OBSERVATIONS ON DIET AND INTELLIGENCE

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

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

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

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

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

MICROSOFT GETS FINED BY EU AGAIN

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

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

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

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

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

- - - So?

Why Our Adversaries Win

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's topic: how to fight and win a war against proxy armies.

First, let's define 'proxy army': that's a paramilitary force used by sponsor nations, who want to avoid direct conflict with their foes, to fight or otherwise cause trouble.

The world's most notorious example: hezbollah. Everyone knows that hezbollah is a proxy military for Iran. Iran sponsors it, supplies it, trains it, feeds it, gives it direction, etc. Most recently it fought the Israelis in southern Lebanon. There are many other examples, pick your favorite and read on.

The surest way to fight and win against a proxy army is to attack the sponsor - in the case of hezbollah, that would be Iran - with crushing military force. Again, using Iran as an example, if Qom and Bandar Abbas and Tehran were fire-bombed, you can bet that their orders to hezbollah would be of a more temperate nature.

So to summarize: deal defensively w/ the proxy, attack the sponsor without mercy. Do NOT go out of the way to avoid so-called 'collateral' damage. Do NOT attempt 'measured' or 'proportional' responses. Instead, wreak utter havoc. Carpet bombing comes to mind as one attractive means to maximize damage and misery. Create dead bodies and powdered cities by the trainload, as a means to educate proxy sponsors and their apologists worldwide of the ultimate price of sponsorship.

Of course the ostriches won't see things that way, because their heads are so far beneath the sand that they don't see at all.

And that's my position, and I'm sticking to it.

TO AMERICA'S VETERANS:

Those of us with our heads out of the sand owe you a terrific debt, one that we cannot repay except with our promise to continue the fight when and where necessary. We promise to do our best to maintain America as it was formed, with freedoms for all, paid for by - you. God bless you.

The ostriches among us, of course, couldn't care less because they have deluded themselves that there are no problems worth fighting for.

On the Mid-Term election results:

The Ostrich Killer wonders what the enemies of our country think of the results of the election.

Valid question, don't you think?

The Arabic saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" might also be phrased "the friend of my enemy is my enemy".

The Ostrich Killer wonders how to deal with the friends of our enemies.

Islam: Not a religion, a death cult

Seems to The Ostrich Killer that a 'religion' that follows Friday services with riots and death and homicide bombings is not a religion, but a cult of death.

Seems to The Ostrich Killer that a 'religion' whose main prophet took a six-year-old bride has serious issues with credibility.

Seems to The Ostrich Killer that any 'religion' responsible for 99+% of all acts of terror in the name of religion cannot deny that there is a link between their 'religion' and global terrorism.

Seems to The Ostrich Killer that if your country is attacked in the name of 'religion', then you are in a religious war.

Seems to The Ostrich Killer that if followers of a 'religion', in whose name global terror is carried out, remain effectively silent on that terrorism, then they are supporters of that terrorism.

Seems to The Ostrich Killer that Shaka Zulu's words "Leave no live enemy behind you" might be worth considering as a tactic in the War on Terror.

Just because we have free speech doesn't mean we cannot be held accountable for our words.

Here's a BFO: words mean things. Say the wrong words that mean the wrong things and our butts will wind up in jail. That's not a violation of our rights.

So, as you go about your daily business, and you utter words, remember to use them thoughtfully.

You're welcome. The Ostrich Killer is always pleased when his readers express their gratitude for the way he simplifies the obvious.

On journalistic privilege:

If a journalist cannot be required to reveal their 'usually reliable sources' for a big news story, what is to keep them from simply making up the news?

Just a thought from your friendly Ostrich Killer.

On negotiating:

Isn't the very root of negotiating a certain amount of trust between the negotiating parties? Yes? Okay, then what does one do when one wants a certain type of behavior out of another party, but one cannot trust that party because they have demonstrated they will not keep their word?

(Final Jeopardy theme here . . .)

And the question is: What is 'Offer an ultimatum'?

Correct!

Now, about North Korea . . .

The Ostrich Killer goes back to sleep, having made another telling point.

Okay, here's my first nomination for membership in the Ostrich Society: The entire mainstream media. Yes, that's a lot. A whole lot. So what qualifies them? The Foley page scandal.

In a nutshell, what the entire mainstream media refuses to acknowledge is that the age of consent in DC is 16. The age of the page in question was 18. A congressman said some racey things to that page. So? The Ostrich Killer now goes back to sleep . . .

Oh, wait. We've heard the words 'pedophile' and 'homosexual'. Since it's impossible to be pedophilic if you're, uh, engaging someone of legal age, that label clearly doesn't apply. That leaves 'homosexual'. But haven't we all been hammered by liberal leaders endlessly to be more tolerant of homosexuals and their behaviors? Yet here's the mainstream media, along with most of the left wing in Congress, hammering Foley for doing what, in the final analysis, is legal. Maybe not ethical, but legal. Why? Because he's a homosexual? Would this same level of finger pointing and name calling be leveled against a congressman who engaged in legal heterosexual activity?

You be the judge. In the meantime, I need another beer.

Welcome to The Ostrich Killer, a blog dedicated to de-spinning what should be the obvious.

Is that nebulous enough? Really, the purpose here is to clearly state the news, and its interpretations, so that people like myself can better understand it. That means removing all spin, stating the known facts simply and without the use of 'trigger' or evocative rhetoric, and then sometimes making a swift comment about it.

Why 'Ostrich Killer'? You know that ostriches, when confronted w/ a threat, are rumored to stick their heads in the sand.* That's so they can pretend the threat doesn't exist, so they don't have to take any further action on the matter. You see, recognizing a situation means that it must be dealt with. However, if you pretend that it doesn't exist . . . well, you get the idea.

Believe it or not, it is a common human trait to pretend - to even convince oneself - to believe an attractive lie rather than an ugly truth, because recognizing the truth means - yes, you got it - having to do something about it. We all know people like this, people who will invent the wildest conspiracies or exotic stories to support what they'd prefer to believe, rather than acknowledge the truth which sits right there in front of them.

I call these people ostriches. Hence, this blog. Here's to the Ostriches, those who choose to ignore the obvious. From time to time I'll nominate people for membership in the Ostrich Society, in recognition of their uncommon self delusions.

Now, I'll let this simple introduction sit for a day or so while the world turns, then add my first news item. Stay tuned.

* - Contrary to the rumors, ostriches don't really stick their heads in the sand. But they make a good icon for the type of people we're talking about here, right?