January 29, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Net Neutrality

What is net neutrality, anyway?

Everyone keeps talking about it, and it sure sounds good. But what is it?

Basically, the idea is that internet providers currently have to allow you to go to every site the same. They provide access but have no control over whether you want to watch movies online or just browse Facebook for hours.

This is, of course, completely unacceptable to internet providers who, being businesses, have no soul. (Well, unless the Supreme Court rules that they can have a religion.) Instead, they want to treat the internet the way they treat cable television, where you pay a small fee for general access but where they can block you from certain sites unless you pay them lots of money.

This is a very bad idea, of course. One of the great things about the internet is that it is available for everyone. Anyone can start their own web page or blog, and everyone can access it. If internet providers are allowed to decide what we can access, we may end up with a type of censorship we don’t need. “Sorry, we don’t allow anyone to access sites that don’t conform to our political beliefs.”

Without neutrality, providers can also make other decisions about access, and can do things like make access very quick for certain websites and tremendously slow for others.

This is in the news because a federal court ruled in favor of the big corporations over the consumer. (I know, I know, you’re absolutely shocked that Big Money has won in court.) OK, fine, it’s a bit more complicated than that — the decision had to do with whether the FCC could make certain regulations — and it could become moot if the regulations are rewritten. However, at the moment, the future is up in the air.

Enjoy the freedom while you have it.

Editorial cartoon of the day: Sensitivity

January 28, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Corporations are people, just like Soylent Green

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?

As I said previously:

This is an absolutely ridiculous decision. Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization; it’s a for-profit business. A business owner should not have the right to decide health care decisions for his or her employees. This is not comparable to a church, for instance, being forced to disobey its beliefs.

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 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.

Editorial cartoon of the day: An elephant never learns

January 27, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Nation’s bigots subject of hate-filled intolerance

Gays were married on the Grammies last night. Fox News’ Todd Starns was quite hurt, calling it a “hate-filled, bigoted, intolerant diatribe against Christians.”

In a related story, David Duke, a prominent member of the KKK, complained about seeing an interracial couple during the show. “It hurts, you know?” he said. “These people have no concern for my feelings. It’s so hateful the way they treat my views.”

Yes, all over the United States, bigots are finding themselves the subject of intolerance, and being completely unaware of the concept of irony, have declared that anyone who fights against their bigotry is the real problem.

An attack on their view is an attack on every single foundation of their religion — and, by God, that is just intolerant. Just look at them! What could be more hateful and mean than expressing your love for someone by marrying them?

“We should never ever disagree with someone else’s views if they are based in religion,” Starns claims, “because otherwise, you are just a hateful, mean person. Oh, except for Muslims. Screw them and everything they stand for.”

Editorial cartoon of the day: Daydream Bieber

January 26, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Animal rights and wrongs

I’ve often found it interesting how many of my friends are fierce animal lovers — but only cute animals, the kind you don’t eat. They’ll protest when someone who mistreats dogs isn’t imprisoned, and they’ll get upset about the treatment of whales and dolphins, but they also talk about how much they love bacon.

I’ve had them explain to me that it’s two different things, because some animals are raised solely for slaughter. I am not certain why that matters. If dogs were raised solely for slaughter, then it would be fine to mistreat them, too? (Many of these same people also scream when they hear about other cultures that eat dogs.)

Some try to do the right thing, by only buying meat from animals that are “free range” meaning that the animals led torture-free lives (well, until they were killed). Of course, “free range” is one of those phrases like “all natural” — there is no official government agency deciding who can use the term, and there have been plenty of examples of farms claiming their animals are free-range when they’re really only slightly less crowded than the factory farms where the animals can’t even turn around in their pens.

As I posted previously, I am a pescatarian, which means I eat fish — so you can call me a hypocrite too if you want to. The fish I eat are pretty low on the evolutionary ladder and yes, although they do feel pain, they are usually not raised in inhumane conditions, either. So I’m not 100% consistent; at least I am trying to practice what I preach.

I’m really not going anywhere profound with this. I have no great final comment that sums up everything with wit and insight. I’m just hoping some of my friends realize that to those of us who don’t eat farm animals, you seem, well, inconsistent. Discriminating against animals based on whether you eat them or not doesn’t seem right to me.

Editorial cartoon of the day: Patriotic treason

January 25, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Masking Treason as Patriotism

Last Monday, a gun-owning friend of mine posted a bunch of internet memes on his Facebook page, culminating with “There are two types of people: gun owners and victims.” Someone please remind me what last Monday’s holiday was for — was it gun owner James Earl Ray or victim Martin Luther King, Jr.? I forget.

There are lots of things our government does that I disagree with. Throughout our history, our government has taken away rights of individuals, and we have been able to make great progress without actually taking up arms against the government.

For instance, the civil rights movement led by King helped to convince Americans that the law had to be changed, and they accomplished this with non-violent protests. Other advances were made through our political system (by electing politicians who promoted change) or through our legal system (with lawsuits to force the government to extend rights). In a truly democratic form of government, this is how you progress.

But some gun owners believe that if you don’t get your way in America, it is perfectly fine to advocate violence. They read the 2nd amendment in a way no court has done, and in a way counter to the majority of Americans, but insist, like religious fundamentalists, that they and they alone know exactly what the Constitution means. “We must obey the Constitution!” they scream. “We are true patriots, obeying the will of the Founders! And we will use violence against the government if you try to stop us!”

Yes, because the Constitution must be obeyed. Oh, except that part about treason. That doesn’t count.

(EDIT: It is pure coincidence that as I am writing this, I hear on the news that there is another shooter killing people in a Mall. I could have re-rerun my “Gun Control Shuffle” post, but I’m getting tired of having to run that every few weeks.)