April 10, 2010
A Rose by any Other Name…Would not be as Hilarious
Teabagging.
Noun: The act of sticking it to the man about exorbitant taxes by emulating the Boston Tea Party
Teabagging
Verb: SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT
You really gotta ask yourself, did the family and conservative groups that started the “Teabagging” movement realize what they were referencing? Maybe next they’ll start a rusty trombone section in the high school band.
Wouldn’t that be entertaining.
You know this was what was really going down at the Boston Tea Party
April 9, 2010
A few things to check out:
Here are a few things to check out on Youtube:
1. The Bible Tells me so (not just the animated version — be a big boy/girl, watch the whole thing!)
2. The gay moralist
3. Boogie Boogie Hedgehog
You will be enlightened
Eatin on a Carrot, Got your head stuck in a toilet paper tube
Boogie Boogie Hedgehog, WHATCHA GONNA DO?
February 8, 2010
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 http://www.eclecticart.wordpress.com and http://www.delinquentdesigns.wordpress.com***
DO IT!
January 26, 2010
“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?
January 1, 2010
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.
December 21, 2009
Ochodouche
You were not born with teeth like that
December 1, 2009
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.
Just In a Day' s Work 