Gays were married on the Grammies last night. Fox News’ Todd Starns was quite hurt, calling it a “hate-filled, bigoted, intolerant diatribe against Christians.” 
In a related story, David Duke, a prominent member of the KKK, complained about seeing an interracial couple during the show. “It hurts, you know?” he said. “These people have no concern for my feelings. It’s so hateful the way they treat my views.”
Yes, all over the United States, bigots are finding themselves the subject of intolerance, and being completely unaware of the concept of irony, have declared that anyone who fights against their bigotry is the real problem.
An attack on their view is an attack on every single foundation of their religion — and, by God, that is just intolerant. Just look at them! What could be more hateful and mean than expressing your love for someone by marrying them?
“We should never ever disagree with someone else’s views if they are based in religion,” Starns claims, “because otherwise, you are just a hateful, mean person. Oh, except for Muslims. Screw them and everything they stand for.”
I’ve often found it interesting how many of my friends are fierce animal lovers — but only cute animals, the kind you don’t eat. They’ll protest when someone who mistreats dogs isn’t imprisoned, and they’ll get upset about the treatment of whales and dolphins, but they also talk about how much they love bacon. 
I’ve had them explain to me that it’s two different things, because some animals are raised solely for slaughter. I am not certain why that matters. If dogs were raised solely for slaughter, then it would be fine to mistreat them, too? (Many of these same people also scream when they hear about other cultures that eat dogs.)
Some try to do the right thing, by only buying meat from animals that are “free range” meaning that the animals led torture-free lives (well, until they were killed). Of course, “free range” is one of those phrases like “all natural” — there is no official government agency deciding who can use the term, and there have been plenty of examples of farms claiming their animals are free-range when they’re really only slightly less crowded than the factory farms where the animals can’t even turn around in their pens.
As I posted previously, I am a pescatarian, which means I eat fish — so you can call me a hypocrite too if you want to. The fish I eat are pretty low on the evolutionary ladder and yes, although they do feel pain, they are usually not raised in inhumane conditions, either. So I’m not 100% consistent; at least I am trying to practice what I preach.
I’m really not going anywhere profound with this. I have no great final comment that sums up everything with wit and insight. I’m just hoping some of my friends realize that to those of us who don’t eat farm animals, you seem, well, inconsistent. Discriminating against animals based on whether you eat them or not doesn’t seem right to me.
Last Monday, a gun-owning friend of mine posted a bunch of internet memes on his Facebook page, culminating with “There are two types of people: gun owners and victims.” Someone please remind me what last Monday’s holiday was for — was it gun owner James Earl Ray or victim Martin Luther King, Jr.? I forget.
There are lots of things our government does that I disagree with. 
Throughout our history, our government has taken away rights of individuals, and we have been able to make great progress without actually taking up arms against the government.
For instance, the civil rights movement led by King helped to convince Americans that the law had to be changed, and they accomplished this with non-violent protests. Other advances were made through our political system (by electing politicians who promoted change) or through our legal system (with lawsuits to force the government to extend rights). In a truly democratic form of government, this is how you progress.
But some gun owners believe that if you don’t get your way in America, it is perfectly fine to advocate violence. They read the 2nd amendment in a way no court has done, and in a way counter to the majority of Americans, but insist, like religious fundamentalists, that they and they alone know exactly what the Constitution means. “We must obey the Constitution!” they scream. “We are true patriots, obeying the will of the Founders! And we will use violence against the government if you try to stop us!”
Yes, because the Constitution must be obeyed. Oh, except that part about treason. That doesn’t count.
(EDIT: It is pure coincidence that as I am writing this, I hear on the news that there is another shooter killing people in a Mall. I could have re-rerun my “Gun Control Shuffle” post, but I’m getting tired of having to run that every few weeks.)
The New Hampshire House has voted to legalize marijuana.
This is important. Marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington were voter-driven referenda. 
Most politicians are afraid to take a stand on this for fear of being labelled as “soft on drugs” or something else equally stupid, but given the popularity of sudden vacations to Colorado, they’re rethinking their old ways.
And rightly so. Legalized marijuana can make a state a lot of money. They can tax it heavily and require sellers to pay for expensive licensing. But they also save money — less people in jail over marijuana possession, less police wasting time on marijuana cases, fewer probation officers needed, fewer court hours spent on hearings and trials.
New Hampshire is a conservative state in many ways, filled with people escaping from liberal Massachusetts and socialistic Vermont. New Hampshire is quite libertarian — they’re individuals who don’t like government telling them that they can’t smoke a joint. “Life free or die” is their credo (even though it doesn’t make any sense).
Will they be the next state to legalize? Not likely. The Governor has vowed to veto the bill. (And she’s a Democrat, too; you’d think otherwise.) So why would she be against this with all the benefits it will bring?
Who knows? Maybe she’s high.
An independent government committee has determined that the NSA program targeting American citizens is (surprise!) illegal. 
Well, most of the committee did — the two Bush appointees dissented.
Their report concluded that the collection of bulk phone records has provided only minimal protections at a huge cost to our freedoms.
Obama’s recent speech on this topic was about as weak as it could be. He spoke of the need to have spies and intelligence gathering (which no one disagrees with) and tried to convince us all that therefore, this was not too great or unusual. Admittedly, he also said the program should be cut back, but he wouldn’t go so far as to question the need for it in the first place.
The Bush people disagreed that the program was illegal (let us not forget that the program started under Bush, with his “Patriot” act) but did agree that it should be stopped nonetheless.
But seriously, the blame falls on all of government — Congress approved the Patriot Act, after all, and for Congress to now claim that they are shocked that the NSA is doing things they gave them permission to do is ridiculous. Obama is also responsible. He voted against the Patriot Act extension as a Senator but expanded it once he became President. (Ironically, he has spoken of the need to cut it back once he’s out of office, with the pretentious idea that he can handle this but some other President couldn’t.)
Let’s hope this leads to the Supreme Court finding the Patriot Act unconstitutional.
ventrellaquest.com 