02.08.10
Dear God it’s What Rachel Thinks!
So a Reverend wrote in to the Providence Journal decrying a freedom from religion as totalitarian (chillingly so!)
I wrote back, in another edition of Dear God it’s What Rachel Thinks
Reverend:
blah … blah blah blah. There is no freedom from religion.
DGIWRT:
With all due respect to the Rev. Roman R Manchester, his interpretation of the First Amendment is incorrect. There is, in fact, a freedom from religion. As the Rev. aptly quoted, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This does mean that “Congress cannot regulate religious establishments,” but also that it can make no law that regulates the rights or lives of others based on religion. If the government “Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it cannot establish a law that affects me based on religion, such as allowing school prayer, preventing access to birth control, and prohibiting gay marriage.
You might respond that not having school prayer, distributing birth control, and legalizing gay marriage infringes on your right regarding “…The free exercise thereof (religion),” because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. But this right is a personal right, a passive right. It is the right for you to believe and express your religion on your own time in your own home or chosen place of worship. It is not, nor has it ever been, the right to enforce those beliefs on others or society as a whole. What other people do does not limit your ability to personally exercise your religion. Freedom of religion can only stand when Freedom from religion stands with it.
Sorry, just not my bag. I’d rather watch The L Word
***Don’t forget to check out www.eclecticart.wordpress.com and www.delinquentdesigns.wordpress.com***
DO IT!
01.26.10
“Teaching” Homosexuality when we are Young
Wowza! It’s been a while since my last post. I guess it’s because I’ve been frolicking on tropical islands. Sorry kids.
But here’s another Dear God it’s what Rachel Thinks!!!
I’ve been thinking about the idea of introducing the concept of homosexuality to kids, especially very young kids. Many argue that they are not ready to hear about homosexuality.
But there’s an important distinction that needs to be made, and that is between introducing the idea of homosexuality, and the idea of homosexual sex
The reality is that kids learn about about heterosexuality from day one. Mom and Dad. Adam and Sarah next door. They learn about the concept of men and women being partners, and they do so, until probably age 6 or so, without learning about heterosexual sex. So when they do learn about sex, it comes with a background of a lifetime of seeing societally-sanctioned relationships. The sex is coupled with the partnership.
Then kids learn about homosexuality. But what’s the first thing they learn? They don’t learn that Adam and Rob are partners, they learn that Adam and Rob as people who have sex. Think back to the first time you heard about homosexuality. Was it about a 20 year relationship, or was it about fucking?
Homosexuals are introduced to children not as people who are partners, but as people who have sex with each other. When it’s only about sex, and not about partnership and love, it can be contorted to be a sin, immoral, depraved, and wrong with much greater ease. After all, the bible only condemns homosexual sex (or it is argued that it does), not going out for coffee with some hot girl you like. And the concept is also contrary to what kids have grown up learning. New things are scary.
Now what if we did this.
What if instead of showing our kids how men and women can be partners, and later reveal that they have sex, we show them that men and women can be partners, men and men can be partners, and women and women can be partners, and later, when kids are ready to learn about any kind of sex, we reveal it across the board.
That way, when people first get their impressions of homosexuality, it’s not of some depraved sex act. It’s of a healthy partnership, just like the one they learned about seeing Mom and Dad. Then when sex gets introduced, homosexuals will perhaps not be seen solely as sexually deviants, but as just normal people, who, well, happen to have sex.
Grandma, is that moral deviance I see?
01.01.10
My Version of “Pro Life:” Get one.
For all of those concerned about the new healthcare bill supporting publicly, taxpayer funded abortions, I want you to ask yourself the following three questions:
1. How many abortions are actually performed each year and what is the actual total cost
2. How many of these abortions are actually paid for by the government, via medicaid / public option (I doubt there are many for the elderly on medicare)?
3. What is the actual total cost of these abortions to the government?
4. What percent of the entire cost of the Medicaid / Public option system is taken by abortions?
5. What percent of your tax dollars are actually even dispersed to Medicaid / a Public option, in a sea of pentagon, stimulus, education, and other spending.
6. So now tell me, after you’ve done some non-biblical reflection for a change, how much of your tax contribution is actually funding abortion, keeping in mind that healthcare is a fraction of the federal budget, that abortions are a fraction of the healthcare expenditures, and that publicly funded abortions are a fraction of that cost. So that would be 1 cent? 2?
Your fight is purely symbolic. Please do shut up.
How can you be pro-life if you really don’t have one? Dude. Come on.
12.21.09
Ochodouche
You were not born with teeth like that
12.01.09
Another cotton masterpiece for your enjoyment
This could be the best yet. I stole the idea from the University of Hawai’i LGBT club but I think I made a way better rendering. And it works for everyone!
p.s., defpunk, i tried zazzle but didn’t like it; you can only put images on the top half of the shirt!
ooh and I liked it!
Pissed Off!
I found a video of the Adam Lambert performance, and I’m pissed off! Not because of what Adam did, but because of the reaction, and the rehearsal.
The “oral sex” thing lasted 2 seconds. The kiss lasted 2 seconds. Neither were in clear view. What was in clear view was a ton of female dancers doing rehearsed, very sexual moves, like crawling across stage via opening and closing their legs. Now, I don’t care about this. Obvi. But I do care that this is an acceptable standard whereas Adam’s admittedly outlandish antics are not. And that he may have just ruined his pop career.
11.30.09
And That my Friends…
Adam Lambert kissed a male band member at the recent American Music Awards. I tried to track down a video, but they’ve all been taken off the web due to copyright issues. But that hasn’t stopped the controversy.
Many news and family groups are up in arms. But they are also up in amnesia. Just a few years ago, Brittney kissed Madonna at the AMA, and people loved it. Why? It was just as gay, just as “deviant” and sensational. But it was also “hot.” Women kissing women can be capitalized upon as a turn-on for heterosexual male culture, and thus plopped back into our heteronormative way of life. And that my friends, is called hypocrisy. A gay couple can get your rocks off, but they can’t just be themselves. You gonna eat that hashbrown?
Can I just put in a shout out for the ridiculousness of calling kissing obscenity, gender aside?
11.27.09
Check it out!
Sorry for my long absence. I know it’s hard to go without me for this long. Or at all. My wit and cunning and sexy debonair makes your life worth living, i know. What you are experiencing is perfectly normal. It’s called RWS. Rachel Withdrawl Syndrome — and it’s okay. There’s help.
In the meantime, while I’ve been uncerimoniously not entertaining you, I set up a blog for my artwork / art career! www.eclecticart.wordpress.com. GO OR I WILL LEAVE YOU AGAIN.
11.13.09
Please Sir, Can I have Some More? “Rationing” Health Care
I just read an article at www.americanthinker.com about “rationed” health care. Bollocks.
Here’s the link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/call_it_what_it_is_rationed_he.html
Since this issue is one I take very seriously, I will spend most of the following dispelling American Thinker’s cute little quips than introducing my own. And I do so because this is what is wrong with the health care debate: no one really knows what the new health care plan is or what any of its components mean (I don’t even!). So instead of really partaking in intelligent discourse, we indulge in propaganda, scare tactics, out-of-context information, and flat out misconstructions of the truth intended to lead you in one direction while blinding you to the other half of the fork in the road. As such, this article and I are going to have a debate in another edition of Dear God it’s what Rachel Thinks
Article:
“Any or all of these will lead to a government takeover of the health care industry.”
DGIWRT:
Health care should not be an industry. No one should be profiting off of someone’s poor health, and decisions certainly should not be made with profit in mind.
Article:
“Should your grandmother get a hip replacement? Go down the hall to the queue outside Office 37-B and fill out more forms. We’ll let you know in a few months. Hey, you with the brain tumor. Get back in line.”
DGIWRT:
Speaking as someone with a brain tumor, I can’t tell you how many doctors I had to see, referrals I had to beg for, insurance forms I had to fill out, monstrous copays I had to pay, and overall shitty treatment I received even on double coverage from the health care industry. Or maybe I can tell you. Oh wait, I don’t have a year of your time.
Furthermore, people who can’t afford insurance don’t even get to be in line
Article:
“A centralized system would give the government the power of life and death over America’s families”
DGIWRT:
How is government having the power over life and death any worse than an HMO having this power? The government is no more impersonal, the government is no more profit-seeking, the government is no more frugal, the government is no more misinformed.
Article:
“Such a system also reinforces the idea that government is God.”
DGIWRT:
You’re a paranoid propaganda peddling fuck
Article:
“Often treatment is not withheld altogether, but it is delayed, sometimes with the result that the patient’s condition worsens. … About 50 per cent had to wait over a month and 20 per cent more than three months. Over one in three of those waiting said that their condition had got worse while they were waiting and 14 per cent claimed to be ‘in a lot of pain.’”
DGIWRT:
I waited 9 months for a shoulder surgery. 9 months. You need to look at the present facts before peddling future fears
Article:
“Randy Stroup, 53, a cancer patient, applied for aid under Oregon’s state health plan in 2008. He got a letter denying payments for chemotherapy, but offering money to help him kill himself.”
DGIWRT:
This statement is strikingly misleading. First, the Oregon Health Plan was introduced in the 1990’s, at which point it was far more comprehensive than it is today (or in 2008) due to cutbacks because we would rather give subsidies to Portland General Electric than pay for chemotherapy. What this article doesn’t tell you is that the OHP expanded healthcare for thousands of Oregonians who were in a terrible limbo between not qualifying for medicare and not affording their own insurance. Furthermore, this man had less than a 5 percent chance of significant recovery. This was not a man that was denied arbitrarily. Yes, it would be wonderful if the state could pay for his chemotherapy. And since you agree, I’m sure you’d also agree to taking a small bite out of pentagon funding to do so.
Also, the fact that they would offer assisted-suicide is pretty irrelevant
And ten bucks says he petitioned the government because his private insurance wouldn’t cover his chemotherapy either. Or he didn’t have any to begin with.
Gimme more gimme more…gimme gimme more
