Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

If you haven’t seen it already, the UK Sun does a great job of breaking down how much actual money is a “trillion” dollars:

72 years to print a trillion dollars

The US Bureau Of Engraving And Printing produces 38million notes a day, so printing one trillion new notes from scratch and working seven days a week would take just over 72 years.

If the world’s leaders spent the one trillion dollars at the rate of a dollar a second, they would still be spending it in 31,689 years. On the other hand, if they want to get through it all within ten years, they would need to spend 3,169 dollars a second.

It also costs 6.4 cents to print each note – so it’s a good job the massive sum will be passed on electronically.

Otherwise there would be a 64billion dollar black hole in the leaders’ historic bailout package, which would rather defeat the point.

Pretty disturbing, all in all.  How many tons of paper, gallons of ink?  In a way it’s too bad that most of these transactions take place electronically.  If Obama had to print it all off, the environmentalists never would have let the thing pass.  It would have killed too many trees!


A trillion dollars in $1 bills would weigh approximately 1.1 Million TONS!

A Nimitz-class aircraft carrier weighs in at around 97 thousand tons.

So, doing the math, $1 Trillion dollars in $1 dollar bills would weigh more than 11 aircraft carriers!

Keep in mind that Obama’s Spendulous deficit is forecast to be as much as 7 TRILLION or higher.  So, 77 aircraft carriers stacked up.

That’s a helluva lot of money.

Or, how about this:

If we figure that 1 ton of uncoated virgin (non-recycled) printing and office paper uses 24 trees, and figuring that since money is printed on some pretty high-end paper that this is probably a fair equivalent, that means that, printing off 1 trillion dollars in $1 dollar bills would require 26,400,000 trees!

There’s a front-page report on the DHS report highlighting the dangers of “right-wing extremists” in today’s Stars & Stripes,  yet strangely I can find nothing about it on their web site.  I wonder if that was an editorial decision to bury the story?  You can’t unprint newspapers, but you can easily delete a link.

There was some speculation that this report was some sort of clever and complex hoax, but Michelle Malkin confirmed it, and the Stars & Stripes has it front page of their print edition, at least here in Germany.

I think this comes under the heading of “boiling the frog slowly.”  They don’t even mention any “credible threat” in the report.  Just a vague sort of “sense” that economic conditions and a black president “might” foment discord by disgruntled right-wingers and disaffected miliatary veterans.

In other words, there are dangerous points of view out there, against which we must be vigilant.   Viewpoints like, illegal immigration is bad, abortion is wrong, or that the President of the United States shouldn’t be running our civilian corporations or determining what content on the Internet is permissible.

What exactly is it that the Left is so afraid of?  So afraid that they have to villify, marginalize, even criminalize conservative viewpoints?  And more importantly, why are we letting them get away with it?

If the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, then abortions would be illegal.

True or False?


Too good not to post.  From one of those “Might Be Related” links below, comes this cogent, erudite, well-reasoned defense of Roe V. Wade:

Roe v Wade is a Surpreme Court of US case on abortion rights. Roe (not her real identity, though you could wiki her and discover she’s now a pro-life lady. The idiot)

Yeah. Nice.  Go prof-life.  Want to preserve unborn children.  It means you’re an idiot.  Pot meet kettle.

was raped (ed. – no she wasn’t – that part was completely fabricated, as in a big fat stinkin’ LIE.

and wanted to get an abortion but the state she lived in (I can’t remember what and I’m to lazy to wiki it) forbid abortion. They brought the case in the Supreme Court and the Court decided that there should be a right to choose or something along that line,

No, you ignorant douche.  They mythicalled up a never-before-seen-or-heard-of, “Right to Privacy” inherent in the 4th Amendment, which essentially meant that under the protections of the Fourth Amendment, the government was specifically prohibited from preventing what was essentially a “private” action, at least without a search warrant.  Come on, chica.  I don’t even SUPPORT abortion, and I know that much.

and if a State makes a law contrary to that, it would be unconstitutional. To be honest, I can’t remember the judgment, really; we were studying the 14th Amendment more than the right to privacy (even though all the cases were on right to privacy; a right that is not guaranteed in the US Constitution)

Uh, mkay.  Soooo then, uhm, tell me again how the decision in Roe V. Wade IS Constitutional, if the foundational premise supporting it IS NOT?!

 14th Amendment is how the Supreme Court make up their own bunch of Bill of Rights that weren’t guaranteed by the people of the 1700s (since the US Constitution is really the will of the people of the 1700s; it is not at all the will of the people who are currently living in the US. The last amendment was in 1992. It’s horrible; though not as bad as Australian’s, I suppose…).

Ah yes.  The “living document” defense.  Yes, yes.  Standard Lefty talking point:  Our Constitution is an archaic throwback reminiscent of the besotted musings of a bunch of old elitist white guys in wigs.  No application to our modern life whatsover.  Except, you know, for that whole right-to-privacy thing, which of course is so, like TODAY, you know?  And needs to be defended to the last breath. Provided you ever get a chance to TAKE a breath, that is.

One would suppose that for this individual to open her ignorant suck and expound on the virtues of a certain piece of legislation (ed.- No, that wasn’t a typo), one would hope she would at least know what the bloody freakin’ hell she is talking about!  But it’s more along the lines of, “Yeah, there was this case, by these guys, about this stuff, for this one girl, from this place.  And, uh, ABORTION ROCKS, DUDE!  GO OBAMA!”

The only plus is apparently, this abortion survivor can’t vote.  So, yeah, we got that going for us.

In the previous post, commenter John Emerson took me to task for impugning the integrity of the people of Minnesota, specifically the voting review board involved in the recount process between Franken and Coleman.

However, the crux of my post was not so much that the people of Minnesota were a bunch of neanderthals, but rather, that the Dems would be using tactics similar to that used in Florida during the Bush/Gore count-off, and the blatant malfeasance shown in the 2004 Washington State governor’s race to keep “disovering” votes until the preferred candidate wins.

And so today I read this little snippet over at Gateway Pundit, who has been following this whole electoral abortion closely:

Currently the board is determining voter intent in disputed ballots.

Voter intent?!  This is exactly what drove my snarky comment about counting smudges and coffee stains as votes.  All throughout the ridiculous and appalling Florida recounts, there was great emphasis on determining voter “intent,” as in, it didn’t matter so much what the ballot actually said, it was much more important to determine what the voter MEANT to do.  After the fact. Without the voter present.  Based on nothing more than the scuffs and scratches on a paper ballot. 

Did they call in professional personality analysts, FBI profilers, even psychics from the 1-800-Guess-My-Vote hotline?


Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Emerson included of course, the term “voter intent” needs to be violently expunged from the American lexicon with extreme prejudice.  It is not discrimination to discount a ballot because the voter made a hash of it.  It is not unfair to shred a ballot with a missing or unreadable mark.  The ballot is destroyed.  It is dismissed, it is not counted. 

When I take an exam in school, and fail to mark my bubble sheet in the right bubble, or through erasing and smudging and doodling make it difficult to impossible to read what answer I actually chose, does the teacher spend hours going over my exam to determine which answer I really intended to give?  No.  I get the question wrong.  The quickest, easiest and fairest solution, applied uniformly to everyone.  Yeah, sure, it sucks for me, but maybe next time I’ll try a little harder to follow basic instructions on how to fill out the form.  Unless, of course, it was my INTENT to intentionally provide an ambiguous answer in hopes that the teacher might “guess” my way.

The Canvassing Board faces a difficult task in divining voter intentions. It is very difficult to determine how a voter meant to vote simply by looking at what might be stray marks on the ballot.

That’s right.  It is very difficult.  Key words here are MIGHT and BE.  You don’t know for sure WHAT THOSE MARKS MEAN.  As a matter of fact, IT. IS. IMPOSSIBLE.  There is absolutely NO WAY of determing what the “intent” of someone was in filling out a certain ballot days and weeks after the fact.  So the answer is that you DON’T EVEN TRY.

I am especially irked by the highly appropriate use of the word “divining:”

 13. to discover or declare (something obscure or in the future) by divination; prophesy.
15. to perceive by intuition or insight; conjecture.

Also know in scientific circles as a “wild-ass guess.”

Rather than crafting convoluted rules and standards about voter intent, we should be adhering to equally rigorous and objectively enforced standards for what qualifies as an acceptable ballot.  Smudges and smears do not count.  Hanging chads do not count.  A stray pencil mark somewhere in the general vicinity of a candidate does not count.

Anything is else complete gamesmanship, and is a corruption of the electoral process.  You can claim all the nobility you want, with a lofty air and a sniff of the nose aver with conviction that “every vote should count” and that you are just trying to serve the greater good.  The fact is, you’re not fooling anyone.  Truth is, every vote SHOULD count, but not every vote does.  Only those votes which are properly cast should.

 And John?  Don’t tell me that 100 votes magically found in the back seat of car are statistically insignificant when Franken is now forecast to win by only 78 votes? 

Here’s an interesting discussion threat with more details.

So, we’re all sitting around the dinner table, having a variety of discussions as we often do, and the Medium Sized child throws this one out on the table and lets it flop around for a second:

“Dad, what’s ‘abortion?'”

GULP! Cue slightly stunned and discomfited pause the Imperial Wife and myself. Uh……

“Hon, that’s not really a good question to ask at the dinner table.”

“Hmmm.  Okaaaaay…”

But, we could tell that that only made him even more curious.  So, after one of those quick eye contact/meaningful glances between the two parental units, resulting in the requisite unspoken agreement, the Wife lays it out there:

“Abortion is killing a baby before it’s born.”


He didn’t ask any follow up questions.  Kind of a conversation killer, I guess.  That, and I suppose that it’s pretty much self-explanatory.  I asked him where he heard about abortion, and he said it was in one of the news stories he read during class. 

I guess it’s one of those inevitable questions in today’s day and age, but it’s certainly nothing you look forward to having to do:  explaining to your children that there is a whole industry out there dedicated to killing babies before they are born.   I have to wonder how that gets processed in his mind, where does it get filed?

This after years of telling him how we had nicknames for him in the womb, how I used to read him Frog and Toad stories with my head resting against my wife’s pregnant stomach, how I used to love feeling him press against my head with an elbow or foot as he moved around in there.

I’m rather hoping that the whole concept of abortion always bothers him as much as it does me.

A day late and a dollar short, but that’s my usual M.O. anyway.

I didn’t get to watch all of the interview, debate, whatever it was with Rick Warren and the two presumptive presidential nominees, but I did get to see enough of both segments to get a representative taste of it all.

What I thought was the most interesting was the clear and almost irreconcilable philosophical disconnect between the two camps.  On questions of taxes, McCain was able to present the, to me, most common sense view that the best way to strengthen the economy, the best way to increase individual security and stability is to give them more of their own money with which to make choices.

I heard from Obama the basic tenet of progressive socialism that the rich bear some sort of inherently greater burden of responsibility to pay for social programs than anybody else.  If you make over $250,000, then you are going to take it in the shorts on taxes because you are (ptooie) rich.  What these social engineering crusaders seem constitutionally unable to comprehend is the simple reality that rich people spend more money because they have more money to spend.  The more penalties you put on being successful, the more burdensome you make it to have disposable income, the more you hamstring any kind of economic growth.  You’d think this to be self-evident, but the lofty idealism of the Progs sees higher taxes and centralized government as the cure for it all.  Here’s your government health care and like it.  No, really, you have to sign up, and you HAVE to pay X% of your income to support it.  You know, for the poor.  And the children.

I found it interesting that when asked which Supreme Court judges they wouldn’t have nominated, Obama named the conservative ones, and McCain named the liberal ones.  Which I guess ultimately shows that there’s probably a pretty good mix as it is.

As interesting as the actual interviews were the regular breaks to the commentator panel.  I just shook my head after a piece of the McCain portion, where the Democrat analyst was clucking and fretting and just generally all atwitter.  He was comfortably predictable as he trotted out the same tired old bugaboo about Roe V. Wade.   One of the most oft repeated memes amongst the Progs is the idea that one too many conservative justices on the Supreme Court, just let the ideological balance shift ever so slightly in the “wrong” direction, and the first thing they’ll do after fluffing their robes and dusting their wigs is overturn Roe V. Wade.  The big, dark, scary monster under the bed is that this will of course, by direct inference, lead to back alleys run red with blood from coat hanger abortions by savage, unscrupulous hacks preying on poor defensless teens who couldn’t seem to manage any other form of birth control.

Nevermind the fact that all overturning Roe V. Wade will do is return the decision on whether or not to ban abortion BACK TO THE STATES.  Roe v. Wade is one of the single most egregious violations of the principles of Federalism and States rights ever to hit the books.  Roe V. Wade only stated that it was unconstitutional for STATES to ban abortion, reserving that right solely at the Federal level.  The only thing that would result from round-filing this ridiculous piece of legislation jurisprudence is that States would be free, once again, to determine what happens inside their borders with respect to abortion.  But that kind of silliness simply can’t be allowed now, can it?

I also heard, yet again, the strange “7-10 years” mantra from the Dem side wrt domestic oil drilling.  I simply cannot comprehend how an otherwise seemingly intelligent human being can continue to parrot the nonsense that, since we won’t see results for 7-10 years from increased domestic oil drilling, then we shouldn’t start. Huh?!  NO, they cry!  We need better solutions, NOW! Not ten years from now!  Well no shit, Sherlock.  Let’s find some great, solid, workable short-term solutions, WHILE WE STEADILY BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY FOR OUR GRADE SCHOOLERS TO HAVE AFFORDABLE FUEL WHEN THEY START DRIVING 10 YEARS FROM NOW!   Is that as far the the “vision” of our Prog brethren extends?  Less than seven years?  Anything past that simply isn’t worth considering?  Idiots.

For a group of folks who are so “all about the children” all the time, they don’t seem to be real bright on providing for these same kids’ futures.

I didn’t see anything that radically changed my mind in this forum.  I thought B.O. was smooth as butter, baby.  He also deftly avoided answering/committing to a position on several of the tough questions.  I thought McCain was much more blunt, and direct, but he seemed to have a lot more of the common-sense answers and solutions to problems that I would expect.  He also talked around several of the thornier issues, but overall, I came away with a clearer understanding of his positions than Obama’s.

I just can’t get my head around the globalist, socialist, “rich people are bad and poor people are somehow developmentally disabled and need the Goverment to look after them” mentality that is modern progressive liberalism.  They say they demand an energy policy, but oppose nuclear fuel, building more refineries or drilling domestically, while we continue to send huge chunks of our GNP to foreign oil interests who are showing increasing hostility to us in the world market place.  Face it folks, we are a fossil-fuel based economy and have been for a hundred years.  That isn’t going to change overnight.  Sure, yes, absolutely, let’s find a way to change that, work for a brighter tomorrow and all that.  But let us also be starkly realistic about our ongoing energy needs for the next 20 or 30 years.

They say they are for the children, and yet excorciate anyone who would monkey with the sacrosanct Grail that is abortion.  B.O. said that he would support deploying troops in support of our national interests, but thinks we need to “dialogue” with militant Islam.

After all is said and done, though, I often wonder if we don’t make just a liiiiitle too big a deal about this whole thing.  We aren’t electing a king.   Appointing a chancellor.  There is no imperial decree.  The balance of powers still works…shakily at times…but it works.  As yet no President has managed to set aside the Constitution.  It’s Congress where the real sausage is made.  So, instead of making this one man the make or break all, the catastrophic tragedy or penultimate hope of the country, let’s just find the guy that will be the most likely to work within the system to do what’s best for the country overall.

Of the two serious choices we’ve got, I’ve got to say that the best person for that job is McCain.

I think that: 

  • Enforcing immigration laws isn’t racist.
  • Abortion does not “liberate” women.
  • If you want to be treated equally, don’t claim special privilege because you’re a minority.
  • I’d be interested to see what percentage of gun-related crimes are committed with a legally-purchased gun, by the owner of said gun?  I’m sure it’s out there somewhere.
  • On average, Christians treat women better than feminists do.
  • Of all the Blogs I read, if I had to list my top-10 favorites, I’d put myself about 6th.
  • The government shouldn’t be able to force me to buy Health Insurance.
  • The country has far more to fear from radical atheists than radical Christians.
  • Conservatives love their women because they are strong and independent.  Progressives love their women if they are obedient and conformist.
  • Children are a precious inheritance, not to be lightly squandered.
  • If you want to change the Constitution, amend it.  Don’t “reinterpret” it.
  • If I had a report about a possible terrorist attack in San Francisco, I’d be hard pressed to want to do anything about it.
  • I personally don’t feel the need to put a hyphen in front of my “American.”  Just being an American is enough for me.

I must admit to sharing what seems to be a fairly sweeping sense of dismay amongst the political traditionalists after Fred Thompson pulled the plug on his campaign.  He seemed to be the only candidate who held actual traditional, constitutionalist views about government.  With him gone, we seemed to be faced with various flavors of socialism, and a few borderline conservatives who lack the credibility and gravitas many were looking for in Fred T.

So, where does that leave the traditionalist, the constitutional literalist, the classic liberal vs. the “progressivist?”  Yet again, instead of a candidate that we can get excited about, we are having to chose what seems to be the least worst option.

Like “Two Dogs“, I am not one of those who advocates speaking through our silence, or sending a “message” by boycotting election day.  The only message that sends is, “Here you go Democratic Socialist Party, knock yourselves out.”

Because make no mistake, that’s the struggle we face.  Through an ever-increasing sense of personal entitlement, through an ever-decreasing sense of personal responsibility or moral accountability, our country is on a path towards the very kind of socialist domination and subjugation foretold in books like “1984.”  The kind of world lived out in Hilter’s socialist/fascist Germany.  Because “we” as a nation of voting citizens demand that the government to do more and more for us, we are increasingly likely to get just exactly what we asked for; and this always comes at a price.  In order to do more FOR us, they must of necessity take more FROM us!  In order to be coddled, we must first be herded and corralled, so that we are more easily managed.

You can see this shift towards socialism in our government schools, with “cooperative learning” and “outcomes-based education,” where excellence is discounted in favor of conformity and ensuring everyone achieves to the same level…regardless of how low that level may ultimately be.  It’s called the “lowest common denominator.”

In case you missed it, January 22nd was the anniversary of the day when five judicial vigilantes somehow managed to find a justification for preventing individual states from banning abortion in the phrase:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Go on.  Take your time. Look for it.  I’ll wait.  Trust me, men much smarter than me clearly found it in there, so, it must be, right?

Look at the track record of the 9th Cirlce of Hell Circuit Court of Appeals.  Look at what’s going on in San Fransisco and other parts of the People’s Republic of California (otherwise known as the PRC).  This is the progressive utopian vision that the likes of Shrillary and Obama want for this country.  And if you think McCain is much different, you haven’t read his bio or looked at his voting record in Congress.

Lest there be any doubt, there is an ideological conflict going on in this country.  The lines are becoming clearer and clearer between the two camps, and the divide wider and wider.   And it’s starting to look more and more like the traditionalists are on the ropes.  I think part of the problem is that we, as the traditionalists and Classical Liberals, attempt to rely heavily on cognition and rationality and an appeal to truth and facts, whereas the Progressives are wielding a much more effective bludgeon in the form of appeals to emotion, and “It’s for the ChildrenTM“, and “But What About The Environment (BWATE)?”, and the ephemeral right of a woman to choose death for her unborn child.  They’ve got a better spin machine.  They can kick out the kind of the emotion-stirring propoganda that would make Kim Jong il proud as punch.

Whereas we cannot afford to let ourselves sink to that level, we cannot abandon Truth for a catchy jingle or a teary-eyed drama-queen approach; we’ve got to do better, we’ve got to BE better than that. 

The Progs have spun themselves into a bit of a corner, though.  Their election rhetoric has devolved into, “Do I elect a black man or a woman?”  To which minority group do I lend my emotional support?  Which one do I feel less guilty about?  Never mind which candidate is more qualified.  It goes back to who gets the props, who is the most successful to an emotional appeal based on a sense of entitlement and an overwheening emphasis on “equality at all costs.”

Maybe that’s the place to start.  Hold their hypocrisy up to the light.  By making race the issue, they’ve become racists.  By making gender the issue, they’ve become sexist.  They promise free health-care for 10 million children, but provide no insight into from where the money for that will come.  They decry tax cuts for the rich and big business, despite the fact that these are the very people paying the wages of the middle and low-income wage earner!  If you make the rich poorer, you make the poor poorer.  But that doesn’t play as well when appealing to emotion, does it?

You would think you could look at the history of the socialist ethic, its overly-centralized governments, the nationalization of business, the over-regulation of personal liberties, and see the flaws.  You’d think that you could in turn hold these failures up against the amazing successes of a representative republic running on free-market capitalism…and that would be that.  But sadly, no.

Emotionalism rules the day, and righteous indignation trumps thoughtful debate at every turn.  It’s disheartening at times, but we can’t give up.  This country was founded on a set of principles totally unique in history, a paradigm once branded “The Great Experiment.”  The traditionalist says that the experiment was a rousing success; the progressive says that it should never have been attempted, or at best was deeply flawed and needs to be “corrected.”

Which one are you?

Quantum Physics and Abortion

Posted: December 4, 2007 in Abortion

An interesting comment thread over at Protein Wisdom.  The subject? The always popular…abortion!  In this instance, the case of a boyfriend who slipped his pregnant girlfriend of rufie of RU-486 and caused her to miscarry.  He now potentially faces up to 100 years in prison for “attempted homicide of an unborn child.”

What caught my eye in the comments was the “kill your dog” analogy, such that you can kill or euthanize your own dog, but not your neighbors, so that’s why it was illegal for the boyfriend to kill the baby, but not the mother if she opted for an abortion.

Here’s the key, though: “boyfriend” not “father.” This line of reasoning assumes that the fetus/baby is the property of the mother, and thus the male in the equation took undo liberties with HER property.  In effect, stating that the father has no rights to the child at all;  pre-birth, that is.  Once it’s born, suddenly he has all this responsibility, child support, etc.

I just don’t get it.  Making a child takes two people.  Even if the gestation takes place within the mother, it’s quite a bit of grammatical gymnastics to suggest that it is not, in fact, THEIR child from the get go.

Unless of course you treat it merely as another organ or mass of tissue within the female’s body, sort of like another pancreas or liver.

One commenter in particular, taking the pro-choice side, had some particularly mind-blowing patterns of thought in defending the much-cherished “woman’s right to choose.”

Comment by MayBee on 12/1 @ 4:43 pm #
MayBee – Looking at this from the “pro-choice” mentality, don’t they say that there is no “baby”, it’s just a “fetus”?   The pro-choice activist’s rhetoric doesn’t determine or create the law. I’m pro-choice, and I say any wanted fetus is a baby.

So, apparently if you want to have the baby, then it’s a baby.  But if you don’t, then it’s only a fetus.  Okay. Got it.  Thanks for clearing that up.  Kind of a quantum physics thing, I guess.  It may, or may not be a baby, depending on how you chose to perceive it, on whether or not it’s wanted.  Which in turn, determines the situational morality of terminating it. 

Where I come from, we call that moral relativism.  A handy mechanism for rationalizing away sticky moral dilemmas, what? (more…)