Many residents of Ferguson, Missouri were rightly angered by the shooting of an unarmed man by police. Protests ensued, and the FBI is taking a close look at it.
Protests are good. Show your anger, demand answers.
But for God’s sake, stop the looting and vandalism. 
No one looks at that and says, “Gee, those poor people must be right. Burning businesses that had absolutely nothing to do with the situation and stealing from them surely is the best way to get back at police who have gotten out of hand.”
These people may have watched Spike Lee’s excellent “Do the Right Thing” and decided that this is how you protest. (In the film, a young unarmed man is killed by police, after which the neighborhood riots and destroys local businesses). But even that film didn’t say that the looting and destruction was a good thing that should be emulated.
Martin Luther King had it right: Appealing to American’s sense of right and wrong is the way to get public opinion on your side, and that is what leads to change. Violence only creates enemies out of those who could be your allies.
A couple I know announced this weekend that they’re getting married. (Congratulations Kris and Emily!) They’ve discussed how happy they are that they can do so now in Pennsylvania and how weird it will be to have a gay marriage in Amish country.
But I still am against “gay marriage.” 
I don’t want them to get “gay married.” I want them to get “married.”
When Heidi and I got married, we didn’t say “Hey, we’re getting straight married, everyone!” Other friends of mine didn’t announce, “Guess what! We’re getting inter-racially married!”
So what I’m really looking forward to is when people stop using the phrase “gay marriage.” It’s just “marriage.” I know it may take a while until we stop hearing that phrase, and that will be when it’s no longer news or different — and that’s what I’m looking forward to.
You’re getting married, and I couldn’t be happier for you!
Hey, remember that terrible Benghazi conspiracy that was going to bring down the Obama administration? The one that was an evil, illegal conspiracy because … well, they never actually explained that part, but it was certainly terrible because Fox News told us it was.
Well, guess what? Here’s the funny thing. The Republican-controlled Intelligence Committee of the House of Representatives finally concluded, after years of investigations, that golly gee, I guess there was no conspiracy after all! 
“This report shows that there was no intelligence failure surrounding the Benghazi attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans. Our investigation found the Intelligence Community warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened, … which is consistent with testimony that the attacks appeared to be opportunistic.” (from the Washington Post story of the report)
This comes after they lied about what previous reports had said, and after it was proven that the Obama administration was correct about the reason for the attack.
Aren’t you glad they spent millions of your dollars investigating nothing? Well, don’t you worry your head, because prominent Republicans have vowed to continue to search for non-existent ghosts and continue to bash the President over this. Fox News will continue to claim that there is a terrible scandal there somewhere and the only reason the rest of the media is ignoring it is because they are all subservient to Obama. Benghazi will continue so long as it can be used to rile up the party faithful and get them to donate to the GOP.
“But it’s a historical statue!” was the weak-ass defense of the legislators who placed a huge monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in New Mexico. “The fact that it promotes a specific God and religion to the exclusion of all others, and the fact that there are absolutely no other similar monuments anywhere else on this property is meaningless.”
Fortunately, a judge who actually took the time to read the Constitution (you know, that document all the legislators swore on their Holy Book to obey) said “Give me a break, what are you, stupid?“
Okay, that’s not a direct quote, but you get the gist.
We’ve been through this many times before, and will continue to go through it again and again as Christians in America think that since they are the majority religion, everyone else can just suck it up. And then when people say, “Hey, you know, I don’t really think this is allowed under the Constitution” and fight back, the Christians respond that we’re waging a War on Christianity.
Trust me, if Muslims, Hindu, Jews or Wiccans were doing this, it will still violate the Constitution. That’s how it works, you see.
You want a monument to the Ten Commandments? Fine, put it on your own property. But public property belongs to all of us, which means you can’t favor one and not the others. This is why even Satanists have been able to fight to get equal time on public property.
Don’t like it? Then stop doing it. Prohibit all religious symbols on public property and there’s no problem.
I’m still seeing this ridiculous meme popping up, talking about the non-existent “Congressional Reform Act.” 
While I understand and share in the dislike of Congress right now and believe that major reforms are needed concerning campaign finance laws and lobbying, nothing in this thing addresses that. Most of this meme doesn’t even make sense.
And no, it isn’t being sponsored by Warren Buffet or anyone else, and isn’t a proposed “28th Amendment.”
Let’s go over these proposals one at a time.
1. “No Tenure”? Well, yeah, of course. No one in congress has “tenure.” They can be voted out each election cycle. “No pension”? Why not? Why shouldn’t they get a pension like any other job? That’s just petty.
2. This is just a restatement of “no pension,” isn’t it? Not sure why pensions are so important to the anonymous person who came up with this thing.
3. This is just a fact. This is what the current law is. This is not a change at all. Congress does indeed participate in Social Security. Apparently the person writing this didn’t do the slightest bit of research.
4. Pensions again, along with the Social Security thing. Not sure how many times he needs to make the same points. So far, after four bullet points, the only one that is something new is “Let’s not give them a pension.”
5. Oh, look, the pension thing again. Whoever posted this really doesn’t like people getting pensions. Apparently, this person objects to a retirement plan the way every other person gets one, through both personal contributions and employer contributions. Personally, I think I’d rather have ex-congress members get a pension than work as a lobbyist when they retire.
6. Hey, now, that’s a great idea! And not about pensions! Too bad it’s already in the Constitution as the 27th Amendment.
7. Congress’ current health care system is the Federal one. It’s the same one every federal employee gets. The janitor who cleans the Congress member’s office gets the same basic plan. Congress does not get a “special” plan (although, admittedly, since they are rich, they can afford to upgrade the plan to the best possible, but so can any other federal employee). There was a proposal for we, the people, to join in this great plan (it was called “the Public Option”) but it was defeated by insurance companies and Tea Party idiots who had no idea what it meant, apparently, since they are often the same ones posting this meme all over the internet.
8. Congress does have to abide by all laws they impose on us, as Congress members who ended up with criminal records can tell you. There is an exception that allows for Congressional immunity for things they say, but that makes absolute sense and is in the Constitution. You’d need an Amendment to get rid of that, and that hasn’t ever been an issue or a problem. So here’s another one that is unneeded because it’s already in the law.
9. I have no idea what this means. What contracts? Does this mean if a Congressman contracts with someone to build a house, the contract is not valid? Seriously, I don’t know what this means but it certainly seems to violate the Constitution’s contract clause.
So when we get rid of the things that are already part of our laws and are redundant, we’re basically left with “Let’s not give these guys pensions.”
The moral: Maybe you should know something about what you’re proposing before you go proposing it.
ventrellaquest.com 