May 23, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Gun nuts shocked that people don’t want guns everywhere

A Texas gun rights group has called upon its more extreme members to stop the “going into Chipotle with huge guns and scaring all the kids” campaign. Surprisingly, it hasn’t been very well received.

Responsible gun owners around the country (yes, there are some) spoke out against this stupid idea, and, I am happy to report, the nuts listened.

“We must once again adjust in a way that shines a positive light on our efforts, our members, and our respective organizations,” they said. “We have decided the prudent path, to further our goals, is to immediately cease taking long guns into corporate businesses unless invited.”

Yeah, who would have ever seen that coming, huh?

These gun lovers have this movie-inspired vision that if a bad guy were to show up, their swift actions with their own guns would save the day — and just like in the movies, all the bad guys would miss, the good guys would never be hurt, and no innocent bystanders would ever be in danger. Just like in the old west (where, by the way, the laws all prohibited bringing guns into any public place).

Ask any officer trained in how to deal with exactly this situation what the chances of that are, and then find out how many shoot-outs with actual, real, trained SWAT teams end up in the exact way they want them to. Now imagine a bunch of Texans drinking margeritas in Chipotle and tell me what you think the result will be.

But for now, let’s at least be thankful that a few more sensible minds have taken hold in Texas. (Never thought I’d type that sentence.)

Editorial cartoon: Guns everywhere!

May 22, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Money decided the election here

Now, don’t get me wrong. Tom Wolf is a good man and I agree with his positions on the issues. I supported him for Governor in the Democratic Primary Tuesday, but that was a late endorsement when it was clear he was going to win. I felt that we all needed to get behind a strong candidate in order to defeat Republican Tom Corbett in the fall.

But Wolf would not be where he is today if not for money.

The main candidates didn’t differ that much on the issues. But Wolf spent something like $10 million of his own money to win this election, and the others just could not compete.

It’s sad that money has so much power in America to sway elections. But then, that’s one of the reasons I supported Wolf. He’ll have the money in the general election to fight Corbett like he needs to be fought.

Let’s face it, money doesn’t always guarantee a win. (Hi, President Forbes!) It can’t make an unlikable candidate charismatic. But it sure can help a good candidate zoom past other good candidates.

Wolf not only spent lots of money, but also spent it wisely. He hired the best consultants and ran excellent commercials in the right markets. Many Democrats like me noticed and said “Any of the candidates would make a good Governor, but only one seems to be way ahead of the others in being a good campaigner.”

I’d love to see campaign finance reform change the game. But until then, we have to play by the rules as they exist. And lots of money helps you win.

Editorial cartoon: Love

May 21, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Pennsylvania joins the 21st Century; and not all opponents are bigots

A new poll shows that 55% of Americans support gay marriage. For those under the age of 30, that number is 78%.

Conservatives who scream that the courts are going against “the will of the people” are ignoring facts (as usual; they also ignore the fact that a majority of Americans support Obamacare, think abortion and marijuana should be legal, want more gun control, support raising taxes on the wealthy, raising the minimum wage, doing something about campaign finance reform, and do not believe that “corporations are people.” But that’s another topic…)

Anyway, the local federal court struck down Pennsylvania’s anti-gay marriage law yesterday, allowing us here to finally join the rest of the northeast in advancing into the 21st century, away from the prejudices of the past.

Speaking of which, a friend of mine recently objected to being labeled as “prejudiced” for not supporting gay marriage, and pointed out that being against gay marriage had been the law of the land for years — so was everybody prejudiced before?

In the past, in a different world that we no longer live in, most people never even thought about this issue and I agree that they shouldn’t be called bigots or prejudiced. However, in today’s society, where the information is here and where no one can deny that people’s rights are being violated (only that they agree with the rights being violated) it’s a lot harder to defend yourself against labels like “bigot” or “prejudiced.”

If what you want takes away someone else’s rights for reasons for which they can’t control, then by definition your view is prejudiced, isn’t it?

However, I also think it’s not a good idea to call these people bigots or prejudiced. (Well, most of them — some are so full of hate that they deserve the label). Most people who are against gay marriage are, well, ignorant.

I don’t mean that in an insulting way. Being ignorant is not a bad thing. (I, for instance, am ignorant about calculus, fashion, and football teams.) Ignorant is not the same thing as stupid. Ignorance can be cured with education.

I think people who are against gay marriage are ignorant about the issue. They haven’t really thought it through and once they do, they will come to the right side. Maybe their religion keeps them ignorant (lots of religions do that) and maybe they like being ignorant. But that doesn’t necessarily make them bigots.

I am old enough to remember when the thought of gay marriage was just plain silly. Although I had plenty of gay friends in school and even some gay housemates when I was in college, I never considered marriage as a serious thing for them. Marriage is for men and women, I’d say. And then I wouldn’t think about the issue. It wasn’t until the gay marriage movement started much later that I said to myself, “Hey, they’re right. Why shouldn’t they get married?” I wasn’t a bigot or prejudiced; I just never really thought about it seriously before that time. And I think that’s probably where a lot of people are today.

So let’s encourage them to see the light. Let’s make them see that treating people as second class citizens is wrong, and that we should be encouraging love and marriage.

“We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history,” wrote Judge John E. Jones III (a Republican!) in his decision. And he is absolutely correct.

Editorial cartoon: In common

May 19, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Oregon joins the 21st Century

For those keeping score at home, the number of anti-gay marriage lawsuits that have succeeded is up to a grand total of zero.

Oregon is the latest state to affirm equality in marriage. That’s a 100% success rate. Some of my conservative friends (you know who you are) still claim that these laws preventing gay marriage are constitutional. Not sure how many more cases we need to convince you if 100% isn’t enough.

In Oregon (like Pennsylvania) the Attorney General refused to defend a law that is clearly unconstitutional.

In his opinion, Judge McShane wrote, “Expanding the embrace of civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples will not burden any legitimate state interest … The state’s marriage laws unjustifiably treat same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. The laws assess a couple’s fitness for civil marriage based on their sexual orientation: opposite-gender couples pass; same-gender couples do not. No legitimate state purpose justifies the preclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage.”

Watch: The attack will come that Judge McShane, who is gay himself, is unable to make this decision because he is biased. Conversely, it is just as easy to argue that he is more qualified than a straight person to make this decision, as he has suffered through the discrimination and knows first-hand its effects.

Editorial cartoon: The net itself is neutral

May 19, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Tomorrow is Primary Election day in Pennsylvania

Might as well say it now, and get it out of the way: If you don’t vote, don’t complain.

Tom Wolf

Tomorrow is primary election day in Pennsylvania. Turn out will be extremely low. It’s a non-Presidential year, and in Pennsylvania, you have to be registered to a party to vote in the primary (sorry, independents).

This means that your vote is worth a lot more. One vote can really make a difference in a small election.

If you are a Pennsylvania resident, this election is tremendously important. Right now, the Republicans have a majority in our state house and in the governor’s office. Our current governor is one of the most unpopular in the entire country and is quite beatable, but we Democrats need to pick someone who can stomp our current governor into the ground.

Electing a Democrat will mean accepting the Obamacare medicare plan into a state that wants it (according to all polls).

Brad Koplinski

It will mean pushing for marriage equality (in the only northeastern state that doesn’t have it). It will even mean pushing for a fairer tax system and maybe even marijuana legalization.

I hope you will vote for Tom Wolf for governor and Brad Koplinsky for Lt. Governor. I’ve met both and they’re very committed and intelligent men who deserve your vote. (Brad, by the way, graduated from my law school, so admittedly we spent most of our time together reminiscing about professors we had in common. Not only that, but he knows how to spell “lieutenant.”)

And don’t forget the other races. There are good candidates who deserve your support for state representative and state senate. There may even be other local races on the ballot where your vote is tremendously important (mayor, judge, dog catcher…). Please do a search for your area and see who is running so you can make up your mind.