Beauty and the Beast

You know how after hearing something a few dozen times you start to see things in it you didn't at first? Well my husband and children are in the Disney musical Beauty and the Beast, and I am sitting behind listening to all the songs and lines as they are rehearsing. After a while, I started realizing some odd things about the characters.

First, since Lumiare sings that "ten years we've been rusting," clearly they have been enchanted for at 10 least years. Then realize that the prince is coming up on his 21st birthday. So, that enchantress punished a boy of about 11 because he wouldn't let her into his castle! His parents probably told him not to let strangers into the castle on dark and stormy nights. And they were right! What an evil enchantress! She not only punished the boy, but turned all the innocent bystanders into cookery!

Chip doesn't seem to be 10 years old; he asks questions and acts more like a 6 year old - did the tea pot give birth? Where is the father? Or more interestingly, what is the father?

And speaking of parents, where are the prince's parents? I assume they are dead since Disney hates parents and kills them off the first chance they get. So here is this kid left in charge of a whole castle without even an advisor. What!? Mrs. Potts says at one point that his behavior is partly their (the servants) fault because they have let him have his way, but they are the servants, right? What else are servants supposed to do? Crazy!

What about this castle? Before it was enchanted it was a normal castle. So what is it doing hiding in the middle of a forest? Aren't castles the homes of rulers, and so they are usually located in the middle of a kingdom? Where is the kingdom? And don't you think that if this only happened 21 years ago ALL the villagers would know about the castle that was transformed? The villagers shouldn't ever think the Maurice is crazy!

Belle is a pretty good character, but she is not without her flaws. Just look at these lines. "Little town, full of little people", and "for once it might be grand, for someone to understand, I want so much more than they have planned". She is a bit stuck up, isn't she? And she lied to the Beast, but then, who wouldn't have, given the duress of her situation. She gives her word that she would stay at the castle (as a prisoner) in place of her father, but as soon as the Beast shouts at her to leave his private room she runs away. Of course, she caused the trouble by trespassing, so it was her own fault. How does she expect a prisoner to be treated? She actually had it quite good! She definitely has a princess complex.

Her darkest fault however is a bit unexpected. I bet you didn't realize she is a cannibal! Think about the song "Be Our Guest" and you will realize it is a bit creepy. There is a line " dancing pork, singing veal, what an entertaining meal" but everything that talks or sings or dances was a human! Even worse, in our play, all the children are types of food. Don't eat our children Belle! As the Mob song goes singing about the dangers of the Beast . . . "Said to sacrifice our children to its monstrous appetite" - - I guess the mob had it almost right, except it is Belle eating the children!


This is a warning to all of you -- don't over analyze Disney plays. This way lies maddness!

Turn that smile upside down

And frown that smile away!

Ok, so I picked up a book by one of my favorite authors, and it was yet another book on how to be happy. I am so disappointed that I have to rant for a bit.

Our society is obsessed with being happy. Not long ago there was an article in Discover Magazine about people who are taking classes on how to be happier. Psychiatrists are constantly drugging perfectly miserable people into states of artificial toleration. Your local corner zealot is currently selling happiness by the can. Pulpits are being pounded, and books are being perused for the location of the fountain of happiness. Why? 'Cause that is how humans should feel!

I'm not convinced. Humans are often unhappy, but does that mean it is wrong or unnatural to feel unhappy? Wouldn't the unnatural thing be to only feel one emotion? We are designed to experience many emotions, why skimp on all the others? Have you ever noticed how unproductive happiness is? Your mind wanders, you burst into annoying songs that are usually off key, and you smile vacuously. Now contrast that to people who are angry. Do you really think that anybody would have fought the British for America if they were all content and happy. Don't you think they had to be really ticked off in order to dump all their favorite beverage out into the sea? A happy person would have just smiled and shrugged off the extra pennies. Happy people don't riot, and governments know it. That's why so many rulers were insistent on their people having a religion, because religion teaches people to be happy and accepting of their circumstances.

What about the memorable speeches in history? Do you think they came from smiling, happy people? NO! Martin Luther King was most unhappy about the way people were being treated, and he told everyone. When there are gross injustices happening to us, or in the world, we shouldn't just shrug them off. We should get angry and sad. Don't be a Stepford Wife!

I think the real problem for many people is similar to that of the child that has been eating candy all day. She is starting to get sick on all the sweets, but she just keeps looking for the best pieces thinking it will make her feel better. We should have happy times, but to try to be happy all the time is just wrong and shallow. Telling people to be happy all the time is just a fancy way of recommending egocentricism. People need to care about something larger than just themselves and their own little minds. But ironically, this often won't make you happy. You will feel sad and angry and revolted. However, you won't feel sick.

So today I suggest that you have a goal of going out and trying to make just one person a little bit unhappier.

A Good Quote

I read this today and I loved it. I like it in part because I know I can be a jerk when I am trying to argue a point, so I need to be careful. Undoubtly, the other part is because the jerks that I am arguing against should also read this quote and ponder it!

Nietzsche

---

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.

piaslreasetline

Does it seem to anyone else that President Bush is tacitly endorsing Israel's attacks on Lebanon? I almost think Bush hopes this will escalate to the battle of Armageddon; I'm sure he'd just love to have the distrinction of being the last President before the Second Coming. I just read a news article headlined "Bush rejects Lebanese call for cease fire." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_re_eu/g8_bush_8

(Excuse me for a moment while I go scream...)

Okay, I suggested a solution to the Isreali-Palestinian conflict years ago, in a paper I wrote for a highschool English class. The steps they need to take are as follows:

1. Give Palestinians equal rights, including the right to move freely through the country without fences or roadblocks.

2. Change the flag to not include religious imagery.

3. Change the nation's name to something that doesn't make the Palestinians feel excluded. I suggest combining the old name (Palestine) and the new name (Israel) in such a way as to give neither a clear preference: Piaslreasetline.

4. Build a Jewish temple inside the Dome of the Rock, allow both groups to worship there freely.

5. If all this fails, move everyone out of the country and declare it one big archaeological site off-limits to the public.

"The Shell Game"

A Feminist's Take on the Chicken or the Egg Dilemma:

Ok, so some philosophers, biologists and a chicken farmer have lately been pondering a life changing question: Why did the chicken cross the road, er, . . . no , no wait, it was the other vital question, which came first the chicken or the egg. Well, they claim to have finally cracked it! Yup, the egg question has finally been layed to rest, and the verdict?

Drum roll please . . . .

The egg came first! Now, I thought, my mind can finally be at peace and I can sleep easier knowing that the great minds of our age have finally reached a conclusive answer to this dilemma. But then in the middle of the night last night I woke up in a cold sweat knowing something was terribly wrong with the story. The great chicken came to me in a dream, warning me of false philosophers and telling me that the truth was out there. Or maybe it was David Duchovny in a chicken suit ? -- I'm still not sure.

Now I must warn others of the fallacies of following this scrambled egg story. The argument for the egg coming first is essentially this: the genetics of the creature in the egg stay the same throughout its life. The first creature that could be said to be a chicken would have been a chicken from creation of the zygote, which would have been in the egg. Thus the egg wins the day. Or does it?

There are two ways to understand this question. First you could read the question as asking which came first, the adult chicken or a fetal chicken inside an egg. The answer to this question seems quite obvious, and is quite uninteresting. To put it another way, it is the mind-numbingly easy question of whether a child comes before an adult. Good job biologist, philosopher and chicken farmer, you just solved a question that has been baffling two-year-olds for several minutes. If you go around asking a question this inane, most people will be embarrassed for you and will start pretending you aren't present. I don't recommend it, unless you are two or younger.

I think it is our job to assume that the author of this question had a little more grey matter between the ears than the former question would imply. I believe that the real question is whether a chicken came first, or if a chicken's egg came first. What is the difference? It is a question of ownership of the egg. I think that as a feminist I must argue for the position that the egg belongs to the mother.

Everyone claiming that the egg came first is making the huge assumption that the egg belongs to the creature in the egg rather than to the creature that layed the egg. It is clearly false to claim that just because a creature is inhabiting an object that the object belongs to it. My dog is laying in my bed, but it is still my bed, darn it! . . . I think. . .yes, yes it is! Hey, give me a little more room puppy! Ok, take your time.

First of all, what is an egg? It seems very similar to a womb, does it not? Do we claim that the womb a baby grows in belongs to the mother or to the fetus? I think everyone would agree with me when I say that a womb belongs to the mother.

It may be claimed that an egg is different, however, because it is removed from the body of the mother. Does removing it from her body make it no longer hers? The removal process alone can't justify this. If I plucked a feather from the mother, isn't it still her feather? What about a toe? Or one of those juicy legs smeared in barbecue sauce. No wait, that's my barbecue chicken leg, get your hands off it!

Ok, so the chicken legs are mine, but I still think the eggs are hers. Imagine I work for an agency monitoring the amount of radiation in chicken eggs. Now, suppose that as I was monitoring Obedia's uranium enhanced chickens I found a glowing egg. I dramatically hold up this strangely glowing egg to Obedia and ask the farmer to point out the chicken to whom the egg belongs. I would be forced to stare at the farmer with my best are-you-daft look if the farmer said "weeeell, I reckon, it's the egg of the itty-biddy bird inside that there shell.

Still not enough proof, you say?

Ok, I would like to ask you who owns an unfertilized egg. If the owner of an egg is the inhabitant of the egg, then an unfertilized egg is an unowned egg. It shouldn't be called a chicken egg, 'cause there isn't a chicken inside! And I dare say that after all the pain and anguish of that poor chicken, it should be hers. She earned it!

As my final point I would like you all to consider the case of Chicken vs Wade. In this case the state wanted to prevent Ms. Chicken (name changed to protect the chickens involved) from leaving her egg to get cold while she went out and got a snack. The argument was that the zygotic chicken had the right to be sat upon for as long as it took to hatch. However, it was decided that zygotes just don't have the same kind of rights as full blown chickens. (This case may even throw some doubt upon the afore-mentioned daft-argument). Now if this zygote doesn't even have the right to a warm mother's bum, why does it have ownership rights over the shell? At some point the chicken fetus does gain warm-bum-rights, but when and why does it gain shell-ownership rights? Ownership rights just aren't the kind of things you gain over time, just by hanging out long enough.

So there you have it, I think the egg belongs to the mother. If I am right, then the first pre-chicken layed a pre-chicken egg from which a chicken emerged. Hence the chicken came first, and not the chicken egg!

Ok, so now, why did it cross the road!!