The Good Doctor Paul

I just wanted to say a few words on presidential candidate Ron Paul. In the future, that will be the answer to your question, "why did you write this blog entry?" (That was a reference to a confused tense.)

Young and old people alike today are jumping the Fed's Love Boat and signing onto the Ron Paul fan club. Ron Paul is a very outspoken candidate who has been in the running since 2007. Where Ralph Nader was once the fallback guy when neither primary candidate was particularly appealing, Paul has stepped in to take his place. Except he's becoming a lot more than the fallback guy thanks to the current administration losing rapt and drooling liberal attention. When was the last time you heard so many college-age people singing the name of a Republican?

Ron Paul has a lot of great things going for him, most notably his distaste for big government. The Fed, he says (and I generously paraphrase), has taken too much power away from the states by delegating issues without consulting Constitutional doctrine. The Fed is printing bills without having the resources to back up the dollar, which bankrupts the country when they continue to spend money we do not have. This is not an issue specific to any one president or party, and Ron Paul is right to say it needs to stop.

While I am fuzzy on Dr. Paul's policies behind reducing the reach of the Fed and that private bank they use to rob us, I know his ideology is solid. He has a great rapport as a member of Congress and he rarely panders to political jargon. He says what he thinks is right and promises to make his dream a reality without relying on the mirage of tax dollars to fund a campaign of lies.

Also good news: Ron Paul is passed over by the media 75% of the time, which means he isn't sharing pockets with anyone who might lead him astray.

"Wants to reshape the government you say? Knows how our economy should work you say? Doesn't appear to accept bribes, hm? Well then, what's the problem?"

Ah, you know me too well already. I follow a certain foul-mouthed fatty on YouTube, and while he has abandoned tact in favor of expressing his honest opinion, I agree with him more often than I rage quit on his videos. As usual, he brought to light a few unpleasant truths, this time about Ron Paul. Most especially (and appropriately, considering his channel name), he cited instances in which Ron Paul has said he is pro-choice and even believes that America and its Constitution were built on the foundations of Christianity. You can see the video and the links on his channel, linked above.

First, let's talk about abortion. (If you've read a few of my older entries, I'm going to start sounding like a broken record.) Pro-lifers believe that even a fetus is a human being who has rights and the potential to do something good for the world. I would argue, and in fact I will now, that protecting currently unrealized potential is absurd when you simply look around and see all of the suffering youths around the world being subjected to less than ideal situations, often because they are born into poverty. Why do poor people have kids? Because, likely, sex is part of a limited reality for them, wherein contraception is either not affordable or goes ignored. When the blind lead the blind, it's no wonder the poverty level in first-world nations is increasing every day. So instead of allowing irresponsible people to undo their mistakes, pro-lifers think it's for their own good to force them to raise another irresponsible person. The cycle continues.

Christian pro-lifers like to say things like, "God created that baby for a reason." If God had a plan in mind for a person, do you really think that person getting aborted would stop the plan from happening? Wouldn't God see the abortion ahead of time? Maybe his plan was just to let the girl get pregnant so that she could really evaluate whether or not she was ready for motherhood so that when she finally decided, some many years later, that she was ready, she could create a good, strong family? How do you even know that fetus has a soul yet? Hint: faith is not the correct answer.*

I would also point out that labeling abortion as murder should be considered hypocrisy for anyone who eats the flesh of any creature. If a seemingly unthinking entity that is no more than a parasite until it is born has the same rights as a fully grown person, then why doesn't my neighbor's seemingly unthinking terrier enjoy the same rights? If my neighbor's dog attacks someone for whatever reason, even if he's threatened, you can bet he'll be put down without a trial. And that's after several dog years' worth of life and love for my neighbor. But if my neighbor were to be raped and impregnated by some unscrupulous asshole, she may be charged with murder if she chooses to remove from her body what can't even be considered a child yet. Why is it that carnivorous pro-lifers are fine with trillions of livestock creatures living without even the smallest hint of freedom from the day they are born to the day they are slaughtered, while screaming for the blood of any woman who would rather not allow an unwanted non-person to feed off of her for nine months?

*Regardless of what you believe, you can never know. Forcing what you believe on others is unconstitutional.

Oh, but wait. Ron Paul, a man known for charging his fellow candidates to read the Constitution, seems to think that America is a Christian nation. So I guess as long as you're a Christian in America you're free to force on whomever whatever bullshit you decide to cherry-pick from the Bible...?

In the sort of way that makes me want to jam my face into a wood chipper, I find it funny that Ron Paul is so decidedly ignorant of the United States Constitution. Take a look, won't you?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
-Ron Paul, MD 

While I agree that the abolition of religious celebration from the public eye (even Christmas, even though it's more pagan than Christian) is not what the founding fathers had in mind, I find it completely asinine that he would suggest they intended for the Christian church to be any part of our governing bodies. I've found an invaluable resource that compiles quotations from our founding fathers and excerpts from some of their most important documentation, including the Constitution, that would support my accusations of Dr. Paul's selective ignorance. I would quote my own favorites, but you might as well just skim the page from that link, since every word contradicts what Ron Paul has said about separation of church and state.

Many might wonder what either of these things have to do with electing a decent president for the first time in fuck-all. I would pose a question to those many wondering. How would you feel if you were fined or arrested for a.) having or performing an abortion; or b.) exhibiting your non-Christian beliefs in public?

I am not attempting to assert that if Ron Paul is elected this will happen. I am merely cautioning that it is a possibility, even for a man who protests excessive power in the hands of a democratic government. It says in the Bill of Rights that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Although Dr. Paul has insisted that it's not the government's job to create laws about abortion, he seems pretty sure of himself when he says that abortion is murder. One can never fully expect any politician to keep his word, so what if some day he decides that it is the government's job to step in on the abortion issue and make it illegal? What if, some day, he takes his false understanding of the founding fathers' rather varied Christian tendencies and decides that his church should be valued above all others?

I like Ron Paul, I really do. I like that he can speak so plainly and passionately about what our country has become. I like that for once someone can safely suggest that the free market and corporations are fine without Big Brother thankyouverymuch. I really like that when someone calls him out on his beliefs, he will answer the question truthfully and in line with his political leanings. However, I do not appreciate his uninformed arrogance, and it makes me fearful that if he is ever in office, things could take an unfortunate turn.

Oh, and by the way...the word "god" does not appear once in the Constitution. It appears only once in the Declaration of Independence at the very beginning. I wouldn't label that as "replete," Congressman Paul. winkieface.jpg

The Spark of Creation

There are a few things in life that make me smile, and surprisingly one of those things is the Disney entity. I am fully aware that any mega-corporation like Disney is likely full of corrupted individuals and cast members with broken dreams. And yet, for visitors to the parks, for children who grow up on the movies and cartoons, and for anyone willing to fork over their life's savings for a week spent in the "happiest place on Earth," there is an incredible allure about the entire experience. My family used to visit Walt Disney World once a year, usually around Christmas time. When the Disney Cruise Line came about, we sailed the Wonder a few times, to my infinite delight. Now every time we manage to return to either WDW, the Disneyland Resort in California, or snag a stateroom on the ever-coveted Disney Cruise, I find myself in a state of bliss that is rarely matched in man-made places.

Of course I grew up watching Disney movies; we even had a small television set in our Astrovan on which we would watch our favorites on long car rides. All of us, even my brother, would sing along to every tune, laughing at each childish joke as if it were the first time we'd heard it.

It's a wonder that I've grown so jaded since those days.

So naturally, even though I still get choked up when a costumed parade of my favorite princesses sings a song about believing in your dreams and waiting for your wish to come true, I still find ways to sneer at the spectacle of the Disney parks.

Allow me to preface by saying that I'm amazed at the caliber of employees, or cast members, that the Disney parks manage to summon. For the most part, they are polite, informative, and well trained. On occasion you will encounter the average teenager who hates his job, regardless of the obvious perk of having very expensive access to one of the most popular locations on the planet, and takes it out on visitors by being rude or simply refusing to wear a smile. For the actual performers, there is a whole different set of standards, and I'm often surprised at some of the people who manage to land their roles. You'd think that there is some unspoken rule about dancers' measurements, but every once in a while I'll see shorter, huskier girls dancing in parades. As for the stage shows...perhaps it is out of envy, but I find myself disappointed rather often by the Belles and the Ariels, etc. I see. Either their voices don't fit or they plain don't sing as well as they should. Of course the appearance is always spot on, thanks to the amazing costuming department.

In the defense of the stage performers, though, they are usually doing the same half-hour show four or so times a day and working with recordings of their fellow characters. Apart from the protagonist, the princess in the story usually, the other performers are puppeteers or dancers in full costume who do not speak, but act along with a recording of the entire show. This means no orchestra, and no stopping to take a breath even if something truly embarrassing happens.

As for costuming itself, I've come to take some issue with a certain new addition to the parks. Princess Tiana, whose story is as inspirational as the rest, has a costume that is likewise as familiar as the other princesses' dresses. Of course I'm referring to the swampy wedding gown from the end of The Princess and the Frog. While brushing up on Disney Dream footage, since the ship has been around quite a bit by now, I ran across a Youtube video of some of the TPatF segments from the live show on board called "Believe." One of the commenters had suggested that the gown was not appropriate for that particular scene, that being the number, "Dig a Little Deeper" (and the rest of the segment I assume, since it's only a 45-minute show). Someone else had responded, saying that it was her signature outfit and the most recognizable appearance for her. Commenter One replied, saying that Tiana had a just-as recognizable outfit from near the beginning that would have fit the formal '20's style of the number without being the out of place ballroom fashion.

Come to think of it, why is Tiana always in her ballgown now? Wouldn't it be more suited to her character to appear in her regular dress from the beginning of the film? To say that the ballgown is the most recognizable costume for her is due entirely to the costuming department of the parks. While every other Disney princess has appeared at length in her ballgown in their respective films, Tiana spent only a few minutes in hers, and it was after viewers had already gotten used to seeing her (and Naveen) as a frog. Of course, to keep the dreamy, sparkly allure of Disney, Tiana has to be in her ballgown when greeting visitors.

I find this rather silly. Belle from Beauty and the Beast appears just as often in her "street" clothes as she does in her ballgown in the parks. She's a tough but feminine Disney princess, which I suppose is why she is granted the dual privileges. So why isn't Tiana, often touted as too busy for romance, given the same respect? Why would she appear at a jazz jamboree in her ballgown when Belle gets to read stories in much more comfortable clothing?

While I love the idea of characters like Belle, Tiana, and especially Mulan - women who have strong personalities and will do whatever it takes to honor their families - I lose some respect for the Disney image when they pull crap like this. Instead of doing what's cool in the spirit of Imagineering, they do what they think people want to see. Any young girl who loves TPatF will recognize Tiana no matter what costume she's in, so why pander to the idiotic notion that your guests are complete morons who know nothing about the thing they came to see? The Disney parks used to be a lot more enjoyable before they were transformed into Neo-Tinkerbell and Nemo land. Pixar has clearly been one of Disney's major successes, because they are milking that cash cow like it's drinking from the fountain of youth. The same can be said of the Pirates series, where thankfully not much has changed in the original attraction.

As for Star Tours...well...I reserve the right to slay someone for all of the horrible CGI they've slapped all over a once classic attraction.

And I only just now realized: this is the second time I've blanted about the Disney parks. This, right after a post about the London riots? Clearly I need a vacation.

Enemy is everywhere!

I spent some time in the dark when it comes to the London riots. I've been trolling Youtube for a bit, because frankly reading the news isn't going to help me understand it any better than seeing raw footage of the events. It shouldn't surprise anyone that I'm appalled by a number of things.

First, it seems no one really knows what started all this. I'm sure it all began with innocent intentions to bring attention to undeniable disparities between the average citizen and Scotland Yard. But as with any conflict that sparks violence in a den of uncivilized low-lifes, it seems the looting was inevitable. Chavs, as they are called, are like America's wigger population: would-be gangsters who speak like children and revel in criminality and aggressive or antagonistic behavior. Just do a Google search for either word and you'll find more than ample evidence to support the comparison.

And so one must wonder if there is population within the chav "community" who do not quite fit the bill. Are there young, at least somewhat educated, likely impoverished people who started a protest that turned into several riots? Or did the chavs themselves start the rioting under the banner of fighting the Man? Either way, I fail to see how attacking the police and setting fire to businesses is a worthwhile solution. Any guise for robbery is clearly misidentified.

And this brings me to my second frustration. In reading the Youtube comments (like I do), I noticed a lot of "you Americans" talk. I find it very interesting that it took a national disaster and some significant oversight on the part of our (American) leaders to effectively rectify the situation for the last round of looting and severe rioting to occur in the USA. All it takes for the young people of London, apparently, is a few protesters standing up to the police. I'm so sick of this anti-American talk that appears all over the Internet. Americans are pretty stupid, but clearly so are Brits. So are Israeli Jews who berate visitors and pilgrims to their nation simply for being American. So are Danish fashionistas who sneer down their noses at tourists who would rather not spend hundreds of dollars on clothes they're just going to sweat through anyway.

Like I've said before, idiots come from all walks of life. Even intelligent people are prone to indoctrination under the right circumstances. I'm more ready to believe that anyone who assumes someone is a stupid American because of a maximum 500-character comment on a (likely unrelated) Youtube video is a member of the idiot variety of person.

I was going to rant about Facebook here, but that seems a little childish. I do that enough on Facebook.

That having been said, be sure to share this with your friends on Facebook.