Occupy Disney

Friends, blog readers, we need to talk.

It is time to take a stand against the devil with mouse ears.

The Walt Disney Corporation has gone completely out of control. In the past eight years, it has bought Pixar Animation Studios, Marvel, and, its most recent prize, Lucasfilm Ltd. It is also, as we speak, in the process of acquiring Studio Ghibli (Ghiblicon.blogspot.com), the Japanese animation studio behind the movie Spirited Away, much beloved by me, and, I’m sure, by anyone who saw it.

Our childhoods have been bought out by this now soulless, money grabbing machine.

The question is, however, what are they going to buy next?

I say this because the Walt Disney Corporation has become the Blob, eating everything in sight and with no signs of stopping.

The original mission of the man Walt Disney was to bring happiness to people with his company’s animated movies. Now, however, its only mission is making money.

We can no longer tolerate this. We, as consumers, need to limit the money we give the company.

The obvious objection to all this, as I understand it, is this may cause Disney to eliminate jobs. I don’t want to put people out of work, either, but Disney will probably do that anyway, whether it needs to or not. 

Following its purchase, Lucasfilm laid off the entire internal development staff at video game company Lucas Arts, “some 150 people” (kotaku.com), which was included in the Lucasfilm acquisition. The statement about the layoffs is as follows:

“After evaluating our position in the games market, we’ve decided to shift LucasArts from an internal development to a licensing model, minimizing the company’s risk while achieving a broader portfolio of quality Star Wars games,” read a statement issued by Lucasfilm. “As a result of this change, we’ve had layoffs across the organization.” (wired.com)

The Disney corporation had no reason to lay off the LucasArts staff. There was no need to minimize the company’s risk, since Disney has no risks to take. It is like killing 150 ants from a colony that controls the world’s sugar population, because they weren’t collecting as much sugar as the colony would like, but didn’t necessarily need.

Now, it isn’t that achievable to stop giving Disney money completely, but we still have to own up to the fact that we created this beast. That’s right. We’re the ones who gave Disney our money. We can still make conscious decisions to mitigate our contributions. Let’s look back to the controversy surrounding the redesign of Merida, the princess from Pixar’s Brave. “The L.A. Times reports -- and IGN has independently confirmed -- that ‘according to a Disney representative on Wednesday, the image of Merida that sparked this maelstrom is part of a limited run of products including backpacks and pajamas. But images of the original Merida will also be available on consumer products.’

Don’t buy Disney’s backpacks and pajamas.

Every dollar that you spend is a vote for the kind of world you want to live in. I don’t want to live in a world where one megacorporation, powered by our complacent consumerism, buys out everything that made my childhood special. I don’t think that’s what anyone else wants, either.

People are my Job

This past weekend, I was searching online for a job that I wished to apply for. I thought searching applications began on Wednesday, so I wasn't too concerned. I was also on ye olde internet chat. I noticed that a good friend of mine was online, so I messaged that person and engaged in pleasant conversation, while simultaneously opening the web page that I sought.

To my surprise, the company from which I desired employment would begin searching applications on Monday. What did I do? Did I cut short my conversation with her and focus squarely on the job?

No.

I still worked on applying to the job, but I wanted to continue the conversation, because this friend and I are really close, and I wanted to make the time to show her that I cared enough about her to make the time for her.

That's because people are my job.

It seems like we're always sleepwalking. Henry David Thoreau saw this when he decided to live for a year in Walden Pond. In his iconic narrative of these events, called Walden, Thoreau said, “[o]ur lives are frittered away by detail.” I saw this when I took a family trip down to New York City. The streets were filled with stampedes of somnambulists who are always locked in their own heads, constantly letting themselves get frittered away by detail, not bothering to even acknowledge your presence.

We are always roaming around, trying to get things done, whether it be at the office or checking emails on our cell phones when on the bus, or being on the phone for something business related when sitting at the dinner table with the family.

It is important to make an income to support yourself and the people you care about, but one must keep in mind that the job is only a means to an end, not the end itself. Anything that you do in your life must come from a place of compassion.

That is why I chose my friend over any potential employment. This is because I already am employed. I am employed by God to make time to listen to the people that matter to me, and let them know that I care about them. My job, and your job, is to take up the call of duty and spread love to the people. It can be something as simple as saying “hello” to a passerby on the street, or calling an old college friend that you keep saying that you ought to call, but never do. Go to your kids' baseball games. Be there to exercise with them and share their interests.

“Now go and do likewise.”--Jesus

Conversation with Myself

Stop!

I can’t believe you’re doing this! How could you? This is despicable. You know that people need you. And yet, there you are, sitting, in your living room, playing video games from dusk ‘til dawn.

Instead of using your mind for conquering the alien armada, why don’t you conquer a real problem, a problem that impacts actual people, not just random artificial intelligence drones that are walking the city of Grand Theft Auto. Instead, use your abilities in a way that brings about actual change.

No, I’m not saying that you have to give up your video games, but have you ever heard of the fable of Plato’s cave? It is the responsibility of the person who sees the light at the end of the cave to lead the other people in darkness to that light. You have a Nintendo Wii. That was made with minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo. These minerals are harvested by miners who are exploited by rebel militias and the government’s own army: not just men, but women, who are sex slaves, and children as well. Even little girls are raped by these soldiers as a weapon of submission. `

Did I mention that some of the rebel soldiers are children, too?

The miners are unfairly taxed by these rebels and soldiers for the minerals that they procure, and they can barely stay alive, while the ones with the AK-47’s make a profit to buy more guns and rocket launchers in a bid for power and dominance.

There, now you know something. Do something about it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/10039-Conflict-Minerals-and-the-Game-Industry-The-Problem

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/10049-Conflict-Minerals-and-the-Game-Industry-Progress-and-Setbacks

Men should be "Brave:" An Alternate Perspective of Media's, I mean Merida's, Redesign

This is deeply disturbing.

A considerable amount of ire has erupted over the redesign of Merida, the central protagonist of Disney's and Pixar's “Brave” to mark her official induction in the Disney family as the eleventh Disney princess. While her original image is a plainly dressed, realistically proportioned teenage medieval Scottish girl, as opposed to an anorexic Cinderella doll, “[f]unctionality has given way to chic belts, sequins, and gold lace. Much more worrying, however, are the physical alterations. The waist has certainly been taken in an inch or two, and I suspect those cheeks are no longer rouged by the bracing Scottish wind” (Krupa IGN.com).

Let us flip this situation on its head for a moment.

Instead of Merida being a girl trying to break free from the social norms of masculinity, let us say that Merida is a prince, who wanted to bend traditional norms of masculinity, by wearing brightly colored clothes (perhaps a dress?), attending wine tastings, and growing out his long, flowing hair. If he were redesigned as wearing a gray suit, clipped, combed hair, and having a six-pack of abs, there wouldn't be outrage: there would be approval.

This demonstrates a significant double standard for men when it comes to bending gender norms. Women are applauded for taking on higher roles in the work place and getting their hands dirty, but if a man were to smell flowers or be cooking in the kitchen, he would be identified as being far too feminine. We're still seeing this in popular culture. Actor Kunal Nayyar's character, Raj, from CBS's TV show “The Big Bang Theory,” is the butt of many jokes that mock his apparent lack of manliness, by having him suggest to his three male colleagues that they attend a wine tasting in the coming weekend, since “the flowers will be in bloom.” One of the guys then drives in the punch line, “We go from talking about women to becoming women.” What makes wine tasting and appreciating nature such a taboo? I attended a wine tasting at my college, and the two faculty members who hosted the event were both men. Also, Earth is the only planet we have, so why not appreciate every aspect of it?

To put this situation in a nutshell, it’s like Michelangelo’s painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, in which God is reaching out with his hand and giving life to Adam (Vatican.va). Adam is reaching out to God as well. Women reach across borders of femininity, so we can’t expect social change for women unless men are willing to enjoy a glass of chardonnay every once in a while.

"The Long Road Home: One Step at a Time" A Review

Can a comic strip make you cry? Absolutely.

G.B. Trudeau's compilation of Doonesbury comic strips, entitled The Long Road Home: One Step at a Time is proof of this.

It  is all at once hilarious, heart-warming, and gut-wrenching.

The overarching story chronicles the struggle of soldier B.D., his wife, Boopsie, their daughter, Sam, and family friend Ray Hightower, a.k.a. Zonker, as they struggle to adjust to the loss of B.D.'s left leg, in an explosion while overseas in Fallujah, Iraq.

The narrative doesn't bother easing you in. It starts from the first person perspective of B.D., as he is laying down on the ground, drifting in and out of consciousness. The panels on the first two pages alternate between solid black, with only a dialogue bubble filling the void, and quick glimpses of B.D.'s fellow soldiers, calling for medical assistance, and telling B.D. “You're not dying here, man! Not today!”

From there, much of the narrative takes place at Walter Reed Medical Center, where B.D goes through much of his recovery, and at Fischer House—“the facility that has served as a 'home away from home' for more than 65,000 military families across the country,” according to U.S. Senator John McCain in his foreword. “Fischer Houses,” continues Sen. McCain, “located on the grounds of every major military medical center, enable family members to be close to the wounded during their hospitalization.”

G.B. Trudeau does an excellent job at balancing the human drama with upbeat humor. The reader goes from B.D struggling with moments of depression, to Zonker shouting in the hospital hallway, “Nurse! Self-pity in 5732!” One moment that will make you both smile and cry is Sam's reaction to her mother breaking the news of her father's injury. It might actually make you pause for a moment, to digest what just happened.                                                                                                                                                  
For anyone who thinks that comic books, comic strips, and graphic novels do nothing to probe the depths of the human experience, I dare you to read a copy of this work, and not feel something for the characters.

Final score: 9.9 out of 10

Video Game Turns Meaning of Freedom and Slavery on Head

Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, published by Namco Bandai, and developed by Ninja Theory, is a video game that has moved me in a way few other video games ever have. I was expecting a good story, gorgeous landscapes, and intense melee combat with animal-like robots, but I never expected to be confronted with the philosophical issue of what freedom and slavery really are.

The central protagonist of this story, a nameless wanderer who goes by the nickname Monkey, doesn't have any responsibilities in life. He travels the lush post-apocalyptic America, wherever he “can find food and fuel,” as he describes to Trip, a woman that she encounters on a ship upon which they, and many other individuals, are imprisoned. Trip straps to his head an electronic headband that will kill him unless he does what she says, and keeps her alive as she seeks out her home. By a camp fire at night, Trip asks Monkey where he will go after she removes the headband, besides “breaking [her] neck,” she says. After a short silence, Monkey says, “wherever.” He has no direction in his life. No purpose.

SPOILERS: This is a stark contrast to the people whose minds are in the computer simulation of life before the “Great War,” which is what the man who calls himself Pyramid names it. According to him, he is not enslaving people, but “rescuing them from the wasteland,” by attaching their minds to this simulation. “They have jobs. They have marriages. They bring up their children. Their children go to schools . . . your world is a wasteland, in which you fight to survive. Pyramid is a world in which you can live.” Are the people of Pyramid really free? Certainly, they are free from having to wander the post-apocalyptic Earth, in which “you fight to survive.” In Pyramid’s simulated world, they have something to live for.

This is why Monkey chooses to remain enslaved to Trip, when she voluntarily deactivates Monkey’s headband on the eve of their final assault on the slaver ships’ central base. Trip tells him, “I’m not going to control you anymore.” Monkey asks if he is free to go, and she tells him, “If that’s what you want.” 

To this, Monkey bluntly replies, “Turn it back on.”

Monkey never had any direction in his life other than survival before Trip found him. He knows what life he would go back to if he is freed. Monkey gets something out of his captivity that he doesn’t get from being free. This is an entirely different freedom. It is the freedom to “live,” as Pyramid may call it. It’s the freedom to live for something, or in this case, someone, beyond himself.

Throughout Trip’s and Monkey’s epic journey, their relationship evolves from that of captor and captive to companionship. After Monkey takes down a giant mechanical dog that wanted to chomp them into a pulp, Monkey corrects Trip’s affirmation of “You did it,” by saying “We did it,” since it was Trip’s scan of the beast that identified its Achilles heel. He doesn’t even blame Trip for keeping the headband on him after he gets her to her home, as the deal initially was, after seeing her father was killed. She instead decides to journey west to “find whoever did this, and . . . kill him.”

“What did you expect me to say? You come home, you find your whole life wiped out . . . I get it.” Monkey goes from wanting to “break [her] neck” to showing real sympathy for her, or, perhaps, something more.

 So why doesn’t Monkey just stay beside Trip without having the headband activated? Note that he only goes wherever he “can find food and fuel.” Even before the headband, Monkey was a slave anyway, not to another person, but to himself, to his own survival instincts. By accepting slavery to Trip, he is free from his own slavery, since Trip’s headband forces him to keep her alive in order to stay alive himself.

"The Words" review

There can only be one word to describe the movie known as "The Words:" overkill.

An otherwise interesting and meaningful story, about a book that describes a story in which a young writer (Bradley Cooper) steals a story from an old man (Jeremy Irons), is bogged down by both excessive and excessively serious music, and too much melodrama.

The tale of the young writer, named Rory Jansen, is narrated by actor Dennis Quaid's character, Clayton Hammond, from his new novel at a public reading. Through this reading, and the inquiring of graduate student Danielle (Olivia Wilde), the viewer follows Rory's tortured artistic soul, as he struggles to make a name for himself in the literary world. After a reality check by his father (J.K. Simmons), he decides to get an actual job in a mailing room in a major publisher, in order to support himself and his wife, Dora (Zoe Saldana), while hoping to "make some connection" as he calls it. When the couple goes on a Paris vacation, which I have no clue how they were able to afford, Dora buys Rory an old work bag, which he later discovers at home holds a piece of writing from Jeremy Irons' character. Reading this, he comes to the realization that, as he put it in a melodramatic screaming fit to his wife, "I'm not who I thought I was . . . and I'm terrified that I never will be" (imdb.com). So, he steals the work as his own, and becomes famous.

Of course, karma finds him, when the old man confronts him. He has one of the most tempered performances in the entire movie, and I say that because there is hardly an ounce of comic relief in it. It's a dark tale about a lost love, a dead baby, and dealing with the consequences of your decisions in life. The problem with this story's delivery, is that the performances are too heavy-handed. The younger version of the old man wreck his entire apartment in a fit of grief and rage. Also, it would be nice if Rory tells Dora about her fears early on in the movie in a more restrained manner. He doesn't even bother trying to control himself. Did the directors of this movie hear the expression, "Less is more?" It would have delivered his emotions more sharply, allowing the viewer to imagine the kind of emotions fuming inside of him, as opposed to whacking the viewer over the head with a hammer, make that a whale, which the movie does quite too often.

In spite of its shortcomings, "The Words" delivers its message effectively enough. It just doesn't exactly qualify as a feel good movie, to say the least.

Final score: 7 out of 10

Sources: rogerebert.com and imdb.com

Iron Man and the Right to Wear Repulser Gloves

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Bill of Rights, archives.gov

The movie “Iron Man 2” recently aired last week on FX, and the timing couldn't be more eerily appropriate. In the aftermath of the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, talk has been fervent across the nation about the question of gun control. This past Wednesday, Obama presented a plan of action for gun control, including a ban on high capacity assault rifles, and some second amendment advocates were not happy with it. It turns out that billionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey, jr.), also known as Iron Man, was involved in his own second amendment dilemma. So, what's “Iron Man's 2” position on this issue? The film undoubtedly defends the right of the American citizen to possess fire arms, but it also makes the point that not everyone can be trusted with them.

The federal government attempts to confiscate Tony Stark's Iron Man technology, believing that its very existence is a threat to national security, and wanting to use the technology in the military. Stark doesn't like this idea, as one would imagine. He makes it very clear that “[t]he suit and I are one.” In fact, Tony even tells a public hearing, aired on C-SPAN, that he “successfully privatized world peace,” through his heroic actions using the armor. It doesn't take that long, however, before Tony Stark becomes reckless. Throughout the movie, the metal known as palladium, which is in the device that prevents lethal shrapnel in his blood stream from entering his heart, is slowly poisoning him. Faced with his seemingly imminent death, Stark resorts to erratic and dangerous behavior, including playing with his Iron Man armor at his own birthday party while intoxicated. The ominous music in this scene indicates how dangerous Tony Stark has become, even leading his best friend, Colonel James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) to battle Stark in an earlier version of the Iron Man suit, saying, “You don't deserve to wear that armor.”

If Tony can't be trusted with a high-tech suit of armor, then he can't be trusted with an assault rifle, either. So, why should we trust a drunk or a drug addict or anyone with a mental disorder with an assault rifle or any kind of gun?

Fortunately, Tony Stark eventually gets his act together, and just in time, too, since a small platoon of military robots are designed by requisite villain Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) in order to help Tony Stark's big technology rival, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), to dominate Tony Stark at his own expo. Vanko, unbeknownst to Hammer, remotely controls the drones and wreaks havoc on the expo in an attempt to kill Iron Man, and it was up to Stark and Rhodes to defeat the drones, as well as Vanko himself. The drones represent the U.S. Military, and if they become destructive, then it wouldn't be too hard to ponder what would happen if our own real world military becomes oppressive. It took an average citizen, albeit a genius one, to use his own “arms” or armour to combat this threat. Anyone who believes that the Second Amendment is meant to protect Americans, if the government becomes oppressive, would find an argument in “Iron Man 2” for why the right to carry a gun is so essential.

 However, as a certain red and blue clad web-swinger would say it, “With great power comes great responsibility.

information from imdb.com and archives.gov

My non-Christian Friend is NOT going to the Other Place

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. John 3:17,18

I consider myself to be a Christian. I have a Bible. I go to church every Sunday that I'm able to. I also believe that not only Christians go to Heaven.

A while ago, I got into a debate on Facebook regarding the above bit of scripture from the Bible. Particularly, it was the part of the scripture that said “whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” I initially interpreted this as a form of discrimination. I figured that God punished those who don't accept Christ as the son of God by sending them to Hell. Someone looking in on this Facebook conversation posted a couple lines of scripture, such as the following, that clarified things for me.

8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. Romans 9:8

The way it was explained to me was that all people were born as “children of the flesh” because of the Original Sin in the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve ate the apple containing the knowledge of good and evil. However, if we accept Christ as our savior and become “children of the promise [of Christ's salvation],” then we are “counted as offspring [of God],” and therefore have access to the kingdom of heaven. However, I have a problem with this outline for the path to salvation from death and eternal damnation.

One of my closest friends is of a faith other than Christianity. She's a real sweetheart, and she's basically dedicating her life to saving the entire planet from suffering. Automatically, she seems much more worthy of entering Heaven than I could ever be. Why would God create a system to salvation that automatically excludes people from the Kingdom of Heaven who were not raised Christian, or, further more, have either never heard of never will hear of Jesus in their lifetimes? That doesn't make sense to me.

Now, I understand that one may counter my argument that my friend is more worthy of going to Heaven than I am because of the good works that she does, “8 [f]or by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:8-10). There are a lot of people who do different works for different reasons. I'm positive that there are many people who do good works not so that they might “boast” that they're getting into the kingdom of Heaven. I think God can see into all our souls, and that He knows who is doing good deeds because they are good, as opposed to simply trying to get a ticket into Heaven.

Although I have my reasons for believing that there are pathways outside of being an official Christian that are available for escaping damnation, I have essentially been accused of denial of the supposed fact that one can only be saved by accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Somebody asked me the question: “Are you willing to say the truth is a lie so that in your mind someone doesn't go to a bad place[?] Is it better that way or another way?”

I am not in denial about the fact that Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). You can't deny something that you know for a fact is not true. I know in my heart that God would not design such an exclusive system. Perhaps there were subtleties to the Message that may have gotten lost in translation. Let's keep in mind that the Old Testament wasn't first written in English, but primarily in Hebrew, with “a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah . . . written in a language called Aramaic,” (biblica.com), and the New Testament was written in Greek (biblica.com). So, who is to say that Jesus meant, “if you don't convert to Christianity, you're going to Hell?”

Maybe having a relationship with Jesus can also mean living like Jesus, going out into the world, preaching the message of love, and talking to God, or Allah, or Nirvana, or whatever one might call him. The theologian Karl Rahner proposed the concept of the anonymous Christian, which is someone who has already been saved by Christ, but just don't know it yet.

Firstly, God, who desires all men to be saved, cannot possibly consign all non-Christians to hell. Secondly, Jesus Christ is God’s only means of salvation. This must mean that the non-Christians who end up in heaven must have received the grace of Christ without their realising it.

--Wong Cheong Sou 25

Rahner furthermore said the following:

Is it surprising that in certain circumstances the real situation and the basic self-understanding of a person may be grasped more clearly by someone else than by the person himself, who may in fact strongly resist the other’s interpretation? ³

^{--quoted in Wong Cheong Sou 25}

^{To put it more basically, suppose that someone claims not to believe in Christ's resurrection of the dead, or go to church. Yet, this person volunteers his or her time out of a strong need to do good in the world. Let's say that this person prays a lot as well. That's what Jesus said to do, right?}

^{29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.}

^{– Mark 12, 29-32}

^{The text says to love “the Lord your God,” so whoever “your God” is may depend on the religion you belong to. And if this non-Christian chooses to “love your neighbor as yourself,” then that's very Christian as well. Jesus also said “There is no other commandment greater than these.” So, your actions are more important than what you label God as or whether or not you make it to Church every Sunday.}

I'm not creating an alternate reality for myself just to make myself feel better. I know for a fact that not all non-Christians go to Hell. Yes, the Bible tells you a lot about God, but I think it's just as important to listen to what your heart says about what the scripture in your religion tells you. Faith in what your heart says is something deeper than simply believing what your scriptures say alone. If you believe in your heart that what the scriptures say is true, then who am I to say you're wrong? However, nobody will be able to prove anybody wrong until we're all dead. So I'm just going to follow my moral compass, and ask myself, “What would Jesus and Buddha do?'

Works Cited

In what language was the Bible first written? biblica.com

biblegateway.com

Wong Cheong Sou, Reverend Norman. Karl Rahner’s Concept of the ‘Anonymous Christian’ An Inclusivist View of Religions. Church and Society. Volume 4, No 1