Hard Working Traditional Values With A Dash of Fun

Hard Working Traditional Values With A Dash of Fun

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Disney's Zootopia: A Pro Gay Parable


Disney's new animated movie Zootopia got some great reviews so I decided to see it on opening weekend. In our PC world, the reviewers decided to overlook the obvious message that gays are a persecuted minority who are no different than anyone else and that those who are concerned with how gays are perceived as normal in modern society are bad.

This essay has spoilers.

The knee jerk reaction to my view on the movie may be "Get serious. This is only a movie." "You're over-analyzing it." "The message could mean lots of things. It could be anti-racist." "This is just a homophobic rant."

Movies have messages.There is a clear pro-gay, anti-Christian values message in this movie. It is not about racism, which I will clearly show.

There is a culture war that those with traditional values may be losing, but giving up should not be an option. Traditional values are superior to those advocated by many in the LGBT community. This is not hate. Societies that embrace traditional values are healthier than those who embrace hedonism.

Christians are familiar with parables with meaning beyond just the story. Characters and actions in the parables of Jesus represent things. Jesus picked the elements of his parables on purpose to get his point across. The writers of Zootopia have done the same thing.

Zootopia is written by a team of eight writers. They include many who worked on Frozen. Frozen has been embraced by the LGBT community for having a heroine who is different, has a secret others don't understand, and isn't interested in men. Many see "Let It Go" as a gay anthem.

One of the story writers on Zootopia is Phil Johnston whose credits include a raunchy comedy named Cedar Rapids, a curious pedigree for a Disney movie. I haven't seen the movie, but I have read that it is sympathetic to gays.

I recognize that the gay acceptance message is not the only message of the movie. There is also the message that you should reach for your goals and not give up. Nevertheless, notice how much of the movie advances the pro-gay agenda:

  • The villain in the movie is a sheep. Why pick a sheep? The sheep is an animal associated with Christians. Jesus referred to his followers as his sheep. Jesus is called the lamb of God. The sheep is selected as the villain because in the LGBT world view, it is Christians who are the enemy because they condemn LGBT sexual practices as sinful.
  • In the world of Zootopia, predators and their prey now live together in peace. They are the same. They are equal.To believe ugly things about predator behavior based on what was once believed by society is wrong. There is nothing wrong with predators. They won't eat you. This is the message of the modern LGBT community. Past generation may have treated gays as wicked and evil, but they were wrong. Today, everyone should recognize that gays are perfectly normal like everyone else. They won't eat any of your children.
  • Judy Hops, the main character bunny, is counselled by her traditionalist parents not to trust foxes, because they are predators by nature. They give her fox spray she can use to keep herself safe from foxes. The message here is that the values of parents are dated and bigoted.
  • Nick Wilde, the main character fox, relates a traumatic experience as a young child where he was kicked out of a scout troop for being a predator. This is an blatant swipe at the Boy Scouts for their position on excluding gays. This is not the first time Disney animators have poked fun at the Boy Scouts. In The Emperor's New Groove, Kronk, the party hosting, treat baking, apron wearing, body builder who is in touch with his emotions ends up being a scout leader.
  • Why pick the name Nick Wilde for the fox? Oscar Wilde was a famous homosexual writer and was condemned by society for his behavior. 
  • As the movie progresses, Judy Hops's parents have reformed and are now partners with a fox who they accept as an equal. What occupation is the fox? A baker. Again the allusion to gays as stereotypical bakers.
  • The evil sheep has a scheme to make the public believe that predators will attack prey. She makes a poison that turns the innocent predators into vicious attackers. The message here is that gays are normal and it only the Christian's wrong bigoted attacks that can convince the public that there is something wrong with gays. The Christians are wrong. The gays are normal.
  • At one point Judy Bunny proclaims that sometimes predators will attack prey because that is just who they are and they can't help themselves. This is hurtful to Nick Wilde to hear something so mean because predators aren't really predators. They are just like prey. Again, there is nothing different about gays. To think so is bigoted.
  • One of the characters in the movie mentions that life is not a live-happily-ever-after-musical cartoon. That used to be the message of Disney movies. Boy meets girl and they live happily ever after. Not this time. In the end the once-scared-of-foxes bunny becomes the police partner to the fox.
  • The movie ends with an upbeat song entitled "Try Everything." While much of the lyrics has the message that you should not give up and try again if you fail, the choice of words to "try everything" is also, in the context of this movie, an invitation to not limit yourself to a normal lifestyle.
  • And what about the very choice of the title of the movie, Zootopia? It is clear allusion to Utopia, an imagined religion free paradise where everyone is equal and everything is perfect. Isn't that what the LGBT community wants?
Welcome to Disney 2016. Would Walt Disney even recognize where it has gone?

Friday, January 29, 2016

Out of Control Same Sex Assaults Not Being Reported


Two contrasting stories in the news deserve further attention. The more prominent one was
"LDS Church leaders mourn reported deaths in Mormon LGBT community". But there was also "Charges: Park City band teacher solicited student with fake sex study". The male teacher's target was a boy.

With almost monthly regularity, the local news reports of yet another Utah teacher sexually assaulting a student. Last year there was a story listing ~20 of these perpetrators. Although not a focus of the story, it listed the gender of the teachers and students. Five of these were same-sex attacks. Since 2.5% of the population is LGBT, one would expect 0-1 same-sex attacks. The attacks occurred at 10 times the expected level. Why isn't this newsworthy?

Although the media seems to avoid reporting on the subject, there is data that plainly shows that same-sex assaults happen at a higher rate than opposite sex assaults. The military regularly reports details about sexual violence. In the 2014 report it said there were 10,600 assaults on men and 9,600 assaults on women. 85% of the military are men of which we can assume all but 1-2% are straight. So 84% are probably responsible for most of the 9,600 assaults on women and the other 1-2% are probably responsible for most of the other 10,600 attacks. If we extrapolate the male assaults by 42 times (to increase the 2% to 84% size) we get a proportional number that is incredible 450,000!

My wife has a number of LGBT friends and in almost all cases they tell stories of being assaulted as children. Some people think there is a correlation in this. Where is the LGBT condemnation of same-sex assaults?

We are correct to defend LGBT children from bullying. But what about defending them from assaults? Where is the demand that the LGBT community take leadership in fighting the higher-than-would-be-expected rate of same-sex sexual assault on children? A story on this subject demands attention, but it would of course be attacked as gay bashing. Does the high rate of LGBT child assaults get a pass because it would not be politically correct?

Follow on Twitter - @fiddlingant

If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.
If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

12 Candidates and Their Muppet Match


Which Muppet matches up best with each of the candidates running for president?


Both Jeb! and Fozzie try to be funny, but with limited success.



Both Animal and Trump speak short sound bites and have a thing for the ladies.



Beaker and Paul have the hair and speak a different language than others. Beaker speaks who-knows-what. Paul speaks libertarian.



Christie and Snufalupogus both have weight issues and are invisible to many people.



Dr. Teeth and Dr. Carson both have beards and an appealing smile.



Gonzo and Cruz are both daredevils willing to try stunts others won't touch.



Oscar and Sanders are both grumps complaining about their situtation.



Rubio and Kermit are both young looking and green compared to the others.



Bert and Santorum both like sweaters.



Telly and Fiorina both make their marks when given time on TV.



Sam Eagle and Huckabee are both patriotic, stern and good at scowling.



Miss Piggy and Clinton are both full of themselves.

Did I get these right?

Which Muppet would you match to which candidate?

Follow on Twitter - @fiddlingant

If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

13 Reasons Carson Is Right To Oppose A Muslim For U.S. President


Once again, the mainstream media's response to a gotcha' question exposes why they are not practicing good journalism.

In response to a question from NBC's Chuck Todd, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson opined that he would not support a Muslim as president of the United States.

From the main stream media reaction you would have thought Carson had used the "N" word or uttered an anti-Semite slur.

The liberal reaction means one of two things. First it could mean that liberals are ignorant of how Muslims practice their religion. This is disturbing, if they actually know so little about Muslims given our war against Islamic jihadists for the past decades. The other option is they are only looking to paint Carson as a bigot  to pull down his favorables. This is contemptible, because journalists are supposed to report the news, not direct it.

Carson knows the truth about Islam.

Thanks to Glen Beck in his best selling It IS About Islam book, the lies about Islam have been clearly revealed.

Lie #1 - "Islam is the religion of peace and Islamic terrorists aren't really Muslims."

Lie #2 - "Islam is not much different than Christianity and Judaism."

Lie #3 - "Jihad is a peaceful, internal struggle, not a war against infidels."

Lie #4 - "Muslims don't actually seek to live under sharia, let alone impose it on others; there are so many interpretations of it anyway."

Lie #5 - "America is safe from sharia law."

Lie #6 - "The Caliphate is a fanciful dream."

Lie #7 - "Islam is tolerant of non-Muslims."

Lie #8 - "Addressing frustration, poverty, and joblessness in the Muslim world -- maybe even climate change -- will end terrorism."

Lie #9 - "Critics of Islam are bigots."

Lie #10 - "Islam respects the rights of women."

Lie #11 - "Iran can be trusted with a nuclear weapon."

Lie #12 - "The Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, mainstream Islamic group."

Lie #13 - "Islam respects freedom of speech."

Sadly, you can find many in the mainstream media that belief and repeat these lies.

Thank goodness Ben Carson is not blind to the truth. A practicing Muslim would be a terrible choice for an American president because his belief system is against the values inherent to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If you liked this post and want to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Another President Had Brain Cancer Before Carter


Last week Jimmy Carter announced that he has a melanoma cancer that has metastasized to brain cancer.

Casual students of history may believe that Carter is the first president with a brain cancer diagnosis.

This is not true.

Although not widely know, there is strong evidence that Franklin Roosevelt also had melanoma that turned into brain cancer that killed him.


Franklin Roosevelt enjoyed the outdoors. As a result, it is not unusual that he developed a macule (change in skin color) above his left eye. Photos from the 1920’s show a very light discoloration but it was bigger and darker by the time he became president in 1933. It continued to grow and darken throughout the 1930s. This was a clear sign of melanoma, skin cancer, one of the most deadly forms of cancer.

Patients with melanoma are likely to see the cancer metastasize, especially to the abdomen and later the brain. Among those who die from melanoma, 60% had cancer in the bowels, and 90% have the cancer spread to the brain.

Someone with brain mestastase from melanoma is at high risk for brain hemorrhage.

Steven Lomazow, a board certified neurologist and his coauthor Eric Fettmann wrote a fascinating book in 2009 called FDR's Deadly Secret that makes a strong case the Franklin Roosevelt did not die from an out-of-the-blue brain aneurysm, but rather from a brain hemorrhage due to a brain tumor that grew from it's original melanoma.


Roosevelt in 1939 with lesion clearly visible

According to the book, on January 17, 1940 renowned cancer doctor Reuben Peterson wrote Roosevelt advising him that he should check the lesion over his left eye. Most doctors of the day did not recognize a lesion like Roosevelt's to be evidence of cancerous melanoma. At worst it might be precancerous. Hopefully, Roosevelt's doctors did a biopsy, but there is no record of it (more about that later). What we do know is that they took steps to reduce the size of the lesion. The photographic evidence is clear that beginning in 1940, the lesion was being operated on. For example, right after Roosevelt got Peterson’s letter, he left on a hastily announced cruise on the USS Tuscaloosa. During the voyage, photos where nearly all from the right side, so his left eye was not seen. He also wore sunglasses a lot which he normally did not do. We can guess that Roosevelt’s lesion was being treated, but it was likely already too late.

By early 1940, Franklin Roosevelt’s cancer had metastasized and it was only a matter of time before he would die from his condition.

In May 1941, the president complained of stomach pains and fatigue. Blood tests showed he had lost the equivalent of eight pints of blood at some point in the prior 14 months. His doctor concocted a story about bleeding hemorrhoids, but a better explanation was internal bleeding in his GI tract. While Roosevelt was bedridden in the White House, his press secretary made excuses that he was suffering from a minor intestinal ailment. The treatment, which remained secret from the public, was blood transfusions, at least eight of them through the summer. Lomazow and Fettmann believe they have found circumstantial evidence that the bleeding may have been caused by radiation treatment for prostate cancer. None of this was included in the recent PBS Ken Burns documentary on the Roosevelts.

By 1942 the lesion above Roosevelt's eye was gone, evidence doctors knew it might lead to skin cancer (and in fact already had).

Roosevelt 1942 with lesion removed.

In September 1943 his cousin Daisy Suckley recorded that Roosevelt was complaining of stomach pain that continued during the Tehran conference in November.

The next medical problem was identified (and acknowledged in the Burns documentary) no later than the spring of 1944 when Roosevelt was diagnosed with an enlarged heart and left ventricular failure. Doctors treated him for hypertensive heart disease.

Not covered in the documentary was doctors continuing to record further episodes of the president's abdominal pain.

Roosevelt ran for a fourth term hiding his significant health problems. A number of people who knew him well did not believe he would last another full term.

During the campaign, a letter to his wife and later recollection of his son James both recorded the president's continued bowel pains. He reported he had no interest in food because he could not taste it. By the time he died he probably weighed less than 150 pounds, a weight loss of at least 35 pounds during his last year.

After the election, people close to the president started noticing the president had periods of listlessness. The authors surmise that these were seizures caused by abnormal electrical activity in the brain. This condition was noticed during the important Yalta Conference where Roosevelt met with Churchill and Stalin to make postwar plans. Many people have concluded that being sick, Roosevelt gave up too much to Stalin.

Roosevelt was exhibiting signs of a brain tumor. Perhaps the greatest proof of this was Roosevelt's speech to Congress upon his return from the Soviet Union. Burns documentary mentions the speech and notes that it was one of the few times that Roosevelt publicly referred to his polio condition. Burns did not mention that the speech was a disaster. Roosevelt could not stay on script. He took off on tangents and lost his place in the text, botching many of the words. Reviewing copies of the original speech document, Lomazow and Fettmann noticed a pattern - the parts of the speech where Roosevelt made errors were all on the left side of the page. The president was unable to see the left side of each line of his speech. This is called left hemisanopia, a condition effecting the right posterior portion of the brain that can be caused by brain tumors.

On April 12, 1945, Roosevelt suffered a massive brain hemorrhage and died a few hours later. When the embalmers came to prepare the body, they noticed the stomach was unnaturally distended. There was no autopsy.

Roosevelt's medical records have disappeared. Even when his wife Eleanor requested them 10 years later, she was told they could not be found.

Why did this cover-up happen? Roosevelt considered himself indispensable in a world at war, and many historians would agree. Had Roosevelt's true condition been known to the public, there is no way he would have been re-elected in 1940, much less 1944. After his death there was less reason to hide the truth, except for the fact that it would detract from the heroic myth of FDR, the patron saint of the Democrat Party.

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.


Other Fiddling Ant blog posts about FDR:


If you liked this post and want to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Monday, July 20, 2015

The Donald Disses POWs - Dump Trump


Donald Trump made this statement last Saturday regarding Senator John McCain: "He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."

Trump's latest verbal diarrhea is a slap in the face to the thousands of American servicemen who suffered as prisoners of war. First of all these men stood in harm's way. Then these brave men withstood starvation and torture in captivity. Many died. Does Trump believe these men should have fought to the death in a banzai charge or kamikaze attack instead of being captured so they meet his narrow definition of what a hero is?

Trump is old enough to have served in the Vietnam War. He never volunteered and took steps to avoid the draft. He is the last person to criticize the war record of those who did serve.

On a nearly daily basis Trump displays that he does not have the judgment to be president. Speaking plainly is one thing, speaking plain stupid is something else.


Time to dump Trump.


If you liked this post and want to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Friday, July 3, 2015

Here's Where The Bible Predicted Same Sex Marriage

In Matthew 24 Jesus is speaking to his disciples about the last days preceding his Second Coming. In verse 37 to 39 he says:
But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eating and drinking in Bible speak refers to wild drunken behavior. I can understand why Jesus would condemn this. However, in the past I was confused why "marrying and giving in marriage" is lumped in with the wild party lifestyle -- after all, Christians are encouraged to marry and marriage is ordained of God.

Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that same sex marriage is the law of the land, the meaning of this scripture is much clearer. Marriage is not the problem. The key word is "They." Who is the "They" that are "marrying and giving in marriage?" It is the people who reject God. The party hardy crowd both in the time of Noah and in the present took it upon themselves to reject traditional marriage and champion same sex marriage.

Christians can read this scripture as the fulfillment of a prophesy. Is America in line for God to come down with a "Cecil B. DeMille style" whopping?

We shall see.


If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.