As some of you may know, I recently went to Disneyworld. Which got me thinking for some reason.
I have friends who are anti-Disney. They can't stand any Disney movie (Pixar doesn't count), because of its medieval/unrealistic/babyish ideas. NOT every girl will be a princess (in fact, if you live in America, you never will). NOT every singer becomes a world-famous rock star with two identities. There is NO SUCH THING as a magic carpet, a star you can wish on, or a benevolent fat lady with wand that will give you anything you ask for out of thin air. NO frogs will turn into princes upon being kissed, and then promptly marry you.
I remembered these people (you shall forever remain nameless, don't worry) as I was walking through Disney (specifically, as I was waiting in a line. One of many lines.). And all I could think of was how much they would hate this place. It was so...happy. So...magical. And so very unrealistic.
Of course, that practically ruined my mood, so I tried not to think such thoughts for the rest of the day.
On the opposite tack, the next evening, my brother and I were sitting on the bleachers, watching "Fantasmic," one of the big Broadway spectacular/fireworks extravaganzas. I remember sitting right next to me was a little girl, maybe three years old. The minute a Disney princess came out on the stage, she would stand up on the bleacher and point, with a smile the size of a watermelon slice on her face. When the big dragon appeared to devour Mickey, she began sobbing like the world was about to end. In fact, when even the entrance music for one of the bad guys began playing (the bad guy didn't even have to show up), she would bawl.
Of course, my first thought is "Aw, isn't that sweet." And the next thought, "Wow, that's really innocent...and naive." That, of course, put me into an argument with myself as to how to react to such things - with cynicism or with "childlike wonder."
I ended up choosing the latter option - which made my experience all the more pleasant. With just a tiny effort, my entire week was made "magical." I would gasp every time a firework went off, as if it had been pixie dust and not gunpowder. I would sing randomly throughout the day, as if there had always been a soundtrack to my life. I played along when Peter Pan asked me if there was a fairy in my battery-powered light-up pen. I was an evil bounty hunter for ten minutes when I got stuck in a line with two 4-foot-tall Jedi. I had the time of my life.
I realized - it's a lot like reading fiction. Or watching movies. No one points out the fact that the Boondock Saints could never have existed, that DeLoreans can't be modified into time machines, that there is no Middle Earth besides the white-hot core of our planet. Because for those 2 hours, we're not absorbed in how unrealistic the movie is. We want to know the story. And we'd quickly duct-tape closed the mouth of anyone who tries to ruin it for us by constantly reminding us of how unrealistic it is.
So if I ever go to Disneyworld with any of you reading this blog...beware. I have duct tape. And I'm not afraid to use it.
5.28.2010
5.15.2010
Whose Rights?
Currently, only two countries in the world have not ratified the U.N. Convention On the Rights of the Child: Somalia...and the United States.
Why is this so? And what is so wrong with the Convention?
I took the time (yes, I have nothing else to do) to read the entire Convention, from Preamble to Article 54. The general essence of the Convention is that children (meaning humans under 18) have the same human rights as adults...and then some.
The government is allowed to intervene in a child's life, including taking him away from his parents, if it is in the "best interest of the child." "The best interest of the child" is mentioned over and over again throughout the entire thing, as it is the Convention's "primary consideration."
The Convention does respect the responsibilities, rights, and duties of the parents, family, or community in guiding children in the exercise of their rights. That's a relief.
However, a child can form and voice their own views, if old or mature enough to do so, and their views will be considered depending on their age. Parents are not allowed to control their kids' speech - the government will step in when the speech infringes on other people's rights or is a danger to national security. Basically, their parents, although allowed to "provide direction," are not allowed to prevent their kids from saying whatever they want, access whatever media they want, or complain to courts however they want.
Parents are still responsible to secure their children's proper living conditions, of course, and are allowed to "provide guidance" in most matters, but the government is allowed to interfere if it is "in the best interest of the child."
The wording of the entire Convention is nebulous, allowing for much interpretation (and misinterpretation). As are most laws.
Certain U.S. citizens also claim that it is in conflict with the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in the past, which do not allow interference in the parent-child relationship. The HSLDA is against it, due to the fact that it may allow the government to disallow homeschooling. The U.S. has a history of refraining from ratifying U.N. resolutions, due to concerns of sovereignty and federalism. Some believe we simply don't need it.
Many international organizations, however, do support the resolution, including World Vision and the International Rescue Committee.
What does everyone else think?
Why is this so? And what is so wrong with the Convention?
I took the time (yes, I have nothing else to do) to read the entire Convention, from Preamble to Article 54. The general essence of the Convention is that children (meaning humans under 18) have the same human rights as adults...and then some.
The government is allowed to intervene in a child's life, including taking him away from his parents, if it is in the "best interest of the child." "The best interest of the child" is mentioned over and over again throughout the entire thing, as it is the Convention's "primary consideration."
The Convention does respect the responsibilities, rights, and duties of the parents, family, or community in guiding children in the exercise of their rights. That's a relief.
However, a child can form and voice their own views, if old or mature enough to do so, and their views will be considered depending on their age. Parents are not allowed to control their kids' speech - the government will step in when the speech infringes on other people's rights or is a danger to national security. Basically, their parents, although allowed to "provide direction," are not allowed to prevent their kids from saying whatever they want, access whatever media they want, or complain to courts however they want.
Parents are still responsible to secure their children's proper living conditions, of course, and are allowed to "provide guidance" in most matters, but the government is allowed to interfere if it is "in the best interest of the child."
The wording of the entire Convention is nebulous, allowing for much interpretation (and misinterpretation). As are most laws.
Certain U.S. citizens also claim that it is in conflict with the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in the past, which do not allow interference in the parent-child relationship. The HSLDA is against it, due to the fact that it may allow the government to disallow homeschooling. The U.S. has a history of refraining from ratifying U.N. resolutions, due to concerns of sovereignty and federalism. Some believe we simply don't need it.
Many international organizations, however, do support the resolution, including World Vision and the International Rescue Committee.
What does everyone else think?
5.12.2010
Enviral-mental
"Let's save the environment." "Be green!" "Protect Mother Earth."
These slogans are shouted at us every day. The government, the media, the companies, the schools - and a lot of bloggers, too. But why?
The temperature of the earth is rising. Trees are being cut down. Species are going extinct. Weather is getting weirder. EARTH IS BEING DEFILED.
Therefore, we need to pour our money into programs that will help restore the earth; since we were the ones that destroyed it, we should be the ones to put it back together again.
I have an extremely simple solution to the entire environmental problem, that will solve it almost immediately. The solution is...
...we kill all the people. Everyone. Including ourselves. If we did so, the world wouldn't have to worry about the cars, factories, industries, and all that junk that is "destroying Mother Nature." If we got rid of the biggest enemy of nature, humans, the environment would be set for life.
Of course, we can't do that. No one wants to kill someone to "save the environment." But that is exactly what we are doing. For years, we've been spending thousands upon thousands of dollars in an attempt to help nature back onto its feet again - while every year, 15 million children are dying of hunger. Last year, Minnesota passed the "Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment" which increased taxes and diverts $300 million dollars every year to helping the environment - while in less than 50 years, those dollars could have satisfied the entire world's sanitation and food requirements.
So the question is: which do we care more about? The children in third-world countries, or the green pitcher plant? People, or things? We in America are blessed to have enough money to, after taking care of our own needs, see to the needs of others. It simply depends on who - or what - we spend that money on.
It's your choice.
These slogans are shouted at us every day. The government, the media, the companies, the schools - and a lot of bloggers, too. But why?
The temperature of the earth is rising. Trees are being cut down. Species are going extinct. Weather is getting weirder. EARTH IS BEING DEFILED.
Therefore, we need to pour our money into programs that will help restore the earth; since we were the ones that destroyed it, we should be the ones to put it back together again.
I have an extremely simple solution to the entire environmental problem, that will solve it almost immediately. The solution is...
...we kill all the people. Everyone. Including ourselves. If we did so, the world wouldn't have to worry about the cars, factories, industries, and all that junk that is "destroying Mother Nature." If we got rid of the biggest enemy of nature, humans, the environment would be set for life.
Of course, we can't do that. No one wants to kill someone to "save the environment." But that is exactly what we are doing. For years, we've been spending thousands upon thousands of dollars in an attempt to help nature back onto its feet again - while every year, 15 million children are dying of hunger. Last year, Minnesota passed the "Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment" which increased taxes and diverts $300 million dollars every year to helping the environment - while in less than 50 years, those dollars could have satisfied the entire world's sanitation and food requirements.
So the question is: which do we care more about? The children in third-world countries, or the green pitcher plant? People, or things? We in America are blessed to have enough money to, after taking care of our own needs, see to the needs of others. It simply depends on who - or what - we spend that money on.
It's your choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)