April 9, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

We should be able to discriminate because religion

The photographer who refused to provide service to a gay wedding because it went against his religious beliefs lost again, this time with an appeal to the Supreme Court.

This has some religious people quite upset, because they believe — try to follow this logic — that laws that prevent cruelty to and discrimination against other human beings violates their rights. Their right to deny rights to others.

I know, right?

The law in that particular state prohibited this exact kind of discrimination, so the photographer thought that there should be an exemption for those who disagree with the law. You know, in the same way that there are exceptions in other laws that allow you to disobey them if you don’t like them. In the same way some religious folks were able to ignore laws that struck down interracial marriage back in the ’60s.

Oh, right, I remember now. That never happened.

Republican leader Mike Huckabee thinks this decision is just terrible. After all, the Bible is against this and our laws should do whatever the Bible says. Which means that not only should we be stoning gays to death, we should also bring back slavery.

As Huckabee stated, “unless God re-writes it, edits it, sends it down with His signature on it, it’s not my book to change.” I wonder how many gays Huckabee stoned to death this week?

Here in this place called the United States, we have a Constitution in which the Founding Fathers said, in the very first amendment, that our government would not promote a religion in any way (the “establishment clause.”) There are other parts of the Constitution that prohibit any sort of religious test be given to anyone in our government, too.

Is it all that surprising that people like Mike Huckabee pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they think should apply to them in the same way they do with the Bible?

Editorial cartoon: Speech is money

April 8, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Family Values

There’s been another example of a Republican cheating on his wife and getting caught with a mistress.

Yes, some of you respond, but Democrats do that too! Remember Bill Clinton?

You’re right. Democrats certainly have no monopoly on ethical behavior. In the last few weeks there have been a bunch of Democrats being caught in money scandals, for instance (as they rightly should have been).

The issue though isn’t about ethics; it’s about hypocrisy.

Politicians who talk about “family values” being so important are while they are undermining those same values are hypocrites. Voting against gay marriage and then getting caught soliciting sex in a men’s bathroom doesn’t help your cause much. Being against abortion while telling your girlfriend to get one does little to endear you to anyone.

And that’s why it’s news. And why it gets bigger coverage than it probably should. It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.

And rightly so.

Editorial cartoon: Hate of the union

April 7, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Can’t we celebrate some good news?

Look, the plan the Republicans originally wanted is in, and it’s successful. More than 7.1 million have signed up for health insurance coverage so far, which exceeds expectations. The uninsured rate has dropped, which helps all of us who no longer have to cover people who use the emergency room for their health care because it was free (“personal responsibility,” you know, is another good thing).

The vast majority of those who are using Obamacare are paying less than before (although you’d never know it from the Fox news coverage of the minority who are paying more, mostly because their previous plans were crappy and worthless).

More and more Americans are supportive of the Affordable Care Act (a majority, in fact) and that number keeps going up.

Most importantly, people are getting covered so that perhaps we will no longer have families going into bankruptcy because of medical bills.

Seriously, why is this a bad thing? The “free marketplace” is what caused all the problems Obamacare was designed to fix, so don’t go telling me that we should have let the market decide. We did, and it was terrible.

While in the short term Obamacare may hurt the Democrats (largely because of all the lies being spread about it by the Republicans), in the long run, this will be seen as a large step forward and supported by almost everyone, in the same way Medicare and Social Security have become.

Editorial cartoon: Don’t hold your breath

April 5, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

“Freedom of speech” does not equal “freedom to be free of the consequences”

Mozilla’s CEO Brendan Eich resigned after complaints that he was a supporter of the anti-gay marriage campaign, and now certain conservatives are in an uproar.

You see, when they boycott businesses and TV shows they believe have anti-Christian messages, they are exercising their free speech in a totally American and patriotic way. But when others do it against issues they support, they are suppressing anti-Christian ideals and trying to silence people in the same way the Nazis did.

I mean, it’s only logical, right?

Look, this guy has every right to his opinion. What he doesn’t have is the right to the job.

As the NY Times pointed out:

Mozilla competes in two markets. First, obviously, it wants people to use its products instead of its rivals’ stuff. But its second market is arguably more challenging — the tight labor pool of engineers, designers, and other tech workers who make software. When you consider the importance of that market, Mr. Eich’s position on gay marriage wasn’t some outré personal stance unrelated to his job; it was a potentially hazardous bit of negative branding in the labor pool, one that was making life difficult for current employees and plausibly reducing Mozilla’s draw to prospective workers.

This company has a policy that supports gay rights, and their guy in charge is working against that policy. It hurts the business’ image with the public, and therefore he has made himself unqualified for the position.

Suppose he had supported the KKK or some other group whose main purpose it was to deny rights to others? Do you think the company should just look the other way, knowing it would hurt their business and their reputation?

Part of the problem too is that equality for gays and lesbian is indeed a new issue, and hard to understand for some people. Most who are against it are not necessarily evil or mean, just ignorant or unwilling to take that step yet. They don’t see themselves as bigots.

However, this was also what it was like at the start of the civil rights movement in the 60s. Many whites just could not conceive of equality with blacks, and some churches even preached that equality was against God’s will — therefore to allow equality meant you were doing the Devil’s work. Doesn’t that sound like what some who are against gay marriage are saying these days?

Bigotry is objective. Are you in favor of denying rights to people over things they do not control? You’re a bigot. Sorry if that makes you angry, but that’s the definition, no matter how you may justify it to yourself.

A company has the right to say “We don’t hire bigots.”

I cannot deny that there is a “slippery slope” argument to be made here, where a company can fire you simply because you have a political position they don’t like. I hold that there is a difference when (a) you are the CEO or someone who speaks for the company and represents its image; and (b) when your position specifically says “I will be treating some of our employees as second-class citizens and advocating discriminating against them.” In a sense, his position on that issue directly affects his job, in the same way a nun could be fired for saying “I don’t believe in God.”

This is not the same as an employee saying “I dislike Obama.” Or even a low level employee who has no control over the company saying “I am against gay marriage.” I agree that firing someone for those things would be absolutely wrong.

Editorial cartoon: A Mickey Mouse Plutocracy

April 4, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Poor little congress

Retiring Congressman James Moran just can’t live on his measly $174,000 a year salary.

“I think the American people should know that the members of Congress are underpaid,” he said. “I understand that it’s widely felt that they underperform, but the fact is that this is the board of directors for the largest economic entity in the world.”

He added that some members sleep in their offices or in “small little apartment units” when they are in Washington, D.C.

You may be surprised to learn that the President is getting paid less than when George Washington was in office (adjusted for inflation). Congress only started getting an annual salary since the Civil War (before that it was on a per diem basis) and while it is less than it was 100 years ago when adjusted, it’s still higher than it’s been some years.

There is an argument to be made that if the salaries are too small, qualified people just won’t seek the job. The best example I can think of locally is here in Pennsylvania, where we elect District Magistrates. These judges do not have to be lawyers. They mostly sign warrants and handle traffic tickets and other small claims, but over the years have been given more and more responsibilities for criminal cases, too. In exchange, the salaries and benefits have increased and now lawyers often run for and win these positions, because previously the salary was so low it wasn’t worth giving up your practice. (Mind you, I’m talking about salaries in the $70,000 range, not the $174,000 range.) Most lawyers like me are still paying off huge student debts and I don’t think many people would say a $70,000 salary is unreasonable for that job.

Congress, however, has many perks we don’t get, and they’re getting paid a lot more than $70,000. Yes, they have to do lots of travel back and forth to their districts but there are expense accounts for that. And there doesn’t seem to be a dearth of people running for their positions. Do we really think people who believe the salary is too low are our best representatives?

Meanwhile, the divide between Congress and the people they represent keeps growing, with more than half of Congress made up of millionaires. While the average American watches their earning power dwindle as the economy putters along, the rich just keep getting richer, and that includes the millionaires in Congress. No wonder so many of them don’t understand what we are going through.

So no, Congressman Moran, I don’t think Congress is underpaid. Maybe if some of the very rich aren’t interested in running for office because it doesn’t pay enough, we might get more average Americans running.

And that could be a good thing…