SOME THINGS I'VE BEEN ITCHING TO SAY

- - - THE ELECTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
Okay, so enough of you ostriches pulled your heads out of your holes to elect Barack Hussein Obama. And now he's doing his damndest to dismantle the United States, if not economically then militarily. He wants a weaker, more humble and vulnerable United States - not the baddest dog on the planet that he inherited. He wants our enemies to love us. He doesn't care what our late friends might think of us. I think there's an ancient Arab saying . . .

I guess he never saw Shaka Zulu, who at one point pronounced that it was prudent to 'leave no live enemy behind you.' I'm absolutely certain that he never read Sun Tzu. I'm even more certain that he hasn't read the Tenth Amendment, or for that matter much of the rest of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, I'm sure he has personal staff whose primary duties are to find ways to circumvent it. Never a day in the military, and he's Commander in Chief. A rabble rouser - oh, I'm sorry, I meant Community Organizer - in Chicago, to 141 days in the US Congress, to President. And you ostriches elected him.

I will graciously point out that not one of my previous political predictions or pontificatorial blatherings came to pass; I attribute that to the surprising number of ostriches out there.

So okay, you ostriches: you won one. I am sincere when I say that I pray that we all don't live to regret it more than we already do. While I would normally be pleased that McCain did not get elected, the alternative is worse. Way, way worse. And uncharacteristically, I hope I'm wrong about this too.

- - - RIGHT WING RADICALS
See how cleverly the left, especially Barack Hussein Obama and his Homeland Security bitch - hey, isn't that a rock group? You remember, BO and the Bitch? - I digress. Back to the point: see how cleverly the left has linked the words 'right wing' and 'radicals'? As though they are synonymns. Right wing? Then you're a radical. Radical? You must be right wing. And look at how they describe them - let me lift directly from their words: you might be a right wing radical if you ". . . are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or illegal immigration."

Damn, I'm in both those example groups. They said they'd be watching people in those groups.

More: if you're part of a group that ". . . reject(s) federal authority in favor of state or local authority" you're probably a right wing radical. I guess only right wing radicals have read and understand the Tenth Amendment.

Crap. Now I'm three for three. I guess that means I'm being watched.

The report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) goes on to say that 'extremist' groups are using the election of Barack Hussein Obama as a recruiting tool - they imply that it's a successful technique.

The musket-armed farmers of the Colonies were 'extremists'. They founded the finest, freest country in the history of the world. It isn't beyond imagining that their descendants might do Americans a similar favor, given enough reason. That's the point of the Second Amendment - to make sure an armed citizenry is capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment is not about making sure we can go out and shoot Bambi, or ward off the boogy man in our houses. It only takes a moment of reflection upon the times during which the amendment was written to understand perfectly what it's about.

But again I digress. Next topic:

- - - GOING GREEN
Spare me! You want me to cooperate in 'green'? Then make it more cost effective; show me how it reduces the rate at which the green leaves my wallet. Don't blow 'future savings' vapor in my face (or anywhere else) if you want me to play along. Show me how it saves me money at the cash register this month. Until then, color me CARBON POSITIVE and proud of it. And why not? What's wrong with carbon? It's a large fraction of what we're made. Carbon dioxide is necessary for healthy plants. Without it they die, and so do the rest of us.

What's the worst global warming (a myth, but allow me this) can do? - - answer: green the snow-covered northern reaches, creating more arable ground for raising crops and feeding the hungry.

Is that such a bad thing? With so much of our global food crops being burned as fuel instead of turned into Hamburger Helper, wouldn't more arable land be welcome? You bet!

Don't tell me I can't crap in the ocean; whales and fish and birds do it. Why not me? Why should I only be able to crap on the one third of the earth that is dry land? Go ahead, explain that logically.

Recycle: the dirty truth is that it costs more to recycle than to use raw materials. No one counts the cost of the work it takes for individuals to sort and package and deliver recyclable items to processors. That's free, I guess. Sort of a Good Citizen contribution. Gets them off the couch, out from behind that TV set. Good for their health, right? But why not put it all into the landfill, so that future generations of land fill miners can make a living?

Okay, so I'm having too much fun. But it's so easy to poke fun at the envirowacko green left. They're such easy, uninformed illogical targets.

Your Ostrich Killer must now leave this missive to refill his cup with fossil-fuel heated coffee. MMM, Good! While I'm gone, you can read one of my poems: http://blizzardguy.com/microbus.htm

Out for now. Enjoy.

My Dream Party's Political Platform

We all have fantasies about what we'd like our favorite political personality to say. I'm no different. So, since this is my blog, I'm going to outline my dream party's political platform. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as I'm enjoying putting it down on paper.

1. Domestic Policy: Leave people the hell alone. Stay out of their lives, stay out of their ways, keep government's hands off their property.
2. Protecting the Poor: This is the land of freedom. Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail. It isn't government's job to enable the poor to remain poor, or the rich to remain rich, or any permutation or combination of those possibilities. See Domestic Policy, above. So let the poor choose: starve, or work. If some bleeding hearts out there think this is inhumane, maybe they could point to the Constitution and show us where it permits the Federal Government to be a charity clearing house, or to take from one person and give to another. Nothing prevents concerned neighbors, communities, families, or bleeding hearts from banding together and volunteering their personal resources to help the poor. But it isn't government's job.
3. Energy: Our country and our economy runs on energy. So cheapest is best, all other things roughly equal. For now and the foreseeable future, cheapest is nuclear. Next is coal. Then oil. Then anything else. Nothing has to be especially polluting, given today's technologies. So we're for nukes, coal and oil. We're also for a robust and energetic research program to see what other sources can be harnessed to produce even cheaper energy, such as fusion, tidal, geothermal, wind, etc. But it's gotta be cheaper, or at least not more expensive.
4. Offshore Drilling: Why drill offshore, when there's lots of oil right under our Red White and Blue dirt? Drilling on land has less chance to pollute, and is easier to clean up if an accident happens. No miles of shoreline are damaged, only a few acres of dirt. So we're for offshore drilling if there is no oil under our dirt, otherwise we should drill right here.
5. Foreign Policy: Our Number One export is freedom. Freedom everywhere is in our national best interest. So our foreign policy priority is first to protect our citizens and national interests at home and abroad, which means expanding the export of freedom. Otherwise, we don't meddle.
6. The Iraq War: See Foreign Policy, above.
7. The War on Terror: See Foreign Policy, above.
8. National Defense: We're the only superpower. We have at least a 25-year warfighting technology lead on the rest of the world. We're in favor of increasing that to a 50-year lead. Why? See Foreign Policy, above.
9. Taxes: They're too high. We're in favor of a flat tax rate, which 100% of American will pay. There will be no exemptions, no breaks for the poor. We want everyone to be sorely interested in taxes; today, close to half our citizens pay no income taxes, so they're in favor of tax increases to pay for increased benefits to them. This will change under our administration. Businesses pay too many taxes; we mean to cut them at least in half to help stimulate more innovation, more entrepreneurism, more exports.
10. Entitlement Programs: Aside for veterans and certain first responders, there will be no federally-funded entitlement programs. This will save our national budget well over a trillion dollars annually.
11. Abortion: We don't know when human life begins, and neither does anyone else. So our position is that any unborn has the same rights to life as anyone who can read this platform.
12. Racism: Policies or programs that benefit or punish people differently at least partly because of skin color or declared race, is racism. Therefore ALL government policies, laws and programs that do that will be revoked.

Do you have other suggestions for this Dream Party Political Platform? Send them to the Ostrich Killer, and maybe we'll add them to this list. Now, back to that coffee pot . . .

The Unprinted Truth about the Wall Street Woes

You faithful readers knew the Ostrich Killer would have to shed some light on this topic, didn't you? Your wait is herein rewarded. Read on.

Just as the major media won't investigate or print anything they know about Barack Hussein Obama's past actions and associates, they won't investigate or print anything they know about ANYTHING that might prove embarrassing or damaging to his chances for election. So hear it here: most of the dive in the share prices of our investments can be laid at the doorstep of the DNC (Democratic National Committee), who brought us Obama, a man of charisma but no substance. The sagging market is a vote of no confidence in the freely expressed Marxist policies that an Obama presidency will bring to this formerly free country, a country where people were free to succeed and also free to fail. Failure is healthy; it's a prerequisite for success.

Market regulation is a little like salt in the soup; the least amount you can get away with is the best. Obama promises to dramatically increase regulation; his lap-dog, brain-dead majority congress will aid and abet in this subversion of free enterprise until the average investor - anyone who has mutual funds or stocks or any other equities in their retirement accounts, for example - cannot hope to make a savvy investment and get rewarded. Businesses won't start up, because people won't be interested in investing if they can't expect a suitable reward.

Why won't they be rewarded, you ask? Because the Age of Obama promises Equality of Outcome. Marxism - "to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities." In other words, take from the successful and give it to the failures. Equality of outcomes, irrespective of inputs. A sure recipe for creation of an entire population of takers, the extinction of do-ers.

What do you think the successful will do, if that actually comes to pass? Easy. Just ask yourself what you would do. I'll bet you'd take your money and run. Run, to a place out of this country where there might be a better chance to grow personal wealth for your family. Run, with your corporation to a country where the tax situation promises a better bottom line for shareholders.

Can you imagine, for example, Boeing becoming a South African country? Or Japanese? Or Indian? Well, you'll see things like that with an Obama presidency. Successful people and businesses do what it takes, within the law, to be successful. If that means moving, so be it.

Is this prospect something you'd like to see? If not, vote conservative.

Your Ostrich Killer now returns to his kitchen for another cup of coffee.

PETROLEUM FUELS AND BIO FUELS - A CONTRAST

How are petroleum fuels and bio fuels different?

Petroleum fuels are made by refining the residues of living things that died millions of years ago. These fuels are used, among many other uses, to increase the efficiency of food harvesting.

Bio fuels are made by refining the residues of living things that we must first grow, then kill. Bio fuels are made of food, and diminish the food harvest (because the food is being refined into fuel).

Once again, your Ostrich Killer has shed illuminating light on what many think is a complex subject.

THE ABORTION ISSUE SIMPLIFIED

Well, fellow ostrich hunters, you knew this topic would have to come up, didn't you? After all, it's an election year and some will try to capture the female vote by shouting 'Woman's Right to Choose.' You hear it every day, it seems.

But it begs the question of 'What would the child choose?' Of course, that's an easy question to answer. All you have to do is ask yourself if you'd like to be aborted right now. Your answer is obviously 'NO!' And why? Because even the most pathetic existence is better than death. With life there is hope. Not so, death. Death is pretty permanent.

Right there almost a quarter of you stopped reading because you say 'it's not a child, it's a fetus.'

Let's explore that, and if you're still reading maybe you'll think that 'it's not a child' concept over a bit more. Ready?

When do the products of conception become a human? I'm not talking about what some legislator might say, or what this or that statute might dictate, or what some court might have ruled. I'm talking about biologically. You know. From a purely scientific point of view, when does that mass of cells in the woman's body become a human, the type of animal that it is against the laws of every country to kill?

Well, maybe DNA testing will tell us. - - Oh. Wait. The DNA of even the very earliest of undifferentiated cells in the woman's belly is 100% human.

Okay. Well how about the 'soul'? When does that collection of otherwise unremarkable cells get a soul? - - No one knows. For that matter, no one has ever pointed conclusively to a soul. It's a matter of faith (or lack of it) that the soul exists or doesn't. So that argument is pointless, lacking tangible evidence either way.

So those who are 'for a woman's right to choose' come up with other benchmarks: it isn't human until month number x, where x is a variable between 3 and 6, depending on who is talking. Obviously this means that the number is a matter of philosophy, not science. A scientist might say something like 'it's all human but statistically not viable until month number y'.

Not viable? That is code for 'if the fetus were thrust into the world outside its mother's womb, it would die.' Logical, right? But what's logical about saying that since it would die, it's okay to abort (kill) it?

So ask a hundred people - scientists, doctors, philosophers, politicians, mothers, sluts - when human life begins, and you're likely to get dozens of different answers.

Bottom line: no one knows, unless you accept the simple results of DNA testing.

If no one knows, then no one knows when a murder is being committed by an abortion. No one wants to think of themselves as a murder, much less actually commit one on purpose. But when is it safe to abort, the confused woman might ask, if we don't know when human life begins?

Exactly.

If the woman doesn't actually know when the child within her becomes a human being, doesn't she run the risk of being wrong about when it's safe to abort? She might be right, she might be wrong.

But she has no way of knowing which, even after the fact (unless you count the psychic damage she'll suffer the rest of her life.) So, from a purely logical perspective, the only civilized thing to do is refuse to take the chance of being wrong. Put another way, if the woman might err, should't she err on the side of life?

Doesn't that make sense?

Once again your favorite Ostrich Killer has clarified and resolved what many others consider a difficult issue. You're welcome.

HOW LONG CAN BIDEN LAST?

Those of you who are smiling at my 'The math is easy' comment about Barack Hussein Obama HAVING to choose Mrs. Bill Clinton as his running mate might want to save the smile for election eve.

Biden has proven himself to be one of the perpetual 'almost good enough' politicians. Almost good enough to run for President. Almost good enough to write papers in college or speak before groups without plaigarizing. Almost good enough to make the bottom third of his graduating class.

Almost good enough to keep from boring the voters to death.

Stay tuned to the Dem squirming that is still to come. Even the DNC is capable of at least detecting the obvious: it's Mrs. Bill Clinton for VP or lose a few million fem voters.

Your Ostrich Killer sticks to his original prediction that Mrs. Bill Clinton will be the Dem VP nominee. Your Ostrich Killer is incapable of believing even liberal Democrats are stupid enough to knowingly - nay, intentionally - lose a couple million voters.

Obama's Credentials and Compadres

Credentials
Okay, this is another bit of public thinking about B. Hussein Obama, would-be President of the United States, the most powerful country in the world.

What qualifies him?
. 143 days in the US Senate, during which he left few fingerprints, fewer footprints, and obviously no legacy - unless you count speech making, international travel and one brain-dead internet law a legacy. From Wikipedia - "He is the only Senate member of the Congressional Black Caucus.[52] CQ Weekly, a nonpartisan publication, characterized him as a "loyal Democrat" based on analysis of all Senate votes in 2005–2007, and the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007.[53][54]"

. Illinois State Senator, 1997 - 2004. Primary contributions? From Wikipedia - "He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[29] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures,[30] and in 2003, Obama sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[29][31]"

Pre-1997 - Civil Rights law practice, following getting a law degree from Harvard.

If you're impressed, you're easily impressed. See any foreign affairs credentials up there? See any international relations credentials? See any proof that he even has a map, or knows how to use Google Earth? No. What you see is a history of giving money away, racial politics, and making policework more difficult. But that should be no surprise.

Compadres
How about his compadres? You know, the birds of a feather with whom he chooses to flock. Here's a short list:
1. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. of Trinity United Church of Christ. If you don't know who he is, you probably haven't paid attention to politics in the last few months. Dr. Wright is Obama's pastor, and has been for about twenty years. He married Obama and his wife. He baptized their children. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Wright's church Statement of Faith, lifted directly from their home page: "Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."

Now, that ought to raise the hairs on the back of your neck, especially in view of the more widely reported invective of Dr. Wright ("God DAMN America," etc.) Consider what an uproar such a statement as above, posted to a different Church website, would cause if it substituted the words German for African, White for Black. See? The word 'RACIST' and even 'NAZI' would pop to mind, correct? What's different for Obama's pastor? Birds of a feather?

2. Louis Farrakahn - Endorses Obama. Isn't that enough? No? Then how about Louis Farrakahn receiving the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. (Yes, that's Pastor Wright, see 1. above) Trumpeter Award? As part of the glowing rhetoric attached to the award, it called Farrakahn a man who "truly epitomized greatness." Greatness? Most Americans consider Farrakahn a racist, anti-Semitic militant black rabble rouser. If you're not familiar w/ Farrakahn's public pronouncements, Google them. But of interest here is the link between Wright, Farrakahn, and Obama. Birds of a feather?

3. William C. Ayers is a friend of Obama's. You may know Mr. Ayers better as a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971. Mr. Ayers has admitted his part, and has on several occasions said publicly he regrets only that he has not blown up more buildings. He and Obama worked together to help fund a group that has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism. The group, the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, was labeled by the State Department as a terror group. Birds of a feather?

American voters either already know all the above, or have a good sensing of it from various sources. And that is why I predict McCain in a 50-state sweep. But maybe that's for another day's discussion. Your Ostrich Killer is going to lunch.

GASOHOL: THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

Okay, fellow travelers. So you've noticed that your car is stopping a little more frequently for fuel? You're not sure why it gets fewer miles on a tank of fuel, despite your being careful with the throttle? Here's a hint: next time you fill up, take a close look at the pump from which you're pumping fuel. Is there a sticker on it informing you that the fuel may contain up to 10% ethanol? That's chemist speak for alcohol. Gasoline containing alcohol is called gasohol. In many places you see a sticker that says E85. That's code for fuel that is 85% gasoline, 15% alcohol.

Ethanol does not produce as much power as gasoline when it is burned. It doesn't contain as much energy potential as gasoline. So of course you won't get the same fuel mileage you used to get, if you are now burning gasohol. The more alcohol in your fuel, the worse your gas mileage will be. Your car will not be as peppy. Not to mention - the more it will cost you to drive one mile.

The envirowackos (my regard for them is showing, I admit) tell us that adding alcohol to gasoline will reduce hydrocarbon emissions - that it's better for the planet than burning pure gasoline. Let's take an admittedly anecdotal look at the truth of that.

Personal experience: In two dramatically different cars - a '92 Jeep Cherokee and a 2005 Subaru Legacy - burning gasohol of the 10% variety reduced my MPG rating by a touch over 15%. For the Jeep, that translated into a gasohol fill being good for 250 miles on a tank, where I used to get 300 before a fill-up.

For illustration purposes, let's assume that it took ten gallons to fill the tank. In the case of pure gasoline, those ten gallons took the car 300 miles. For gasohol, ten gallons takes the car 250 miles. For gasohol, the amount of pure gasoline burned is nine gallons; we also burn one gallon of alcohol. Sounds good, right? Nine gallons instead of ten? But wait! We have to drive 50 more miles to get to 300 - two more gallons of fuel will be required to accomplish that. That's 1.8 gallons of pure gasoline and 0.2 gallons of alcohol.

If you're still with me here, let's add up how many gallons of pure gasoline, as part of the 10% gasohol fuel, had to be burned to travel those 300 miles: 9 gallons for the first 250 miles, 1.8 gallons for the next 50 miles. That adds to 10.8 gallons of pure evil petrochemical burned in the name of reducing petrochemical dependance and cleaner air, in place of the 10.0 we would have burned if we put pure gasoline into our tanks.

I admit to no longer being a rocket scientist, but this seems like something that most folks should have been told by responsible envirowackos. But that's oxymoronic; even if they existed, doing so would be contrary to their agenda, which contains no regard for the truth.

Hey, but gasohol is cheaper, you say! Oh really? Let's do a little more 3d-grade math. If you get 15% fewer miles per gallon with gasohol, how much cheaper does gasohol have to be to allow you to break even on the cost per mile? Duh - obviously it has to be 15% cheaper. But is it? Next time you get a chance to compare the 'expensive' pure gas price and the 'cheaper' gasohol price, do the math and see if the gasohol is really 15% lower in price. Or you can take it from the Ostrich Killer that gasohol is not 15% cheaper, which means it costs you more to drive a mile using gasohol than it does to drive a mile using pure gasoline. And we drive by the mile, not by the gallon.

So, bottom line: Filling up with gasohol means more evil petrochemical is burned to travel a given distance, and it costs more to drive that given distance. So why oh why are so many states pushing gasohol? Why are the envirowackos so enthralled with the idea of burning our food and feed supplies, instead of petroleum? Have you noticed a food price increase? That's because our sugar crops - corn, sorghum, milo, etc - are being made into alcohol for fuel.

Maybe that's a topic for a future discussion.

Your Ostrich Killer is out. Happy Father's Day, and Happy Birthday Josh.

Barack Hussein Obama Leaves His Church Without Condemning Its Messages

The Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, has left his church. He did so, he says, to spare its parishoners further harrassement from the media.

He did NOT say he condemns the messages spewing from its pulpit. He did not condemn its rhetoric, its racist, sexist, class-envying anti-American tirades. He instead scolded the media for asking questions of its parishoners.

He spent 20 years in that church, listening to the sort of rhetoric we've all heard lately. It has to have shaped his thinking, perhaps reflected it. Do we need a president who grew up in a racist, sexist and anti-American church, and leaves it now only because the media tries to talk to its members?

Okay, I'll say it: having heard the rhetoric, having heard Obama's half-hearted reasons for leaving the church, I believe Obama to be racist and sexist. And I predict that you'll hear from his wife words that will suggest she is too.

I also believe Obama to be what is fashionably called a 'socialist' whose view of uplifting people is to punish the rich. Not sure how this helps the less than rich, but it might make them feel good, at least until they find themselves out of work because the rich, who create jobs and services, will do what they have to in order to preserve whatever capital Obama lets them keep. Payback, right? Feels good, but you can't eat it . . .

"No Blood for Oil"

What a crock. What a stupid thing to say. Do the advocates for that sort of empty-headed glibness think that any form of human enterprise comes without a blood toll?

What they mean, of course, is they don't want to fight a war over oil. Okay, Your friendly Ostrich Killer can allow them that simple-mindedness. But let's play with the concept a bit, just for grins.

Everyone assumes that the US will eventually invade another in order to control its oil. Some think we've already done that. Despite having no precedent for that sort of thinking, let's pretend that there are invasions to control oil. Who would do the invading?

Answer: countries that most need oil. And who needs oil more than China? No one. And who has a bigger army than China? No one. And who's going to prevent China from doing it? No one. Does anyone think China wouldn't shed blood for oil?

Maybe it's time to think about the global picture here. Obviously the US isn't the only country that runs on oil. Maybe it's time to think about what the US should do if China, say, were to invade the Middle East for its oil. Should we deplore such villany? Should we go to war over it? Or should we just keep to ourselves and take advantage of our own abundant resources? - - Yes, we can support ourselves.

Your Ostrich Killer hopes some of you will lose the slogans and get a firmer grip on reality. Out.

Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton Ticket - A Sure Thing (for Dems)

Wow, long time since I posted last. But this topic has been nibbling at me and probably you too for months, and so now that the other shoe is about to drop, it's time to do the math and predict the Dems presidential ticket.

Over 50% of Mrs. Bill Clinton voters polled recently declared they would not vote for Obama if he is the Democratic candidate for president. That's a huge chunk, folks. And Obama voters are only slightly more kind toward Mrs. Bill Clinton. If it's true, that means McCain, a RINO popular among less-than-hardcore Dems, is a shoo-in. The Democratic National Committee is in a panic, or should be, over this situation. What to do?

Obviously, the thinking goes, some of those angry voters might reconsider and cast their votes if they see their preferred nominee on the ticket as a VP candidate. Even so, this will lose tons of votes from Dems, but far fewer than might potentially be lost if only one of them is on the ticket. And if you're a staunch Dem, every vote is important. So the math is easy: you'll see and hear lots of discussion and posturing about who might make a good Democratic vice president, but in the end, given Obama's lead in primary delegates now, the ticket will be Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton. The math says more votes is better than fewer. Duh.

Yeah, the Ostrich Killer knows the Obamas and Mrs. Bill Clinton hate each others' guts. But as one wag once said, politics makes strange bedfellows. Besides, neither of them will have anything to say about who the VP nominee will be - the DNC will shove them each down each others' throats in a frantic effort to salvage every last vote.

Get used to the idea. And you read it here first. Ostrich Killer out.

How to Slim Down a Population

We hear day in and day out how fat we're getting to be as a society. No one seems to have any idea how to prevent that.

Your friendly Ostrich Killer to the rescue!

Here's my plan: At every entrance to every food store or restaurant in America, we place a 'price factor' machine. Here's how it would work: there would be a scale and a vertical ruler. The customer would enter through this machine and be automatically weighed and measured. Depending on his / her weight compared to a healthy norm, he / she would be issued a 'factor' tag. Then they would shop.

At the checkout counter, when their purchases have been rung up they would surrender their 'factor' tag to the checkout person. The factor would be multiplied against the total price rung up.

For example, let's say your Ostrich Killer got a 'factor' tag value of 1.1. At the checkout counter my purchases ring up to $10. I surrender the tag; multiplying $10 times 1.1, my cost would be $11. Or if I had a 'factor' tag value of 1.5, my cost would be $15.

So the fat would be able to afford less food. The skinny would be able to afford more food. Who loses?

Okay, I know. Too simple. So I'm going back to sleep.

OPRAH ENDORSES OBAMA

"I've never endorsed anyone before," she says. "I'm endorsing him because I know him personally and know what he stands for." Those quotes are really paraphrases. If you want exact quotes, google for 'oprah endorse obama' and get them yourself.

Okay, that out of the way, let's examine her endorsement.

First, she knows him personally. Okay, that's fine. Not sure why it's enough to make her finally come out and endorse someone officially, but still. She's entitled to back someone she knows. If someone I knew and liked ran, I might do the same.

Next, though, she 'knows what he stands for.' Okay, Oprah. What, specifically, does he stand for? You didn't mention anything. Let us know. Don't be nebulous and evasive. Stand up! Speak out! Tell us which of his stances on what issues especially resonate with you. Share your insights with the rest of us. After all, it isn't quite sufficient (except, perhaps, to members of your book club) to simply say that you like what he stands for. That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement to critical-thinking voters, who might want a little more meat on the bleached bones of a non-specific statement.

Okay, by now it's clear to everyone that I don't hold Oprah's political acumen in high regard. Her business sense, yes. Politics, no.

Lastly, let me pose a question: Is it mere coincidence that the only viable black candidate on the Democratic ticket ever receives the endorsement of the world's most widely known black woman? Lest I be labeled a white racist for even raising the question, let me propose a mental model: Let's say that Jesse Jackson is running and has won a primary or two. He's viable. He's gonna get votes. In this model, does Oprah endorse him? You decide.

Let's cut to the chase. If your answer is 'probably,' doesn't that mean that Oprah's criteria for qualification includes skin color? Think about it. All these years, all these white candidates. No endorsement. Along comes ONE viable black candidate, and she endorses.

Do you believe in coincidences? If so, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I'm trying to unload at a reasonable price.

Okay, I'll say it. If it looks racist, and walks like a racist, and talks like a racist, then it's possible that it is a racist. Oprah, honey babe, you've been called out. At the very least we have the appearance of racism. At some point you're going to have to produce some reasonable justification for your sudden eagerness to endorse a political candidate who happens to share your skin color.

Sayin' it like I see it, your friendly Ostrich Killer goes back to sleep . . .

Oh, and visit my e-Novels site. Review my novels, and buy them. Best stories you'll read this year! Not only that, you'll help keep me able to post stuff like this from time to time! Win - Win!

The Trouble with the U.S. Constitution

First, let me make clear that I stand at the front of the line of admirers of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. They did a magnificent job. Most of what they framed still works beautifully today.

But they couldn't have foreseen the changes technology has brought us: transportation technology and communication technology have combined to emperil the future of the United States of America.

The U.S. Constitution assumes that America can survive the occasional bad choices that an electorate might make. In their time, when reaction times were measured in years instead of hours, that was true. It is no longer true. A bad choice at the polling place can doom the country. If enemies perceive - and perception is reality, don't forget - that we are unwilling or even reluctant to do what's necessary to protect ourselves or even our interests, they will exploit that.

They will know immediately of our errors. We, on the other hand, have migrated our decision-making from 'who's best for America' to 'who's most attractive on TV.' Can you imagine, in this day and age, a Herbert Hoover being elected? Or a Teddy Roosevelt? They'd fail the 'video byte' test immediately, despite their true qualifications.

An ugly, plain-spoken candidate is automatically a non-starter. Today's candidate must have good hair, bright teeth, an attractive spouse, no history of marital issues, the ability to speak in PC, and a pleasing voice. This says far more about out culture than it does about the candidate.

A lot of good can be said for not hearing or seeing the candidate, of having to read their thoughts instead of listening to them.

The U.S. Constitution makes removal from office a difficult task. Rightly so. But in this day of instant news, global perceptions, and the ability to strike through high-speed transportation systems, can America survive the occasional mistake? More importantly, will enemies resist the temptation to strike?

Let me make clear who I mean by enemies. Domestically, an enemy is someone who would expand the role of government beyond Constitutionally permitted boundaries. Those include anyone who proposes an 'entitlement' program. Nothing in the Constitution permits the Federal Government to serve as a charity clearing house. Nothing permits them to take money from one person and give it to another, just because they need it. Alex deToqueville observed that the 'noble experiment of democracy' is doomed the day the electorate discovers that they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers. That day is long, long past. And in the end, he will be proven right. Think of welfare, of the ADA, of government oversight of health care, of jobs programs, of any sort of government handout. All of these take money from earners and give it to the non-earners. Can you think of a more effective recipe for stifling innovation and ambition?

Yes, I'm advocating that in this country, people should be allowed to starve to death. If their families and neighbors want to help, fine. But not on a federal, hold-a-gun-to-our-heads-and-make-us-pay basis, which is what a tax is.

Globally, an enemy is any country that would prefer we not exist, or who would like to put us into their harness. Let them detect weakness, or lack of resolve, or 'understanding', and it's over.

Voters in the day of our Founding Fathers had fresh knowledge of tyranny and the importance of their votes. They thought about national issues. Today voters often choose based on a single issue - abortion, terror, flat tax, government spending, homosexual marriage, etc. - and ignore other issues that may be of greater importance to the nation as a whole. We are a nation, I'm sad to have to report, of the globally and politically illiterate.

Which brings me to voter qualification. I propose nothing new here, you've heard it before. A qualified voter would be a citizen, a high-school graduate, and be either employed and supporting his family or wealthy, and have served his country honorably in federal service in some manner for a period not less than two years. Anyone else would enjoy the benefits of citizenship, but would not be allowed to vote or hold office. In short, only those who've shown an interest in their country would be allowed into the political process.

I guess that the sort of thinking that your friendly Ostrich Killer has shown above is a clue why he is not in public office - who, you might well ask, would ever vote for a guy who thinks like that?

Indeed.

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE IS A CLOWN SHOW

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your friendly ostrich killer is returning to his lair.

AMADINAWACKJOB HANDED HIS LUNCH BY LIBERAL UNIVERSITY!

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

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

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

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

Homosexual Behavior: Genetics or Choice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hate Crime - Mind Reading???

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

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

Why?

Aren't both victims equally dead?

Aren't laws about behavior, not thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorism and the abridgement of free speech

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

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

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

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

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

DEALING WITH THE IRRATIONAL LEFT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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