by

War over diplomacy

Barack Obama may have finally earned his Nobel Peace Prize by getting many nations to join with us to get Iran to agree to an historic treaty. Under this treaty, Iran will reduce its nuclear capability and we will be able to inspect to make sure that they do. 131124102022-01-iran-deal-1124-story-topIn exchange, we will get rid of many of the sanctions that worked to force them to the treaty table in the first place.

Seriously, how can someone be against this?

Answer: Be an Obama-hating Republican. You know these guys — Obama could come out in favor of drinking water and they’d object. (Oh, right, they did.)

In the simple world view of these people, America is the world ruler and we should always get everything we want. If we don’t get what we want, we should bomb everyone until we do. (Because that has worked so well for us in the Middle East before. That was sarcasm.)

But that’s not how the world really works and that’s not how mature adults understand relationships, where there are compromises that must be made in order to get along. Iran is a big country and we can’t just order them to do whatever we want so we have to negotiate. We will never get everything we want when we negotiate so we get as much as we can while they try to get as much as they can. That’s how it works, you see.

So we’ve gotten a pretty good deal. Not the absolute best deal but pretty much 90% of what we want.

Not good enough, say people who are willing to let poor people die in another unnecessary war. Go ahead, ask them what their alternative is. Many of them are openly suggesting we should just declare war and bomb them because, you know, they’re an evil country and they are trying to build a nuclear bomb. (As opposed to Pakistan, China, and other evil countries that already have nuclear bombs.)

I have an idea. Let’s try diplomacy first. Let’s save violence for the last resort when everything else has failed.

I am told that is what mature, intelligent people do.

by

Editorial cartoon: Miracle whipped

by

Let them eat cake

A conservative who thought he was being clever recently called a bunch of bakeries owned by gays and demanded that they make him a cake saying “Gay marriage is wrong” and all said no.

Aha! Clearly there is a double standard here.cake

Well, no, there isn’t. A bakery has the right to say they won’t make a cake that says “gay marriage is wrong” or “gay marriage is right” or “support Barack Obama” or “Vote Republican.”

If a bakery gladly makes penis-shaped cakes for heterosexual parties but refuses to make one for a homosexual party, then I think that is wrong. Clearly, they do not object to what they are making at that point, just who they are selling to. And that’s the problem. It’s the exact same product!

If you offer a product to the world, you should not be allowed to discriminate. You can’t say “I will sell this wedding cake design to everyone except the Irish,” for instance. And that’s the issue — when a gay couple asks a baker to give them a cake exactly like a straight couple gets, the bakery should not be allowed to say no. (I say “should” because in most states, it is perfectly legal for individuals to discriminate against gays, even when the state can’t discriminate.)

This is different from a service. A band can certainly refuse to play at a KKK rally or even a “Ted Cruz for President” event. A caterer can say that they don’t want to cater to you. A hall can refuse to rent to a group it disagrees with. I, as a lawyer, do not have to accept every single client that comes into my office with money.

There are plenty of gray areas here, but I think this is the basic distinction that many do not understand (or agree with).

by

Editorial cartoon: Iran (So Far Away)

iran

by

A Christian Preacher Who Gets It

Happy Easter!

Today I’d just like to share a link with you — an article written by a preacher who understands why people are afraid of what Christians might do with certain “Religious Freedom Restoration” acts … a fear that is legitimate and based in historical fact.betty

“The outcry isn’t about the law,” he writes, “it’s about us. It’s a fear that we will discriminate. And it is a fear based on a history that, whether we like it or not, is ours. We have, in no shortage of ways, broken relationships with the LGBTQ community. We have expelled our sons and daughters. We have protested them. We blamed them for the ills of society like a scapegoat. And no matter what we believe about same-sex marriage, that is wrong. Because of that, restoring relationship and trust with the LGBTQ community is on us. Even if you disagree with all I said above, restoring the relationship is on us because we are called as followers of Jesus to be ministers of reconciliation.”

He later concludes:  “”You see, the question now being asked of Christians is, “Will you treat us as human beings?” That’s what behind wanting a cake for a same-sex wedding. Or photographs. It isn’t shoving a lifestyle down people’s throats. It’s simply a desire to be seen as human. To be treated as human. To enjoy life as we all want to enjoy life.”

This.  This is what Jesus was talking about — not the hatred, the anger, the judgment.

Unfortunately, too many Christians are instead hypocrites, like the fictional “Mrs. Betty Bowers” here.

by

Editorial cartoon: Nothing personal

by

Demonizing your enemy

One of the reasons we can’t have nice things these days is because too many people refuse to see gray areas. You either agree with them or you’re the enemy. Moderation and compromise are not virtues to these people.

There are many people who disagree with gay marriage and gay rights who are decent, honest, and well-meaning people. They are not evil. homosexualdemonsThey are just ignorant — ignorant of the harm they are causing, ignorant of what it means to be gay or lesbian. They have been misled by their religion and their leaders. I suspect that these people, like many, just haven’t yet realized that society has changed; that their views are not acceptable; that they need to re-examine what their religion is telling them. This does not come easy.

But some on the left want to demonize all of them in the same way some on the right try to demonize anyone who disagrees with their views.

I prefer to change people’s minds rather than berate them and make them into terrible enemies.

Some people, like many Tea Party leaders and Fox News commentators, are beyond hope. They are the cause of the problem, because they are the “no gray areas/refuse to compromise” variety. They deserve our scorn, especially those that should know better. They are the root of the problem.

There are many well-meaning people (including pizza parlor owners) who sincerely think they are doing the right thing by holding these prejudices. They’re wrong, of course. But harassing them, insulting them, and committing crimes against them won’t convince them.

by

Editorial cartoon: Following your religion strictly

Tom the Dancing Bug

by

Bigots present another false argument

“Liberals want to force kosher delis to serve bacon against their will!”

Seen that argument yet? Stupid, isn’t it? Somehow, people who support bigotry think that if we require bakeries to make cakes for gay couples that then we will be forcing businesses to sell products that go against their religion. imagesizerNo, no, no.

This is not about forcing a business to sell something it doesn’t want to sell. Don’t want to sell bacon? Fine, don’t sell bacon.

This is about selling a product and then deciding that you’re going to sell it to everyone except a certain group. If you are opening a business, you open it to everyone. You don’t discriminate.

Didn’t we already decide this years ago? Is there any difference between pizza parlors in Indiana refusing to serve gays and lunch counters in Alabama refusing to serve blacks?

Oh, and don’t go giving me the argument that you are supporting freedom and libertarianism and all that crap. Look at the end result: You’re supporting allowing someone to deny rights to someone else. It’s as false as the argument that the South was fighting for “state’s rights” and the fact that it meant people would thus be held in slavery is irrelevant.

 

by

Editorial cartoon: Cross to bear