“The Cleveland Indians isn’t insulting!” say many many white people. “And the Redskins? They are a proud people. They don’t mind at all.”
Gee, that doesn’t seem to be what Native Americans are telling us.
Sure, sometimes people can be overly sensitive. And sometimes “political correctness” goes too far. But you know what? When I was a kid, “political correctness” was called “being polite.”
I like to listen to experts when I want to make a decision. I think doctors know more about vaccines than actors. I think lawyers know more about the Constitution than talk radio personalities. I think plumbers know more about sink clogs than Presidential candidates. You get my point.
When you wonder if something may be insulting to a particular group, it just might be that the particular group is the “expert.” I am not sure I should be telling them that they are not feeling a certain emotion, because I cannot personally relate to that experience.
People often can’t put themselves in another’s position. They would be outraged if there was a sports team that made fun of their particular ethnic group, but don’t see any problem with another group being so stereotyped. Or perhaps they wouldn’t be outraged concerning their own group, and therefore think no one else should ever be outraged either.
In either case, the decision to be outraged does not belong to them.
It’s hard to debate with people who are convinced that the United States is becoming a tyranny.
Does anyone really believe that Obama will say, “I’ve decided to suspend elections and remain President-for-Life”? Do you really believe the military, who swear an oath to the Constitution and not the President, will go along with this? Do you think all the politicians who won’t even pass a simple jobs bill for Obama will roll over at this? Hell, can you imagine Hillary Clinton deciding she’ll go along with it?
It ain’t gonna happen. But some paranoid people who probably should be taking some sort of medication think that basically “If I don’t get my way, then clearly this country has become a tyranny.”
There are a lot of things our country does that I don’t like. And I think the President has become much too powerful (but that has been going on for generations). But the chance of anyone turning our country into a tyranny is next to zero. Calm down already.
This usually comes up with gun debates. Gun owners who feel that their rights are being trampled cannot understand that the vast majority of Americans disagree with them. Even the Supreme Court disagrees with their interpretation of the Constitution. Only 13% of Americans in the latest Gallup poll think there are too many gun control laws. 49% say there aren’t enough, and the rest think it’s just fine or have no opinion.
As I stated previously, the way you get change in the US is by getting the population on your side and voting in change (through referendum like the ones legalizing marijuana and gay marriage), by electing politicians who agree with your views, or by bringing lawsuits to protect your rights and affect change.
Sometimes your viewpoint will lose. That’s how it works in a democracy.
The latest crap is about Obama’s Executive Orders. Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution, but have been around forever and the Supreme Court has said they are Constitutional. There’s one internet story going around about “Obama’s 932 Executive Orders” which is a complete pack of lies (whoever wrote that hopefully was wearing flame-resistant pants). Further, he’s issued less Executive Orders than many of the Presidents before him.
So just calm down. There are indeed issues concerning our personal rights and liberties that we should be worried about with the government. But we’re not going to become a tyranny.
EDIT: Obviously, this was written during the Obama presidency. I no longer hold to this belief.
Can’t help it, I think regulations are a good thing.
I like the fact that our government regulates our food to make sure it’s not filled with e coli. 
I like knowing what ingredients are in the food. I like restaurants to not have rats. I think regulations to make sure our cars are safe are a good idea. I like having doctors and lawyers and electricians certified by the government and subject to regulations about what they can do. I like requiring only adults to buy alcohol and cigarettes. I like regulations about workplace safety, and prohibitions against discrimination, and housing restrictions that prevent someone from putting a pig farm next door to me.
Some people, however, think that the “regulation” is a bad word. They will use some example where a regulation has gone too far and then say “See? Therefore, we should get rid of them all.”
Both extremes are bad. “No regulations” is anarchy. “Complete regulation” is tyranny. Usually we’re pretty good about finding a reasonable spot between the two, but anyone who says “all regulation is bad” or “all regulation is good” is deluded.
Take financial regulations. From the time of the founding of the United States, we had a recession or financial crisis on the average of once every seventeen years. There was the Panic of 1819, the 1837 Crisis, the Panic of 1873, the Panic of 1893, the 1907 Banker’s Panic, and so on up to the Great Depression. Then Franklin Roosevelt put in controls and restrictions on Wall Street and banking and lo and behold, no depressions and no recessions for fifty years. Reagan comes in and removes those and bang! The S&L crisis, the 2001 recession, the 2007 Mortgage crisis, and the 2008 Bush collapse.
Regulations can be good things.
So no, you won’t get me jumping on your libertarian view that all regulations are bad, any more than you’ll get me jumping on a communist view that everything must be regulated.
What is net neutrality, anyway?
Everyone keeps talking about it, and it sure sounds good. But what is it?
Basically, the idea is that internet providers currently have to allow you to go to every site the same. 
They provide access but have no control over whether you want to watch movies online or just browse Facebook for hours.
This is, of course, completely unacceptable to internet providers who, being businesses, have no soul. (Well, unless the Supreme Court rules that they can have a religion.) Instead, they want to treat the internet the way they treat cable television, where you pay a small fee for general access but where they can block you from certain sites unless you pay them lots of money.
This is a very bad idea, of course. One of the great things about the internet is that it is available for everyone. Anyone can start their own web page or blog, and everyone can access it. If internet providers are allowed to decide what we can access, we may end up with a type of censorship we don’t need. “Sorry, we don’t allow anyone to access sites that don’t conform to our political beliefs.”
Without neutrality, providers can also make other decisions about access, and can do things like make access very quick for certain websites and tremendously slow for others.
This is in the news because a federal court ruled in favor of the big corporations over the consumer. (I know, I know, you’re absolutely shocked that Big Money has won in court.) OK, fine, it’s a bit more complicated than that — the decision had to do with whether the FCC could make certain regulations — and it could become moot if the regulations are rewritten. However, at the moment, the future is up in the air.
Enjoy the freedom while you have it.
Hobby Lobby claims they are being discriminated against because they are being forced to provide health care which could provide birth control to those heathen women — you know, those hussies who can’t control their libido that Mike Huckabee warned us about.
Hobby Lobby claims to be a Christian corporation. They refuse to even sell Jewish merchandise in the store. (“Want Hannukah gifts? Go elsewhere, Christ-killer!”) They have no problem whatsoever in buying cheaply-made crap from China because after all, the Bible approves slavery.
Most importantly, they claim they have the right to force their religious views on their employees. Amazingly, a federal judge in Oklahoma agreed with them and held, for the first time that I can see, that a corporation can actually have a religious view.
Fortunately, this is now on appeal, and hopefully clearer minds will prevail. Many groups are filing briefs opposing Hobby Lobby.
The issue is whether a business can refuse to give health insurance to its employees because of religious reasons. I am shocked that some of my friends think that this is perfectly fine. What’s next? Will they refuse to give you your salary if you buy alcohol with it against their religious views? Will we have to reduce our own freedoms to make our employers happy?
This is an absolutely ridiculous decision. Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization; it’s a for-profit business. A business owner should not have the right to decide health care decisions for his or her employees. This is not comparable to a church, for instance, being forced to disobey its beliefs.
Should I, as a business owner, be allowed to force my beliefs on my employees? What if my religion believes women should wear burkas and never speak? Should I make all my female employees wear burkas?
The Court apparently believes employers have powers to ignore laws they don’t like. “If you work here, you have to live by my beliefs, not yours. Don’t like it? Tough!” I think we instead should say to business owners, “These are people who work for you, who have the right to make their own decisions about health care. You will give them the option, because this is America where we value individual decisions. Don’t like it? Tough!”
Your religion does not give you the right to disobey the law. There are Jamaican religions that believe in smoking marijuana during their ceremonies — tough, that’s illegal. Animal cruelty in the name of religion is illegal. Refusing to give your child medicine in the name of religion is illegal. Religions shouldn’t be exempt from the law just because they “really really believe” something. That’s not what America is about.
Look, if you start a business in America, we expect certain things from you. You have to pay a minimum wage; you have to have a safe working environment; you have to pay business taxes; you have to pay for worker’s compensation; you have to provide health care. Keep in mind that your employees may decide to use their money or benefits to do things you personally disagree with. Don’t like it? Tough. Don’t open a business.
If you don’t like the fact that we have freedom from religion in America, then maybe you should open a business somewhere else, like Iran. I understand they have no problem with you forcing religion on people who work for you.
ventrellaquest.com 