Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Does nudity extend to animals?

The concept of nakedness and shame has been around for so long. However, extend the concept of clothing to animals and we are trapped in a miry mess. I'm not talking about people who dress up their dogs or what have you. That's plainly stupid. Rather, I mean cartoon animals who wear a bit of clothing.

Take Donald Duck, for instance. There he is, being mean to everyone and losing his temper but what is he wearing? Fine, he's a sailor, but where are his pants? The mere fact he wears some bit of clothing means that he is aware of clothes and their purpose. So not wearing any bottoms is a message that this duck is delivering to us. Either he's comfortable with his semi-nudity or he's purposefully trying to offend people, making a point that clothing is silly...and apparently optional.

Next, we have Donkey Kong. Do you believe this guy? He only has a tie on! At least Donald had some shred of decency. This big ape is throwing our concept of modesty right back in our faces. The fact that the only thing he's wearing is a tie is symbolic of his rejection of the working man's uniform, as if to tell the masses to cast off the shackles of workaday life.

Finally, the most offensive anthropomorphic beast is McGruff, the crime dog. Yes, it appears he is wearing pants underneath his raincoat but hold on a minute. We've established that most cartoon animals are lacking clothing. So I think it follows that McGruff is missing clothing under that coat. Combine that with the fact that he's wearing the trappings of a typical flasher and you got yourself one dirrrrty ol' dawg. Take a bite out of crime, indeed. Start by arresting this animal.

All this is very disturbing but will probably not change anytime soon. The concept of modesty in dress has been around forever. Just look at Adam and Eve! Or rather, only look at them once they are clothed. It would not be proper otherwise.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Too many people

There are too many people on this planet. I am reminded of this every time I see a commercial asking to donate money to feed starving people in far-flung lands. Hey, here's an idea: stop having 15 kids each!

The problem is that people having the most children are those who can least afford to. Does that make sense? If I'm unemployed (and I am), I'm not going to go buy a dozen cars. If you don't have the means, don't do it.

Which brings me to another point: children licenses. Having kids should be regulated! Any bozo can go and create more humans to place on this earth, whether they can take care of them or not. I could not put it better than Angelina Jolie, when she said,

"It should be hard to be a parent, period. I go through many things to adopt.

"I'm finger-printed, I'm checked, I go through home studies. I have to prove I'm a decent citizen; a good human being.

"That didn't happen to me when I gave birth, so it's interesting that there's no background check when you bring a child into your home in that way."

Now, for all the starving poor out there, it would be nice for them to be able to rely on meals. But their hunger will only propagate as long as the masses remain uneducated. Education is the key to stopping the litters of children people in famine-ridden countries have. We're at 6 billion and counting. It needs to be curbed sooner rather than later or the world will be ill-equipped to nourish everyone.