Don't Think Your Vote Matters?

Ask The Citizens of Gaza

Many people don't vote.  Their reasons (excuses, actually) vary: 
1. I forgot.
2. Who cares? They're all the same.
3. I don't understand the issues, so I don't want to cancel the vote of someone who does.
4. I would, but why bother? The other side is going to win, according to the pollsters. (Or my side is going to win anyway, according to the pollsters.)
5.  One vote doesn't matter, and besides I have to work.

The list is much longer, but the end result is the same: that person doesn't vote.

A vote matters.

To the non-voters, I say I don't want to hear you bitching about political matters.  You haven't earned the right to complain.

In 2006 the citizens of Gaza elected a slate of Hamas candidates to run their tiny country.  Now, most of the civilized world and even some Arab countries have Hamas at the top of their Terrorist Organizations list, right there with Al Qaeda.

So the citizens voted to be run by a terrorist organization.

Now they are dying - not for the first time - from Israeli artillery and air strikes, retribution brought about because over the years the duly elected Gaza government has fired more than 10,000 rockets into Israel, trying to kill its citizens.  Hamas, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, has sent kidnap teams into Israel, terror squads into Israel.

And now Hamas is being killed by Israel.  As they die, they hide their rockets and weapons in hospitals and schools and shoot at Israeli from those facilities, hoping that Israel will strike them and kill school children and hospital patients.  Israel does.  The photos show up on their accomplice network, CNN.  Hell, Hamas shoots their own citizens if they dare to object to having rockets launched from their front yard.

Hamas wants as many of their countrymen to die as possible.  A huge pile of children's corpses would be, in their view, a triumph.

While I wonder now how many of the Gaza citizens might have voted differently had they thought more than ten seconds about who Hamas is, I have no sympathy for them.  They elected this government, now they get to reap the whirlwind.  

There are, to your otherwise lovable Ostrich Killer's thinking, no innocent voters just as there are no innocent non-voters.

But these idiots have a way to save themselves: get rid of Hamas.  Seek them out, kill them wherever they are found.  Then hold new elections and see if they can join the community of civilized nations.

Don't think a vote matters?  Many Gaza citizens might now argue with that sort of mindless bullshit thinking.

But wait, some might say.  That's Gaza.  We're Americans.

Yes, we are.  Look who is President.  Look what he is doing.  He is LITERALLY singlehandedly and in direct violation of the Constitution destroying the United States, because that is what he wants to do.  And the majority of the electorate (voters) want him to do that.  Apparently, because they elected him.  Twice.

Makes me wonder about the oft-cited wisdom of the American voter.  There is scant evidence of significant populations of such creatures in our pop-culture saturated society.

A vote matters.  Yours.  Mine.  The neighbor's. Take it seriously, and use your brain instead of your emotions.  Think.

As usual, some of my readers may wonder if I have my facts right.  As usual, they are free to verify them for themselves.  That is what Google is for.

Now, another beer.  Too late for coffee.

World Cup Soccer Rule Changes

It's All About Player Safety

Now that the World Cup is in the quarterfinal stages, it might be time to look at some ways to improve safety for players.

Scarcely a minute goes by without a player falling to the turf clutching at himself, his face twisted into paroxysms of agony at some brutal injury or other.  This sometimes results in a free kick.  Usually that player's insensitive coach will leave the injured player in the game to carry on as best he can.

What other sport allows their players to prance about in beach attire and risk injury like soccer does?  What other sport requires players who've been grievously injured as these players apparently are, to continue playing?  None, that's what.  Not ice hockey.  Not American football, certainly.  

So your Ostrich Killer, in the hopes that his suggestions will save at least one soccer player a serious injury, proposes a few minor changes.

1.  First, there are many violent collisions.  These are dangerous.  Hockey and American football players know this, which is why they wear the equipment they wear.  So soccer players should do the same - a hockey type helmet with a faceplate to reduce the chances of concussion and fingers in the eyes.  Padding about the shoulders and thighs and rib cage and hips would be also be prudent minimums.  For more ideas on player protection, FIFA might consider consulting the Pussification Committee of the NFL.

2.  Some rule changes would help reduce the number of players being so brutally knocked to the ground.  
  A.  A player who does not rejoin play within 10 seconds after hitting the ground for any reason would be required to leave the match.  His team could replace him, but that player will not be allowed back into the match, so that medical staff can have sufficient time to do a thorough exam to determine the extent of his injuries.
  B.  A player receiving a yellow card will be required to leave the match, but can be replaced.  A red carded player will still be required to leave the match without replacement.
  C.  Any team receiving two red cards during a match will forfeit the match and suffer other penalties as the league may deem appropriate.
Again, other rule changes may benefit the players, and the NFL Pussification Committee could be a valuable resource for suggestions.

Yes, it grieves your Ostrich Killer to see the awful mayhem, the agonies so apparent on the faces of the injured, and he hopes that FIFA and other controlling bodies will adopt his modest proposals.  After all, it's for the good of the players.

Coffee calls.

OBAMA'S WARS

BHO WAGES UNRELENTING WARS!

What? Obama?  Wars?  What wars?

Why, his wars on -

jobs.

the Private Sector economy.

Black employment.

food.

Gasoline and personal mobility.

border security.

Plain English.

Veteran's access to the VA health care system.

transparency of IRS targeting of conservatives.

your child's school lunch menu.

the Constitution.

Free Speech.

our personal sense of freedom.

of course.  But you knew about them, right?  And there are many others, some of them documented in this blog's archives.  Browse among them if you're curious.

This president is doing everything in his power to act on his contempt for this country's security, economy, energy, cheap food supply, military, Constitution, privacy, traditions, and our historical way of life in general.  He is an America-hater, a person who thinks America's place as the Golden City in the Sky needs to be downgraded to Slum in the Dump.  He is doing everything he can to bring that about.  His actions are plain and there to see, to anyone who can see that the emperor has no clothing.  He has as his enablers and accomplices many in the liberal establishment in congress, and leading the department of justice.  Prosecuting him for crimes and misdemeanors will be difficult without the help of the department of justice, and you can bet they will not cooperate.

Assembling the Counter-revolutionary Forces

Federal Armies Being Amassed

Recently the Posse Comitatus laws were 'amended' by Congress to allow use of the US Military against the citizens of the United States, within the United States.  Additionally, many federal agencies are arming themselves.  The Department of Homeland Security alone has ordered two billion rounds of small arms ammo, enough for 30 years of a Vietnam-level conflict, and 2,700 mine-resistant armored personnel carriers. 

Should not the informed and engaged citizen do likewise?  Should we not acquire personal firearms and ammo stocks and otherwise prepare to join a new American revolution, should it come?  Wouldn't that be prudent?  Wouldn't that be in the American tradition?

Guns are bad, though.  Right?  Don't you hear that daily from democrats?  From liberals?  From 'progressives?'

It should come as no surprise that most democrats are anti-gun.  Democrats are big government acolytes, and big government requires citizen cooperation or submission, or - gasp - compulsion.  Compelling an armed citizenry is more difficult than compelling a disarmed citizenry.  Duh.

The framers of our Constitution, fresh from shooting tyrants in order to win our freedoms, understood that guns are for shooting tyrants.  That's why they wrote the Second Amendment as they did - to guarantee that future generations of Americans would be able to shoot tyrants again if needed.  The Second Amendment is not about making sure we can shoot Bambi or burglars.  The Second Amendment is what assures that all the other amendments stay in place.

Most democrats want to subjugate the population of this country to government rule.  That's why they are waging wars against anonymity, against personal mobility, against economical food, against energy independence, against the accumulation of wealth, against privacy, and above all against the expression of truth and thoughts.  But to subjugate a large population of armed citizens - well, how to go about it?

They implement the Czechoslovakian model. 

			Prague Spring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Prague Spring (Czech: Pražské jaro, Slovak: Pražská jar) was a period of political liberalization in Czechoslovakia during the era of its...
			View on en.wikipedia.org	Preview by Yahoo

To summarize the Czechoslovakian mode., you find out where the guns are.  You do that through registration and such seemingly innocuous means as 'background checks' before allowing a purchase, or having your doctor ask your children during a sports physical if there are guns in your house, or having teachers ask the same sorts of questions, etc.  All that info goes into databases.  And our government is nothing if not able to access any databases they like.  That's why they require those questions be asked.

Next, you generate as much anti-gun sentiment as possible.  That's hard to do, except in areas where people don't hunt or sport shoot.  Big cities and their immediate suburbs, in other words.  But those areas are home to close to half of Americans.  The other half have their share of anti-gun thinkers too, although far fewer.  So to generate even more anti-gun sentiment, the democrats fan the flames of fear by leveraging every gun-related event.  They view Columbine and other such tragedies as golden opportunities, getting legislation passed that would have done nothing to prevent such tragedies but 'felt good' and satisfied the idiot citizen's wish that 'somebody do something.'  You can depend on some democrat - always a democrat, by the way - to be the first to propose new legislation following any gun-related tragedy.

Finally, you confiscate.  At first you do this by confiscating weapons from people who commit felonies.  Then you confiscate weapons from people who commit misdemeanors.  Then you confiscate from people whose medical records contain any hint of mental abnormality.  Then you confiscate from people who write blogs like this one.  You boil the confiscation frog slowly and incrementally, lest you alarm the armed populace.  You do it 'for the good of Americans.'  You take generations to do it, and you grease the skids through media and public indoctrination centers, commonly known as 'schools.'  Who needs guns, after all?  We have police to protect us.  So give us your guns and we'll protect you.  We'll protect Bambi and Peter Cottontail too.  You don't want Bambi and Peter Cottontail shot do you?  And your neighbors will feel safer too.

Who will protect us?  Turns out we also have Homeland Security agents with two billion rounds of small arms ammo and 2,700 mine-resistant armored vehicles to protect us from terrorists.  They must know something about terrorists that we don't, to be armed to the teeth like that.  The ammo alone is enough to supply a Vietnam-level war for 30 years.  And we have the USDA armed agents to protect us.  The Post office.  Seldom does a week pass that we don't read of another federal agency arming itself.  Why?  Against who?

Now even the military can be used against American citizens.  However, the military is made up of patriots, and a president attempting to invoke their might against the citizenry may well instead provoke the military into taking action against the government itself as they uphold their oath to protect the Constitution against 'enemies, foreign and domestic.'  In this case the federal government would be the domestic enemy.  So what forces could the federal government use against its citizens?  Homeland Security, The USDA, Post Office, and any number of other federal departments, whose allegiance to their government paycheck is strong and their appreciation for traditional American freedoms weak. 

Obama and the democrats are building an army of federal agents that can be used against its citizens.  They fear that at some point we will start shooting the agents of tyranny, as our founding fathers meant for us to do when necessary.  They want an army they can depend on.

So of course a disarmed citizenry would be helpful.  

Your Ostrich Killer's advice: don't disarm, and don't cooperate with the forces and agencies who would help enable disarming our citizenry.

A second cup of coffee is calling me . . .

Tilting at the Climate Change Windmill

Dr. Strangelove Had it Right

Recently your beloved Ostrich Killer engaged in discussions with several global warming / climate change Chicken Littles.  These people have some things in common, to wit:

1.  Science doesn't matter, anecdotes do.

2.  Science doesn't matter, politics do.

3.  A belief that today's climate is the only correct climate for Earth.

4.  Cost doesn't matter.

Yes, these people are true ostriches when it comes to science.  I call them 'enviro-wackos' and I once wrote a poem about the way they think:

Don't bore me with facts 
I don't want to believe.
When you tell me the truth, 
There's plots up your sleeve.

Earth does have a history and cycles, fellow skeptics.  Looking at the geological record, the Earth has a long and rich history of hundred-million year or so warm cycles interrupted by (relatively) short cooling cycles, during each of which the average global temperature was in the neighborhood of 75 degrees Fahrenheit.  It is currently in the neighborhood of 57 degrees Fahrenheit and on the upswing from a low of about 55 degrees, during which low man sprang forth.  This upswing possibly indicates another warming cycle is starting.  ALL of Earth's warming cycles preceded man's appearance on the planet.  Life thrived during most of those cycles.  Continents broke up, moved, re-formed, broke up again . . . Life went on, evolved, and so did the Earth.

And these Chicken Littles think we can do something, anything to prevent the next warming cycle?  Please!

But why should we prevent it, even if we could?  Would that not be - gasp! - unnatural?

Is it not likely that man will also thrive at 75 degrees?  Are we so fragile and unable to adapt / cope that breaking a sweat will make us extinct?  Or are we merely concerned that our coastal cities will gradually move inland to higher ground over a few dozen / hundred / thousand centuries?

What price are we willing to pay to tilt at the global warming windmill?  To erect a "STOP" sign in front of an approaching avalanche?

Global warming, based on geological history, is cyclical and inevitable.  What difference do a few decades one way or another make when one is talking about a hundred million years?  They're less than a rounding error.  And man's impact on those decades - if any - is so far looking like less than a rounding error on that rounding error.

So I'm all for enjoying life and cheap energy.  Cheap energy allows societal growth for less fortunate nations.  Cheap energy allows for mobility, powers industry,feeds people and enables cultivation of grain so I can enjoy a Buckhorn now and then.  Cheap energy gets me down to my boat and back.  Raise the cost of energy and people die.  Simple as that.  But to an enviro-wacko gaea worshipper, that's okay because humans are a scourge on their holy planet.

What is cheap energy?  The EPA says that, for electrical generation, hydro-electric is cheapest, followed by nuclear, followed by oil / coal.  They don't even rate 'green' (windmills, solar, geothermal, warp drives, etc.) sources of energy, probably because they're off the scale in costs and almost invisible in terms of contribution.  So logically we should dam more rivers, build breeder reactor power plants, and drill baby drill.  Because no matter what we do, the next cycle will come anyway.  So, as Dr. Strangelove would advise, stop worrying and learn to love the climate.

Consumer Activism

Back Up Your Thinking With Your Spending

Recently there was a big annual parade scheduled in Boston.  St. Patrick's Day Parade, as I recall.  Many businesses provide sponsorship to that parade.  This time, though, a homosexual activist organization wanted to march and advertise their sexual proclivities and, presumably, recruit.  The parade organizers decided that would not be especially family-friendly, and therefore denied that group a permit to march.  That group protested, to no avail.

Several sponsors pulled their sponsorships to show their displeasure with the parade organizer's decision.  Among them were Samuel Adams brewery, Heineken brewery, and Guiness brewery.

I guess St. Patrick and his followers liked beer. 

In any event, this pulling of sponsorships over this particular issue offended me.  So now I don't buy Samuel Adams beer, which I truly do like and which I have bought many gallons of over the years, nor do I buy Heineken or Guiness, neither of which particularly impress me.

So I got to thinking - I have a history of being selective with my dollars.  For example, I wouldn't buy a Government Motors car if they were free; nor would I buy a Fiat - ooops, I mean Chrysler product.  They took bailout money from the taxpayer and gave it to their unions.  My money.  Your money.  And even if they hadn't, they won't stand behind their products unless people die and they're caught with their hands in the cookie jar.  Or they are owned now, in the case of Chrysler, by a company notorious in the world as a producer of shoddy products, only marginally better than the now Fiat-owned Yugo or the East German Trabant.

Entertainment - I have a whole list of entertainers I won't go to see on the silver screen.  I'm told that is stupid of me, that I should overlook their actions and words and enjoy their performances.  But to my way of thinking their performances are just entertainment.  I can be entertained just as well by others, and I don't want these idiots getting one dime from me.

There are many other examples of my selective spending, or my activist spending, or my personal boycotts.  The point is that I'm making decisions on what to support with my money, and what to impoverish.  Certain television channels don't get viewed in my house.  Ditto radio stations.  

Do you do something similar?  If not, next time you're spending discretionary dollars, think about what your money is supporting.  Pay attention to issues and public statements and actions.  When you do you'll find yourself making choices, and that's healthy for both you and your family, and for our society.

My second cup of coffee is calling.  You're welcome.

That Racist Rant - a Perspective

When is a Private Conversation Public?

The owner of the LA Clippers NBA basketball team allegedly said some pretty unpleasant things recently.  You've probably heard about it - he allegedly told his free-spirited girlfriend to be racially selective about who she brings into his presence.  The NBA is investigating.  Obama has chimed in, half-cocked as usual.  People are shocked.  His players are p.o.'ed, since most of them are black and those that aren't are offended on behalf of their black team mates.  

He allegedly said it to her during a private telephone conversation.  The word 'allegedly' is used because the jury is still out on whether the recording has been altered, and if it has been, how much.  

Who among us has not said something offensive during what we had reason to believe was a private conversation?  Who among us might be vulnerable to career termination if some of our words are altered and then used out of context?

How many of us would like to see and hear our private conversations, altered or not, on the 5 o'clock news?

Are important business people not entitled to expect a reasonable level of personal privacy?

Aren't there laws that make recording and broadcasting someone's telephone conversations without their consent illegal?  The feds and local police need warrants to be able to do that.  Did the person who recorded and broadcast this conversation have the necessary authority and a warrant?  Your ostrich killer doubts it.  And your ostrich killer wonders why he is the only one asking these questions.

So I don't care what he said.  In fact, I don't care what most people say.  I only care what they do.  But I am offended by the breach of his personal privacy.

Ostrich Killer Cyber Security Tips

Your Online Security

Not a day goes by without the news carrying some story about a breach of cyber security.  That's security of any device you have that uses either cell phone connections or the internet.

You probably have concerns about that.  What's on your computer / tablet / phone that you wouldn't want the universe in general and your friends and family in particular to see?  Anything?  

Are you working on a novel?  Do you want someone else to finish it and publish it before you do?

And what about those stupid pictures?  Or those diary entries?  Or your password list? Copies of your tax returns?  Other financial data?

You probably have your own concerns about some of the files on your computer.  You probably also have an old computer laying around somewhere.  So what's the simplest way to protect yourself?

Your Ostrich Killer has a list of simple things you can do.

1.  If you have a Windows-based computer, download and install Microsoft Security Essentials from microsoft.com onto your networked computer.  It's free.
2.  Dredge that old computer out of your closet and dust it off.  Turn it on, see that it still works, but do NOT connect it to any network.  Using the Network Manager in your 'My Computer' link, disable all network devices on that old computer.  
3.  Transfer ALL your files - documents, spreadsheets, tax returns, diaries, etc - anything you've created, in other words - to that old computer,using a USB stick or SD card.  Do NOT use a shared drive!  This old computer probably has older software.  Good news: most programs are file-compatible backwards.  That means if you're running, say, Office 2010 on your 'new' computer, the files you've created will still work in Office 2007 on your old computer.  If you're uncertain, save those files on your 'new computer' in a file format compatible with your old computer's software before you transfer the files.  It's a good policy to set your file format saving defaults on all software to be at least one generation older than the software supports.
4.  Once you've accomplished this file transfer, do all your work from now on using this old computer.  If you want to send a file you've created on your old computer out to the internet somewhere, copy it to a USB stick and transfer it to your 'new' computer, then send it.
5.  It goes without saying that you need to set your computer to automatically lock itself after a few moments - I use 2 minutes - of inactivity so that you will have to log in to use it.  That will help keep curious passers-by honest.  Nothing keeps an honest man honest like the inability to be dishonest.

Pretty simple, yes?  But there are catches, obvious ones:
1. Email and browsing and searching and facebooking cannot be kept hack-free by you, because all of them require being on the internet.  You'll have to trust your providers to keep them secure.  Good luck.  BTW, going to the library to use their networked computers will do you little good: you still have to log in to your email or facebook or other accounts.  Once you've done that - well, you get the picture.
2.  That cell phone?  Put nothing on it that you wouldn't want to see on the eleven o'clock news.  Consider using it the same way you used a phone in 1980: leave it at home sitting on your desk.  The world kept going around back then even when you were away from a phone.  It still will.  Good luck.  Oh, a bit of news to some of you: a cell phone, even turned off, can be tracked.  It can be listened to.  It can take pictures.  Its files can be viewed.  Didn't know that?  Now you do.
3.  Tablets are basically worthless unless connected to wifi.  Use them with the same caution you would use your cell phone.  Do NOT buy a tablet that can use cell phone connectivity, for the reasons just outlined above.  Wifi only, and keep that turned off until you want to use it.  Walking into your local tavern, for example, with your tablet's wifi turned on will broadcast to any number of App providers (Angry Birds and others) your location.  You want your habits to be known?  You want your contact list copied?  Some people don't care, others do.  The good news is that both groups get to decide.
4.  All digital devices that connect to a network have provisions for security.  Use them.  You don't want some stranger logging in to your banking app, for example, or email accounts should you forget and leave your device at the tavern.

That leaves one last device to secure:  your car.

What?  Your car?  Yes, indeed.  Does your car have Onstar or a similar, perhaps manufacturer-linked 'service?'  That means you can be tracked even if you leave your cell phone at home.  You can be listened to.  Hell, an ad ran on TV a couple years ago advertising Onstar, where the cops were able to stop a stolen car by calling Onstar and having them disable it.  You like that?  Can you imagine how that could be used in a police state?  That ad quietly disappeared, by the way.  Your navigation system?  Linked to.  Addresses input to the system: linked to.  So my advice, when you buy that next car, is to be hard-nosed about having NO devices in the car that can transmit ANYTHING.  It's a car, after all, not a spy.

The feds understand you value your privacy.  That's why they want to install more sophisticated 'black boxes' on all cars and vehicles.

Good luck.  And now, one last cup of coffee.

Putin's Plan

Reboot the Soviet Union

There it is.  That's his plan.  He has correctly assessed that no one - not the US, not NATO, not the European Union - is willing to do what's necessary to stop him from re-capturing those 14 nations that broke away from the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union fell in 1991.

Put another way, his plan is to conquer 14 sovereign nations, and he is sure no one will stop him.  The worst that will happen is that there will be stern rhetoric, economic sanctions, and maybe even military training exercises in European nations and perhaps an ocean or two.  But nothing more.

How can he be so sure?

1.  Obama and his 'more flexibility one he's re-elected.'

2.  He controls the gas / oil aorta of Europe.  If Europe begins to act belligerent, he cuts off their gas. This is why your Ostrich Killer thinks that the takeovers of eastern European countries other than the Ukraine won't get into high gear until November of 2014, when the citizens of Germany and Austria and all those other eastern European  countries will need Russian oil and natural gas for home heating.  His threat: don't intervene unless you want to freeze.  Imagine what the citizens of eastern Europe will choose.

3.  The state of military readiness in those 14 countries is woeful, meaning they cannot meaningfully resist Russian invasions - meaning that the mere threat of such invasion may be enough to topple the still-emerging freedom of those countries.

4.  NATO unwillingness to expedite membership to those Europe-bordering countries that want membership - this out of concern for 'worrying' Russia.

To those Americans who don't know history, take a moment to review the legacy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.  Yes, I know that it's futile to remind Americans, most of whom are living proof that all we really learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

In short summary, Putin knows that no one is willing to go to war over any of those 14 countries, so he can safely consider them ripe cherries for the picking.

My second cup of coffee awaits.

What Happened on MH370?

Connect the Dots

You knew your Ostrich Killer would have to throw in his own interpretation of the events on that vanished airliner, right?  Okay, here goes - using only what we think we know.  Of course, what we think we know comes from sources that have not been especially reliable to date, but it's all we have to work with.

First and probably the most critical of all the information, we have the airliner, which was supposed to be flying a course of North North West to Bejing from Kuala Lumpur, suddenly turn about a hundred and twenty degrees left to a course of West South West.  Passenger airliners aren't supposed to make such huge course changes without first letting the appropriate air traffic control authorities know about it, as well as the reasons for it.  But that communication has not been reported to us and probably therefore did not happen.  Very strange.

Next, an even more illuminating event took place: at least twelve minutes after this unauthorized and puzzling turn, the co-pilot is in routine radio contact with controllers.  He did not comment on the course change or on any on-board or weather-related issues, and signed off with a low-key "All right.  Good night."  Very benign, very humdrum.  Except the aircraft was flying in the wrong direction for reasons that were not explained.  Your Ostrich Killer does NOT believe that the co-pilot, the pilot, and everyone else aboard were unaware that they were on the wrong course.

Which brings us to the next critical event: dramatic altitude changes.  Some reports have the aircraft flying as high as 45,000 feet for a few moments.  One has to wonder why only for a moment to figure that one out: an aircraft in no apparent mechanical difficulty and under the control of skilled pilot(s) gets to 45,000 feet on purpose.  But why do so?  The grim answer:  to kill the passengers by de-pressurizing the aircraft cabin so they would not be any further trouble.  At that altitude the passengers and unnecessary aircrew would die in agony in seconds.

Then the aircraft dives to altitudes reported as low as 5,000 feet and disappears from radar.  But there's another benefit to flying that low - any live people on board can open the doors of the aircraft and work without requiring oxygen.  The bodies can be dumped over the side, lightening the aircraft by over 40,000 pounds.  Now that's a lot of work, but with the aircraft on autopilot any living crew could take their time as the aircraft flies to its pre-planned destination.

But why lighten the aircraft?  Here's the next bit of the information puzzle that I haven't seen addressed on any news reports - the range of a Boeing 777-200ER.  That ER stands for "Extended Range."  We've all seen those circles drawn on maps of the region, with a radius of about 2,500 nautical miles.  Why so little?  The aircraft is rated at a max range of 7,725 nautical miles.  Presumably weather and passenger / cargo loads will reduce that, but it seems safe to say that with a full fuel load - something else we haven't heard anything about on the news - that search radius could easily be expanded to at least 6,000 nautical miles.  That's an area of more than 113,000,000 square nautical miles.  An aircraft would take up about 300 feet of that.

So with a lightened aircraft and plenty of range, what's next in what seems to be a planned series of events?  Speculating, your Ostrich Killer suspects that the aircraft has landed somewhere, been hidden under cover, and is being repainted, adjustments made to its electronic communications systems, refueled and loaded with about 100 tons of high explosives.  Then it will be used as a smart bomb.  Israel has taken defensive measures against this very thing, so their thinking is similar to mine.  So getting an unauthorized 777 into Israeli air space will be hard to do, and the perps have to know this.  That's why your Ostrich Killer thinks the target is somewhere else more lightly defended.

What could be the target?  You can speculate as well as I, using the notorious Google Earth to help you.  Remember, it isn't enough that the target be lightly defended.  There can be no robust air traffic control or air defenses along the route to that target (big oceans provide such routes, as do the north and south poles,) and once close to the target air defense reaction times have to be long enough - or snarled in indecisive decision-making - to be ineffective.  So let your fingers do the route planning to your favorite target and see where you wind up.  Remember, you have as much as 6,000 nautical miles of range capability to play with as you maneuver this fully loaded airliner toward the bulls-eye, so you can duck and dodge with the aircraft to get to your target.  You might want to reduce that range a bit to account for drag-induced lower fuel efficiency at low altitude - necessary to stay off as many radars as possible. 

Depending on where the aircraft is undergoing its preparatory work right now, the target list could include such places as the Vatican (remember the aircrew is muslim,) Buckingham Palace, San Diego, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Washington DC, the new World Trade Center building in New York, an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf - well, the list goes on.  Use your imagination.

A thought on enabling infrastructure: a helpful or conveniently 'blind' government somewhere, with a 12,000 foot runway and a big empty hangar and a strong, sympathetic and zip-lipped workforce would be very helpful.  Can you think of any such governments?  

Yeah, so can I.

Someone is sure to ask "If it's a terrorist action, why hasn't some organization claimed credit?"  The answer may be that only phase 1 of that action is complete.  Phase 2 is re-prepping the aircraft for phase 3.  Phase 3 is the actual attack.  When that is done, someone will claim credit.  But not before.

But what about those photos from space, showing what appears to be debris?  Your Ostrich Killer is no expert, but after seeing those photos I will venture that what appears to be debris could as easily be sunlight glinting off the water - take a look at the whole unaltered photo and see if you don't see a lot of similar reflections in the area.  Or does it look like a catamaran?  Or maybe a couple of shipping containers?

One last very sobering thought:  what if some country has provided a nuke instead of 100 tons of high explosives?

Another cup of coffee now . . .

Another Russian Invastion

Another Czechoslovakia?

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

And now, in 2014, Ukraine.

What are the lessons?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need another cup of coffee.

Late Night Talk Shows Suck

JIMMY FALLON OUT OF HIS DEPTH

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

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

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

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

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

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

BENGHAZI AGAIN

Where Are the Survivors?

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

Does anyone know where even one of these survivors is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither DHS nor FEMA is constrained by Posse Comitatus laws.

Two and two results in an uncomfortable sum.

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

JUST SAY NO

Executive Orders and You

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another cup of coffee now.

DOING THE MATH

Parsing that Botox Commercial

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good advice.

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

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

MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING

What The Seahawks Knew about Denver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It didn't work.

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

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

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

A Fantasy

Not Drug Induced, but Will Seem So

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

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

I had a dream last night

And woke up smiling.

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

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

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


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

The Definitive Explanation of Sherman

The Back Story of the Rant

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

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

   Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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