America's Cup Idiot Rules

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

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

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

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

40 Clowns in a Clown Car

And A Lot of Horn Honking

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

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

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

Assad is also.

What's so funny, you ask?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brain dead, the entire lot of them clowns.

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

Breathtaking Arrogance and Ingenuousness!

Assad Promises Asymmetrical Responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brain dead, the entire lot of them.

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

The ONLY Case for Striking Syria

Presidential Credibility

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

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

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

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

That Fast Food Workers Strike

Go Ahead. Pay 'em.

But find ways to cut staff in half.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flak Trap

Syrians Have Russian Air Defense Systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Old Arab Saying

Sometimes The Best Course of Action is None

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT HAPPENED TO DETROIT?

Or, Voting With Their Wallets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 million people fled with their wallets and businesses.

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

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

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

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

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

All You Need To Know About Trayvon

What's all the fuss about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The corpse of Trayvon is being leveraged for cash flow.

And that's all you need to know.

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

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

Left Brain, Right Brain

An Anecdote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A SPEECH YOU WON''T HEAR FROM OBAMA

My Fellow Americans,

The Benghazi fiasco happened on my watch.

The IRS targeting of conservative groups, pro-Life groups, global warming skeptics and others happened on my watch.

The Department of Justice has bugged the telephone and other communication lines of the Associated Press, and that happened on my watch.

One of my predecessors, Mr. Nixon, resigned when confronted with the Watergate affair, where some hotel and meeting rooms belonging to the Democratic party were bugged.  And then, when discovered, he attempted to cover it up.

That was a far lesser breach of the public trust than the three breaches I mentioned above.

I was tried, and found wanting.

Mr. Nixon recognized what a man of honor must do, and set the example that I now must follow.

Effective Monday I will resign as President of these United States.  The Vice President, Joe Biden, will be your president for the remainder of my term.

Good night, and Godspeed.

BENGHAZI

It Isn't Complicated

Skipping all the lead-up pleas for more security, let's just look at what went on, and why, once the embassy reported being under terrorist attack on September 11, 2012.

The State Department was notified.  So was Obama. A quick evaluation within Hillary's State Department made the obvious leap to the understanding that since Obama was campaigning on how he had Al Qaeda on the run, this wouldn't look good for him.  Worse, since embassies such as the one in Benghazi are an extension of the State Department, admitting that there was no security for the Benghazi embassy would look very bad for Hillary.

I can't prove it, but even a numbskull would have to realize Obama was told both of the above.  He is Commander in Chief, after all, and it's his job to be brought into the situation.  Only he could issue a 'Stand Down' order to the military, which had standing Rules of Engagement covering embassy protection.  Then he disappeared for seven hours.  No one has come forward to tell the world where he was.  Seven hours is enough time for a couple quick rounds of golf.  He is a 16 handicapper, after all.  In the meantime and in his absence the State Department concocted bogus talking points - not those provided by the CIA, which were professional and factual - and came up with the You Tube video story we've all heard about.  Which was also bogus.

The story they decided to stick to was that this was a spontaneous outrage protest over that video, instead of what it really was: an Al Qaeda attack of a US embassy on September 11.  The story was concocted as damage control for Obama's re-election effort, and to preserve Hillary's viability for a presidential run in 2016.  The military was not called in to help because that would be an admission that the situation was an actual attack, not just a protest.

It worked for Obama, but it probably won't work for Hillary.

That's all there is to it.  They went into spin and cover-up mode, instead of rescue the people mode.  Four died as a result.  Lies, in  other words, cost four American lives, and no one has stepped up and credibly claimed responsibility.  Plain and simple.  

Now, don't try holding your breath until Obama tells the world where he was in those missing 7 hours, and provides absolute proof.  He lay doggo so that no decision about the embassy could be traced back to him.  You may have noticed that this president never knows a thing about anything, that he hears about it on the news just like you do.

Look around you.  More than half of the people in your field of view voted for him.  Twice.  Some of them several times.  Is there any hope for this country? 

CLOSE TAX LOOPHOLES

A Good Idea, Right?

We hear it all the time: "Close Tax Loopholes!"  There's even an apparently anonymous campaign urging just that, right here in my own state.

Most people nod their heads in agreement with that sentiment.  After all, it would be only fair, right?

Not so fast.  Before we can close a tax loophole, we have to know what a loophole is.

Easy, some people think.  A loophole is any legal way to avoid paying taxes.

Okay, let's examine that.  Let's say that you own a home - or, more accurately, own a home mortgage.  You pay $$$$ every month on that mortgage.  Most of that money goes toward the interest you have to pay, and the rest against the principal of the loan.  Luckily, though, you get to deduct the interest you pay every year - or, to be exactly correct, you get to deduct your tax bracket's worth of that interest - when you file your taxes.

By our definition, that's a loophole.  Should we close it?

No?  Then we need to re-define the word 'loophole.'  Either that, or change our objective to something like "Close SOME tax loopholes."

Now that's something your Ostrich Killer can get behind.  I want to close all those loopholes that don't benefit me.  And there, o gentle reader, is the rub.  That's what EVERYONE who says 'Close Tax Loopholes' wants.

Which 'loopholes' benefit me?  Any loophole that drives down the cost of goods and services does.  For example, Big Oil gets exploration cost deductions.  If they didn't get those, the cost at the fuel pump would be higher.  Anything made of plastic would cost more.  Small businesses get to deduct much of their start-up costs.  If they didn't, many of them wouldn't start up.  If they didn't start up, their goods and services wouldn't be available to me. 

Here's a loophole I could close happily:  the dependent child deduction on personal income taxes.  All my children are grown, so I don't have that deduction available to me.  So you shouldn't either.  It would only be fair, after all.

Back to that campaign in my own state.  Those road-side signs also say "Put our families and kids first."  Not sure how closing loopholes helps families and kids, but I can guess that means removing loopholes from business taxes.  What happens if we do that?  The businesses will be faced with suddenly far less profit.  What do you think they'll do about that?  Pick one or more of the below:

1. Raise prices.
2. Reduce overhead and number of employees.
3. Go out of business.
4. Move to another state- Texas? - or country.

Will families and kids benefit from any of those outcomes?

The point to be taken is that loopholes are often necessary.  Think of them as tax incentives, meant to encourage certain kinds of fiscal behavior.  Without them, or at least some of them, that behavior would not be readily undertaken.  In most cases those tax incentives were written into law ON PURPOSE to encourage that sort of fiscal behavior.

So to put families and kids first, it would be prudent to think twice about closing tax loopholes.

This has been a public service announcement by your Ostrich Killer.  

You're welcome.  Now down to the boat.

Twentieth Century Biggest Killers

Name The Top 4, if you can.

Right about now you're thinking someone like Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson, or some other similarly deranged and disgusting sub-human.

But you'd be wrong.  You have to think bigger.  Much bigger.

Let's start the list with the biggest killer of all, according to accepted research, and work our way down.

1.  Mao tse Tung  -  China  -  70 million in various purges, exterminations, etc.
2.  Rachel Carson  -  America -  50 million, give or take a few tens of millions, through publishing a fantasy and false alarm.  Her fantasy is still killing millions, with no end in sight.
3.  Joseph Stalin  -  Soviet Union  -  30 million in various purges and exterminations.
4.  Adolph Hitler  -  Germany  -  10- 15 million through purges, exterminations, cleansings, etc.

Of the above 4 above, only one is still killing.  She's long dead, of course, but her work is still killing.

What else do the above have in common?  Christianity, or more properly the lack of it.  None of the above had any significant connection to any mainstream religion, much less Christianity.

Other things we can learn from Rachel Carson:
1.  Words kill.
2.  Governments won't act to correct an obvious wrong, out of fear of being thought badly of by envirowackos and other uninformed do-gooders.  Including, and especially, the United States government.  No matter the consequences of continuing that wrong.  PC, political expediency and faux science win over clarity of thought and action based on actual science.

All of us should be - there has to be a word stronger than 'ashamed' to express it.  Worse, most of us are unaware of what Rachel Carson has done - all with the best of intentions, of course - results don't matter, only intentions do if you're an envirowacko / progressive - and, in fact, most of us probably saw her name in the above list and immediately thought "Who?"

I need another cup of coffee.

Wargaming Global Warming

The Oceans will Rise.  So What?

The eco-alarmists among us would have us believe that global warming exists, and that it is caused by man burning stuff.  While your Ostrich Killer is agnostic about global warming, and a 'denyer' about man's activities being a significant contributor, let's pretend that those Chicken Littles are correct.  So what?

So what?  So what, you ask?  Won't the seas rise a couple feet over the next century or so as polar ice melts?  Won't millions of people living on the coasts flail about in the suddenly high water?  

No.  Oh, the seas would rise, all right.  But not over night.  They will rise minutely each year.  And each year, as coastal communities continue to build and evolve, those that build will build high enough away from the actual coastline that their structures are safe.  The sea will gradually reclaim the existing shorelines and create new ones.  The shapes of those new shorelines will be different than the existing shorelines.  So will the shapes of the coastal communities.  This rise in the oceans will be, for all intents and purposes, unnoticed and unfelt.

So no need to panic.  You don't need to wear a life preserver when you go to bed.

But even better news: we seem to be in a cooling period, not a warming period.  So if you lose sleep over the size of the arctic ice packs, you can sleep easy.  If you worry about the shape of the existing coastlines, you can sleep easy.  On the other hand, if you were hoping you wouldn't have to keep heating your home into the month of May, I'm afraid you're out of luck.

And now for some coffee.  

IF WE CAN SAVE EVEN ONE CHILD'S LIFE

Then We Should Do It

That's what Obama said when he gave is speech kicking off his assault on the Second Amendment.

Do you agree with him?

If so, then the below information might be helpful in focusing your attention on the Obamacure (the cure Obama would push, using his gun control logic.)

Annual Child Deaths in US by Cause (recent data rounded off to nearest 100, as reported):

Gun-related:  1500.  Two thirds are drug or suicide related.  ObamaCure: No guns.  Partial cure: no drugs.
Car crashes:  1500.  ObamaCure:  Make it illegal for kids to ride in motor vehicles.
Drownings:      900.  ObamaCure:  Make it illegal for children to be allowed near water of any sort.
Animal Attack:  30.  ObamaCure:   Round up all animals.
Horse Riding:    23.  Data from Alberta, BC.  Scale up for yourself.  ObamaCure: Confiscate horses.

The American KGB

It looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck . . .

First, let's make sure you know what the KGB was.  Back in the Soviet Union days, the KGB was the internal police ('Committee for State Security') for the Soviet Union.  They rounded up offensive people, tortured and executed them as needed.  They served the Soviet government as a stability tool.

In the United States, the military is prohibited from carrying out such actions by the 18th Amendment.

So we're safe, right?

The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has acquired 2 billion rounds of military small arms ammo (about 30 years' worth for a Vietnam - level conflict) and ordered 2700 mine-resistant armored vehicles.  

What for?

The DHS 'agents' aren't bound by the 18th Amendment.  Thirteen years ago - well before the 9/11 attacks, which were used as an excuse to create the DHS - your Ostrich Killer wrote a prediction that such an agency would inevitably be formed.  I called it the Bureau of Internal Stability, but what's in a name?  It's the intent that matters.

Wait, you say.  The DHS is for anti-terrorism.  Yes, that may have been what we were all told at the time, but all that ammo, those armored vehicles - what terrorist threat are they arming themselves for?

Your Ostrich Killer will now go out on a limb and answer that the arms and equipment are for use against a revolutionary citizenry, since the Federal armed forces cannot be used for that purpose.  The DHS is an analog to the KGB: a tool to help maintain internal stability.  Simple as that.  It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.  It's a duck, genus KGB. It may be a kinder and gentler KGB - that remains to be seen - but it's a duck nonetheless.

Our elected officials see a revolution coming.  They are preparing.  Are you?  Or are the blinders still firmly attached?

Farewell, Maggie

Adieu to a Heroine

The twentieth century saw Great Britain produce three prime ministers of note:  First, there was Neville Chamberlain, who eventually resigned in dishonor and disgrace, although he and his country both put a different face on it at the time.  His limp-wristed appeasements to the Nazis at the infamous Munich conference was a major encouragement to Hitler to assume Great Britain would not interfere with his plans of conquest.  That encouragement may have been the final necessary catalyst to kick off World War 2.

Next came Winston Churchill, who took over from Neville Chamberlain the disarray of both the office of Prime Minister and the English war effort.  History tells us that this man may have been the most inspired and doggedly persevering of all English leaders in the last four hundred years.  You'll find his name on any list of the Top Five leaders of the 20th Century.

Finally, there was Margaret Thatcher, or just plain Maggie.  Her accomplishments were massive and jaw-drop amazing.  She made decisions based on principle instead of politics, brought England back from the brink of abject socialism and economic ruin, and returned the Falkland Islands to the British after Argentina so stupidly captured them.  The Argentinans made the same mistake about her that the Nazis made about Churchill - they seriously underestimated resolve.  Now we see endless 'news' footage of the human debris of England carrying signs reading such hateful things as 'The witch is dead' and other disgusting symbols of their delight over her death.

Why are they rejoicing?  Because she made these scum choose starvation or work when she was Prime Minister.  This vermin preferred sitting on their asses and smoking dope to being productive in both personal and societal contexts.  They liked being paid to do nothing, much the same as the typical Obama voter does. Sadly, Maggie's efforts were magnificent only in the short run, as England is once more paying more and more people to do less and less.

She'll be missed by all of us who were there, watching and learning, as she kept Great Britain afloat and proud on her watch.

Will there ever be another team like Reagan and Thatcher?  One can only hope, but the prospects don't look good.

Farewell, Baroness Thatcher.

RE-PURPOSING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN OWNERS

Or, the Goose / Gander Model

Never let it be said that your kinder, gentler Ostrich Killer is not interested in re-purposing to save money.

With that caveat in mind, let's explore (briefly) the concept of background checks for all gun buyers.  Ignoring the logistical and financial burdens of tens of millions of such checks, the setting of criteria of who is disqualified for gun ownership can also be applied to other disqualifications.

Voting, for example.

Citizen Jones fails a background check for gun ownership?  Then Jones' name is automatically removed from voter registration lists and 'flagged' to alert officials that re-registration is to be denied.

Background checks for gun buyers is supposed to make us all safer.

What could be deadlier than a mentally or criminally inferior voter population in the general electorate?  Look what they got us the last two elections.

Okay, okay.  I take that back.  I shouldn't have called all those voters mentally or criminally inferior.  My apologies to those voters, although none of them read this blog.  Most of those voters are just rationally challenged - either too uninformed or lazy to do the thinking necessary to cast a responsible vote. 

It's early yet.  Back to the coffee pot.

Trading Away Your Freedom is STUPID

Or, Welcome to the Gun Owner's Black Market

Yes, gentle readers, when the law is passed to require background checks on all gun purchases, there will be a de facto gun registry put in place.  Every gun purchased by a law-abiding citizen will be known about by your benevolent government.  All the information on those background checks will be placed into databases.  This, we are told, will prevent school shootings.

Does that mean that if there had been a background check that the Connecticut shooting wouldn't have taken place?

No.  It would have had no effect.  The gun owner was the perp's mother.  She had the guns legally.  He killed her, stole her guns, and took them to school.  No amount of background checks would have prevented this.

The proposed legislation isn't about safety.  Or preventing crime - after all, criminals won't submit themselves to such background checks.  For that matter, neither will American patriots.  To the left and their enablers of course, the terms American Patriot and criminal are synonyms.

Which brings us to the question: who has the most to fear from an armed and anonymous citizenry?

Your Ostrich Killer contends that your government does.  Which is why they want background checks - so that they will know where the guns are, so they can confiscate them before a revolution gets a good start.  The history of the 20th Century is rife with countries that have imposed such registration, only to then confiscate the guns and then decimate the citizen population afterward.  Twenty or more millions died because they were 'purged,' something that would have been more difficult for their executioners to accomplish had the citizenry been able to legally own guns.

So what can you do to stop this background check legislation?  Probably not a lot.  You've surely noticed a shortage of brains up on capitol hill, and that most of those with brains won't really listen to you.  But you have a civic duty to try.  So contact your representatives and senators, and tell them not to sign on to such legislation.

I doubt that will work, but you have to give it a try.  It's the right thing to do.  You could send a link to this blog to your rep, and let him / her know you agree with its general tone and will remember his / her vote on this issue come next election.

What's the right thing to do should such legislation pass?

An American will refuse to buy guns on the retail market, nor will they transfer them with the required paperwork.  They will do their gun trading on the black market.  The underground.  Cash or barter.  Your Ostrich Killer, should he wish to buy a gun after the passage of such legislation, will become a criminal under the proposed laws.  I don't worry a lot about that, as I will have the better part of 100,000,000 like-thinking patriots for company.  I don't think even the US has jail space for a small fraction of that number.

Will you be in that company of patriots?  Or are you content to prostrate yourself before your government and say to them 'do with me as you will, I trust you?'

Google this saying:  A people that will trade freedom for safety will wind up with neither.  That has been shown time and again throughout history to be absolutely true.  As you will discover, a lot of different people have said basically the same thing.  And they were all right.

". . . the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  That's a direct lift from the Second Amendment, written in pretty plain English.  Is a national background check and its associated databases an infringement?

You bet it is.  It requires government permission for you to exercise your Constitutional right.  When permission is required, it is no longer a right, it is a government - granted permit.  The Constitution exists to define our INDIVIDUAL rights, and SPECIFICALLY forbids government to interfere with them.

Did you know that?  If not, read the Constitution complete sometime.  It's pretty short, about one cup of coffee's length.