Contra Mozilla

Monday, April 18, 2016

Evil is Often Indifferent

There are, I am sure, some people who are evil for the sake of being evil, or nearly so. They relish the thrill of getting away with it, or enjoy seeing others suffer. True cruelty exists as a means to the pleasure of another, who relishes the suffering of others.

Far more prevalent than this, though, is indifference. Evil is mostly banal, and it is more often caused by carelessness or apathy than for it own sake (or for the sake of some perverted pleasure derived from the suffering of others). For every man who seeks to persecute others for the sake of watching them suffer, there are many more who would "accidentally" persecute others for the sake of expediency or convenience.

Case in point:

This is real bigotry. This is real evil, raising its head to mock. Refusing to participate in somebody else's evil is not bigotry. Real small-mindedness is insisting that others must serve you at all times, that all other people are there for not but your convenience. Evil likes to trivialize itself: just offer one single, small, pinch of incense to Caesar, and hope that God does not notice or care. Bow down before the Golden calf, just once, what can it matter?

I saw a nice counterpoint to all of this:

This is difficult, and often untried. But we do live in a vale of tears, and those tears are all the more bitter because of the sheer cruelty of indifference. We don't live in a time and place of hard persecution--but it is certainly a time and place of soft persecution. This may seem trivial in comparison, as if there is a great gulf between what we suffer here and what martyrs suffer elsewhere: in a sense, there is a wide gulf. But even the greatest distance can be traversed by taking many small, seemingly trivial steps.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016


Sites like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Papers have noticed something interesting about the decision of Paypal, Bruce Springstein, Disney, the State (governor) of New York, etc. to attempt to boycott states like North Carolina and Mississippi. Said boycotts are in response to these states' attempts to enact even the most toothless lawsrecognizing the rights of conscience and Religious Liberty.

There is a certain double-standard at play here--and it is not the only double-standard. After all, many of these folks who are so adamant about the importance of protecting so-called gay (and transgendered) rights from the consciences of Christians will gladly turn a blind eye to the treatment of those same gays when they are beheaded by Mohammedans or imprisoned by Hindus.

Nor is this the only way in which the religious freedoms of Christians in general (and Catholic in particular) are under assault from the Left in America.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Monday, April 4, 2016

What Is Best in Life: Sanders the Bernbarian Edition

What is best in life?
This is basically what the Left represents in modern times (well, that and Moloch worship, and protection of ever more deviant perversions at the cost of curtailing actual freedoms).

On a related note, Time's financial section (Money) has linked to a pair of simple tax calculators, one by the International Business Times, and one by Vox, which attempt to estimate the impact of the four* major candidates tax plans on how much you should expect to pay  in federal taxes. They also attempt to estimate how these tax plans will impact the federal budget (and deficit--there are no projected surpluses). Neither site paints an especially rosy picture for any of the candidates.

On the individual side of things, most people would benefit in the form of more take-home money from both Cruz and Trump (the calculates both estimate that I will take home a few thousand dollars more annually under Cruz and a little more under Trump--but there are no deductions considered for one, and only number of children is considered in the other). Clinton's tax is a wash for the middle class--you don't pay much more, but you do pay a little more.

Bernie Sanders' tax plan is a complete disaster. Vox estimates that my annual tax burden will increase by a staggering $10 000, and the International Business Times estimates a $430 increase to my monthly taxes, which is about comparable**. This, to pay for things of disputable benefit. We don't need a federal healthcare plan, nor should we pay for every kid to go send 4 years at college: the former will mean a worsening of our healthcare in general (longer waiting lines, perhaps rationing or worse, and I can imagine how things like the tyrannical HHS contraceptive/abortion mandate will only be expanded, and worked around whatever Supreme Court ruling is handed down); the latter will mean that college is further dumbed down (it's already slipping there somewhat, and the value of many BS degrees is often worse than worthless). We have "free" k-12 education already, improving the quality of that would work far more wonders than tacking on another 4-6 years of college "education. And from a purely selfish standpoint, I see these as especially burdensome to me: the few actual perks of my job include steeply discounted tuition for my family, "free" health insurance***, and a pension plan****. So people like me will lose out the most on Bernie Sanders, because we will see a large tax increase to fund entitlements that we already pay or receive as a perk (read: non-cash payment) to our jobs.

On the other side of things, none of the candidates have made specific plans for cutting back our already bloated federal budget. The result is that while Ted Cruz and Donald Trump will cut taxes somewhat, they will also be increasing our debt (which has soared to nearly $20 Trillion as of this writing). Not that Bernie Sander or Hillary Clinton avoid doing this, mind you. The outlook for this election is bleak.

*John Kasich is excluded, but then again, he is mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination at anything short of a brokered convention (which actually is looking more and more likely).

**Vox includes everything from income tax to payroll tax to corporate tax. International Business Times does not, as far as I can tell.

***I pay for some of it, and of course I "pay" for some more in a reduced salary, my boss has estimated by about $20000/year. I don't hold high hopes for getting to pocket that money if we go to universal healthcare.

****Which actually take a substantial portion of my monthly paycheck, just under 10% of my earnings, so it is really more like a mandatory group investment.