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.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
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!
"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!
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, October 22, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, September 24, 2007
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!"
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!"
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, May 21, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, March 09, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
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?
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?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, November 13, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, October 30, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Saturday, October 14, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)