third world county

Well, for a couple of weeks I tried to insult Muslims so I could get a few death threats of my own. They’d drop in from Dubai or Saudi Arabia after searching for “filthy whore” in Arabic (long story) and go scooting off with their tails between their legs, though.

*sigh*

What’s a guy gotta do to get a little “respect” from our brothers in The Religion of Hate, Intolerance, Butchery, Rape and Slavery?

Heck, I even posted a realo nice pic of The Butcher of Medina in a pink dress! And what did I get? Not one illiterate scrawl from a splodydope moose-limb.

If it weren’t for alla you nice folks linking here and tracking back, I’d begin to think I was all alone in the world… *wah*

*heh*

Just link to this post and trackback, ‘K?

CLICK on the OTA graphic below or on my left sidebar for more info on the Open Trackback Alliance, ‘K?

Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at

Linkfest Haven.

Mental Rhinorrhea has a thoughtful post, Morning After Pill Redux and Open Trackbacks, up responding to a comment I made to an earlier post there that deserves a fuller response from me than just a brief comment on her blog. Read her post first and come on back here.

Even posting this in response doesn’t do her entry enough credit, since I’m only commenting on a portion of her post—and then taking off on one of my trademarked rabbit trails. 🙂

I particularly commend her comment, “I would love to think that, God forbid, I were raped and became pregnant that I would have the emotional support needed to deliver the child to term…” My personal prayer is that no woman would ever have to face that particular decision, but if one should, Lingerie Lady’s outlook would be what I’d pray prevails.

Still, if one truly believes abortion is murder, then what? Simple logic compels the thought, apart from religious beliefs: if the fetus is not human, what species is it? Porcine? And if so when does it switch from being a pig to being a human? (OK, in cases of fetuses that grow to become politicians, the answer would be “Never” *heh*)

If the answer about when a fetus becomes human is the silly, “When it can sustain life outside the womb,” then that would suggest that most of the folk on “welfare” are abortable… among other classes of not-humans (by that definition). The question is silly, but it’s also either dangerously stupid or dangerously disingenuous… or both.

The answer is for those of us who have a moral sense to legislate that moral sense into law. After all, every crime against persons is a legislation of moraility, is it not? If murder is only “criminal” and not “immoral” then where is the justification for criminalizing it?

It is the bane of civilization: postmodern (and even sloppier post-postmodern) relativistic humanism that makes the disingenuous argument that one cannot legislate morality: if laws are not legislations of morality then they are purely arbitrary.

OK, almost hung myself on that one, didn’t I? Granted, many of the laws we are saddled with today are arbitrary, disconnected from morality, and also, not coicidentally, the prime factors in what Jerry Pournelle has labeled as the increasing presence of “anarcho-tyranny”–loosely, the arbitrary and unjust rule of subjects (no longer genuinely citizens) by bureaucrats and political elite, resulting in a disrespect for the rule of such arbitrary and unjust laws.

And make no mistake here: I have no respect for the current crop of abortion laws on just that very basis alone, apart from moral arguments: they are arbitrary and unjust. If they were just, they’d allow for the baby to be born, grow to maturity and argue its own case for being allowed to continue living or be “aborted,” but fetuses are allowed no rights in abortions. Arbitrary, because the assessments as to the humanity of the fetus are all subjective, with no foundation in fact.

Coming around to the original post by Lingerie Lady on the “womb broom” morning after pill and pharmacists who refuse to dispense it: On the grounds that abortion laws are arbitrary and unjust, alone, I would argue that anyone who refused to dispense those pills would have not only the right to assert their displeasure with the laws by refusing to dispense the poison but the responsibility to themselves and a just society to do so.

As in respect to such laws as require dispensing drugs against the personal moral judgements of citizens, “The law is a ass.*”

I heartily recommend putting Mental Rhinorrhea on your watch list. It’s going on my blogroll. Lingerie Lady’s post referred to here deserves a much fuller response than I have made, but I trust at least a few readers here will hop on over and check her blog out, and perhaps leave a few comments of your own.

Continue reading “Agreed: Abortion is murder…”

Today’s Stop the ACLU Blogburst is a reprint of Stop the ACLU article covering a significant issue in The War Against the West that was originally published at Gribbit’s Word on 28 August 2005:

---

“ACLU & CAIR Promoting Islam While Suppressing Christians & Jews”

For a year now, Stop The ACLU has been bringing information to you about the evil ways of the ACLU. We’ve been telling you about their war on religion, the Boy Scouts, Christmas, religious icons in public, the 10 Commandments, children, and the United States. But are you listening?

Judging by the comments that we receive, I’d say the only people listening are our own members and those who are poised to argue the ACLU cause. But we must have some readers who are in shock or out-right disbelief that any organization called
“American” Civil Liberties Union would be fighting for causes contrary to the best interests of this nation. But they are.

read Continue reading “ACLU and CAIR Stacking the Deck”

Because I am the sick, twisted, and bizarre person God has made me (THANK You, Lord, LOLOL), I have promised a quilt to David and his Lady Wife.

I requested a general color preference, and David’s Lady granted that she likes sage green and creams, with other accents, and so I offer – through God’s rich grace and Providence – a kit I bought two years ago (Oh, yeah, yet another chance to reduve my “stash” — so I can buy MOREMOREMORE!).

David, here are the colors – and make sure your Lady isn’t completely nauseated by them, OK?

Continue reading “Oh, David…”

Click on the thumbnail for the rest of the story.

Snickering over at Basil’s Picnic

This article at SANS Internet Storm Center warns that

…a serious vulnerability has been found in Apple Safari on OS X. “In its default configuration shell commands are execute[d] simply by visting a web site – no user interaction required.” This could be really bad. Attackers can run shell scripts on your computer remotely just by visiting a malicious website.

You’ve been warned. Be careful out there.

PSA’d at Conservative Cat

While inferring the “strained” Southern argument for apportionment in Federalist #54, James Madison outlines three criteria applicable to slaves:

In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another — the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank…

Hmmm… two out of the three chracteristics of slavery seem adequately fulfilled by our present income taxes. Who has first claim on your labor? Who can put you in prison or otherwise “chastise [your] body” for failing to give your labor FIRST in its service? That you are not—yet—”vendible” by this master is the only manner in which income taxation fails the benchmarks of slavery mentioned by Madison.

Ironic that the first successful efforts to implement both the incremental involuntary servitude of income taxation and the absolute involuntary servitude of compulsory military service were implemented by… Abraham Lincoln.

Both income taxation and compulsory military service were eschewed by the Founders in their Constitutional deliberations for very good reasons. Among them, concerning taxation, is something very like what we have today in our inconcievably large (in the Founders’ day) Republic with a nearly universal suffrage—specifically avoided by the Framers!—which has resulted in a set of circumstances the Framers wished ardently to avoid (read Madison’s exposition in Federalist #10). As Scott Johnson and John Hinderaker wrote for The Claremont Institute in 2002 in Regressive Thoughts on a Progressive Tax, citing the Founders views,

“Given the fact that the poor everywhere outnumber the rich, political philosophy had held that a government based on majority rule was likely to lead to the misappropriation of the property of the few rich by the many poor.”

/sarcasm/ No, really?

*sigh*

We do not have the Founders’ Republic any more. Don’t believe me? Just read the Constitution, really read it. It’s a relatively short document—kinda long for a blogpost *s*, but still relatively short—written in fairly simple terms.

Here’s an idea: how about pressuring your congresscritters for a return to at least a shadow of the Republic the Founders envisioned by ditching the abhorrent income tax?

It’s doable, folks. For a start:

The FairTax.

[Wednesday Open Trackback Alliance Open Post. Link here and trackback. See the info below.]

PingPong: All links and tbs welcome, BUT posts linking with tips on pinging Technorati, Del.icio, Furl, Spurl or any other search/index service will be featured in a later roundup.

See the OTA participants at the link above or become an OTA member here:

Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at

Linkfest Haven.

Served with a backspin at Freedom Watch

When Apple chose (or was compelled by fabbers and market forces, take your choice) to begin producing a “Mac” using an Intel chipset, the handwriting was on the wall. Sure, Apple chose to use an “elilo” (Intel compatible extensible linux bootloader) instead of the usual BIOS routine, in order to attempt to lock other OSes out of installation and use on the Intel-based “Mac,” but who really expected that to be a barrier for long?

The Apple “Mactel” barrier has fallen. According to this article on Linux Watch, Edgar ‘Gimli’ Hucek has the title of being the first to boot Linux on a “Mactel” computer. Can there be any doubt that running Windows apps via WINE can be far behind?

The only fly in the ointment this observer can see is this: why spend extra to get a “Mactel” in order to ditch the expensive Apple OS for a better or more familiar platform, when purchasing (or building) a computer with similar (or better) hardware and installing the OS of one’s choice can be done for less to begin with?

Linked at Adam’s Blog, Freedom Watch

Crossposted at Balanced News Blog