Contra Mozilla

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Today's Orwellian News

Lying doesn't pay. Even when lying for a good cause. With that said, the fact that a Gran Jury has indicted David Daleidon--the man behind the "undercover sting" videos which busted Planned Parenthood for trafficking in human organs from aborted children--of criminal charges. Specifically, the Grand Jury brought charges of organ trafficking against Mr. Daleidon--who pretended to want to buy organs--but not against Planned Parenthood, who actually tried to sell them.
A grand jury in Harris County, Texas, returned two charges on Monday afternoon against Daleiden, the activist who planned and organized the undercover sting videos. Although the grand jury allegedly investigated Planned Parenthood, no charges were brought against the nation’s largest abortion provider, whose executives were shown in multiple videos attempting to sell trafficked organs and other body parts harvested from aborted babies. One Planned Parenthood executive, while haggling over the prices of aborted baby organs, noted that she needed to get the right price because, “I want to buy a Lamborghini.”

According to a press release from the office of Harris County district attorney’s office which was provided to The Federalist, Daleiden was charged with the purchase and sale of human organs, a misdemeanor, and with tampering with a governmental record, a felony. Sandra Merritt, one of Daleiden’s associates, was also charged with tampering with a governmental record.
In his press release, Mr. Daleidon states that "buying fetal tissue requires a seller as well" and that "Planned Parenthood still cannot deny the admissions from their leadership about fetal organ sales captured on video for all the world to see."

In this life, and especially in these times and this place, the relatively innocent are charged as guilty, whereas the really guilty parties walk away scot free. Another point of interest: the Harris County prosecutor in this case sits on the board of directors for the Planned Parenthood affiliate which Daleidon targeted.

Ceterum censeo Planned Parenthood esse delendam

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Every Once in a While

Every once in a while, justice is served, and it is sweet. This time, it happened in Russia:
Russian citizen Andrei Filin challenged the Russian government to deny him his right to wear the trademark headwear of his pasta god’s church, the sacred colander. Surprisingly, the state allowed Filin to win.

But Russia, refusing to be made a fool of, found a way to keep Filin honest about his supposed religious doctrine.

“The next time he is stopped by the traffic police, if he doesn’t have a pasta strainer on his head, his license will be taken from him,” said Vladimir Kuzin, deputy chief of Moscow’s State Traffic inspectorate.
The pastafarians are a fake religion, whose purpose is to attack real religions and to make a mockery of religious liberty, largely so that it will be stamped out. It's nice to see them get served up a nice helping of justice on occasion.

Monday, January 18, 2016

Manic Monday Madness

It's MLK Day, and I'm at work. This made me chuckle during my lunch break, though:

Simple fact is, gun violence rates are declining in America, without our needing to add any new regulations. I am willing to get on-board with reasonable regulations--but reasonable and "reasonable-sounding" aren't always the same thing. Case in point: it sounds reasonable that convicted felons should be banned from owning firearms--until you realize just how petty some felonies are. Certainly, it would be good to redefine felonies to actually mean serious offences only; then again, it is specifically the violent criminals who ought not own firearms. I don't really care if a man who has been convicted (and has served time) for grand theft is allowed later to purchase a gun. I'm more concerned with preventing murderers, rapists, or robbers from readily obtaining guns than embezzlers.

In other news, while I don't support the Bundy Bunch--they are counter-productive at best, and certainly helping to distract from rather than raise awareness for the real issues--I tend to have little sympathy for the statists who have called for trying them for treason (the penalty for which is death). I'm especially unsympathetic to people who have spent their entire lives in either an urban area or on the east coast--such people tend to be utterly clueless as regards how much people in rural areas get worked over by the government at various levels.

Monday, January 11, 2016

False Dichotomies

Evil often wins (at least for a time) because it often offers us two (or more) relatively easy choices, one of which is slightly less bad than the other. Society--meaning, the great mass of people--is then asked to choose between the two, as if no other alternatives exist.

There often is another alternative, one which is not evil (and which may in fact actually be good), but it is often difficult.

There are countless cases, but as an example let me pick just one which is currently in the collective conscience: that of the Mohammedan rape gangs in Europe (and particularly in Germany). The choices which we are provided with, as "relatively easy" options are these:

  1. Support the actual rape culture of the Mohammedan immigrants
  2. Support the "anti-rape" culture of the feminist crowds who argue that women who act however and dress however they want with impunity
  3. The minor (third) choice is that we should round up all of the Mohammedans and deport them

Option number 3 isn't necessarily a sub-choice of option number 2, though I've seen plenty of people using 2 to argue for 3. A further subset of 3 is "forced assimilation or deportation," which is an improvement on 3.

Looking at the choices above, it seems obvious that 2 is the "less evil" option of the two major options; nobody really wants option 1, after all. And too often, 2 is implicit in 3: I've seen quite a few erstwhile "conservative" voices suddenly supporting 2 because 1 looks like the worse option.

The problem is, 2 is not a good option either. Surely, it is less bad than option 1, but it is still bad. Men should not become rapists, that is obvious; men who do should be punished severely for it. On the other hand, women should not engage in "Slut Walks" or exhibitionism, or naked "performance art" (I won't provide a link, but let's just say this exists) as a response to the bad behavior of men. Degradation is not suddenly made better on account of being self-degradation as opposed to degradation inflicted by another.