Hey, you know how some people whine that women and gays are asking for “special treatment” when they are really only asking for equal treatment?
Well, here’s the latest group demanding special treatment — special, not equal. A group of Orthodox Jewish men caused trouble on a flight because they refused to sit next to women, which they believe would make God angry or something. 
And then they complained that because they were not given special treatment, they were being discriminated against. You know, in the same way Christians who don’t get exclusive right to post their religious commandments in public places are discriminated against.
Now, don’t take this the wrong way. Sometimes there really is religious discrimination (especially against Muslims) and it has nothing to do with special treatment, but instead about equal treatment. That’s not the case here.
It is nice when businesses do their best to accommodate people with special needs, which includes religious requirements. I’m sure if these men had contacted the airlines beforehand and made seat reservations (which can be done online), the airlines would have been more than happy to help them. But to show up and then harass women into moving from their seats (including insisting that they move away from their husbands and family) doesn’t make anyone think “Oh, those poor people, being discriminated against because of their religion.”
I wish I could make demands like these guys did when I get on an airplane. “I’m sorry, but my religion forbids me from sitting next to grossly overweight passengers or screaming babies.”
Those brave reporters at Rupert Murdock’s New York Post always go after the big targets — those in power should tremble at the press’ pursuit of justice and truth!
Here’s their latest cover:
Yes, the just-born infant will be held responsible for its actions, as soon as it has any. The fact that it is completely innocent of any wrongdoing is irrelevant to the Post. (Hello? Benghazi, anyone?)
Coming up next: Post Steals Baby’s Candy
There are some conservatives who claim they love the military and respect our veterans while cutting their benefits, sending them off to die in needless wars without proper equipment, and literally insulting them on their jobs. Primary among these hypocrites are the idiots at Fox News — who scream about how Obama’s coffee salute demeans the military while then, within a few minutes, making sexist and demeaning comments about the military.
Jon Stewart describes it better than I ever could (start around 4:00 in). Sorry, WordPress won’t let me embed the video: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/b7hxzd/the-way-we-war
Veterans aren’t standing for it either. In an open letter to Fox News, they write:
Thus the skill of women as fighter pilots is well established. And before you jump to the standby excuse that you were “just making a joke” or “having a laugh,” let the men amongst our number preemptively respond: You are not funny. You are not clever. And you are not excused. Perhaps the phrase “boys will be boys”—inevitably uttered wherever misogyny is present—is relevant. Men would never insult and demean a fellow servicemember; boys think saying the word ‘boobs’ is funny.
How many times do we have to say this? The First Amendment does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.
Friend and scientist Yvette d’Entremont (read her guest blog here!) started a new Facebook page called “Science Babe” a month ago. Recently, she pointed out that “actor” Rob Schneider was doing insurance company commercials while arguing against vaccinations. 
Others picked up on this and soon Schnedier was fired as a spokesman, because insurance companies like vaccinations — they save lives and save insurance companies lots of money.
Of course, people who do not understand how the Constitution works are screaming that his rights were violated and blah blah blah. It happens every time some celebrity loses their endorsement or, as I blogged about recently, when a bank teller was fired for lecturing customers about her religion during worktime.
You have every right to say whatever the hell you want to about vaccines. You can spout nonsense about the world being flat if you want to. No one has the right to stop you from doing that. In fact, Schneider can continue to spout his idiocy forever if he so chooses.
What you don’t have is the right to a job or a platform for your speech. A newspaper doesn’t have to print your opinion. A TV show can fire you if you are saying things that they disagree with (especially if it hurts their ratings). A school can fire you as a science teacher if you’re trying to teach your students creationism. Your freedom of speech is not violated in any of those incidences. You can continue to say whatever you want, just not with an audience provided by your former employer.
By the way, I’m thrilled for Yvette. We first met at a convention where we were both guests on a panel about science and how it is used and abused in court cases. According to various anti-vaccination blogs, she’s now part of the “pro-vaccine lobby”. Not bad for a Science Babe.
I had court today in the northern part of the county, where for the past two weeks there has been a massive search for Eric Frein, our own home-bred American terrorist. I expected road blocks and car searches, having heard from friends (and lawyers) who have been subjected to them, but there wasn’t much of anything. 
I guess the search has narrowed.
The judge and DA wanted to talk about this lawyer in the area who put up ads telling people who had been inconvenienced by the police to contact him so he could bring a big class action lawsuit. We all agreed that this kind of ambulance-chasing was terrible and made all lawyers look bad.
I pointed out though that he had a point. Most of these police stops were done without a warrant of any kind. While searching for this killer, they were asking people to open their trunks, asking for IDs, and even preventing people from getting to their own homes. I haven’t heard of anyone who did not comply (after all, everyone wants the police to get this guy) but what if someone had? What if the police looked into the car and found marijuana or something?
You see the dilemma — the police do not have the right to stop every vehicle absent judicial approval, and only after justifying it with probable cause. The people who were stopped were not suspects in any way.
You can’t look at the severity of the crime investigation to justify ignoring Constitutional requirements. After all, we could really fight crime if we allowed the police to stop every car without cause or search through our homes without reason. Military Law works great in China were there is only a fraction of the crime we have here — but there’s also a fraction of our freedom.
We have to say “no” at the more serious violations before they start using the same tactics for the menial crimes.
ventrellaquest.com 