Author: Michael A. Ventrella

by

I’m anti-car

I admit it, I’m anti-car.

I think it’s a good idea that you must have a license to drive which you cannot get until you can prove you can handle a vehicle safely. bond I prefer not allowing children to drive.  People who have a record of unsafe driving should be prohibited from getting behind a wheel.

I like having all vehicles registered, and checked periodically to make sure there are no defects.  I think it’s great that we are required to have insurance so that if anyone is hurt as a result of negligent use of the car, there is coverage for medical expenses and damage.

I even think it’s a good idea that certain large vehicles which are even more dangerous be highly regulated, with special licenses and requirements above and beyond the minor vehicles.

Clearly, all of these regulations prove that I am, at the root, anti-car.  No doubt I will next want them all confiscated by the government.

OK, the metaphor has gone on long enough, because you all know that I’m really talking about guns.  Whenever I mention these kinds of reasonable, rational regulations, I get friends telling me I am anti-gun.  Ironically, these friends would have no problem getting a gun with these regulations.

“But it’s different with cars,” they say.  “Cars aren’t a guaranteed right under the Constitution.  You can’t have regulations limiting guns!”  After all, it’s not like the 2nd Amendment uses the words “well regulated” or anything.  Oh, wait.  Yes it does.  My bad.  (All rights have exceptions.)

“But then only criminals will have guns!”  Of course.  No law will prohibit criminals from getting guns any more than automobile laws have kept unlicensed drivers from getting behind a wheel.  There are still unregistered, uninsured, and uninspected cars out there.

But imagine how many more there would be if there weren’t any laws. How safe would you feel knowing that any car you see could be uninsured, with bad brakes, and driven by someone with ten DUI convictions? Aren’t you glad there are laws to prohibit that? Laws that will punish those who do not obey them?

It just baffles me that well-meaning people who can be quite reasonable in other areas go crazy when anyone mentions even the most minor regulations of their guns.  It’s a kind of fetish I just never understood.  There are people who really love their cars too but don’t think that having to pay to have a license plate means that the government has become a fascist dictatorship determined to take their vehicles away from them — yet otherwise intelligent people will use that exact same argument when talking about guns.

I don’t think I’ll ever understand it.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

The future of gay marriage lawsuits

The Utah Attorney General’s request for a stay pending an appeal has been denied by everyone, and now goes before the United States Supreme Court. A stay is granted when the appellant has the possibility of winning the appeal. It would stop the marriages happening in Utah now pending the results of the appeal.

Higher appeals courts do not have to take every case. If they did, they’d never get anything done. Usually they only take a case when at least some of the justices want to overturn what the lower courts did. Even then, if they can’t convince the other justices, the lower court decision will remain. If the Supreme Court refuses to grant the stay, that’s a pretty good sign that they are not interested in taking this case, which means that marriages will continue in Utah.

The Utah court based much of its decision on the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down California’s anti-gay marriage act. Prohibiting gay marriage “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples,” the Supremes wrote, which gave the federal court ammunition it needed to strike down Utah’s laws.

Any law that discriminates must be strictly scrutinized and the state has to show that the discrimination is necessary to achieve an important end. Generic+Gay+Marriange+Legal Here, there is none. Opponents of gay marriage argue that marriage is for procreation (thus nullifying my 31-year childless marriage and prohibiting the sterile and elderly from ever getting married). They say gay marriage harms the children (when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it). They argue that it’s what the citizens of their state want (which didn’t work when they fought to save laws discriminating against minorities and women, either). And then they argue religious reasons (which have no place in our laws).

There is no legal justification to deny gay marriage, and courts are starting to recognize this.

The important thing about the Utah decision is that it may embolden other courts, both state and federal. If this can be done in Utah, the state with the largest percentage of people still against gay marriage, then why not Pennsylvania, where a majority favor it?

It’s also discouraged the fanatics who are fighting against it. Even some of the most conservative observers are now admitting that this is inevitable so it’s better to wage fights elsewhere.

What we really need is one of the conservative Supreme Court members to retire or, in the case of Thomas, be impeached. (But that’s a different topic for a different day.) If Obama could appoint one more justice, great changes could take place and many of the worst decisions made by the Supremes in the past twenty years could be reversed. (Well, except for Gore v. Bush.)

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Merry Christmas!

“I bought my brother some gift wrap for Christmas. I took it to the Gift Wrap department and told them to wrap it, but in a different print so he would know when to stop unwrapping.” – Steven Wright

“What I don’t like about office Christmas parties is looking for a job the next day.” – Phyllis Diller

“I played Santa Claus many times, and if you don’t believe it, check out the divorce settlements awarded my wives.” – Groucho Marxgroucho claus

“In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it ‘Christmas’ and went to church; the Jews called it ‘Hanukkah’ and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say ‘Merry Christmas!’ or ‘Happy Hanukkah!’ or (to the atheists) ‘Look out for the wall!’” — Dave Barry

“The Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot have a nativity scene in Washington, D.C. This wasn’t for any religious reasons. They couldn’t find three wise men and a virgin.” – Jay Leno

“The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live.” – Dennis Miller

“Christmas at my house is always at least six or seven times more pleasant than anywhere else. We start drinking early. And while everyone else is seeing only one Santa Claus, we’ll be seeing six or seven.” – W. C. Fields

“Ever wonder what people got Jesus for Christmas? It’s like, ‘Oh great, socks. You know I’m dying for your sins right? Yeah, but thanks for the socks! They’ll go great with my sandals. What am I, German?'” – Jim Gaffigan

“The one thing women don’t want to find in their stockings on Christmas morning is their husband.” – Joan Rivers

“I stopped believing in Santa Claus when my mother took me to see him in a department store, and he asked for my autograph.” – Shirley Temple

“Let me see if I’ve got this Santa business straight. You say he wears a beard, has no discernible source of income and flies to cities all over the world under cover of darkness? You sure this guy isn’t laundering illegal drug money?” – Tom Armstrong

“Roses are reddish, Violets are bluish, If it weren’t for Christmas, We’d all be Jewish.” – Benny Hill

“This past Christmas, I told my girlfriend for months in advance that all I wanted was an Xbox. That’s it. Beginning and end of list, Xbox. You know what she got me? A homemade frame with a picture of us from our first date together. Which was fine. Because I got her an Xbox.” – Anthony Jeselnik

“Merry Christmas, Nearly Everybody!” – Ogden Nash

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

What’s your favorite “Christmas Carol”? (A poll)

Charles Dickens is one of my favorite authors, so you know I’m a fan of “A Christmas Carol.” axmascarol1971 There have been many great versions of it, and recently I asked my friends on Facebook what their favorite version was.

I have a feeling that for many people, it’s the version they first saw.  It’s the only way to explain “Scrooged,” a film that makes me cringe.

So now here’s your chance to vote.  The list below is in order based on the results of the informal Facebook poll, and I’ve added a few others just to fill out the list.  

Links to read about each entry:

Scrooged (1988)
Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol (1962)
A Christmas Carol (1938)
A Christmas Carol (1951)
A Christmas Carol (1999)
A Christmas Carol (1984)
The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)
Rich Little’s Christmas Carol (1978)
A Christmas Carol (1971)
A Christmas Carol (2009)
Scrooge (1970)

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Utah (Utah?!!!) joins the 21st century, somewhat unwillingly

It’s been a great year for states joining the 21st century. We’ve added Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Hawaii, and New Mexico.

And now Utah!

Talk about karma. The citizens of Utah (Mormons mostly) spent millions of dollars fighting gay marriage, and were the driving force behind California’s ban (which was later overturned by the courts).Generic+Gay+Marriange+Legal Utah is still the state with the largest percentage of people who are against gay marriage.

A federal judge has now ruled that Utah’s law banning gay marriage violates the 14th amendment which prohibits discrimination. This is a great decision, and hopefully it will not be overturned. This will set a precedent for other federal courts to find that such provisions are unconstitutional.

Judge Robert Shelby didn’t mince words, either:

The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demeans the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.

He also hit hard against the bigots who say marriage is for procreation, thus making my 31-year marriage invalid in their opinion:

The court does not find the State’s argument compelling because, however persuasive the ability to procreate might be in the context of a particular religious perspective, it is not a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view. The State’s position demeans the dignity not just of same-sex couples, but of the many opposite- sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children. Under the State’s reasoning, a post-menopausal woman or infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does not have the capacity to procreate.

Of course, conservatives who love it when courts take proactive roles in striking down campaign finance reform laws or deciding Presidential elections are all shouting about “judicial activism” (which, as defined by conservatives, means “deciding in ways we don’t like.”).

Screw them. As Judge Shelby points out, this is not just a simple lawsuit. This is about basic fundamental rights:

The Constitution guarantees that all citizens have certain fundamental rights. These rights vest in every person over whom the Constitution has authority and, because they are so important, an individual’s fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Absolutely correct. Rights are not subject to opinion polls or votes.

Editorial cartoon of the day