No Vaccination for Stupidity

Al Cohen

Al Cohen contracted Polio in 1939, at the age of 15. Only 1 out of 200 people who get the disease show severe symptoms, and Al was one. He spent time in the hospital, and in an iron lung. He lost muscle strength, and was unable to move.

Even after recovering, he never fully regained strength in his arms and shoulders. From 1939, until his death in 2006, he couldn’t raise his hands over his head. When World War II broke out, he was unable to enlist in the military, and was instead confined to a department store window, where he read the war news to passersby.

Jonas Salk developed the first truly viable vaccine for Polio in 1952.  Too late for Al to have lived a normal life.

It wasn’t all bad for Al. One could certainly make the argument that were it not for these events, he’d have never met Marilyn Melnikoff, and would have never become the man I knew as “Grandpa”.  He was a warm, funny guy. Brilliant, and ahead of his time, in many ways.  I loved him a great deal, and one of the most memorable things about him was that he never let his physical impairment define him, or really even limit him much of the time. He did what he wanted, and he did it on his terms. Except for having green towels. Marilyn wouldn’t allow that.

Still… I can’t help but wonder what his life would have been like had that vaccine been available to him. Maybe he doesn’t marry Marilyn. Maybe he joins the Army and dies in Northern Africa. Either scenario would have made it very difficult for you to read this blog right now, since I would never have been born, but even as much as I love my life, a part of me is sorry he never had those options.

Whenever I read about people opposing vaccines, I think about my grandfather, and what he’d say today if he heard someone willingly rejecting the very treatments that could have completely changed his life.

I have to believe he’d feel as I do… That the anti-vaccination movement is ridiculous and baffling and really damned scary.

Some claim that vaccines cause autism, and those people are wrong, but even assuming for a second it was true, the idea that tetanus (deadly), or polio (potentially crippling), or smallpox (deadly) are preferable to autism is patently absurd.  I know that Autism can be very challenging to manage in some cases. Some kids have a true difficulty communicating. Some have impairment when it comes to relating to the world. Autism is not something to be taken lightly, but even if it were caused by vaccinations, Autism isn’t deadly.  Is the completely mythological chance of your child maaaybe developing autism with potentially exposing them to measles or diphtheria or polio?

Some folks are philosophically against vaccines for a variety of reasons… because they don’t think it’s right that “big pharma” gets rich off of them, or because they don’t want the government or pesky doctors telling them what to do, or because they read somewhere that homeopathic remedies were better… You know what I say to that? Express your convenient, hipster libertarianism on your own time, and stop risking the lives of others. No matter what you can think of, someone is getting rich from it. Your toilet seat? Someone patented that design.  If you don’t like taking the advice of doctors on a public health matter, about what else is it okay to ignore them? If your kid had cancer, would you give them chemo? It’s real easy to roll the dice with the measles, because who fucking gets measles anymore, right? Well… as it turns out, more people all the time, because of dumbasses like you.
Read that link. Read those statistics. It’s NOT FUNNY, and yet we have websites like THIS pretending that it’s no big deal because hardly anybody dies from it. Seriously. That’s what it says. Only read it if you plan on getting furious. By the same logic, let’s just throw 3 million kids in a tank with sharks, because only 500 of them will die, so what’s the big fucking deal?

When I was a kid, I remember that we weren’t allowed to show up to school without proving that we were vaccinated. Nowadays, every state has their own list of exemptions, ranging from religious to philosophical, allowing parents to bring their unvaccinated children to school. My aunt posted a meme on Facebook that essentially said “If my kid can’t bring peanut butter to school because your kid is allergic, why can you bring your unvaccinated child to school?” It’s not often that I see a meme and think “Damned right!” but that’s what I thought. How in the world are schools allowing potentially infected kids to come to school. Freaking Disneyland was the epicenter of a fucking measles outbreak. DISNEYLAND.

“Well, it’s not even 100% effective in all people, so why risk the side effects?”

Good question… There’s something called “Herd Immunity” and it works for everyone, vaccination resistant or not, as long as a large enough portion of the population has been inoculated.

“Oh, well then… I’m good, right? Because even if I don’t get vaccines, enough other people have!”

Well, no. That’s not how society works. There are enough uneducated rubes like you running around to ruin it for everyone. All a virus needs is one hospitable host to keep perpetuating its life. When the community is 99% vaccinated, even with varying degrees of efficacy, the chances of that virus finding that 1% are very low. As it is now, we’re at 84%. That means that out of every 100 people a virus comes in contact with, it can infect 16. Now say those 16 people go to 16 other groups of 100… Now we’ve got an EXPONENTIAL exposure, and FUCK YOU.

“Well… my kid got some unexplained illness, and she was vaccinated shortly before she got sick, and even though doctors insist they’re unrelated, I know in my gut they are connected. They have to be, because there’s no other explanation.”

Let’s talk about coincidence for a minute… well, not really coincidence as much as the obsession with “Why”, and our inability as a society to accept that some things have no explanation. The inability to accept coincidence. This belief is not based on evidence, but rather the lack of evidence of anything else. That’s not the way science works. That’s the way religion works. Do not endanger everyone else, because you can’t accept that coincidences happen.

------

The more I think about it all, and the people actively deciding to go without vaccinations for themselves or their children, the angrier I get. Well… Angry isn’t the right word. Embarrassed.

There’s that joke since 9/11 where whenever we Americans do something particularly decadent someone says “this is why the terrorists hate us”. Well… This actually IS why the terrorists hate us. Have you ever heard of a more American thing than actively rejecting preventative treatments that millions of people in the world, not only have no access to, but would do anything to get?

That is embarrassing. 

It makes me ashamed to live in a place so privileged that people would even think to reject all scientific advancement in exchange for a quick spin around WebMD message boards, and the arrogance to believe we’re somehow immune just by virtue of our wealth and national comfort. We’ve lived in a world free from these illnesses for so long that we’ve become complacent in our privilege, and if you’re not going to vaccinate your kids, you’re rolling the dice for all of us.  

One of my dearest friends, Melissa, send me this link. I encourage you to read it, but there’s one passage I want to share, because this (understandably terrified) father says it perfectly.

"You have stood on the shoulders of our collective protection for too long. From that high height, we have given you the privilege of our protection, for free."

Our Rights and What's Right

I apologize for the time I've taken away from blogging. I moved across the country and found a new job and blah blah nobody cares... Anyway, nothing seemed all that important to talk about, but then today a young man made a little visit to a grade school in Connecticut and shot a whole mess of innocent people.

Now I have something to say.

The other day, after Bob Costas was nearly lynched for having the audacity to suggest that guns shouldn't be so easy to get sometimes, I went on Facebook.

I found a discussion between two of my friends. One suggested that guns don't kill people any more than cars do, and that ultimately it's the people doing it, and why don't we take away the cars since they're also deadly... The other friend said something that I wholly agree with in equating cars and guns is a false equivalency, because while cars (or knives or ropes or whatever else) can be used to kill, they ultimately have a different primary purpose, whereas the purpose of a gun can only truly be one thing. To wound, maim, or kill.

He's right, of course, and that's the reason I don't understand the people out there laboring so adamantly to fight against gun control.

I simply don't see how a logical, evolved person would in good conscience hold out this “right” to have guns as this completely impregnable thing that can't ever be questioned.

Oh wait... I should be totally clear.

I like guns. I am not opposed to private gun ownership. I have considering purchasing one of my own on numerous occasions, even recently. I've gone to shooting ranges. I've enjoyed popping off a few rounds targeted at silly paper plates.

I'm not advocating taking guns away from sane people. Guns, themselves, aren't the problem. It is possible to own a gun safely and responsibly.

Still... I think there are some big things to talk about here that go beyond my personal preferences and freedoms. The public good is at stake here.

So what about that good old 2^nd Amendment?

Essentially the amendment itself says that the people have the right to bear arms, and that this right cannot be infringed upon.

Seems pretty cut and dry, but there's also this part about militias. Oh, and this other part where it's about it being a right only when crucial to the security of a free state.

Really, it's not all that clear what it all means. You know what IS clear?

The US Constitution, along with the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791.

Here are some facts about guns in 1791...

Guns in 1791 WOULD

• ...be made by a gunsmith.
• ...have rudimentary rifling.
• ...be single-shot weapons.
• ...be loaded through the muzzle.
• ...fire by means of a flintlock.
  

Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT

• ...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
• ...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
• ...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
• ...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
• ...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
• ...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
  

Had the 3 guns carried by the shooter in today's violence been the “Arms” our founding fathers had in mind, he'd have killed 3 people at most. That's assuming the guns didn't malfunction. That's assuming he wouldn't have missed otherwise. That's assuming he walked in with all 3 guns loaded and ready to fire.

Once those 3 shots were done, he likely would have been subdued by one of the many bystanders while he tried to re-load the muzzles and that would have been that. A horrible tragedy to be sure, but nothing like what transpired today.

My point?

The founding fathers didn't have 9mm automatic handguns in mind when they gave everyone the right to “bear arms”. They weren't governing based on the possibility of a sociopath with a Bushwacker opening fire in a kindergarten class.

So you know.. maybe we don't lean so hard on this 2^nd Amendment? Maybe I'm wrong.

But let's just say I am wrong, and Thomas Jefferson and everybody else would have been totally cool with assault rifles.

Should WE be okay with them?

I know that some guns are cool, and some guns are fun to shoot. I get it, totally. I get that it's fun to go to a gun show and buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle, you know... just to have it.

You know what, though?

Maybe YOUR fun isn't what matters. Or mine. Or anyones. Maybe the safety of the people as a whole is more important than your desire to own a cool gun. It's all just dick measuring, right? The need to own a bigger and badder gun than the person next door.

 

You want to “protect” your family? I'm down with that. I just don't think you need an AK-47 to do it. A simple .38 revolver can do that just fine if a gun is the way you want to do that.

What? You need more than 6 shots to protect your family? What fucking gang did you piss off? If we're being honest here, if you're in a situation where 6 shots isn't enough, maybe you're into some shit a little deeper than you should be. I dunno.

So okay.. lets say that Glock is really necessary for your protection. Do you need 5 of them? You only have 2 hands, and maybe you should consider using one of them to open the back door and run like hell.

That's really what I'm getting at here...

I'm not against guns.

I'm against owning a dozen guns. I'm against the ridiculous loophole that allows people to buy a gun from a gun show without a background check. I'm against people making a big deal about those background checks, because it infringes on your rights to wait a couple of fucking days for your “recreational M16”.

I'm sad that you need to take classes before they give you a license to cut hair, sell real estate, drive a car, ride a scooter, and bartend, but you don't need to take a gun safety class before you can buy one.

A lot of people are going to blame a lot of things for this shooting, and you know, we'll probably never know whether the guy got a little too bored killing digital people in a video game, or if he was listening to too much metal, or any of the other bullshit things that are always blamed. One thing we do know? If he didn't have easy access to guns, those people would still be alive.

I think it's time to look at ourselves. Just because we may have the right to bear arms, does that mean we should bear like... all of them at once?

I'm sure there are people who will argue that the government shouldn't have this kind of say over what we do. That tightening up on gun control will simply start the ball rolling and give the feds the foothold they need to start taking away other rights.

It's a risk I'm willing to take to prevent another day like today.

Sports Fans are Dumb

Anyone who has ever read this blog will know that I'm a big sports fan.

Sometimes I think maybe that's a bad thing, and other times I am pretty sure I'm not nearly as big a sports fan as some people. Sometimes both of those are true at once.

And then sometimes I'm embarrassed for sports fans everywhere, and I think that maybe we should all take some stock in our lives.

I was just reading an article about how a football recruit to The University of Michigan tweeted a picture of himself setting fire to a recruiting letter sent to him by Ohio State University.

If the actions of this kid make you angry, you should just stop reading, and reevaluate what matters to you. If the actions of this kid make you want to kill him, you should stop reading, and seek help. If the actions of this kid make you not only want to kill him, but feel the need to let him know that... Please... PLEASE stop reading and turn yourself in to the institution. They're looking for you.

Sound crazy? It is crazy, absolutely. And yet... according to this article the kid is receiving death threats from enraged Ohio State fans. This is patently insane. There are so many things wrong with it that if I have to enumerate them, I'll be here all day (and really, should I need to?).

Of course Ohio State has come out and denounced the death threats. Oh wait... no they haven't. That's fairly typical for OSU who (if you'll excuse me, oh friends to the North) are not typically good about things like contrition and common sense.

I think my favorite part about the article is the OSU recruit who was all "Well... he doesn't need to have his life threatened, but... he DID post that picture, so...."

Lame.

Sports fans are insane idiots most of the time.

And listen... this isn't an post designed to bash the silly OSU fans. My very own Reds have some of the craziest fans I've ever heard of. The Reds can go on a 10 game winning streak and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd callers to the local sports radio show will be complaints.

The Reds traded for a young pitcher named Mat Latos in the off-season (a smart trade, by the way), and Mr. Latos went out and got beat up a bit in one of his first starts. First off, there are NO pitchers who haven't been hit hard on occasion. Second... Latos is a notoriously slow starter, but like.. baseball is a damned marathon, not a sprint.

So anyway, after this bad start, his wife was harassed on Twitter. His WIFE. That would be like you having a shitty day at your job, and some random person you've never met calling your wife and talking shit to her about your shitty day. There is absolutely NO logic to it. I don't give a shit if you are cousins with Yasmani Grandal (one of the Reds traded for Latos), there's no reason to talk shit to a dude's wife. Really, there's no reason to talk shit to anyone, Mat Latos included. Incidentally, Latos has been fucking NAILS the last 5 weeks, so all that hand-wringing and dick-baggery was for naught. Good job.

Oh, and this isn't a state of Ohio thing either.

One of the most interesting stories from the past couple of years in sports is about the insane person who was a big enough University of Alabama football fan to name his kid BEAR. This idiot decided to take it upon himself to ruin one of the great and long-standing traditions of Alabama's rival Auburn University.

For a hundred years, after every Auburn victory, the entire fan base on campus convened around this piece of real estate on the Auburn campus and celebrated around these two ancient and giant oak trees.

Well, this Alabama douchebag poisoned the trees.

And then he called and bragged about it on the radio.

And then, in case you were wondering how the average Alabama fan feels about him, he was a guest of honor at a dozen Bowl parties this past January while the Crimson Tide won another National Title.

I should mention he's currently getting ready to stand trial for the felony he committed (and somehow pleaded "Not Guilty" to despite his recorded, unsolicited confession on the fucking radio).

Listen... I just don't get it.

When the Reds won the World Series in 1990, it was the greatest moment of my young life to that point. It's still high on the list, despite the fact that it's essentially a foggy memory at this point.

When Kenyon Martin broke his leg, I was devastated. When the Bengals lost to the Niners in 89, I cried. I LOVE my teams. I care about my sports. Anyone who watched my Facebook posts this past March when I had several Near-Breakdowns at the hands of my UC Bearcats will know that I care about my teams.

I'd never threaten to kill a 17 year old for torching a recruiting letter. I'd never light a cop car on fire *Cough* UK fans *Cough*. I'd never kill my rivals special trees.

If you're a fan that would, I'm just gonna go ahead and tell you to maybe sit the next one out, Champ.

You make me sad.

It's About People

I had a thought earlier that went a little something like this:

“Muchacho… It’s been a while since you riled folks on your blog. Why not tackle the subject of gay marriage?”

I guess I may as well start with the crux of it, right?

I am unequivocally in favor of gay marriage. I am also straight.

I’ve been thinking about this topic a lot in the past week or so, because first the state of North Carolina banned gay marriage, and then President Obama spoke out in support of it. Here’s what he said:

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
Really, I think this is beautifully said. I had someone say to me on Facebook that President Obama would say anything for votes, and you know… maybe that’s true, but I also think that he could find better quotes to work toward that goal. Far more people would be swayed by him coming out in support of looser gun laws, or by him stating that he’s “pro life”, or by him.. you know… turning white. (Should I delete? Naaahhhh). I’m not sure that being an advocate for gay rights has ever really been a swing issue. Overwhelmingly, the people who are FOR gay rights are already going to be voting for him. It’s actually conceivable that he LOST votes from the conservative, Christian African Americans.

All that is fine, but you know… for the life of me, I’ll never understand why people are so adamantly against Gay marriage. Or why they care. Or why people are so threatened by the very idea of it. So much that republicans made it a ballot issue in every swing state in 2004.. You see, they knew that the best way to get people to come out to vote was to cater to their most basic bigotry, and you know.. while they were there they may as well vote for the Republican.

I do try to understand. I try very hard.

Most people saying they’re against it say that it’s a religious thing. Or they’ll say that it “destroys the institute of marriage” or that “legalizing gay marriage would open the door to other deviant behavior (such as bestiality and polygamy).” or that “allowing gay people to get married will encourage people to be gay” or that “the bible condemns homosexuality” or that… well, that’s enough for now.. Let’s tackle them, yes?

“Gay Marriage Destroys the Institute of Marriage”

I actually heard a different variation on that. A guy I worked with long ago once told me that he was against gay marriage because that would make his marriage less special, somehow. That he viewed marriage as a special club, and that if they started letting more people in, it wouldn’t be as exclusive.

I see this as essentially the same argument, at least in spirit. What I’ve always failed to understand is that folks are more than happy to hurl the “wrecks the institution” bomb at just about the drop of a hat when it comes to gay people getting married, but they always seem to conveniently ignore all those straight people who constantly slap the precious institute of marriage right in its face. Like Britney Spears who’s been married twice, (Including once for just a shade over 2 days), and is engaged for a third time. Or Kim Kardashian who was married for a hair under 3 months, and essentially admitted it was a stunt for television. I’m just bringing up famous people because we all know the stories, but there are just as many people who run off and marry a stranger in Las Vegas after a night of heavy drinking, or they get married and divorced within weeks, or you know.. all kinds of real tributes to the institution of marriage.

I can understand why people would prefer those paragons of heterosexual virtue over two committed individuals who truly love each other. Totally makes sense to me.

Rush Limbaugh recently said “"We've arrived at a point where the President of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage."

I can see his point, you know.. Rush is, after all, a huge supporter of traditional marriage. He’s been married four times.

“Legalizing gay marriage would open the door to other deviant behavior such as bestiality.”

To make this argument, you have to make the presumption that homosexuality is a perversion or a deviance on par with bestiality. That is… dumb. I’m sorry, but it is. The biggest difference between these two acts is, or should be obvious. It’s consent. A dog can not choose to have sex with a human. A dog is a creature of instinct. Humans have the free will to choose. That’s, essentially the reason pedophilia is illegal too. A child can’t make that decision. That’s why it’s abuse and not love. Two adult men or two adult women can choose just as easily and logically as one of each.

Secondly, to say that gay marriage is somehow some sort of gateway to perversion is completely baseless. I know gay men and women, and to my knowledge none of them have ever wanted to sleep with their dog, or marry their cat, or say naughty things to their parrot. Gay marriage presents no more a precedent for marrying a dog, than does so-called traditional marriage. It just doesn’t. Do you know why? Because we’re talking about things that aren’t connected. It would be just as logical to say that reading the obituaries every Tuesday will make it rain in Syracuse.

“Allowing gay people to get married will encourage people to be gay.”

That makes perfect sense. In fact, I can’t believe I never thought of it before, but I need to go hang out at the ballpark. I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m throwing a perfect curveball in no time. Don’t worry.. the fact that my knees aren’t any good, and the fact that I haven’t played baseball in 15 years is totally irrelevant. If I hang around some pitchers, I’m sure I’ll end up in the majors soon enough.

“The Bible Condemns Homosexuality”

Well… That’s true. The bible also features:

The Earth is created not once, but twice.
God (the omnipotent being) gets tired
Talking snakes,
Bushes that catch fire, speak, and do not burn.
Rivers turning to blood
Men of insanely old age (Noah was 500 when his sons were born)
Giants roaming the Earth.
People getting turned into salt.

That’s all in the first 2 books.

“Wait Muchacho… Wait wait wait… Those are all stories. Allegorical or metaphorical. They’re not intended to be taken literally. But the LAWS. The LAWS are clear.”

Oh… well that changes everything.

Yes, according to the Book of Leviticus, it is forbidden for a man to lie with another man.

It is also forbidden to eat the fruit from a tree that is younger than 3 years old. It is also forbidden for a man to cut his hair or shave his beard. There’s a passage that says that if you “curse your father or mother “ you should be put to death. There’s a passage that goes into detail about how if a person is a witch or wizard and sends out their spirit that they should be put to death (This particular section is the actual support of the puritan witch trials). Also it says

- Grow two different crops in the same field
- Wear clothes made of different types of fabric
- Have sex with a woman on her period
- If a priest’s daughter is a whore, she should be killed (This also presumes that priests can have children)
- People with deformities or handicaps can’t go to church.
- You can’t eat a beetle, but you CAN eat a locust.
- If a guy has a wet dream while in the army, he has to leave camp until he re-purifies himself.

My favorite- If a guy is getting beaten up, and his wife stops the fight by grabbing the other guy’s balls… you’re supposed to chop her hand off. Seems oddly specific. I wonder if Moses was in need of a bag of frozen peas.

For anyone who says they’re against gay marriage because the bible says it’s against the rules..I would urge please go to their closet and check out how many poly-blends they have hanging on the racks.

Who is the one to determine which rules are valid and which rules are old-fashioned?

This is a fairly straightforward question. If the bible is to be taken literally, as many Christians believe, I wonder why I don’t see more heavily hairy men wandering around. If it’s to be taken and then interpreted, who’s to say whose interpretation is correct?

In the end, we can argue about religion or whatever forever, and because there are a million religions with a million different views, we’ll never get anywhere. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe.

The question regarding why it should be YOUR religion that dictates what other people do is a valid one, and one for which you don’t have an answer. A Baptist will say the same thing as a Catholic, and they’ll say the same thing as a Jew. “Because we’re right”. Well… Prove it. There’s no unifying, official faith. People’s religions are as varied as grains of sand, and therefore governing based on religion is impossible.

If only we lived in a country founded on other principles…

Oh wait…

We live in America where there’s a very specific division of religion and government. Despite what many people believe, the USA isn’t a Christian country, at least not governmentally speaking. Some people argue that the Founding Fathers built this country upon Christian values, and they may have personally held certain beliefs, but they were very specific regarding the nature of the USA.

From The Treaty of Tripoli (Ratified in 1797, less than 10 years after the drafting of the Constitution.):

“the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”.
Thomas Jefferson was the first to overtly discuss separation of church and state when he wrote:

“America shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There’s also a section where he talks about how religion is between a person and their God, and only them. This is essentially my position regarding prayer in public schools. There’s a great distinction between being against prayer and being against public school mandated prayer. This is a distinction that is often ignored… I’m digressing. (Full disclosure… I had 12 years of Catholic school. 8 of which included multiple daily prayers.)

My point of all of this is that marriage being legal in the United States business isn’t REALLY an issue of religion, or at least it shouldn’t be. There are two kinds of marriages, and the law is only concerned about one.

If the Tofu Muchacha and I went to a Shawnee medicine man and had him “marry us”, the only folks who need to recognize that marriage are Me, The TM, and the Shawnee people. On the other hand, if the TM and I went to the courthouse and had a judge marry us, the only people who need to care are me, the TM, and the Government of the US.

Do you see the distinction?

You see… when people get all upset about gay marriage being legal or not, I don’t understand, because it has absolutely nothing to do with them. It doesn’t have to do with their religion. It doesn’t have to do with the sanctity of their religious marriage. It doesn’t have to do with them in any way. It would be like me telling my neighbor he wasn’t allowed to put up a basketball hoop in his driveway because I hate basketball.

It only has to do with those two people having the same LEGAL rights in the United States as any other 2 people. The United States is a country founded by folks who rebelled against an unjust governing body. People who were not given the same legal rights as their countrymen across the Atlantic. Oddly, I see a lot of connection.

Look… My stance Is this:

If your religion forbids gay marriage, fine. That’s on you. If you think it’s an abomination, fine. That’s also on you.

The laws of the United States are adjustable exactly because our founders had the foresight to know that times change. They knew that the people writing the laws were human, and could not possibly be expected to be exactly just at all times. They created avenues for course correction.

- Married women were not legally permitted to own property under their own names in all states until 1900.
- It wasn’t until 1975 that married women could have credit in their own name.
- Interracial marriage wasn’t allowed in many states until the 1960s. It was illegal in the state of Alabama until the year 2000.

Times change. Laws should correct to become MORE just, not less.

My Titanic Blog

 The makings of a much more interesting film.

[Editors Note, written immediately before posting]
I haven’t seen Titanic since December of 1997. That’s on purpose. I’ve accidentally seen random scenes here and there on TV, but other than that, my memory of the film is ENTIRELY based on my recollection from that one, single viewing. I wrote this blog over the course of a couple of weeks, and I discussed some of my points with some known Titanic fans throughout the process. I’ve come to realize that some of the details of my arguments (specifically relating to the ins and outs of the specific plot) are possibly not entirely accurate. I’ve decided to leave the points as-is, and am planning a follow-up post where I re-watch the film in its 2D entirety, and adjust my opinions as needed. I promise to be honest with my re-assessment.

Okay, so it’s no secret that I think Titanic is just about the worst. I’ve stated it on numerous occasions. I’m not trying to hide the fact.

I guess I just always assumed that I’d established my full argument as to WHY I feel that way, and looking back through the blog, I realize I never really have.

My friend Annie, who has appeared as a guest blogger here before when talking about Disney, has thrown down the gauntlet, and essentially accused me of hating it only because it’s popular.

Being a Muchacho of honor, I have decided to finally and officially break it down. I assure you that Titanic’s popularity is only a small reason I hate it.

First off… I don’t hate Justin Bieber. I don’t hate Miley Cyrus or Katy Perry or Avatar. At most, I have no real opinion at all of Bieber. I can’t name a song of his, I didn’t see his movie. My only thought about Justin Bieber is that he makes me feel old. I always have this sneaking feeling that if I were 17 I would understand his deal, and I feel like I’m so far removed from knowing his deal that it sort of depresses me.

Avatar… If I’m being honest, I have to say I don’t get it. I mean… I liked it as much as the next guy, but I don’t get why this movie earned more than any other movie ever. Despite that disconnect, I have no real negative feelings about it. If it had beaten The Hurt Locker for Best Picture, I’m fairly sure my perspective on the movie wouldn’t change. I’d certainly yell and rant that it didn’t deserve to win Best Picture, but I do that with Chicago also, and I like Chicago just fine.

I guess the heart of this first point is that I’m not anti-populist. I am no hipster who intentionally seeks out only the most obscure and off-the-beaten-path movies to like. Shit… My favorite movie of 2012 so far was The Hunger Games, which is arguably targeting the same people that Titanic targeted 15 years ago.

Titanic’s popularity isn’t what makes me hate it, and more importantly, it’s not what makes me argue that it’s actually not good. It’s part of what makes me argue that it’s the worst movie ever made, but I’ll get to that…

I guess I have two separate arguments, really… The first is that Titanic isn’t a good movie, and the second is that Titanic is the worst movie ever made.

That sounds like varying levels of the same premise, but really they’re very different, because while there are a million terrible movies made every year, there’s rarely a movie, no matter how bad it is, to merit consideration in the “Worst of All Time” race.

Let’s start off with why I think it’s a bad movie…

1) The main characters are almost entirely unlikable.

Jack Dawson is a smug little d-bag who you’d likely want to punch if you met him in real life. He’s the guy who sings “I Gave My Love a Cherry” and says all the right things, and offers to draw her. Amazingly he’s awesome at guitar and he’s awesome at drawing, but certainly that is merely coincidental to his volunteering.

The Kate Winslett version of Rose is okay I suppose. Sure, she’s flighty, but she’s young and it’s Kate Winslett, so it’s to some degree forgivable. Although, the fact that she tolerates Billy Zane for even a half a second makes her unlikable by association alone. HOWEVER… that old lady version of Rose is the absolute WORST. Think about this for a second… That old crone dragged a whole team of scientists out into the middle of the North Atlantic to search for “The Heart of the Ocean”, when she really had it the whole time. And then, once they decided it was a lost cause, she tosses it! How many millions of dollars did that damned expedition cost? Just so she could hitch a ride to say farewell to the love of her life who she knew for two whole days. Blech… I hate that old lady. Thank god Britney Spears’ astronaut boyfriend retrieved it for her, or that priceless artifact would still be at the bottom of the ocean.

Oh… and maybe it’s a personal objection, but I feel like the relationship between Jack and Rose could have existed just as easily without the existence of Billy Zane at all. They could have given her some other hoity-toity rich girl issue that Jack breaks down, but instead they just make her a girl who cheats on her fiancé (odious as he may be), and that seems unnecessary and unseemly.

2) The tertiary characters aren’t much better.
The Italian guy who might as well go around the whole movie going “Thatsa bigga pizza pie!”, or Kathy Bates as Molly Brown, the most broadly painted character in history. Or the aforementioned Billy Zane, who may as well have been wearing a Snidely Whiplash mustache he was so fucking evil. There’s no grey area with any of the characters. The Italian guy is merely Italian. Molly Brown is a damned quote machine. Billy Zane is only missing the railroad tracks and rope.

3) The movie is way too long.
I’m sorry… but it is. Three hours and fourteen minutes. We’re not talking about The English Patient, a love story that spans years. We’re talking about a movie that lasts longer than the actual sinking of the ship. If the writing was good, or if the characters were super charismatic, I’d give it more leeway, but it isn’t. Don’t get me wrong… I don’t shy away from an epic. I love all three Lord of the Rings movies, and they’re all longer. Again, though… the justification for that is that the story spans months of time. It takes place in a hundred locations. The books are hundreds and hundreds of pages. What it always struck me is that Cameron was TRYING to make something big and long and epic. It was a show-off thing. It was also a lazy thing, because maybe a couple fewer loving shots of the boat (that look like matte paintings anyway) and maybe one or two fewer annoying scenes between Rose and Billy Zane… You may have yourself the start of a picture. Oh… and the framework scenes with Bill Paxton, at his absolute worst, talking to the old lying lady… terrible. I don’t care.

In the end, the only explanation for it is that Cameron is overly self-indulgent (Also potentially explaining Avatar’s GIANT run time. I mean… learn to use AVID for fuck’s sake.)

4) There are a lot of manipulative movies, none quite as overtly so.

I’ve often said that the movie is manipulative, and I stand by that. There was a counterpoint made that a lot of movies are manipulative, and yes… that’s totally true. The Pianist is a decent movie that loses points because a lot of its emotion stems from it being set during the Holocaust. That’s like hitting a ball off a tee. It’s easy to make people cry about one of the worst things to ever happen on the planet. One of my favorite movies, Saving Private Ryan, includes a scene at the end that is acutely designed to make a person weep. The primary difference is that while there are manipulative scenes in most movies, Titanic seems to be set to manipulate and steer through every scene from start to finish. One would argue that this is called “Directing” and as a theatre director myself, I can see that logic, but sometimes the better choice is to let the material do it’s own talking. Presenting something simply can be just as powerful, and not quite as overtly manipulative. I’m talking about watching Thomas Andrews setting his clock, or the old couple cuddling on the bed as the water fills the cabin, or the all of the lingering shots of the poor people drowning. I get that many of those things happened (poor people dying) or may have happened (nobody fucking knows about Andrews, besides that he went down with the ship, like most men on board, and those old people are pure fiction.)… That leads me to…

5) Something about it feels gross to me.

The Titanic was a real ship. With real people. Who really died.

“But wait, Muchacho… What about: Glory, Gettysburg, Saving Private Ryan, EVERY WAR MOVIE EVER?”

Yeah, that’s true too. Except that I kind of feel like every one of those movies is primarily about those events, or honoring those events in some way. I have always felt like Titanic was James Cameron’s project ABOUT a love story that happens to take place on The Titanic. I just feel like it’s somehow disrespectful. And when you lionize fictional (and unlikeable people) while there are real, and powerful stories to actually tell… it just feels like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you want to show off how historically accurate you made the ship, and how much you care about deep sea archeology. On the other hand, you ignore a hundred compelling TRUE stories and completely make one up about a slick, boyish con artist and a overly privileged rich girl who also cheats on her fiancé.

Maybe I’m wrong, but it just feels icky.

In fairness, I also felt that way about National Treasure when Nic Cage was tossing the Declaration of Independence around, and shooting up Liberty Hall. It just gives me the willies.

So anyway… that’s the primary thrust of part one of my argument that Titanic is not a good movie. I have other, more petty, less reasoned…um… reasons, but I don’t want to like…go on and on when I’m maybe only about halfway through.
__________________________
Now, on to how I can possibly call this movie, even if we’re all accepting that it’s bad, the Worst Movie of All Time.

This is a more complicated premise, because, well… there are some horrific movies out there, and it’s very difficult to make the argument that Titanic, a movie with undeniable technical prowess, and clear talent can be worse than a movie like Manos: Hands of Fate, or Plan Nine from Outer Space. Both measurably bad movies.

In fact, almost all evidence regarding Titanic would lead me to the counter argument, that it is, in fact, the GREATEST movie ever made. It won Best Picture and Best Director. It made something like 650 million dollars at the box office. Meaning that it was both critically poplular and popularly popular, which I will grant makes my argument possibly silly. Well… it’s my argument, and I’m gonna make it.

Obviously, in order to buy into my opinion that it’s the worst ever, you have to first accept that my primary premise is correct.. that the movie is, in fact, bad. So I’ll assume we agree on that point. Or at least that I swayed you. Hooray!

As I said before, there are a ton of bad movies. My buddy Brawny Hombre would argue that Bad Movies are actually the best movies. He would also argue that movies like Armageddon are bad, and while that may be true, I don’t think he’d argue that it would be in the conversation for worst ever.

What is the difference, then?

Well… in the case of Plan Nine From Outer Space, it’s the sheer, willful, almost GLEEFUL way Ed Wood ignored every facet of the production. Writing. Continuity. Acting. Direction. These were all secondary to “Getting the movie made” and that showed in every frame. When Bela Lugosi died during filming, he merely hired his dentist to walk around with a cape over his face and simply believed nobody would notice. Scenes change from Night to Day to Night depending on what angle he’s shooting from. It’s a train wreck. It’s really, really bad.

In the case of a movie like… Showgirls, the production value was largely fine, but the writing and acting completely sunk it, as did it being fully lacking in even a modicum of self-awareness. It’s so goofy and weird and badly written and acted, but you know that they believed they were making art. It’s the obtuse self aggrandizement that makes it especially bad.

For Titanic, I believe that it boils down to 2 major things.

1) James Cameron fully believes it is the greatest movie ever made, believed it when he was making it, and made it with the intention of it ultimately being that. The mere fact that he set out to do it, and it ended up being bad (as we accepted) puts it in the conversation. I have a problem, as a director, with directors in general overstating their own importance, brilliance, talent, genius, etc… The sort of shameless self promotion turns me right off. Even 15 years later, James Cameron re-released Titanic and acted like he was gifting it on us or something.

I can just picture him saying something like : “I know you’ve been slogging your way through year after year of marginal movies by marginal directors… you know.. aside from my very own Avatar, but not to worry… I’m here to solve your boredom and lift you out of the doldrums of film watching by presenting you… with a movie you’ve already seen a million times. You’re Welcome.”

The whole attitude is off-putting. Michael Bay makes explosion vehicles. He knows it. We know it. He accepts that’s his lot, so when he makes a clunker, we laugh and it goes away, and then he makes another movie with explosions, and we either like it better or worse than the one before. Michael Bay knows who he is. James Cameron insists on telling us what kind of genius he is, and it pisses me right off. The primary vehicle for him touting his genius is Titanic, which… as I already explained, isn’t even any good.

2) The main reason I believe it’s the worst ever, is because “Worst’ is relative. And Titanic has the greatest (by a country mile) disparity between actual quality, and purported quality.

Ed Wood liked Plan Nine, but he never said it was a masterpiece. Oliver Stone would never call Alexander his best film, unless he was just being belligerent (a real possibility).

There are many movies that, in a vacuum, are far worse than Titanic, but the claims to greatness… the utter insistence from the legions of fans that it’s the BEST MOVIE EVAR, the willful ignorance of any type of disputation, the OUTRAGE and SHOCK when a person even deigns to suggest it isn’t the GREATEST movie ever made automatically makes the chasm between actual quality and purported quality so great that no other movie can match it.

So that’s my argument. Titanic is the worst strictly in terms of proportion. If Titanic had simply been presented without comment, and had lived a fairly quiet life, I may have very different feelings of it. Even if it wasn’t quiet, and still made a crapload of money, like Avatar, but didn’t hold itself out there as being so fucking fantastic…

You could say that part of this argument is that the popularity of it makes me not like it, but that’s a real oversimplification, because there are tons of movies that I love that are also popular. And books. And TV shows. I love Pirates of the Caribbean. I love DISNEY movies. I love The Hunger Games. None of those would lose a popularity contest.

I hate that Titanic is so popular because it is bad. I don’t think Titanic is bad because it is popular. So I dunno… Maybe it is exactly what it looks like.

Leave it Alone

I started writing a blog about The Oscars, but I couldn’t bring myself to care about any of the winners all that much. I will say that in a lot of years I would be outraged that The Artist won over something that will ultimately be seen as a far greater movie, since you know…The Artist is all flash, and no substance, but you know… I look at the other movies nominated, and while I really liked The Descendants and Moneyball, it’s pretty difficult to argue that they’re much better than The Artist, so… congratulations Frenchies!

Of course, the Oscars did get me thinking about movies, and the nature of them, and whatnot, and they’ve convinced me to finally write my blog about my current biggest pet peeve in the realm of movie making.

Does anyone remember the absolutely insane fervor of May 1999 when the first Star Wars prequel was released? It was fucking CRAZY. Like… There were articles, and news items, and interviews. Rumor of a new trailer would sell out a theatre for some afternoon show of some horrible March release movie. I remember going to meet my friends for the Midnight show, and sitting in the theatre for hours. People were dressed up. Getting crazy. My friends were asking Star Wars trivia. It  was the first enormous midnight release movie, paving the way for every tween who stays up for days for Twilight.

I remember the lights going down, and the incredible electricity in the air. The palpable anticipation of the start of the movie many of these people had waited 18 years to see. The opening titles started “A long time ago…” and people went insane. It was so loud I remember involuntarily laughing at the whole business. It was like a rock concert.

Every light saber resulted in cheers. Every throwback reference resulted in knowing laughter. Every time we saw a character we’d come to love it was greeted with raucous applause. Every moment was met with baited breath.

When the final credits rolled, the place was like a madhouse. People were cheering and shouting and chanting “Show it again” and before I knew it, there were light saber fights in the aisles and people leaving the theatre and getting in line for the first showing in the morning, and all of the rest. It was a fucking sensation, and I was just as caught up in it as anyone else.

Nobody bothered to tell any of us how incredibly shitty it was.

It wouldn’t have mattered. We were too invested. We were too far down the rabbit hole of a sycophantic fugue state. We NEEDED it to be good. There was no way it would register otherwise.

That state must have lasted all Summer, because I am fairly certain I saw it 5 more times in the theater, and I loved it each time.

I ignored the discussions about how boring the politics were (“They set up what comes next”, I’d say). I paid little attention to the complaints about the acting of Jake Lloyd (“He’s just a little kid!”). I defended Jar Jar Binks against the onslaught of racial criticism (“Um… He’s funny!”)

Then, through all of the haze, I didn’t watch it again for 13 years.

In the meantime, I watched Attack of the Clones and found myself bored through a lot of it. I watched “Revenge of the Sith” and found myself groaning over the dialogue and the huge holes in logic and continuity.

I started questioning those movies more and more. The haze and excitement and anticipation started to diminish, and the harsh light of reality started beating down. Part of this, I have to believe, has to do with The Lord of the Rings. These were highly anticipated movies that absolutely killed it from beginning to end in terms of writing, acting, effects, and overall story telling. Arguably the fans of these books were as rabid as any George Lucas ever encountered, even if the volume wasn’t as high. As every LOTR fan left each film with a sense of pride and satisfaction, the true feelings of the Star Wars fans became more raw and haggard.

Then… to top it all off… I went to see the re-release of The Phantom Menace, hoping that the 3D would somehow bring it all together.

It didn’t.

That movie is fucking atrocious.

I’m sorry to say it. I believe I really did love it once upon a time, but either my tastes have matured, or the halcyon days of anticipation had truly clouded my thoughts (much like a Jedi).

The script is one of the worst I’ve ever heard. The acting, outside of Liam Neeson, is unbelievably bad. (Jake Lloyd, who at one time garnered defense is… completely indefensible. There had to have been better child actors out there. There had to have been. I can’t accept otherwise). The effects are great, that’s true, but there are too many. Back in the day, Lucas had to be creative to make visually interesting scenes. This movie makes him lean on the effects too much.  Let’s not even talk about how self-referential it all is… The totally Americanized sports announcing team might be the dumbest throw-in I’ve ever seen in a movie.

And then there’s Jar Jar. The problem with Jar Jar is that his character DOES serve a purpose, but my god… So offensive. I know that Lucas attributed a lot of the Jar Jar dialogue to his little kid, and maybe that’s true, but if it is… that little kid needs to do some self examination, because they are racist as shit.

Anyway… All of that, and I haven’t even articulated my pet peeve.

Despite all of the anticipation and excitement, nobody was sitting around waiting for another Star Wars movie. The story was done. Nobody really cared all that much about where Darth Vader came from, unless they were huge Star Wars fans, and they already knew. There was no clamoring until silly George Lucas announced he was working on the prequels. It was dead. It was resting. The most controversial thing to come up in the Star Wars universe was whether Lucas ruined the originals by doctoring them in the re-releases. Han shot first. So the fuck what?

So, without active demand, why in the world couldn’t he have made a better movie? The pressure was off. He could have had a damned contest for the best screen play and gotten 500 great scripts from all of those obsessive Star Wars fans who probably know the universe better than Lucas does at this point. He could have done literally anything he wanted to make the best possible version of that story, and instead we end up with damned “Mr. Tambo” Jar Jar Binks, and Jake Lloyd shouting “Yippee” like a youth from the 1960s. (Long time ago indeed).

That’s my pet peeve.

With no pressure, and no clamor, why in the hell can’t they make better unanticipated sequels?

I touched on it briefly during my movie recap for 2011… One of the reasons Pirates of the Caribbean was my worst movie of the year was due to this phenomenon.

The Pirates trilogy was over. They’d wrapped the story. There was no need or specific demand for more, and yet they pushed through another Jack Sparrow story without so much as a single story editor. Without even the teensiest bit of passion. It’s so disappointing when all semblance of guise is dropped, and the money grab we all know it to be is just bared to the world.

My other favorite example of this is the Indiana Jones Disaster of 2008.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade came out in 1989, and was pretty much universally loved by anyone that cared about those kinds of movies. It’s certainly my favorite one from start to finish. It’s still 100% watchable. And while there’d been rumors for years of another installment for years, the answer they always gave was “We’re always interested, but we’re really waiting for the perfect script.”

I wonder if they’re still waiting somewhere, because ALIENS? Are they fucking serious? I’m still furious. One of the most interesting and timeless things about the Indiana Jones movies is how neatly they intertwined religion, archeology, and mysticism. Throwing in fucking aliens stretches credulity. Giving Indy some dumbass, greaser son (played by one of the least likable actors in Hollywood) only weighed it down. Bringing back Karen Allen, looking bizarre, was just a bad choice.

Look.. I get that Harrison Ford isn’t getting any younger, so it makes sense that they had to account for that… except that they didn’t have to. They didn’t have to make it at all. So… why make something totally shitty?

The Hobbit is coming out soon. The first trailer got something like 8 bazillion hits on YouTube. Another movie where there was interest, but not necessarily demand. It’ll have been 9 years since Return of the King. Hopefully Peter Jackson recognizes the opportunity to come in and stick the landing.

I’ve heard rumors for years about another Ghostbusters movie. I can tell you that I’m not holding my breath, but if they do get it together, they better do it right. I have faith that they’ll wait til the right script comes along.

Anyway, this is my plea… If you don’t have to make a sequel (Twilight, Harry Potter, Hunger Games), then wait until you have good reason to make one. Don’t be Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull or Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. I’m begging you.

If you cared about the first ones, care about the others.

And since I can’t help myself, here’s a small observation on the Oscars.

The Artist won, making yet another Best Picture winner I was rooting against. I’ve been really actively following the Oscars for about 20 years, starting with Unforgiven’s win in 1993. Here are some personal opinion stats.

Of the Best Picture winners, I’ve only agreed with 6. (Unforgiven, Schindlers List, Braveheart, American Beauty, Return of the King, and No Country for Old Men).

I’ve actively disliked 4 (Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, The Artist, and Crash).

I’ve been outraged for various reasons (shut up, I’m dramatic) by 5 (Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, Crash, Chicago, and A Beautiful Mind).

My favorite film of the year has not even been nominated a few times… (50/50, Children of Men, Road to Perdition, Pan’s Labyrinth).

Some other thoughts…

There were some good years… The year The Departed beat Little Miss Sunshine. The year Million Dollar Baby beat The Aviator, Finding Neverland, and Sideways (Wow). The year Forrest Gump beat Quiz Show, Pulp Fiction, and Shawshank… (Holy…)

At least one year featured a winner that could arguably have been the WORST nominee:
Titanic beat out As Good as it Gets, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, and L.A. Confidential.

If I’m having a “BEST” Best Picture Winner of the Past 20 years, the Nominees are:

Unforgiven, Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, The English Patient, Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, American Beauty, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, The Return of the King, Million Dollar Baby, Crash, The Departed, No Country for Old Men, Slumdog Millionaire, The Hurt Locker, The Kings Speech, and The Artist…

You know what… That’s for another blog. Stay tuned for the Best Picture Tournament.

Disney: A Recap (and some bitching, as always)

Hey Everybody!

The TM and I returned from Disney a couple of weeks back and I think I've finally organized my thoughts enough to write coherently about the trip.

First a couple of general thoughts, and then my likes and dislikes.

Thought 1:
This may be surprising to my readers, but as great a time as I had this trip, I think I'm okay not going again for a couple of years. There are some things that occurred to me during the trip that make me feel like I've been going about it all wrong the last few visits, and maybe I burned myself out a bit.

The thing I need to remind myself is that I'm not a rookie. I'm not going for just a couple of days. I've seen everything several times. I know what I love, and what I can live without. And yet... I attack the visit like a rookie. Every time. I try to cram in everything. I try to plan every day and meal and whatever, and if I'm being honest with myself... I'm done with that.

I could go, literally, 20 more visits without riding Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, and a) I know it'll be there on visit 21, and b) I know that every turn and twist will be the same as it has been for ever one of my previous 15 visits. That's the beauty of Disney World. The classics (for the most part) aren't going anywhere. They so rarely close major attractions. I mean... they don't need to. They usually would just expand. It's not without exception, but you know... even if they were to get rid of Big Thunder? I would be bummed I didn't ride it one last time, but not devastated.

There are a few rides I would be devastated about... Pirates. Haunted Mansion. Kilimanjaro Safari. Soarin. They aren't going anywhere.

My point is... Skipping a ride due to a long line, or to preserve my sanity? That's gotta be something I embrace from now on. Time to take a deep breath. Time to plan less, enjoy more, and not stress about fitting it all in. (That's what she said)

Thought 2:
I can barely tolerate crowds anymore. Like... at all. We chose the 2nd slowest time of year, and it was still really crowded when compared to a shopping mall or whatever. I need to find every way possible to eliminate the crowds from my experience. How do I do that?
a) Bring rain gear - One of the best times we had was after a torrential rain. We had the whole World Showcase to our selves (you know... relatively). Of course two hours after the rain, the crowd was back to normal.
b) Avoid the bus system whenever possible. I hate the buses. They are crowded, and well... crowded. They make me stressed out for like.. 2 hours prior to getting on them. Thats no good. This pretty much leaves us with 2 different hotel choices in the future. The Yacht Club and The Boardwalk. Sadly, these are also much more expensive, so the frequency of visits will need to be adjusted. These two resorts have alternate access to two of the four parks. This appeals to me. They also tend to have generally less crowded buses. And, especially with the Boardwalk, they have interesting things to do when you're not at the park.

Okay, so....

Things I liked:

- The new restaurant in Mexico was the best meal I had the whole time. It was awesome. I'd heard some mixed things about it, but I loved what I got, and the setting is great. It's the new "place to eat and watch Illuminations". Really good stuff.

- The Fantasyland Expansion plans. Seriously, that shit is going to be awesome.

- Best Kilimanjaro Safari experience (annoying people notwithstanding) I've had in ages. It was all about the giraffes this time around, and I really enjoyed it.

- Fucking DOLE WHIP. I mean... I'd always heard about Dole Whip being this thing you got in Adventureland, and I never thought about it much past that. Well... We tried it this time, and my god. It's seriously the best shit ever. I can't believe I waited so long.

- The Wishes Fireworks. I'm not a fireworks guy, but damn.... those are some good fireworks indeed. Very impressive.

- Port Orleans French Quarter. It's probably my favorite of all of the hotels I've stayed in Disney, and even though my comments about the buses are sincere, they shouldn't reflect poorly on this place. It's really nice.

- Finding Nemo the Musical. I know I've talked about it before at least a little, but that's a damned good show for a theme park. Great music. Excellent acting. It's all of the things missing from the poor Great Movie Ride.

- Tower of Terror. I've never been shy about how little I like roller coasters (very little), and the reason for this being the terrifying drops and plummets and whatnot. Well... Let's call this the exception to the rule. We rode it twice in a row, and I seriously laughed like a kook both times. It's so much damned fun. They do this thing where each ride is a little different, because its' on some computer randomizer thing. It's less like falling than like being a giant yo-yo. I love it.

- STAR TOURS. I admit I've never been a great fan of Star Tours, despite the theming. That has all changed since they refurbished it. The changes were inspired. There were all these rumors about it being converted into a pod racing simulator, which sounded cool, but I was also wary of, because pod racing only showed up in the terrible first chapter. Well... There are over FIFTY possible stories (including pod racing), and the story is random. in fact, you'd have to ride it for 6 straight hours to experience all of the stories. How cool is that?! Also, it's 3D now, and incredibly smooth. Darth Vader threw our vehicle with THE FORCE. Awesome.

-Taking Fisheye and Wide Angle photos of my favorite Disney things. The lead photo is a fisheye lens photo of Spaceship Earth. From immediately beneath it. Amazing. Here's a good one of Magic Kingdom:

There were, of course, more things that I liked and have liked for years, but for the sake of brevity, I'm keeping it at these NEW developments.

Things I didn't like so much...

- Most of the rest of the food. It's not that it's bad, but god damn is it overpriced. I wasn't even paying for most of it outside of the dining plan, but they make the mistake of showing us the bills even when we are paying with plan. The Dining Plan is definitely reasonable, and I have no complaints. We ended up using almost all of our snacks during the Food and Wine Festival, whcih was fun, but still... overall the quality of the food wasn't equivalent to the price. Not even close. We're talking about movie-theater popcorn level overpriced. It's hard to remember sometimes that in the end, you're dealing with family restaurants that are glossed up for the location. The food is generally boring.

- Again... the crowds. If I had to choose one specific target? Strollers, Scooters, and Wheelchairs. I would never begrudge someone who really needed one of these things, but FAR too many people were using their strollers are glorified shopping carts. Far too many people were using their scooters as battering rams. Far too many people just loved to stop in the middle of an already crowded walkway and block everything up with their damned strollers and carts and whatever. That shit makes me crazy. I am 100% convinced that I identified several people who were using the wheelchairs as an excuse to get their whole party to the front of lines. I get that you want to bring your little kids. I would never say that's wrong. Just have some fucking respect for others, please. In general, I find people rude. How difficult is it to walk around a poor guy taking one photo. Or, you know... wait for a few seconds. Apparently impossible.

You know... Those are really the two main problems I had this time.

The Flash Photography craze I noted last time seems to have ebbed, thankfully.

Disney seems to be on the right track with their updates. Even the tired-ass Swiss Family Treehouse is being refurbished. The Fantasyland expansion will be great. I'm really looking forward to the James Cameron assisted new land in Animal Kingdom (I think I may have to write a whole blog about that).

There's a million great things to come at my beloved Disney World. I just have to remember that I don't need to do everything every time. I had an amazing time, and I can't wait to go back... Whenever that might be.

The NCAA is Dumb

I love this picture for so many reasons, but primarily because he's a Cardinals fan.

I know most people who read my blog don't care about sports. So... my apologies. I guess just check back in another two weeks and see if I've been irritated by something else.

Of course, soon enough, I'll be blogging more about my very fast approaching Disney trip, so you have that other thing nobody cares about to look forward to.

As I was driving home last evening from a rousing viewing of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, (a very bizarre movie about Computers and Wizards), I heard that the University of Miami (Florida) (Only people from Ohio feel the need to clarify) has been linked to "thousands" of NCAA Rules Violations stemming from their football players getting illegal benefits from some dude, who also happens to be in jail for being a part of a near-billion dollar ponzi scheme.

There's all this talk about how this will affect the College Football Landscape and what will be done to punish The U and whatnot, and the ridiculously drastic phrase "Death Penalty" was being bandied about like they're actually talking about something that matters. Las Vegas sports books have taken the first game of the season against "off the board" making it un-bettable.

What a bunch of mother fucking drama queens.

Here's what I don't get... Why in the world does it matter? Is it to impose some sort of relevance on the NCAA, a notoriously ridiculous and pointless organization? An organization whose sole purpose at this point is to hold hostage the keys to the imaginary chastity belts of any given players' standing as a "student athlete". Student athlete...a term so laughably antiquated that the NCAA itself seems to have difficulty defining it.

And what a bunch of mother fucking hypocrites.

According to the rules, a "student athlete" can't receive any sort of compensation or benefit that would entice them to come to a school, or once at the school, can't receive any sort of benefit beyond the benefits they receive as a scholarshipped athlete. This includes being provided hookers, cars, cash, tattoos in exchange for memorabilia, or really anything that can be construed as a benefit bestowed on them because of their status. There are even limits to the amount of money a "student athlete" can earn while working a non-sports related part time job.

This is dumb. Oh... and completely un-enforceable.

The popular radio duo on ESPN Radio, Mike and Mike, argued about the issue this morning. Mike Greenberg believes that regulating the payout of illegal benefits is completely impossible, as has been proven true by years of failure. His solution is to eliminate the rules against it. Mike Golic (a former Notre Dame and NFL player) believes that the rules are necessary, and likens it to the rules against performance enhancing drugs. Greenberg stated over and over again that these aren't the same, and while he had a difficult time correctly articulating why, I don't have that same problem.

The differences are simple:
1) You can't TEST for illegal money or abortions or boats or whatever. It's all sort of grey area. Well... not all of it, but short of having something in writing that says "I gave Cam Newton $X.XX dollars to play football at Auburn University", every circumstance is littered with grey. On the other hand, there are several ways to conclusively test for performance enhancing drugs. Nothing grey about that, aside from every single one of them claiming they thought they were taking B-12.

2) The money, or the sex parties, or the mall trips, or the tattoos don't affect the athlete's performance on the field, whereas the drugs, in fact, do. They're actually called "Performance Enhancing Drugs". This, to me, is the only distinction worth mentioning, even. Reggie Bush would have been the best football player on the field at USC had he received a beach house or not. Would Tony Mandarich have been the best college football player way back in 1991 if he hadn't loaded himself with more drugs than Pablo Escobar's entertainment hutch? The answer is muddier.

The NCAA spends thousands of man hours investigating how much Tyrelle Pryor benefitted from trading his bowl rings for tattoos (as if that bullshit made any difference to anything that happens EITHER in the classroom or on the field.

Somehow this is what the NCAA has become. This sort of fascist accountant.

So what do I think should be done?

1) Keep the drugs illegal. As I said, they're testable, and have been proven to enhance performance.

2) Make the NCAA focus on academic issues. Cheating on exams, not taking exams, not taking enough credits, having other students write papers.... All of the things that could potentially make an athlete ACADEMICALLY ineligible. These are legitimate issues and things that need to be handled by the NCAA (and the colleges themselves).

3) Let the kids take whatever money, handies, boats, cars, houses they are offered, and by whomever offers it. We live in a free market society. Let the kids operate as capitalists, and treat themselves as industries.

Whoa Muchacho... won't the rich get richer?

I don't think so. I mean... I have no proof of this, since I'm writing this whole blog from the hip, but here's what I think...

First, most of the colleges out there are "dirty" by today's standards to one degree or another, so the actual difference may not be as big as one might assume.

Second, there are still the academic requirements that have to be considered. Duke and Notre Dame still can't accept certain students simply because they can't get into the schools.

Third, there are still scholarship and roster limits. John Calipari could officially offer each of the 20 McDonalds All-Americans money to come to UK (as if he doesn't already), and that doesn't mean that they would all come, NOR SHOULD THEY. You go to a high-profile school to get playing time, and TV time, and get to "the league". A dude can't get to the league sitting on the bench, and if the team is stacked from top to bottom with stars, everyone gets slighted.

I actually believe the schools will monitor themselves a bit. You need role players. You need character guys. You need the unselfish point guards. Just because they CAN offer money to everyone, doesn't mean they WILL.

I think things may even level out more than we think. There are guys who may not rate a money offer from UK or UNC who would normally go there, but Pepperdine is offering 50K instead...

I was talking to my dad, the Beefy Padre, about this, and he thinks the real issue with creating a free-market approach to the whole business is that it opens up the sports world to a higher likelihood of gambling problems, or fixed games, or points shaving, or whatever.

I'm not convinced this would be a problem with my solution, because the motivating factor for most of these issues is the "forbidden money", so if the money can come from anywhere, and the players can legitimately receive money from other sources, the gambling element wouldn't have as much pull. Personally, I think it's probably a bigger risk as it is now.

The real solution is: Ban gambling on college events. Stop laughing.

Seriously, though... that's the solution. Of course the NCAA is pleased as punch to collect dollar after dollar on casino promotions, and gambling kick-backs, and all that nonsense. They'd NEVER give that up. Not to mention that gambling on college basketball and football is a HUGE moneymaker for the casinos.

Anyway, it all doesn't matter, because the NCAA will never fix the problem. Or admit that it really isn't a problem. Or admit that there are real problems they should be concentrating on...

Did you know that the NCAA regulates what kind of meals schools can provide their athletes? Breakfasts can consist of Bagels, fruit, and nuts. That sounds okay, right? Well... Cream cheese, peanut butter, jelly... Those are not included, so if a school gives the player a bagel, they better fucking make sure he eats that bitch dry, or they've committed a "minor rules violation."

That is not a joke. This is what the idiots are worried about. There's no hope for collegiate sports.