Political Paranoia

I voted yesterday, but I guess it didn't do much good, as Chris Christie won the gubernatorial race. I'll admit I didn't do a whole lot of research going into this election, but looking at his positions on issues doesn't exactly fill me with hope. He's opposed to gay marriage, in favor of destroying the wetlands, and apparently favors parents in poor school districts using state money to send their kids to private schools (as opposed to, y'know, improving the public schools themselves). Oh, and he was a lobbyist. Great. But much more disappointing was the result of the election in Maine, where the bigots came out in force to oppose gay marriage. Why does this issue keep being put to the vote? It's a civil rights issue, and those are too important to leave up to the majority. But morality doesn't seem to be of much significance in the country today. Just look at all the opposition to universal health care, for instance. Why isn't a reasonable level of health care considered a moral right? Well, you have a lot of corporate lobbies trying to convince people it isn't, and they're obviously doing a good job. We can't underestimate the power of telling people that something will result in Higher Taxes, though, as if "Taxes" were one single figure rather than the results of many different factors. That's not to say that the expense isn't a significant concern, but I think some issues are more important than money. Besides, despite being in debt, the government apparently still has enough money to bribe other countries. Funny, that. Also kind of funny, if you look at it in the right light, is the idea that there are businesses based pretty much entirely around finding excuses not to pay for things. And these businesses are some of the most powerful entities in the country.

With universal health care, though, I can understand some of the arguments against it, and it's incredibly obvious why certain corporate interests would be against it. With gay marriage, though...not so much. You'd think the corporate lobbies would be in favor of it because marriage of any kind is incredibly profitable. Disney got on board with that, so why don't other corporations want to? I've considered the possibility that the insurance companies might be behind this one as well, since more marriages could mean having to insure more people. While there's some logic there, though, it strikes me as rather convoluted and indirect. No, while that might be a factor, it's primarily religious groups that are driving the anti-gay-marriage campaign. I have to suspect there's more to it than just "the Bible says," though (especially since the Bible DOESN'T say; it says to stone gay men to death, but doesn't address whether they should be allowed to get married). The rank and file of homophobic voters might be convinced that it has something to do with keeping people out of Hell, but what do the leaders want? I tend to hold to the idea that winning battles like that is a way for the fundamentalists to get their foot in the door to enact other, potentially more significant legislation. Some particularly tactless religious leaders have made no bones about the fact that they essentially want to rule the world, or at least have someone on their side doing so. I don't necessarily think it's some vast conservative Christian conspiracy at work (although that might be a stronger possibility than it would seem at first glance, what with The Family and all), but I do think banning gay marriage is a means to further ends, even if the average conservative voter doesn't know it.

That brings me to another point I've been thinking about recently, which is that the government really should start taxing churches. As with the other issues, this is basically the case of a tradition that favors the powerful continuing unabated. A lot of churches have convinced people to just flat-out give them ten percent of their gross income, and then will ask for donations on top of that. Of course, if someone WANTS to do that, it's their choice. But there are religious leaders trying to convince people that they're horrible if they don't tithe, even if they can't afford it (which, based on what the Bible teaches elsewhere, presumably means these people should be RECEIVING money, not giving it). Pretty much everyone else who's in business to make money gets taxed, so why do religious institutions get a free pass? Yes, many churches do charitable work, but I don't see why a church's charitable enterprises couldn't be set up as a separate non-profit. I suppose the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation doesn't need to pay taxes, but that doesn't make Microsoft tax-exempt. Would I feel differently on this subject if I were religious myself? I guess I don't really know, but I kind of suspect not. Agreeing with the basic doctrines of a religion doesn't have to mean buying into whatever the leaders say, after all.

Why Does Our Teddy Hunt Bear?

Since Wednesday is my typical day for writing about video games, I considered writing something about games featuring bears, but I don't think I can get an entire post out of that. Banjo-Kazooie, a series of games starring a banjo-playing bear with a bird for a best friend, immediately came to mind, but I've never actually played it nor seen it played. What I've read about it makes it sound pretty cool, but I've never been particularly good at action games. Also worth a mention is Moosh, the winged bear from the Zelda Oracle games. He's portrayed as rather cowardly and not too bright, but how can you not find a flying bear who attacks by butt-slamming his enemies to be cool?



One thing I wonder about is why bears are so prominent in our culture, particularly in works for children. I grew up on the Winnie-the-Pooh stories, and had my own stuffed Pooh, who was actually orange until my mom covered him with beige fur. I also remember reading some of the Paddington books, although I can't remember a whole lot about them other than Paddington lived in London, claimed to originally be from Peru, and was obsessed with orange marmalade. And then there are the Berenstain Bears, whose occasional overtly Christian messages make me wonder if there was a Jesus Bear in their universe. Even the Three Bears are really just innocent victims of breaking and entering. They do eat Goldilocks in earlier versions of the tale, but more recent ones tend to have the girl escaping, presumably having learned her lesson about entering other people's (or bears') houses uninvited. Does this prominence stem from the popularity of teddy bears? The toy, as you probably know, was named after Theodore Roosevelt, due to a 1902 anecdote and subsequent cartoon in which Roosevelt refused to kill a captured bear for sport, but instead ordered a mercy killing. There were toy bears prior to this, but the first actual TEDDY bear, with its cute and upright appearance, was made by Morris Michtom. Well, that's what the story says, anyway; we all know that the truth is rarely that neat. The teddy bear on which the character of Pooh is based was made in England by J.K. Farnell, and I would assume his formal name "Edward Bear" is due to how "Teddy" can be a nickname for Edward as well as for Theodore. Teddy bears have gone through many variations over the years (my own lifetime has seen both Teddy Ruxpin and the Care Bears, and probably other sorts of teddies I'm forgetting), but they remain ubiquitous.



Even the Roosevelt story doesn't totally explain why bears have been deemed good toys and story protagonists for children, but they ARE pretty cute and furry, especially as cubs. They're also associated with hugs, and while a bear hug isn't something you'd want to experience, they perhaps give them impression that bears could give friendly hugs as well as deadly ones, if they really wanted to. Besides, the animals live on four different continents, so they'd be familiar to kids in many different parts of the world.