Author: Michael A. Ventrella

by

Let People Pee in Peace

Jesus, let people pee in peace.

Prohibiting trans people from using the bathroom they are more comfortable in is the latest right-wing non-issue du jour. It’s imperative that Fox News and the conservative blogs keep their followers scared, because that gets them to the voting booth (as well as increases ratings).

But the fear is entirely fictional. It’s made up, just like their other false boogeymen voter fraud, Planned Parenthood sells baby parts, Beghazi was a crime, the war on Christmas — I could go on. Lies, all of them.cis

Gullible people think this is a huge new threat because the right-wing media tells them it is. Well, here’s a big news flash: Transgender people have been around your whole life. You’ve already shared bathrooms with them. Your fear of them isn’t real.

Why haven’t you noticed? Because transgender people identify with a different gender than they were born with — and they look like that gender, by their own choice.  If you force someone who looks like a man to use the women’s restroom, how does that benefit anyone? Who are we trying to protect here?

“Oh noes,” they yell. “But what if some pervert pretends to be trans just so he can go into a woman’s bathroom so he can peep on people?” (Texas politician and Stupidest Man in Congress Louis Gomert said that he would have lied about it, done that in school, and thus knowingly committed a crime.) Then prosecute the bastard! Make the guilty pay, not the innocent. Seriously, this argument sounds a lot like “We should make women wear burkas because there are people out there who may rape them.” Stop blaming the victim.

So grow up. Treat people with dignity. And let them pee in peace.

 

by

Editorial cartoon: Republican House of Horrors

Tom the Dancing Bug 1283 republican house of horrors

Tom the Dancing Bug 1283 republican house of horrors

Ruben Bolling

by

Why I hate hate crimes

A recent trend in law has been to punish people for thinking in ways we don’t like.

The way it usually works is this: People who get into fights or threaten others because of their race or sex or religion or sexual orientation can be charged with crimes usually called “ethnic intimidation” and the like. hate crimes

So if you beat up someone, you can be charged with assault. But if your reason for beating them up is because of their race, you can be charged with assault and more.

See the distinction? We’re now making it a crime to have views we don’t like. This seems to me to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment’s Freedom of Speech clause — and as I’ve said many times, that clause means nothing if we don’t protect speech we hate. Speech we all agree with doesn’t need protection.

I think it is perfectly fine for the criminal’s views to come into play at sentencing. A judge should be able to take into consideration the motives and reasons for the attack when deciding a proper punishment. We do that now, even in cases that don’t involve “hate crimes.” Giving someone a harsher sentence and/or requiring other sanctions when their motives are based on hatred and intolerance is justifiable.

But the crime itself punishes people for saying things we disagree with, and that’s where it goes too far.

I had a case once where a man was arguing with a woman who butt in front of him in line at the supermarket, and as they yelled at each other, he ended up calling her a “stupid nigger.” He was arrested and charged with Ethnic Intimidation. He told me he was so angry at her that he just said the thing he knew would hurt her the most, but that his anger was not based on her race — it was because she had butted in front of him in line. “If she had been overweight, I would have called her fat,” he said.

That’s not an admirable thing for the man to do, but it shouldn’t be illegal. Our current laws against harassment could have covered this situation just fine and still punished him (and, chances are, had he not said this, they probably both would have been charged).

I was ready to use this case to challenge our state’s Ethnic Intimidation law, but as it turned out we worked out a deal to a much lesser charge, he paid a fine, and it went away — which was the best result for my client.

There is a big difference between laws prohibiting discrimination and criminal laws that punish you for being a bigot. I think everyone has the right to be a bigot. Why, without bigots, how would Fox News stay in business?

 

by

Editorial cartoon: The will of the gods

Tim Eagan

by

Socialists want to destroy education

As we all are aware, free education to every American from kindergarten up through 12th grade is a worthy expenditure of our tax dollars. Making sure our children are educated provides not only for better citizens but also helps to make them competitive in the world market.College You’ll hardly find a patriotic American who doesn’t support using taxpayer money to fund education for our precious children.

However, extending that education four more years is an abomination that is the worst kind of socialism, and anyone who advocates for such radical views clearly wishes to destroy not only our economy but also the very fabric of the United States of America.

(Have I got it right? I think that’s the argument anyway. I’m new at this “hold two competing ideas simultaneously” thing.)

 

by

Editorial cartoon: Can’t get off the ride now

12976789_10205070711402202_1262193011985270542_o

Steve Sack

by

Right to Work Laws and taxes

Wisconsin’s “Right to Work” laws were recently ruled to be unconstitutional. Known neanderthal and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker vowed to appeal, because he knows who is contributing to his campaign — and it ain’t the unions.

These laws are the Republican’s latest attempts to destroy labor unions. The laws hold that unions cannot force workers to join the union or pay union dues.not-rosie

Libertarians often argue that these laws violate their rights in the same way they argue that they shouldn’t have to pay taxes (while still reaping all the benefits that the taxes provide). They scream about welfare moochers living off someone else’s work while they gladly accept the salary and benefits they receive thanks to someone else’s work.

“We demand the well-paying job with all the benefits without having to contribute to the system that gave us the well-paying job with all the benefits!” is their selfish rallying cry.

Well, tough. Don’t like it? I’m sure there’s a non-union job out there somewhere for you where you can earn half as much, get no benefits, and don’t have to contribute to society. You want freedom? You have the freedom to not accept a union job.

Talk about a bunch of moochers.

 

 

 

by

Editorial cartoon: Desperate

12928322_1126960244004148_4324219979481239346_n

John Darkow

by

Stupid Hillary Attacks

Look, there are legitimate differences and comparisons that can be made when deciding which candidate to support. However, I have seen some pretty ridiculous ones lately from Bernie fans trying to knock down Hillary.

The first shows Hillary’s home in comparison to Bernie’s. The implication is that Hillary is out of touch with us because she lives in a nice rich mansion while Bernie lives in a standard family home. Uhfg62B

But come on — Hillary was married to the freakin’ President of the Goddamn United States of America, you know. I’d like to think that our Presidents can live nicely. Hell, I’d love to have a house like that. What’s wrong with living in a nice house that you worked all your life to earn?

So why does that disqualify her or make her less of a good candidate? Because she has money? Some of our best Presidents have been insanely rich — Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy weren’t that bad, nor for that matter was George Washington. And Hillary was not born rich like those guys were.

The second meme that’s bugging me today me compares the years each has been in public service, as if that was all that mattered. Really? All it takes is more years than the other person? Well, by that standard, Senator Orrin Hatch is the most qualified guy in the country to be President. And boy, that Strom Thurmond had more experience than anyone — who cares if he was a hypocritical, lying racist bastard unfit to even step into the Capitol building?

Many of these same anti-Hillary people supported Barack Obama at a time where he had much less experience than she did — but now, apparently, that is important.

Mind you, I am a Bernie supporter but this is not how I want him to win. Seriously folks, talk about their differences on the issues. Let’s not debate silly things. Leave that for the Republicans.

 

Editorial cartoon: Make America Hate Again

trump again

Pat Bagley