end, they are just another customer.  The sooner they behave like one, the sooner we'll get along."  (He pauses, then shrugs.)  "And if we don't get along, oh well.  The world is standing in line for our unmatched products."
  Pat (mildly threatening): "That's the sort of attitude that can get you unhappy government attention."
  Bill: "I can build all of our products anywhere.  Brazil has been offering.  So has South Africa.  So be careful."
  Pat: "But this is a matter of national security!  National technological supremacy!  How can you not help your country?"
  Bill: "First, I said I'm not sure that we can build such a weapon system.  Nothing like it has ever been invented before.  So it's possible that I'm unable to help in the manner you want.  But let's assume this company could build it.  Now, let's reverse your last question: How could the country needing it not be willing to pay for it?"
  Pat: "We are willing to pay for it."
  Bill: "I'm not willing to sell it under the terms of the proposed contract."
  Pat: "Don't you think that's a little - well, greedy?  And unpatriotic?"
  Bill: "Call it what you want.  I'm in business to make money."
  Pat: "At your country's expense?"
  Bill: "At my customer's expense, whoever they are.  It's called business.  I have something you want.  You have something I want.  We talk.  We come to terms.  Your terms are unacceptable.  So either re-think the contract terms, or go to any of my competitors."
  Pat: "But your competitors are even more unlikely than you to be able to build it!"
  Bill: "But they are much more likely to agree to the contract terms.  You get to decide which is the more important:  getting that weapon system or limiting profits.  It's your choice. Don't you think that's fair? "
  Pat: "What good is a contract if they can't build the weapon system?"
  Bill: "Exactly."
  Pat (after thinking for a minute or two, sipping coffee from a mug held in a hand shaking ever so slightly.)  "What do you think are the chances that you could build this, to the specifications we listed?"
  Bill: "I don't know.  That would take a staff of skilled engineers from dozens of fields to evaluate."
  Pat: "Could you assemble such a team and undertake that research, and let us know the results?"
  Bill: "Sure.  We'd love to do that."
  Pat: "Well you have the specifications.  When can you start?"
  Bill: "When there's a contract in place to pay for that research."
  Pat (astounded): "But that research is something you'd have to do to build it!  You'd have to do that to - to even submit a bid on this RFP!  Companies absorb those proposal costs and write them off during tax season!"
  Bill: "Correction: we're able to write off some of those costs.  The rest is lost.  I'm not in business to lose money.  You want us to do it?  Pay for it."
  Pat (deciding hardball is the way to go): "I think we can pay others."
  Bill: "Then you should.  Does this conclude our business?"
  Pat (standing, preparing to leave): "I think so.  I don't know how you can stay in business with your attitude."
  Bill: "We do it by being the best at what we do.  The producers and providers of the very best will always have a loyal and enthusiastic customer base.  We'd like to add government to that customer base, but of course they'll have to behave like customers."
  Pat: "You'll be hearing from us.  Perhaps with a writ of eminent domain."
  Bill (smiling): "Seizure?  I own this company.  It's mine.  At the first hint of anything like seizure I take it to Brazil or South Africa, or maybe both.  Do you think it's coincidence that we already have facilities in both countries?"
  Pat: "We won't do such a thing unless it's necessary, of course."
  Bill (laughing): "Let's say you do seize the company.  Who's going to design such a weapon system?  Civil servants?"
  Pat: "We'll hire the talent you already have in place."
  Bill: "No you won't.  You won't pay them what I already do.  All of them will want to go with me.  You'll have a large empty set of facilities across the country with no one to run them.  You'll have to depend on government employees.  And while you're doing that, you'll have to explain to the country and the world why it was necessary to nationalize the nation's largest exporter, lose every dime of future exports and the tax revenue that would have generated, and lose all 193,000 of its jobs and much of its vendor and supplier base as well.  I, on the other hand, will be explaining to the world that every product we make we will continue to make and provide on or ahead of schedule, and every customer will continue to admire our products because our standards of excellence will not change.  Good luck making your explanations.  I don't expect any difficulty making mine."


- and so, when I finished smiling at this pleasant dream, I resumed reading Atlas Shrugged.

The Definitive Explanation of Sherman

The Back Story of the Rant

   Since Richard Sherman's spectacular play that ended the 49er's super bowl dreams last Sunday evening, the television media has run video, audio, and comment endlessly.  Not much of the coverage has been supportive of Sherman.  To be truthful and in the interest of full disclosure, your Ostrich Killer is a Seahawk fan - and I think Sherman missed a real opportunity to show some class.  He could have said something like:

   "Great game.  I would like to thank Jim Harbaugh for presenting me the privilege of driving the final nail into the coffin of his team's super bowl hopes."

   Huh?

   Well you might ask.  So here's the back story.

   1.  Back in the day Harbaugh was coaching Stanford's football team.  At the same time, Pete Carroll (now Seahawk coach) was coaching the USC team.  Conference rivals.  During one game Stanford ran up the score as they stomped USC.  After the game Carroll said something like "What was that all about?" to Harbaugh, referring to the unnecessarily lopsided - and traditionally unsportsmanlike - score.  Since that time the two coaches have harbored hard feelings toward each other.

   2.  Fast forward a few years.  Richard Sherman is a wide receiver playing for Stanford under - you guessed it - Harbaugh.  The two of them did not get along.  Harbaugh labeled Sherman as mediocre, although I can't find confirmation that exact word was used.  Sherman did not like that, let Harbaugh know, and mutual dislike developed.

   3.  Since 2010 when Sherman was drafted into the pros, Sherman has not hesitated to tell the world how good he is at corner, and has also backed up his claims with his play.  We've all heard it isn't bragging if you can do it, right?  That's Sherman.  Imagine Harbaugh, now coaching the 49ers, seeing one of his former players who he dissed, do so well - - a living example of Harbaugh's failure to recognize and cultivate exceptional talent.  The media commented many times since then on the lack of high regard these two have for each other.  The media has also told the Harbaugh - Carroll story many times.  

   4.  In recent history Crabtree and Sherman locked horns in such a way that Sherman felt insulted.  This happened off the field at some social event.  Hard feelings were born between the two men.

   Knowing all this, the world should be able to figure out what happened in the championship game.  But in case it hasn't let the Ostrich Killer be the first to take a stab at it: 

   The stage is set for the NFC Championship game.  Fast forward a bit through the game to the point where SF has a 1st and 10 deep in Seattle territory with time running out, trailing by 6.  A touchdown is needed NOW.  What play is called?  And who called it?

   All day long the 49ers had thrown the ball only once into Sherman's coverage area, because they knew better than to do that.  They knew better because - here's an impressive stat - NO TEAM ever completed a pass against him ALL SEASON LONG!  So why, with the game and the championship on the line, did they try to do that?  The short answer is Harbaugh's ego.  Your Ostrich Killer thinks Harbaugh personally made that play call.  His thinking: win the game, the championship, and embarrass / humiliate both Carroll and Sherman by having Crabtree (49ers best receiver) make the game-winning catch over Sherman.  This sort of thinking and in-your-face approach to competitiveness is perfectly consistent with the thinking that would drive Harbaugh to run up a score against USC when he was coaching Stanford.  In short, he has a history of that.

   Can you offer any other explanation as to why they didn't choose to throw into some other (less dangerous) defender's coverage area?  No?  Me neither.    

   Harbaugh let his ego drag him into attempting to make a statement.  The statement became, just for a moment, more important to him than the probability of winning.  As you know, that didn't work.

   Coaches who try to make statements during games don't always succeed.  The Seahawk coaching staff learned that bitter lesson last year during the playoffs when, in Atlanta early in the game, they elected to go for the touchdown on 4th and goal, instead of kicking a 'gimme' field goal.  They failed.  Zero points.  Field goal would have been three points.  Margin of loss at game end: 2 points.  The 'gimme' field goal taken early would have been the game winner.  So statement-making is best not attempted.  Take the points, play to win and forget egos.

   Not a bad life lesson, come to think of it.

   Knowing that, and expecting that Sherman knows and understands all of that, can you better grasp what Sherman was doing during that post-game rant?  Yes, he was ego-crushing the two guys whose egos he would most like to crush.  One could almost hear Harbaugh and Crabtree teeth grinding as Sherman reminded them and everyone else in his colorful pointed way that throwing into his coverage is a real bad idea. 

  And now, my last cup of coffee for the day.  You're welcome.

NFL Rule Change Suggestions

How to Reduce Injuries and Spice Up the Game

Sixty years of watching football, combined with the last few years' worth of rule changes in the name of player safety, have prompted your Ostrich Killer to come up with a few rule change suggestions.  You may have some as well; send them and we'll add them to this list.

So here goes:

1. Personal Fouls (Defensive:)  Any personal foul by a defensive player will result in that player being ejected for a full quarter of play, and the offense being awarded half the distance to the goal from the end of the play, point of foul, or line of scrimmage, whichever most favors the offense.   In addition, the offense will be awarded an extra down: for example, if the foul happened during a second down play the offense will replay the down as First down.  If the penalty results in a first down, the offense will be awarded two first down plays; the post-foul series will consist of five downs.
2. Personal Fouls (Offensive:)  Any personal foul by a player on the offense will result in that player being ejected for a full quarter of play, and a yardage penalty of half the distance to their end zone measured from the point of the foul, end of the play, or the line of scrimmage, whichever most favors the defense.  In addition, the offense will lose the down.  For example, if the foul took place during a second down play, the next play would be a third down play.
3.  Personal Fouls (multiple:) Any player committing two personal fouls during a game will be ejected from the game and suspended for the next game.  Any team committing two or more personal fouls during a game will lose their coach for the remainder of the game and cause the coach to pay a $25,000 fine.  The fine amount for each additional foul will be double the previous fine.  For example, a team that commits 5 personal fouls in a game will cost their coach $25,000 + $50,000 + $100,000 + $200,000, or a total of $375,000.  In addition, that team's JumboTron will be required to display a large yellow frowny-face and the words "Bad Coach! Bad, bad, bad!"  The cheer leaders will lead the fans in a cheer of "Bad Coach! Bad, bad, bad!"  Failure of the crowd to achieve a decibel level of at least 125 during this cheer will result in the award of 3 points to the offended team. 
4. Surrender: Any ball carrier may surrender during a play.  By signaling (signal yet to be defined) their surrender in sufficient time to allow an opposing player to avoid tackling them, the ball carrier agrees that their forward progress stops at the point where they make that signal.  Any substantial avoidable hit of the ball carrier after that timely signal will result in a personal foul.  To prevent 'fishing' for a foul call, if the ball carrier does not make the approved signal sufficiently in advance of being hit, and is therefore hit substantially, the ball carrier will be ejected for the remainder of the quarter.  His team will be charged a loss of down and penalized 15 yards from the line of scrimmage or location of the foul, whichever most favors the defense.
5.  Field Goal Point Scale:  For purposes of this rule, a field goal's official distance will be measured from the line of scrimmage to the end zone.  A field goal of 20 yards or less will be worth 1 point.  A field goal of more than 20 yards and 35 yards or less will be worth 2 points.  A field goal of greater than 35 yards will be worth 3 points.
6.  Red Zone Scoring:  Any team that obtains a first down in the Red Zone (20 yard line or closer) is ineligible to score by field goal.  If they fail to score a touchdown, the team on defense will be awarded 3 points.
7.  Legal formations:  All formations before the snap are legal, so long as no player crosses the line of scrimmage until the ball is snapped.
8.  Legal Motion:  Before the ball is snapped, any motion is legal.
9.  Men on the Field:  A team may have as many men on the field as they wish until 5 seconds before the snap of the ball.
10.  Play Reviews:  Any official's call can be challenged, including fouls.  Reviews must be completed within 120 seconds.  An official who has two calls overturned during a game will be fined a game's pay and immediately replaced.
11.  Points After Touchdown:  A team that has scored a touchdown may score PAT (Points After Touchdown) in any of the following ways:
  a. By kicking the ball through the uprights:  1 point.
  b. By pass or run:  2 points.
  c. By placing the ball on the 40 yard line and kicking a field goal: 3 points.
  d. By placing the ball on the 30 yard line and scoring again in one run or pass play:  6 points.

Failure to score PAT will result in the award of 3 points to the defense.

12.  Change of Possession scoring:  Any change of possession through fumble, pass interception, or turning the ball over on downs will result in the defense being awarded 1 point.
14.  Overtime:  Overtime is "sudden death" with no clock.  Play will continue until there is a winner.  A minimum margin of 4 points or more is required to win unless both teams have completed 2 possessions.  Thereafter the minimum margin for a win is 1 point.
15.  Unused Down Carry-Over:  Downs not used to achieve a first down will be carried over to the next series of downs.  As an example, a team that achieves a first down in two plays still has two unused downs.  Those unused downs can be used in the next series, effectively giving the team six plays to get their next first down.  However, all carry-over is canceled upon a team achieving a first down in the red zone.
16.  Quarterback Safety:  The quarterback or player receiving the snap from center may not advance the ball by run beyond the line of scrimmage.  Doing so will result in a 15 yard penalty, ejection from the game for a full quarter, and loss of down.  In order to balance the defensive strength relative to the offense, the team on defense may field no more than 10 players. 

I think that'll do for now.  You can see how rules 1, 2, 3, 4, and 16 would dramatically reduce player injuries.  I have many more such suggestions.  You?  Send your to the Ostrich Killer, and welcome to the Theater of the Absurd.

The Greatest Generation is Still Standing Up

Are We?

They're in the news.  Those pesky WW II vets aren't all dead yet, although they're close.  In their 90s now, but until they're gone they are setting an example for all of us.

An example of how to disobey and still be right.  An example of how to deal with simple tyranny.  An example of how to hold up the middle finger without actually stooping to that level.

Class.  Character.  Clear-thinking.

There are two generations of Americans who ought to be paying close attention to them.

I hope some of us do.

My coffee is getting cold.  Your Ostrich Killer out.

America's Cup Idiot Rules

YOU CHEATED MORE THAN A YEAR AGO IN A DIFFERENT REGATTA, SO YOU ARE PENALIZED 2 RACES IN THIS REGATTA.

  You wonder why most American's eyes glaze over when they hear about rule violations in the America's Cup circus?  You wonder why megabucks are spent on legal fees?
  Let  your Ostrich Killer explain the latest idiocy to come from the rules committee.
  Some years ago, it was decided that this latest America's Cup would be held in San Francisco Bay with high-speed 72-foot catamarans.  But no one knew for sure how to build them to go real fast, sail them competitively, and survive them.
  So it was decided to build scale model versions of the actual boats to be used, and race these boats in a series of events and in many places around the world, and thereby learn to race them and also learn about design tweaks that would help the larger, America'sCup 72-footers to be used in San Francisco Bay.  These were 45-footers that weighed about 4,000 pounds.  To help defray the costs of this venture, this series of racing regattas was called the America's Cup World Series, and spectators and advertisers would pay to watch or have their product logos on those boats.
  In other words, there were to be two SEPARATE major events:  the America's Cup World Series using the 45-foot sub-scale boats to help train crews and serve as technology refinement and springboards and a means to reduce net costs, and the America's Cup itself to be held at a later date in San Francisco Bay, using 72-foot full scale boats.
  One of the rules was that all the 45-foot boats were to be identical except for paint jobs and advertising logos, etc.  Every potential America's Cup contender built and raced at least one of these 45-foot catamarans in the America's Cup World Series.
  There came a time when an American crew member decided that his 45-foot boat needed a near microscopic tweak to go faster.  So this crew member put a 3-kilogram (7 pound) bag of lead shot in the bow of his 4,000 pound boat.  To put this in perspective, that 7-pound bag of shot weighed the same as 9 cans of Bud Light.
  The judges found that bag of shot, notified the rules committee, and the rules committee ruled that the 45-foot boat had to forfeit all its races and, subsequently, an international jury ruled just days before the beginning of the America's Cup races that the team's 72-foot America's Cup boat would have to suffer a 2-race penalty.

  Oracle USA would have to win 2 races in order to have won zero races, in an event where the first boat to win 9 races would be the winner.
  A different boat in a different race regatta to be held a year after the infractions must suffer the death penalty for 9 cans of Bud Light in the earlier race regatta.  Huh?
  Well, we all know how it turned out.  The penalized America's Cup boat and crew - Oracle USA - won anyway.  And rightfully so.
Why the severe penalty, you ask?  What's the big deal about 9 cans of Bud Light?  
  Only the Rules Committee and the international jury knows for sure.  Your Ostrich Killer suspects that there was more than a little Ellison hatred lurking in the backs of the minds of some of those folks.  
  Your Ostrich Killer also suspects that the only reason that Oracle USA wasn't completely disqualified is that they were the defender of the cup, and without them there would be no America's Cup event.  That would mean, of course, the loss of about a billion dollars, all for finding the equivalent of 9 cans of Bud Light on a boat that was NOT GOING TO RACE IN THE AMERICA'S CUP REGATTA!
  Are your eyes glazed over now?  Mine too.  Another cup of coffee will help that, but there is no understanding of the thinking of that jury.

Obviously hindsight tells us that crew member should have brought along a 12-pack of Amstel Light (a Netherland beer) or Foster's (Australian) or Steinlager (New Zealand), placed it strategically, and if asked about it declare that it's for on-the-water celebration purposes after a hard race.  
  One has to wonder what the rules committee would have done with that.

40 Clowns in a Clown Car

And A Lot of Horn Honking

That's the Obama White House and the State Department.

The problem is, Americans aren't the only ones noticing that.

Putin is laughing so hard that he's squirting tears.

Assad is also.

What's so funny, you ask?  

Here's where we're headed:  Putin will broker a deal whereby a UN team is charged with accounting for, collecting and safeguarding all of Syria's chemical weapons.  Assad will say "Of Course!  Come on in!"  The UN will put together a detail to go to Syria and accomplish that.  

Guess who will be on that detail?  Do you think there will be any Russians?  Chinese?  When has the UN EVER sent anyone but Americans to do anything really serious?  So, you see, we will be sending American troops.  Tens of thousands of them.

The rebels want those chemicals.  They know where they are.  They will fight to keep them available for capture.

The UN force will have to fight the rebels for those weapons. Assad's forces will help.  The UN force - mostly Americans - will be, in effect, part of Assad's army, navy, and air force.  Killing rebels and getting killed.

Putin will be helplessly rolling on his Kremlin floor, laughing so hard that he can't even talk.

Are Putin, Assad, and your Ostrich Killer the only ones who can see this coming?  Aside from my regular readers, I mean. 

Brain dead, the entire lot of them clowns.

Any service members reading this and considering re-upping soon, my advice is get the hell out now while you're still alive.  The clown show is going to kill a lot of your buddies.

Breathtaking Arrogance and Ingenuousness!

Assad Promises Asymmetrical Responses

Kerry promises an "unbelievably small" strike.  Assad warns us to "expect anything" if we do strike.

I don't think Assad has in mind a military-style response.  My experience and observation is that when a dictator has his back to the wall - which Assad does, with just the rebels - he uses other ways to strike his enemies, ways that go by the general name of asymmetric warfare.  Watching the interview he gave, it's clear to me that he was saying exactly that.

No one in official position has told this to the press, or if they have the press hasn't covered it.  But you know your Ostrich Killer will, so here's a list of asymmetric possibilities:

Kidnappings of families of diplomats, government employees, and service members world-wide, probably topped off by HD video beheadings, to be broadcast on CBS and Al Jazeera.  Iran-proxy army hezbollah striking Israeli cities with chemicals, which Assad will supply if hezbollah doesn't already have them.  The Arab middle east uniting behind anyone striking Israel ("My family and I against our neighbors, my neighbors and I against strangers,") which means an Iran-Syria led general war of extinction with Israel.  Israel has nukes.  Do you think Israel will go quietly into the night?  Do you think they will spare any arab target?  

And that's just for openers.  Ask yourself what the sponsors of those countries will do to assist them.

Asymmetric warfare can quickly explode globally, warfare fueled emotionally by videos of panicked and crying blond-haired children begging for their mommas while hooded arabs saw off their heads.

That's one type of asymmetric warfare.  Use your imagination to come up with others.  Wives and daughters kidnapped and used to produce prime-time rape-and-snuff videos?  Sure.  Mall massacres?  Expect them.  Same for schools and churches.  Anything you can imagine is either being considered or is already planned. 

The Obama regime thinks they can conduct a strike and suffer - or trigger - no consequences, not even asymmetric ones.

These people are worse than dreamers, they are arrogant and stupid and believe in their own invulnerability, and are going to get a lot of people killed. And for what?  To keep our enemies from killing each other? 

Brain dead, the entire lot of them.

That's not news to you, of course, my gentle readers.

The ONLY Case for Striking Syria

Presidential Credibility

When a president of the United States says that we will do "X" if "Y" happens, then when "Y" happens we must to "X."  

Assad did "Y."  Therefore Obama must do what he said he would do.

To not do it would be to diminish the credibility of presidential rhetoric, including that of future presidents.  That would be very unhealthy for the entire world.

So let's hope that doing "X" does a lot of collateral damage to the rebels, as well.  We do NOT want to weaken Assad enough that the rebels can prevail.  Frankly, gentle reader, your Ostrich Killer is in favor of this war stretching out far into the indefinite future.  Two of our enemies are fighting each other.  So there's no hurry to stop them.

That Fast Food Workers Strike

Go Ahead. Pay 'em.

But find ways to cut staff in half.  

The math works - double the pay, cut the staff in half.  Net result: a wash.

But wait, how can one cut the staff in half?  Aren't most of those fast food joints already low in staff?

No.  Next time you're in one of those places do a nose count of workers.  Now imagine the quality of people and work you'd get for twice the pay.  Could you replace two of those minimum wage workers with one better-paid, more ambitious worker?

And could you, as you wait there at the register for your Big Mac and watch all the activity back in the kitchen, imagine how investing in better kitchen machinery could result in further cutting staff?  Why not an automated fry maker, for example?  Drop the spuds in the top at the start of the day, and harvest fresh hot fries all day long at the push of a button.  That's at least two staff positions right there that could be eliminated.

How about pre-cooked burgers that only need a quick nuking?  Sure, that might not be 'fresh,' but they would be more like home cookin' to many of us.  Or if you just MUST have 'fresh,' how about a cooking conveyor like they use for doughnuts at Krispy Kreme?  A machine drops wads of dough (hamburgers, for us) onto what amounts to a conveyor and it moves them along the cooking route, until they come out done at the far end.  No cook needed.  There's another at least two staff positions.  Or even more than two, if you count shift changes.  The french fries and burger cooking could all be handled by one virtual button-pusher working from home over the internet.  Hell, he could probably handle that for more than one store.

Put your Ostrich Killer in charge of reducing staff and watch the bottom line swell.

Of course, that would mean that half the staff - the least valuable, slow-moving knuckle-dragging half that's let go because they're not worth the money they're already being paid, much less what they want - would be unemployed . . . but their co-workers, the ones who actually work and produce, would be better paid.  And worth the money, mostly.

Another cup of coffee now.  You're welcome.  And by the way, if you know John Galt, have him drop me a note, will you?

Flak Trap

Syrians Have Russian Air Defense Systems

Russia has sold Syria many different types of military hardware, including some pretty exotic air defense systems.  Russia has a habit of providing Russian crews for their more sophisticated weapons.

They also like to test newer systems in actual combat, if they get sufficient notice to allow them to deploy those systems in a combat theater.

American standard procedures include neutralizing enemy air defenses.  Will that mean killing Russians?  Only Putin knows for sure.  But you can be sure he'll tell us if it happens.

In the meantime,  some Syrian or Russian schemer is trying to figure out where and how the Americans will hit so they can build a flak trap.

What's a 'flak trap?'  It's a scheme to lure attacking aircraft into an area where they can be surprised by large volumes of deadly anti-aircraft fire.  It can also be a valuable target array that is protected by large volumes of different types of anti-aircraft systems - guns and missiles, low and high altitude, etc.

Let's hope they don't out-think our strike planners, because our pilots will pay the price if they do.

An Old Arab Saying

Sometimes The Best Course of Action is None

Syrians are killing each other.  On one side, the rebels are in bed with Al Qaeda and hezbollah.  On the other side the government is repressive and is killing rebels and, through what appears to be collateral damage, others.

Whichever of these two forces prevails, you can be sure they won't be friends of us or our allies.  So why do we care which one wins?

Old Arab saying:  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Al Qaeda is our enemy.  The Syrian government is our enemy.  They are killing each other.

What could be better?  Both are doing our work for us.

Oh - chemical weapons, right?  That means we have to stop it, right?  

Why does it matter if people die from chemical poisoning instead of being riddled with shrapnel from artillery?  They're equally dead either way.

If the rest of the civilized world deplores the use of chemical weapons sufficiently, maybe they will risk the lives of their young military men and women and intervene.  But I doubt it.  Therein is another even better reason for us to NOT intervene.

Let 'em keep killing each other.  Let the rest of the world whine and wring their hands and make stirring meaningless speeches.

If that sounds heartless, o gentle reader, your Ostrich Killer was rooting for both sides in the Iran - Iraq war too.  Remember that war?  Reagan the Realist was selling obsolete, about-to-be scrapped TOW missiles to Iraq and tank ammo and other arms to Iran.  Then he sent the money to the pro-American rebels (Contras) in Nicaragua.  Remember the Iran-Contra affair?  Your Ostrich Killer thought that was a stroke of genius.  

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Indeed.

WHAT HAPPENED TO DETROIT?

Or, Voting With Their Wallets

No news here for my regular readers, but on the off chance that other morbid curiosity types happen along, let your Ostrich Killer make the Detroit bankruptcy simple to understand.

In 1907 or so the Detroit population broke through the 700,000 mark.  It became the nation's 4th largest city.  In 1960 or thereabouts it had the highest per capita income of any major metropolitan area in the US.  Its population topped 1.8 million.  Life was good.

Public sector unions negotiated for and got bigger pensions, better free health care, and more employees.  The pensions were massive, and instead of putting actual money aside, Detroit put IOUs into those pensions.  They didn't have the cash.  Some took notice of this, and it troubled them.

Motor city unions - UAW and others - negotiated for and got similar, or better, contracts.  And IOUs into their pension plans.  

Taxes went up to try to find money to pay for public expenses, many of which were 'pet' projects.  Bonds (IOUs) were sold.  

Law enforcement became a target for expense-cutters.  So did surface infrastructure.  Unions continued to negotiate for, and get, ever better pension plans - or, more accurately, even more IOUs.  

Intelligent people and successful entrepreneurs of any type living there saw the hand writing on the wall, and left with their bank accounts and businesses.  

People with money saw the ever tightening grip Detroit was taking on their wallets, and they too left.

Today Detroit is below 700,000 population again.  A 911 call average response time nationwide is 8 minutes.  In Detroit it is 57 minutes.  40% of Detroit street lights don't work.  These stats are directly from the governor's endorsement of the bankruptcy filing.

1.1 million people fled with their wallets and businesses.

Oh - those IOUs? Probably will be redeemed for pennies on the dollar, if at all.

This is a tragedy, but it can all be traced back to liberal policies.  Tax x and spend 3x.  Give-away programs.  Unions and the cowardly businesses who refused to say NO to them.

Rush Limbaugh said it well: "the parasites outgrew their host."

Predictable.  Stay tuned for Chicago, California, and many other historically liberal bastion cities and states.  And when that happens, remember that your Ostrich Killer was not the first to predict it.  All those people who voted with their wallets also predicted it.

Where do you live?  Take a look around you.  Think about your wallet.  If you don't like what you see, then cast your eyes to states like those in the midwest.  Texas.  The Dakotas.  South Carolina too.  Other 'right to work' states.  It's your wallet.  Take care of it for your family's sake.

All You Need To Know About Trayvon

What's all the fuss about?

A common-variety street thug jumped the wrong guy and got justifiably capped for it.  End of story.

Except for two things:  he was black, and the guy he jumped wasn't.

What difference does that make, you logically and correctly ask? Well, apparently to the race-baiters like Sharpton and others, and many of the network so-called "news" anchors, the killing of a common-variety black street thug in self-defense is not news if the killer is also black.  It's only news if the killer is NOT black.

It also appears not to matter what sort of violent mischief the street thug was up to.  Far better, to these race-baiters, that Zimmerman had been killed instead.  He isn't black, after all.  Unless you're black, you simply can't kill a black, no matter what he was up to.

Let's leave aside the "quality of human being" issue for now, other than observing that the human race as a whole is better off that Zimmerman survived and Trayvon is now eligible for a Darwin award.  Let's ask the question:  why is it not news when a black kills a black or anyone else, but it's cause for riot when a non-black kills a black?

It's about money.  Networks sell more advertising by stirring up - or inciting - news.  It looks suspiciously like they'd like to see Zimmerman killed violently, because that would sell even more advertising for the necessary round-the-clock coverage.  Race-baiters like Sharpton raise more money from the black and wannabe black racist communities by fanning the flames of racial (black on non-black) hatred.

The corpse of Trayvon is being leveraged for cash flow.

And that's all you need to know.

But stay tuned to see what the black Attorney General and the black President try to do.  You can bet there'll be something. You've probably already seen headlines about "civil rights" investigations.  After all, you simply can't kill a black if you're not black.  Not and walk around freely.  No, sir.  Not in this country. Not on their watch.

Your color-blind but clear-seeing Ostrich Killer is now ready for another cup of coffee.

Left Brain, Right Brain

An Anecdote

The other day your favorite Ostrich Killer attended a small, intimate concert held in a local music store.  The musician played guitar and sang.  He was exactly one day younger than I.  You'd have thought we would have hit it off.

His presentation was a memoir of his own life (I can barely tolerate memoirs,) his mother, his nanny, his father to whom he referred with both disdain and charity, and Texans to whom he referred with less charity.  Then he decided to explain to the assembled listeners his thinking about politics, world hunger, religion, the nature of love, and left brain and right brain people after first making sure we all understood that he considered himself a right brainer.

Right brainers, he implied strongly, are artistic and left brainers are thinkers and therefore not artistic, are indeed the trouble with the world and the source of all mankind's strife and suffering.  We, the captive audience, sat there and, glancing around, I saw that most of us were smiling and nodding knowingly.  Apparently most of us were right brainers.

Left brainers, according to our right brained entertainer, have few significant artistic skills because they are naturally inclined to think about things, instead of expressing artistically.  A left brainer's thinking abilities are unsuited to learning art, even should a left brainer wish to.  Art and rationality are, it would appear, too different to coexist inside the same head.

On the way home this began to amuse me.  Here was a self-proclaimed right brainer telling us that left brainers - thinkers - were incapable of art because they think.  So, I thought (sorry, a left brainer sort thing), is a right brainer incapable of thinking because they do art?  If a thinker can't do art, what makes a right brainer decide he can think and figure things out?  And if a right brainer is as incapable of thinking as a left brainer is of art, why should any of us care what a right brainer has to say?

 The obvious answer is that we shouldn't.  A more subtle answer is that no two people have identical art / rationality mixes inside them, and that rationality is more likely an aid to artistic expression than a hindrance.  The inverse, though, especially to people like our concert entertainer who think in either/ors, is unlikely to be true.

As Barbara Streisand has been told many times, "Shut up and sing."