November 30, 2009

And That my Friends…

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 8:01 pm by justinadayswork

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?


November 13, 2009

Please Sir, Can I have Some More? “Rationing” Health Care

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 6:46 am by justinadayswork

I just read an article at about “rationed” health care. Bollocks.

Here’s the link:

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


“Any or all of these will lead to a government takeover of the health care industry.”


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.

“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.”


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


“A centralized system would give the government the power of life and death over America’s families”


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.


“Such a system also reinforces the idea that government is God.”


You’re a paranoid propaganda peddling fuck


“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.'”


I waited 9 months for a shoulder surgery. 9 months. You need to look at the present facts before peddling future fears


“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.”


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

October 9, 2009

The real annoyance here

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , at 6:14 pm by justinadayswork

So people are annoyed with Obama getting awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I do have to agree. We usually don’t give it to people who have almost done cool stuff. This is not horseshoes.

But you know what really bothers me? All of the plays-on-words about Obama. Go-bama! Pro-bama! Dude shut up. His name starts with an “O.” We get it. But rather than fight the stream, I have decided to role with it. These are a few products that should be introduced into the market

Gro-Bama Chia Pet

Flo-Bama Tampons

Sno-Bama Sno Globes


Jacki-O-bama fashion wear

O-Bama O-J

The Big O Bama Vibrator

chia pet

The only way to be a real American: own your Chia Obama today!

September 28, 2009

Judicial Activism and Santa Claus

Posted in Comic Editorial tagged , , , , , , , , at 1:54 pm by justinadayswork

Judicial Activism doesn’t exist. It’s like Santa Claus, or women who aren’t crazy.

Judicial Activism is simply a term thrown around by the right when a court does something it doesn’t like. The premise is this: Judges are deciding what can and can’t be done, thereby “creating law” and being activists. First, activists don’t create law. They wear maroon on the Main Green for Burma. Second, these judges are not creating laws, they are interpreting existing laws based on the constitution, and that will in fact result in mandates about what people can and can’t do. It’s pretty simple.

Here is how our court system works. A plaintiff has a complaint with a law or practice based on some constitutional principle. The Judges hear the complaint, and decide whether it is valid, or whether another constitutional principle applies. THAT’S IT. That, kids, is how you be a Judge.

But somewhere along the line, people, regardless of political persuasion, got the idea that Judges shouldn’t be Judges. As mentioned, the job of a Judge is to determine the constitutionality of law. So when the effect of a law is altered because that law is unconstitutional, a Judge has just done his or her job — even if it overturns the will of the people (see, you don’t matter).


You go girl

September 27, 2009

Don’t ask Don’t Die

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , at 2:11 am by justinadayswork

Personally, I don’t understand why anyone would want to be in the army. Yes! I get to increase my chance of death! No…not really working for me. But for those who want to fight for their country, lose their big toe for their country, and get shiny stars for their country, I must say I respect your conviction and present the following “Oh God it’s what Rachel Thinks.”

The following article was posted on the Concerned Women for America’s Website, one of the largest and most prominent “pro family pro Christian” groups frolicking with Christ and his rainbows and ponies today. I would of course prefer to call them Christian Workers Forcing Acculturation, but it just doesn’t make for a very strong argument. Oh, what the hey.

This article is interesting. It is interesting because I actually agree with the main point on which it is predicated. I of course vehemently disagree with the extrapolations and conclusions that are made in response to this predicate. But it’s interesting to note that, well, they have a point.

And their point is this: military service is not a right. And, in my mind, they are correct. Military service is a privilege, because it requires a certain set of physical and mental characteristics to be a successful and productive soldier. My narco ass wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an armored tank mission, because my body does not possess the characteristics to keep my fellow soldiers and myself safe.

But here’s the rub. I have a disability — there’s something wrong. There’s something that concretely and undeniably would jeopardize my performance under fire. This article treats homosexuality in the same way — as a disability. To put it plainly, it is just not.

Homosexuals, bisexuals, and other Queer Identifying persons can possess the same physical and mental capabilities as heterosexuals. How straight do you need to be to pull a trigger? So any argument that they intrinsically cannot do the job is an ignorant misconception.

But more important is the analysis of the impact of homosexuals on the military as a whole; on morale, cohesion, and discipline. Few proponents of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell are on the streets saying gay people aren’t physically up for the job. Their concern lies with the presence of homosexual people disrupting the unit of the military itself.

This article uses four arguments to dispel any opposition towards DADT.

First, it assumes that fewer people would enlist, with no evidence to that matter. It does not mention the skilled homosexual soldiers that would be able to enlist. It also cites a study from 1993 saying that a large percentage of enlisted men and women would not re-enlist with the presence of gays. This study is from 16 years ago. People thought New Kids on the Block were cool 16 years ago. Times have changed.

The article asserts that “[T]his would be tantamount to ordering military women to live in close quarters with men.” It would force persons to accept exposure to other persons who were sexually attracted to them.” This is one of the biggest misconceptions concerning gay people. Not all gay men are attracted to all men. Not all gay women are attracted to all women. And furthermore, even if attracted, they would have to actually be some kind of sexual threat to pose any kind of danger or problem for their fellow soldiers. So in other words, the heart of this issue is the fear that a gay service member may be attracted to a fellow soldier. And that, my friends, is called homophobia. And to deny a right, or privilege, to an individual based on homophobia is called discrimination. Discriminationin this sense is unconstitutional. It denies equal protection under the law.

But then the article makes yet another point that I agree with — civilian life and military life are not the same, and perhaps the military should be given some level of autonomy in deciding the way in which it operates. However, ultimately, the sovereignty of government institutions — organizations, states, even the military — stops when conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. When an argument is predicated on discrimination, it denies an individual their rights. Now I’m not talking about a right to be in the military. As I already mentioned, there is no such inalienable right. I’m talking about their right to be treated like everyone else, because Jefferson said it best: “All Men are Created Equal”


Look! It’s my homeboys! Oh wait they are obviously not queer. My bad.