What Happened to Disney Kids Movies? Out with a Moral to the Story, In with Crude Humor and Worse…

So I don’t review newer movies very often, heck I don’t see newer movies very often.  And this review is out of date anyway (as this movie came out 6 months ago), but after watching what I was told would be a cute and somewhat humorous kids movie I thought maybe a little commentary might be in order…

What has happened to Disney movies?

I just got done watching Adam Sandler’s movie Bedtime Stories and I felt like I watched a slightly toned down version of Billy Madison or Happy Gilmore.  Not a PG movie aimed at kids and produced by Walt Disney Pictures.

First off, I didn’t really like the story all that much.  It had some humorous moments, but it seemed like the same humor in every other Adam Sandler movie I’ve ever seen… maybe it’s just getting old.

Second, unlike the Disney movies I remember from being a kid, it had no redeeming moral to the story.  In fact many of the messages this movie sends to kids are kind of disturbing.  Let’s just say I think it had plenty of problems for being a “PG” movie aimed at children.

“…clean enough to fly the Walt Disney Pictures flag, yet it’s full of bimbos and cleavage and shots of Adam Sandler getting kicked in the shins by a dwarf.”   – The Chicago Tribune’s Review of Bedtime Stories.

I guess it’s clean enough to be a Walt Disney movie in 2009…but back when I was growing up (I officially sound like an old man now) I don’t think Disney would’ve slapped their name on this kind of junk.

Let’s look at a few of the messages the movie sends:

-The movie suggests 6 year old boys should be kissing “hot” 8 year old girls.  Hmm..  I still remember thinking girls had cooties when I was 8 (let alone 6). But, not the boy in this movie, he’s apparently ready to start going after “hot” chicks.

-Hotel Heiress Violet (a play on Paris Hilton) is seen repeatedly wearing revealing and skimpy outfits, with camera techniques to emphasize her sexuality.  It’s suggested that she has a “reputation” for “having a good time” with “lots of guys”.  What a great role model for all the young girls in the audience.

-One of the film’s villains has a “secret relationship” with a hotel employee and there is plenty of sexual tension between them and lots of hinting going on.  This is probably above most children, but it still sends a subtle sexual message.

-Sandler’s character repeatedly jokes (in his bedtime stories with his little niece and nephew) about buying women drinks and heading off to the bars or to a hot tub with them for some action.  Again, another great message for the little tykes about sex, alcohol, and an easy date.

-There is plenty of cleavage, tiny bikinis, and other revealing shots of women that appear throughout the movie. There’s also plenty of stereotyping of women (emphasis on the scantily clad skinny blondes) to go around as well.

Look, it’s not that the movie completely offended me.  I like some of Adam Sandler’s movies that are worse (Happy Gilmore, is a classic).  It’s just that this particular movie was produced by Walt Disney and aimed at children!

I thought there was enough innuendo and at times overt sexual messages to warrant a PG-13 rating (then again most PG-13 movies today would’ve been rated R ten to fifteen years ago… so what do I know).

I’m wondering what the effects of inundating our kids with this kind of garbage (at a younger and younger age) will be in ten to twenty years.  Am I going crazy or does anyone else see this kind of stuff marketed as a “family movie” and scratch their head?

UPDATE:  After reading many of the user reviews on Yahoo! Movies I have decided that most of my peers see the messages in this children’s movie as completely harmless and normal.  Yikes.  I know our culture is headed south, but sometimes it even amazes me how fast it has all happened.

Time to take David Letterman off the Air for Indecency?

And to think…I actually used to think David Letterman was funny once… what a jerk…I knew he was overtly liberal and could be crude…but this is over the line.  I think he needs to be taken off the air for this one.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/06/palin-vs-letterman.html

Miss California: Fighting for our morally declining culture OR adding to it?

You might expect me, a self avowed conservative, to jump on the bandwagon of supporting Miss California, Carrie Prejean.  She recently gave an answer at the Miss USA pageant in support of traditional marriage (and it probably cost her the title).

I haven’t come out in support of her because I was uncomfortable with elevating her as a  “conservative role model.”  She’s involved in a “beauty pageant” where women willingly objectify themselves by posing in tiny skimpy bikinis and then get graded based on their looks.  Unfortunately, it turns out Prejean (who many conservative groups put up on a pedestal as an example of one with great moral convictions) previously had topless photos and risque lingerie pictures taken of herself.

This is unfortunate indeed.  If  Christians in the limelight are going to claim the moral high ground on some issues of sexual morality (a stance against homosexual marriage for instance) then you would hope they would at least be trying to live a life of higher moral standards themselves.

I’m not saying that in order for someone to speak up about a moral issue they had better be flawless… or no one would ever speak up about anything, me last of all!   And it’s not my intention to display a lack of grace for mistakes made by this woman in the past (we all have our faults and moral failures).  But the truth is,  it doesn’t sound like she’s acknowledged that the photos were a mistake, in fact she kind of sounds like she’s defending them.

“I am a Christian, and I am a model.  Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos,” said Miss California recently. – NBC Today Show

Indeed, Christians can and do model like this.  Christians can do a lot of things, but that doesn’t make them right.  As I eluded to earlier, the fact that she was in a pageant where women are posing in skimpy outfits and totally objectifying themselves is almost just as troubling to me as these photos that have recently come out.

Social conservative groups have stood up for traditional marriage, because they want to fight for traditional values and Christian morality in our sexually explicit and morally declining culture.  How ironic and sad is it that Miss California is adding to that decline by posing for sensual photographs?

It’s not my intention to throw this woman under the bus, but I just think it’s important to point this example out.  It seems conservatives are quick to point out the moral corruption of homosexual marriage, but let other forms of sexual immorality in our culture (including the objectification and sexualization of women) off the hook a little easier. And I don’t think this is right.

In my opinion, if Miss California really wants to stand for Christian principles and fight against a morally declining culture she should apologize, and stop this career of glamor modeling that objectifies and sexualizes women… who are made in the image of God.

That’s just my two cents.

Why Many Christians and Conservatives Take Issue with Redefining Marriage

So the Iowa ruling on the definition of marriage is one of the top culture stories recently so I figured I would try and share some thoughts about it from my perspective as a Christian and a conservative who is opposed to it.  I’m curious as to what everyone else thinks, so please feel free to sound off in the comments section…

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman (voted on and passed by the people of Iowa) goes against the Iowa state constitution because it supposedly discriminates.

My immediate reaction is to ask why the government needs to get involved in any of this to begin with? Why does the government need to take a stance on a behavioral issue that does not put other individuals in jeapordy or violate their right to live freely and earn a living?

Marrying someone is an action, a choice, a behavior.  This is not about whether or not sexual attraction is a choice, hereditary, or a combination of the two.  The issue here is the act of marriage.

As I understand it, the whole reason the government sanctioned marriage to begin with is because marriage is where procreation takes place traditionally.  Marriage is sanctioned by the government for children, not for the adults.

It makes sense logically that children are best raised by a mother and father (as they are the biological product of a mother and a father).  There are always exceptions to the rule, but to encourage a healthy family structure the government has sanctioned marriage offering tax breaks for the proper raising of children.

Has the government traditionally taken a stance on the issue of what a healthy family looks like?  Yes and just like most of the laws of the land, marriage law is highly influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics and traditional family values.

Ultimately the reason that this issue should matter to Christians, and Americans with traditional family values is because it’s not in the best interest of children to be raised by two people of the same gender.  It’s not natural biologically speaking and it’s not Biblical.

Look, two consenting adults can do what they like and I feel bad for those who choose homosexuality because I know it’s not a healthy lifestyle or behavior that God intended for them (just like adultery, fornication, pornography, and other sexual behaviors are also not healthy).

But, the reason the marriage issue is so big is because it is about protecting minors.  It has very little to do with the adults involved other than some people who are concerned with the government endorsing or legitimizing individual choices and I’m not sure that’s the role our founding fathers had in mind for the government.

Hope, Change, Socialism: Collect the Entire Trading Card Set!

So I was out with my wife shopping at Target (ugh, I hate shopping, and I’m not a fan of Target) but none the less that’s where we were.  We were in the check out line when I noticed this display:

Yes that’s right, Barack Obama trading cards!  Notice they are right next to the Yoda trading cards. This makes perfect sense since I sort of feel like we’re living in some weird science fiction movie!  You know, one where the government openly takes over everything in the private sector and the public is too busy consuming mindless media and entertainment that dumbs them down and they start believing silly words like “hope” and “change” mean something in-and-of themselves and so they really don’t care or take notice of the crazy things happening all around them as the government grows by leaps and bounds and controls more and more of their lives and the economy.

That’s just some far fetched movie idea though… right?

Actually, I’m completely wrong.

I’m sorry I even suggested what I suggested.

It was silly.

It wouldn’t be a science fiction movie, it would be a horror flick.

Andy’s Top 5 Gateway Strategy Board Game List

See, I told you this blog wouldn’t JUST be about politics and culture any longer!

In the last year or two I’ve really become a fan of strategy board games.  My wife and I have been playing more and more of these board games since we got rid of cable television and Internet access at home.  It’s been pretty cool because we spend a lot more time together relationally (even if it’s highly competitive and trash talking in nature) rather than zoning out to the marvels of isolation inducing technology.

Although, to be honest, I can still pick up a neighbors weak Internet signal and have been prone to getting online at home from time to time still – curse the addictive nature of the web!

So I’ve put together a list of my favorite strategy board games thus far (there are tons and tons of them out there).  If anyone else has any they’d recommend or wants to comment on what they think of my games list – please feel free to sound off in the comment section!

Here is my game list so far!

1. Carcassonne
I think this is my favorite game.  I feel like it’s the most strategic and it’s a lot of fun, although it’s more fun with the fewer players you have.  It’s a fantastic 2 player game, and it’s also great with 3 or 4 players.  It can accommodate up to 6 players with an expansion but I think it gets tedious with this many players because you have to wait so long to take your turn.

2.  Vegas Showdown
This is just a fun game of bidding and building and it has a few different strategies.  It can accommodate 3-5 players although we did find some kind of goofy rules online to play with 2 players. This is the first strategy game outside of games like Risk or Monopoly that I ever played and it got me hooked on the strategy board game scene.  I think it’s a very nice “gateway game” to get you addicted.  I highly recommend it.

3.  Ticket to Ride
This is a very enjoyable game, although I seem to do badly at it most of the time.  It’s another great “gateway game” and is a great game of card collecting and incorporates some strategic moves as well.  Luck certainly plays a role in this game, but it’s still very enjoyable.  It accommodates 2-5 players and is fun for the whole family.

4.  Settlers of Catan
Settlers is a little more detailed and can last a little longer than the games I’ve already mentioned (at least at first) but it’s a great game that features a lot of interaction and lots of strategy.  The first few times I played Settlers I didn’t care for it, but it grew on me and I enjoy it quite a bit now.

5.  Risk
An old classic, who doesn’t want to play a good old game of world domination?  The game is simple, and has a lot to do with how the dice roll but it’s still a favorite of mine.

So there you have it…  5 gateway strategy board games to check out sometime.  Anyone have any others they’d suggest?  Thoughts?  Feel free to share them!

Symptoms of a Sick Culture: Britney Spears Somehow Draws Fans Still

So yesterday day I was driving down the highway when I passed a big old bus with a half naked picture of Britney Spears on it.  Apparently her crew had arrived for a concert in Kansas City.  That concert happened tonight, and according to the news some 16,000 odd fans showed up to attend the spectacle (and yes, I purposely refer to them as odd fans).

How does this woman still attract people to come listen to her music?  Honestly, I know nothing of her music, but I know that she’s been in the news the last couple of years for things like child endangerment, exposing herself in public, and checking into rehab for alcoholism or drug use.

I feel sorry for her because her life is clearly out of control, like so many celebrities out there.  What baffles me is that so many people continue to enable stars like this to make millions of dollars and in essence reward their destructive behaviors and bad influence on the culture.  Is this kind of like the Jerry Springer phenomena where people are drawn to watching the dysfunctions of others?

Who attends these concerts?  Are kids going to see this broken woman perform?  If so what are parents doing letting their kids support this kind of entertainment?  It’s mind boggling…

I don’t want to sound judgemental but seriously with the economy in the tank, our culture continues to take a nose dive into the gutter and we reward celebrities for dysfunctional behavior and nobody seems to think twice about it.

16,000 people spent money on this concert in Kansas City.  They paid $30 per ticket maybe?  It’s probably much higher than that, but we’ll go with $30 just for the heck of it.  What’s $30 x 16,000?  $480,000?  If you factor in souvenirs, food, beverages, parking, and travel expenses there was probably $1 million spent to go see this so called “entertainment” during the worst economic climate in decades!

Now I understand that entertainment is just another arm of our economy and that during hard times entertainment often continues to thrive as people try to get away from thinking about their financial hardships.  I’m not even blasting people for irresponsibly spending money on entertainment necessarily.  It’s just that I’m not sure I’d call this kind of stuff “entertainment” and I’m not sure how ethical it is to support this.  It doesn’t seem to do much good for families or frankly for Britney Spears as a person.  Just my two cents.  Thoughts?

eHarmony Begins Matching Dating Partners who Engage in Homosexual Behavior

eHarmony, which began as a dating service for Christians, has now begun matching dating partners who engage in homosexual behavior.

I think there are two things that are disturbing about this development for Christians and many Americans with traditional family values.

First, it’s sad that a company based on Christian principles (even promoted at one point by a solid Christian organization like Focus on the Family) would choose this path of promoting sexual behavior that is clearly un-Biblical and contrary to the traditional family values that (like it or not) have shaped our culture and society up until the point of the sexual revolution in the 1970’s.

What’s probably even more disturbing about this is not just the fact that the company chose to do this, but that it did so to avoid legal efforts to force their hand because of so-called “discrimination”.

Don’t Christians and traditional Americans have the right to run a business according to their own moral principles?  Will Christian bookstores be told they must carry “adult” magazines so as to not discriminate against those who use them?  Must a private business endorse any and every type of behavior they might or might not agree with?  That kind of thinking is completely illogical.

Now this could easily turn into a debate over whether homosexuality is a behavior or a genetic condition.  I will not seek to answer that question in this article, because it’s actually unnecessary (personally I think homosexual behavior does have some possible hereditary properties to it, more spiritually speaking than physically, but I digress).

It’s not necessary to delve into a debate over the definition of homosexuality because eHarmony isn’t in the business of discriminating, it’s in the business of selling a service.  The service in this case is matching men and women together as possible dating partners.  The site doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals… they are free to either purchase the service eHarmony offers or not purchase it.

Now my stance on this issue is not an attempt to bash anyone who struggles with homosexual behaviors, or even those who willingly embrace them.  In fact it saddens me that some choose that path because I don’t think it’s what God intended for any of us.  As a Christian I believe that our sexuality is one of the great gifts God has given each of us as a way to know Him, but he has given us a context for it and it’s in marriage between a man and woman, who become physically, emotionally, and spiritually bonded as one flesh.

I think the culture’s embrace of homosexuality is no surprise, as all sorts of  sexual immorality now consumes the media through TV and the Internet.  Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, pornography, and other sensual sexual imagery is embraced and worshiped by our culture.

Biblical sexuality and traditional family values are under constant assault and it’s really disheartening because I think more and more people are addicted to unhealthy sexual behaviors in our society, including children who are exposed to it at such a young age now.

So now, not only are Christians and all Americans with traditional family values under assault by the media and the culture, but we are also being told by the government that our moral positions are a form of discrimination.

What can we do to fight back?  Elect leaders committed to traditional family values, support legal organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund that fight for the rights of people of faith, and above all else love people and spend time with the Father in prayer about these tough issues facing our nation.

Obama-nomination-itus Infects Another Potential Cabinet Member: Kathleen Sebelius

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius admits errors, pays $7,000 in back taxes.

Is this good news or bad news for the people of Kansas?  Well I for one, am happy to see her exit my new state of residence and I hope this tax problem doesn’t put that in jeopardy!  The last thing I want is to see her try and run for office in Kansas (for a U.S. Senate seat for instance).

Sebelius, a strong pro-choice advocate, somehow hoodwinked the people of Kansas into electing her to office for multiple terms.  It seems incredibly strange to me that a state with a strong Republican presence and a fairly conservative population has allowed Sebelius to not only win office multiple times but to do so with big victories while becoming a popular name in state politics.

If this news does put her cabinet position in jeopardy it could send her right back into the mix in Kansas politics, although clearly her record would be tarnished.  I say the further she is from the state the better.  While I hate to see a radical pro-choice advocate serve in the Health and Human Services department in Washington, the nominee was bound to be someone of this nature whether it was Sebelius or not.  Let’s cross our fingers and hope she gets the gig still.

On another note…  Do you think the fact that so many of Obama’s nominees have had problems with their taxes is evidence enough that we need tax reform in America?  How about a flat tax or the fair tax anyone?  That’s just wishful thinking though.  Tax reform would most likely reduce the size of the IRS and right now the only sector of our economy that is growing is the federal government!

Speaking of the growing federal government..  I understand my Pontiac Vibe now has a warranty backed by the U.S. Government.  I wonder if I can use food stamps to pay for an oil change or a tire rotation?  Do I have to stand in line at the DMV if my transmission goes out?  Yikes.

**UPDATE**  4/2/09
Here’s an article I just found that really outlines the pro-choice agenda of Sebelius.  It’s really unfortunate that we’ve elected leaders with anti-life views like this.  We need more leaders with integrity in this area.  Unfortunately, I’m not sure the government will ever be truly pro-life and if we depend on the government to be pro-life alone perhaps we’re making a great big mistake.  No, I know we are.   Ultimately, it’s people like you and I who can be pro-life through loving people and praying for God’s mercy and grace in the fight to protect human life from the womb to the tomb.

**UPDATE**  4/2/09

Should Kansas Republican Senators support the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius?

Both Senators Roberts and Brownback are supporting her, but this has caused some controversy as some pro-life activists have expressed outrage over this.

I can see some valid points by each side.

On one hand, Sebelius is pro-choice and it’s a terrible shame that someone like that would head up the Health and Human Services department.  On the other hand, she exits Kansas politics and you have to figure whoever was going to get this nomination was going to probably be radically pro-choice (just like Barack Obama).

I think if I were in the Senate and had to vote, I could not very easily vote to support the nominee (whoever it was) if they were pro-choice  (call me stubborn if you like).  However, since I don’t have to vote on the matter, it’s easy for me to sit back and wave goodbye to Sebelius as she exits Kansas (and there was much rejoicing)!

Either way, I’m not going to sit back and bash our Senators, as they have made it pretty clear they have the bigger picture in mind.  We all know that Roe v. Wade won’t be overturned through a one step process.  It’s lots and lots of little steps that will lead to change.  Getting rid of the possibility of a radical pro-choice Senate candidate who happens to be very popular (Sebelius) is a good thing for the pro-life movement and the chances of getting a pro-life Senator to take the place of Senator Brownback in 2010.

A New Beginning…

Hello, and thank you for visiting my blog.  If you’ve been here before, welcome back!

Due to a glitch on my end (one that I am most certain was predestined) all of my previous posts have been forever lost it appears.  I’m sorry for those of you who had linked to the many posts I had previously written and to those who had enjoyed some of my previous ramblings.  I’m sure there will be plenty of future ramblings so as to not disappoint you.

After several months of essentially doing very little with this blog I have decided to bring it back to life and hopefully remain fairly active with regular observations on the world of politics, our culture, life, the universe, and everything.

Despite some of the benefits of narrow-casting my blog and focusing on just politics – I will resist that urge and ramble on about who knows what… and it could happen at any given time!

For those of you who previously followed my blog because you listened to my talk show in St. Cloud, Minnesota or for those of you who tuned in because of my work as a political pundit and journalist on national television, radio, and  through my published work – let me give you a little update on my personal life.

After spending nearly a decade as a radio announcer I have placed that aside for the time being.  Last summer I moved from Minnesota back to my home town of Kansas City with my wife and we have settled down here for now.  This last fall I spent very little time blogging due to my incredibly time consuming role as communications director of a local Congressional campaign.  Most recently I have been working as a new media consultant and doing freelance communications and audio production work.

I admit that after diving in to the political world full force I have since suffered a little burn out.  Despite that, I feel it necessary to opine about the issues of the day (be they political in nature or otherwise).  Hopefully this provides some interesting insight and observations to those wandering Internet travelers who stumble upon my little place on the web.  So pull up a seat, sit back, and enjoy the ramblings of an Andy.