March 29, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

What is this “satire” you speak of?

Our most prominent satirist these days is Stephen Colbert, who plays an ignorant conservative pundit so clueless he doesn’t realize he is saying things that help his opponents. Anyone who has a brain understands the character and gets the jokes.

This is a picture my wife made of Stephen Colbert using dryer lint. It’s now hanging in a Ripley’s Believe it or Not Museum somewhere. Her web page is here: http://www.heidihooper.com

And then there are The Humorless.

Recently, Colbert did a hilarious bit about how the Washington Redskins, in order to show their concern for the Native Americans they insult daily with their name, set up a charity to benefit said Natives. They called it “The Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation” — which is kind of like saying “The Washington Wop Foundation for the Betterment of Italian-Americans” or “The Washington Faggot Gay Rights Foundation.”

Or, as Stephen Colbert put it “The Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.”

Come on, that’s funny. By using this comparison, he is showing how insensitive the Redskins are being while they pretend to be enlightened. “I owe all this sensitivity to Redskins owner Dan Snyder,” Colbert said after making the announcement. “So Asians, send your thank-you letters to him, not me.”

To add more irony, “Ching-Chong Ding-Dong” was a character Colbert created to make fun of Rush Limbaugh doing a stereotypical racist rant when imitating Chinese President Hu Jintao.

But some people just don’t get it, claiming he has “gone too far” and demanding a boycott of his show. These well-meaning but humor-impaired people are against stereotypes and racism.

Hey, just like Colbert!

Editorial cartoon: Hobby Lobby’s Christian values

March 28, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Distrust of science is killing us

Some people distrust science to the point where they destroy their kid’s economic futures. By not encouraging their kids to learn science but actively teaching them non-science (creationism, for instance), we end up with adults who do not understand logic, proof, evidence, and the scientific theory and can’t compete with those who are actually educated.

But this hatred of science hurts us in other ways, too. For instance, denying climate change means we are doing nothing about it — leading to deadly storms, mudslides, fires, and devastation.

And this isn’t limited to conservatives (as I have pointed out before). There are liberals who laugh at those who deny evolution while they refuse to vaccinate their kids because of some internet rumor they read somewhere.

This is killing us.

You can’t pick and choose what science to believe. Science doesn’t care what you believe, anyway — the fact that you don’t believe in science doesn’t make it not true.

But for some reason, people listen to non-scientists when they make up their minds. Donald Trump is one of those idiots who tweets about vaccinations while his New York city suffers from record-breaking measels and mumps outbreaks. Washington state has a whooping cough epidemic. There’s even a worry that polio could come back. Polio!

Somehow, there is a complete independent streak in America that is so strong that we refuse to listen to experts and “elitists” who know things, and almost always to our detriment. As Isaac Asimov once said, “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Editorial cartoon: Whose religious freedom?

March 26, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

If only we could just stone gays to death like the good old days…

Ah, yes, if only America had morals, then we could stone to death people who we disagree with. What a wonderful world that would be!

So sayeth Pat Robertson, who speaks for millions who watch his show and believe this feeble old man (who thinks that “homosexuals cause earthquakes” because God is so unhappy).

“I think you’ve got to remember from the Bible, you look carefully at the Bible, what would have happened in Jesus’ time if two men decided they wanted to cohabitate together, they would have been stoned to death,” he said. “So, Jesus would not have baked them a wedding cake, nor would he he have made them a bed to sleep in because they wouldn’t have been there.”

“But we don’t have that in this country here,” he said with a wistful look in his eye. “So, that’s the way it is.”

You all remember those parts of the Bible where Jesus spoke about how he hated gays, right? And how they should be stoned to death? You don’t remember those parts? Oh, that’s probably because they aren’t in there.

There actually are comments like that in the Old Testament, right next to the prohibitions against tattoos, ham sandwiches, shrimp, planting crops together, wearing clothing made out of more than one cloth, divorce, and allowing women to speak in church. But for some reason, there isn’t a huge Christian movement to ban bacon.

Editorial cartoon: Legal surgeon seizures

March 25, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Supreme Court ready to once again side with corporations over people

Based on the arguments presented at the Supreme Court today in the Hobby Lobby case, the conservative members of the Supreme Court once more appear ready to hold that corporations have more rights than people. This is not a surprise to anyone who follows the court.

It seems that corporations are people, and a corporation can have a religion. What’s more, their religion is more powerful than your religion, and if you work for them, they can force their religious views on you.

Where is this in the Constitution? Ha ha! Didn’t you read the word “corporation”? That’s all you need to know to determine how Scalia and his pals will vote.

The more liberal members of the Court (the three women especially) questioned how you could determine a corporation’s religion. “How does a corporation exercise religion?” Sotomayor asked. A poll of shareholders? What about shareholders that do not share the same religion as the CEO?

Opponents rightfully pointed out that this could lead to corporations deciding that they could use their religion to justify firing all gays, prohibiting women from working, and otherwise taking away our basic rights.

This has the possibility of rising to the level of “terrible decisions” reached only previously by the Citizen’s United decision which found two fictions to be law: that not only are corporations people, but money is speech — therefore corporations have the right to speech much greater than those of us poor individuals.

Well, it will be the most terrible decision until the Supreme Court tops it with the follow-up case later this year that holds that individual limitations on campaign contributions are also invalid … at which time it may just be easier to allow the billionaires to vote for us.

Editorial cartoon: Slight misunderstanding

March 24, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Snobby Hobby Lobby

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear one of the silliest cases ever. Allow me to reprint my thoughts on this from a blog post months ago:

Hobby Lobby claims they are being discriminated against because they are being forced to provide health care which could provide birth control to those heathen women — you know, those hussies who can’t control their libido that Mike Huckabee warned us about.

Hobby Lobby claims to be a Christian corporation. They refuse to even sell Jewish merchandise in the store. (“Want Hannukah gifts? Go elsewhere, Christ-killer!”) They have no problem whatsoever in buying cheaply-made crap from China because after all, the Bible approves slavery.

Most importantly, they claim they have the right to force their religious views on their employees. Amazingly, a federal judge in Oklahoma agreed with them and held, for the first time that I can see, that a corporation can actually have a religious view.

Fortunately, this is now on appeal, and hopefully clearer minds will prevail. Many groups are filing briefs opposing Hobby Lobby.

The issue is whether a business can refuse to give health insurance to its employees because of religious reasons. I am shocked that some of my friends think that this is perfectly fine. What’s next? Will they refuse to give you your salary if you buy alcohol with it against their religious views? Will we have to reduce our own freedoms to make our employers happy?

Should I, as a business owner, be allowed to force my beliefs on my employees? What if my religion believes women should wear burkas and never speak? Should I make all my female employees wear burkas?

The lower court apparently believes employers have powers to ignore laws they don’t like. “If you work here, you have to live by my beliefs, not yours. Don’t like it? Tough!”

I think we instead should say to business owners, “These are people who work for you, who have the right to make their own decisions about health care. You will give them the option, because this is America where we value individual decisions. Don’t like it? Tough!”

Your religion does not give you the right to disobey the law. There are Jamaican religions that believe in smoking marijuana during their ceremonies — tough, that’s illegal. Animal cruelty in the name of religion is illegal. Refusing to give your child medicine in the name of religion is illegal. Religions shouldn’t be exempt from the law just because they “really really believe” something. That’s not what America is about.

Look, if you start a business in America, we expect certain things from you. You have to pay a minimum wage; you have to have a safe working environment; you have to pay business taxes; you have to pay for worker’s compensation; you have to provide health care. Keep in mind that your employees may decide to use their money or benefits to do things you personally disagree with. Don’t like it? Tough. Don’t open a business.

If you don’t like the fact that we have freedom from religion in America, then maybe you should open a business somewhere else, like Iran. I understand they have no problem with you forcing religion on people who work for you.