Spring Bunny

Yeah, 5 years and NOW someone's crying...

What people need to understand is the words connotate *christian* beliefs...of which not all Americans share. To me it's not PC, it's establishing a new mindset of what our country is. All the time christians use justification for trying to push yet MORE religious doctrine through our legislature (gays can't marry?) with well, we ARE a christian nation. Guess what, we're not, and there's one way to make sure you start thinking of us as a nation of PEOPLE and not a nation of CHRISTIANS...remove the christian parts of anything governmently backed.

If it REALLY doesn't matter if it's an Easter bunny or a Spring bunny because it no longer is treated religiously by the public, then why does it matter if they change the name? I'm not offended by the word Easter, but I AM offended that the christians think it's ok to promote Easter publicly and scream at anyone, ANYONE, else that has the gall to try to have their faith in public, let alone practice it there. http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/mass4.htm And while some of the things done may have been a bit off...I believe these statements are VERY telling:

Rev. Paula P. Durrant of the Congregational Christian Church of Somerset declared that it is "a sign of sad times" when opinions of religious leaders are not promptly acknowledged by politicians.

According to the Herald News, signatories of the letter warned: "In our region there are a variety of groups, witches, Devil Worshippers and representatives of many other religious beliefs. We fear that the creche and the menorah would be compromised even more should other groups seek to have their symbols included."

If your religious beliefs are compromised over something like that, then hey, your faith must be on pretty shaky fuckin' ground.

WWJD

I can say what Jesus wouldn't do: deny anyone medical care due to someone's appearance. But this good doctor decides he has some kind of right to judge others and to hide behind Jesus' robes when he does it. Dr. Gary Merrill, not so Christian to deny treatment to anyone, let alone a child. I suppose one can refuse to treat gays because "AIDS is God's punishment". Or maybe refuse to treat blacks, how about we refuse to treat old people, I mean shit, their old, they won't live too much longer anyway.

The "good" doctor has set his standards for treatment, and he decides if you are "worthy" of his precious time.

Let me say something here: If you cannot reconcile your religion and your job, get a new job. One would think being a doctor would be the ultimate way of practicing Christianity, I mean, you get to HELP people, save lives. Apparently at least ONE idiot has found a way they can't work together. It's really easy, if your job puts you in a position to do things you don't agree with, GET A NEW JOB! Mr. Merrill, and yes, I leave off Dr. on purpose because you are not a real doctor since you can't seem to follow basic human decency, Mr Merrill who made you God? What a stunning example of Christianity! Using your religion to judge others and deny them their basic human dignity!

Yeah, makes me want to go out and make a new Christian friend! Jesus was known for treating the undesirables...one would think that if AMA didn't hold him to that standard, Jesus would.

However, let me point something out. He IS hiding behind Jesus' robes...He has up in his office "Standards of Dress" apply. I don't recall Jesus having a dress code...perhaps I'm wrong. It's been a lot of years since I read the bible, but I'm pretty certain he didn't. What this sounds like is a class issue. You're obviously poor and I don't want my rich patients to be forced to look at you.

Regardless of which, you're a sorry ass human being...and like most other Christians who like the limelight, you're a sorry ass Christian.

Please, tell the good doctor what you think...maybe a few hundred Christians can convince him that Jesus wasn't a dickhead.


Christian Medical Services 2920 F St # C6, Bakersfield, CA(661) 324-8990

Burbia.com

Ok, let's back this train right on up and do a little exploration. So I find this site and go to get a few laughs and end up in this twilight zone of "family values". If you go to the rants section you find 3 different rants entitled: Swinging in the Burbs--II, Swingin in the Burbs, and Sleeping with our next door neighbor.

Now, you ought to know by now, it's none of my business and I could give a shit what YOU do. However, it DOES bring up a question. Let me show you some quotes here:

I thought I knew our town. It's outside NYC, and it's about the last place in the universe you'd expect this. Daughters of the Revolution, Woman's League. Yes.

My town is totally totally conservative. That's the thing. You'd never think of stuff like this going on. I was stunned at first. But maybe it's these towns that need it most.

some were on the pta! 1 was an asst principal.

i'm screwing my husband's best friend and he doesn't have a clue. if he's going to ignore me, then i'll find what i need elsewhere. hah!

i'm having a fling with a contractor on our street.

definitely screw your husband's friend. no question. how piggish can he be?

And we're worried about gays destroying the "sanctity of marriage"? You're fuckin' with me right? Now, hold on, the reason I bring this up is let's paint us a picture of the Suburbia, Daughters of the Revolution, PTA, etc.

We're talking about people who are usually Christian, white, of course straight (or in denial), y'know who I"m talking about, those screaming about SANCTITY of MARRIAGE. Read that shit again and tell me GAYS will ruin the "sanctity" of marriage. What fuckin' sanctity? Marriage is a joke to the biggest portion of Hollywood, divorce rates are insane, and apparently we have so much fuckin' going on in Suburbia with people outside the marriage that I'm not sure how anyone keeps track who they are married to.

Now, if you want to swing or cheat, your business. Just don't ask me to do it. I'm definitely NOT putting down someone for the sex they have (though if you're a cheater I will stay away from you because noone likes a liar). However, I do wonder how much the sanctitiy of marriage group overlaps the PTA, DotR, suburbia group. And you know they do at least a little, it's the law of averages. Yeah, I know, it should be obvious what a joke marriage is now due to politicans fuckin' around while they try to pass through an amendment saying gays can't marry. But hey, let's say you support that marriage amendment...why don't you rethink your position here? If you look at our media, our politicians, the anonymous rantings of bored suburbians...does your marriage feel like a joke? Mine doesn't. And little newsflash for you: Gays won't make it any less or more a joke than Britney Spears getting married for 2 days for fun.

Anyone who opposes gay marriage (and no, a civil union is not the SAME thing. Otherwise you're wasting our time trying to make a new name for the MARRIAGE of gay people you fuckin' idiot), is a hypocritical bastard. Because until you make divorce and sex outside of marriage (consensual or not) a federal crime, you have NO right whatsoever to deny gays the right to MARRIAGE based on this mythical "sanctity of marriage" bullshit.

Verra verra interesting....

Posted on Wed, Jan. 15, 2003
NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Groups
question tobacco banMeasure would make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or use
productAssociated Press
BISMARCK - Health groups that discourage smoking
lined up Tuesday to fight legislation what would make North Dakota the first
state to outlaw tobacco, a stand that left some lawmakers perplexed.
The measure, introduced by Rep. Michael Grosz, R-Grand Forks, would make it a
misdemeanor crime to sell or use tobacco. Sellers would face up to a year in
jail and a $2,000 fine, while casual smokers or smokeless tobacco users
could go to jail for 30 days and be fined $1,000.
"The education approach is obviously not working in North Dakota," he said. "Should we not prohibit the sale and use of tobacco just because it may be difficult to enforce, and let nearly 1,000 North Dakotans die every year?"
Bruce Levi, director of the North Dakota Medical Association, called the measure "novel," but said it "introduces an approach to tobacco control that has not been proven effective or even implemented in any other state."
"Our goal is to prevent and reduce tobacco use. There is scientific evidence to support the programs that are beginning to move forward in North Dakota," Levi said.
"Prohibition has not been shown to prevent tobacco use."

Aww..I've been looking all over for this darn link. So tell me, tell me true, why if prohibition has not been shown to prevent tobacco use, why o why are they going crazy to prohibit it in restaurants/hotels/etc? If it doesn't work, then you're just being an asshole. And who says that it has to be proven in another state before ND could do it? Seems a catch 22 here. But here's the million dollar question: Why is it the anti-tobacco organizations the ones that cried the loudest AGAINST it?

At a hearing where the House Finance and Taxation Committee voted 9 to 4 in
favor of tobacco prohibition, a line up of anti-tobacco special interest groups
denounced the bill in no uncertain terms. Given the chance to support
their goal of a smoke-free society The American Lung Association, American Heart
Association, North Dakota Medical Association and North Dakota Public Health
Association all spoke out against the ban on Tuesday, much to the dismay of some
lawmakers on the committee.
Even in written form their panic was palatable. How can this be? To oppose this bill is the only proof anyone needs that all the talk about health and reducing death rates is a complete lie. The anti-smokers are frantic that the cash flow they receive
from cigarettes may come to an end. Their greed can their only motive
since, if what they have been preaching for years is true, allowing cigarettes
to be legal means that those who permit it have blood on their hands.

Perhaps it's because they would have to find new jobs? Yeah, this happened back
in 2003..it was never passed, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to push it under
a bridge. If you are against smoking you need to ask yourself a few questions.
One of the excuses given by the anti groups is it would drive smoking
underground. Wow, with that kind of logic why even have drug laws? Or rape laws?
Or murder laws? I mean, you're just "driving it underground". What interest would these groups have in pushing how "deadly" a product is, but keeping it legal, all the while imposing more and more taxes, prohibitions, etc on the user? If smoking is really killing so many and this is a matter of public health, what do they have against making the manufacture, sale, and use of it illegal?

It's really funny how disgusting, evil, distasteful, sickening, etc smokers are until you have their money in your pocket.

http://www.tobacco.org/news/114664.html

Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with
the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban .
. .

You should wonder if the anti-tobacco groups have your best interests at heart, or their wallets...

What does the writer owe the reader?

Ok, this post might just bite me in the ass...but hey, if she sees it then well, maybe she can understand my point of view...don't take it personally, I'm sure you'rea very nice person, but at this moment, I really really fuckin' hate you.

Background here: I read....boy do I read...ALOT. You have no idea...I have over 2000 books NOT boxed up...at least another 500 in boxes until I get more room for shelves. I read *everything* except romance novels. Comprehend how much I love to read...I OWN my own library. I even have textbooks that I didn't get in college. My biggest wet dream consists of a bookstore that has every book *ever* written and an unlimited budget. My second biggest consists of a library the size of the Sistine Chapel AT LEAST. My own private library, not a public one. If I was given a choice between not ever reading again and stopping breathing, I'd stop breathing. Are you getting this?

If I get pissed at a writer then well, you did good man. I must have really got into your novel, way to go. If I want to burn your house to the ground and do impossible things involving shoving your computer/typewriter in interesting places...you fucked up. I'm a very loyal reader...if I find a superb author, I tell everyone about their books, and will buy a book from them without fail. You would think I'd stop doing that considering they will let you down so quickly. Let me list the things you owe a reader, and you DO owe them something.

1. Give them what you promised. If you have promised a 3 book series, then give it to them. You don't leave them hanging in book 2 and then tell them they have to wait 10 years for book 3....maybe, that's if you get to it at all. How would you like someone to worm their way into your emotions and then step back and go "Ok, we're stopping now, for no reason at all. It's been fun! Later" Imagine being left on the cusp of orgasm and then him jumping up, throwing his clothes on and saying "Hey, I'm done...I gotta go". It's one thing to write 8 books independant of one another and make ONE sucky one. Fucking up a series? You're a dickhead. (This is actually in reference to a different writer, but it is owed).

2. You cannot kill off the main character at least 2 books early. The main character is there for a reason. And you have told us that we will be following this character's life. To end it early, and then write more books is bullshit. JUST because the new character is in the old characters body DOES NOT mean we're following that character. If you brain-damaged the main character and gave her an alternate personality that doesn't integrate with the main one, the main one is dead and you're writing a whole new series. Please don't do that. We go into a book expecting Jane, and now we have this whole new personality called Dorothy. Tell us this, so we either go into the book expecting something new, or start a new series. Instead we feel robbed because we bought a book about Jane, and instead got a book about Dorothy. It's false advertising and it's a shitty thing to do. I'm sorry, but a true reader understands that all books carry an emotional investment. How do you expect people to react when you play with their emotions? You didn't just bottle up Cheer in a Tide bottle...you bottled up a person I don't know and does not have the depth of the original into the original's body/story, an original character I love/respect/admire/masterbate to, what-the-fuck-ever.Not fucking cool. To me it says "I'm just trying to sell books". Because everyone will pay for a story about Jane, you fuck them over by sticking in Dorothy and putting Jane's cover on. And if Dorothy sucks (as she does in this case), you're a bigger asshole.

People say if you don't like what the writer does, don't buy the books anymore. Yeah, and I won't. But I can still bitch about it. You cannot do a job based on appealing to the emotions of people and then fuck them over. Well you can, but you only have yourself to blame if they feel betrayed. I'm definitely NOT saying the writer has to write what Ilike, but I do think the writer owes the reader what they are promised. ONLY what they are promised. If I want to buy books about Jane and you want to move on to Dorothy, hey, start a new series and advertise in the new series "If you enjoy Dorothy and would like to know where she comes from, read the Jane series". Or title it something obvious (or sub-title) "Story of Dorothy: After Jane". Then we can say "Oh, I didn't like Dorothy, so Iwon't buy these". Which is probably why you didn't do this to start with. Dorothy probably won't sell as well, so we're going to make them think this is Jane and sell some books.

Now, if Dorothy and Jane are going to integrate after I write this post..well, I can't say I'm sorry. Thus far it seems as if you've killed off Jane entirely. ANd for what it's worth, Jane's husband is a sorry motherfucker who didn't even mourn his damn loss. And I used to LIKE him. Look, a writer is only as good as his last book. In your case your last 2. You built a fanbase that even after the first "bad" book, stuck around having faith that you were setting us up for something good. And what assholes would we be to complain while you give the character one book to grow into something a bit more? But hey, the second book is supposed to return and see the original character grow, not morph into some idiot.

So let me make this position of mine clear: If Stephen King wants to move onto Danielle Steele type books, that's his business. The reader has NO right to demand he keep writing horror. We can be disappointed all we want, but we better get over it. He does not owe us a damn thing in that regard. But if he moves into Danielle Steele type shit and packages it like Cujo...he's a dick and has betrayed his fanbase. He also cannot say he's writing about Lassie and package it like Cujo. That is LYING. I spent money to read about Cujo, I got fuckin' Lassie...ain't that some fucked up shit? You ripped me off. No, don't buy your fucking book back, but damn, at least apologize!

For what's worth, I won't buy another book without reading it first, IF I can bring myself to read it. And I will no longer be suggesting your books as THE thing to read. I don't want you ripping off my friends. And I hope Jane's husband dies a horrible, torturous death and Jane dances on the ceiling, the fickle son of a bitch. Her enemies were more true to her than he was...