Opinion
Food stamps helped me serve my country. Please don't cut them now
My single mom struggled to put food on the table sometimes, so government assistance was part of what made me a soldier
I've eaten government food during two periods in my life: as a child and as a soldier. The first led to the second in more ways than one, and permanently influenced the way I look at food aid.
Memories of growing up poor still bring a tingling flush of shame to my cheeks.
We live in the richest county in the country now, my husband and I, in a nice house with decent cars and solid jobs. But the insecurities of living in such a bad neighborhood that some of my friends weren't allowed to sleep over when I was a girl run deep. We went to an election-watching party a few blocks away once, and when we pulled up in front of the house, I blurted out, "We can't go in there – we don't belong!" My husband had to remind me that this is our neighborhood, too. This is what we worked for, I needed telling: we're living the American dream.
But the news never lets me forget that many of my fellow citizens despise the poor – and if the rest of us don't speak up, kids today may be denied the opportunities that let me succeed.
Like many on public assistance, my family was made up of a working single mom struggling to make it and provide for her child. She was a small business owner, an artist who ran a series of galleries. There were good years, when we did pretty well. And then the economy sagged, and there were lean years – years of food stamps and bland government cheese, Christmas presents from charities, peering around the corner to watch my mother sobbing into piles of bills, wondering if the landlord would get fed up with how often we were behind on the rent and kick us out.
Even when I was young, I could pick up on the looks we got when buying groceries with food stamps. In high school, it was mortifying to hand over tickets for free or reduced-price school lunches. Those tiny colored scraps of paper might as well have been a scarlet "P" sewn to my shirt, announcing to the other teenagers that I was poor.
Hindsight may convince me that my peers were probably too absorbed by their own problems to notice mine, but at the time, it crystallized in me a deep conviction that I would never live like that again. I used the fear and shame and anger to fuel years of effort, working through college and working two jobs so I could buy my first house when I was 22.
Then, I joined the army. Like most of my peers, I had many motivations for enlisting: I was seeking money to continue my education, but I also craved the discipline, a challenge, the chance to travel and acquire new skills.
And I was driven by a desire to give back to the country that had given so much to me. My fellow citizens had helped me succeed, made sure I never went to bed hungry, provided a safety net when my family needed it. I could repay that debt as a soldier.
On 9/11, I was learning Arabic at the Defense Language Institute, and it was immediately clear that war was in our future. I deployed to Iraq with the 101st airborne division (air assault), where I saw people so poor they wanted our empty cardboard boxes for flooring. I was back to eating government rations – this time, in the form of Meals, Ready to Eat (MREs). At least some of this government cheese came jalapeno-flavored.
When my five-year hitch was up, I didn't re-enlist, choosing to help my combat-wounded husband recover, and later using the GI bill for graduate school. Today, I am deeply aware of how privileged we are to live in modern America.
And I am horrified at efforts to cut Snap – or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, its proper name, though most of us still call it "food stamps".
The House passed a farm bill that strips out food aid to the poor, promising they'll get to it later. I don't believe it: Republican rhetoric demonizes those who need a hand, implying they are lazy moochers. The reality is that 47% are children, 30% are working poor (those who have jobs that don't pay enough to cover all their bills), and 21% receive supplemental security income for the aged or disabled.
This includes those who currently serve our country or who already have – the Department of Defense estimates that 5,000 military families will lose food stamps if these cuts go through, and food stamp spending has been up at commissaries, where only service-members, retirees, and their families can shop. When you hear about cuts to food stamps and picture whom this affects, add the image of a second world war veteran whose retirement benefits aren't quite enough, the children of a national guard soldier who lost his civilian job in the economic downturn, and a young military spouse with small kids who can't figure out how to pay the bills.
This is not just a moral issue; there's also a national security component to food aid. The national school lunch program that helped me was established shortly after the second world war: a senior military leader testified at the time that malnutrition or undernourishment likely caused about 8% of potential recruits to be rejected from service (pdf) or placed in the limited service class. School lunches were designed in part to help correct that problem and increase the pool of eligible recruits. Who knows how many other kids like me grew up knowing the debt we owe our nation and choosing to repay it through service?
The safety net is part of what makes us strong and secure as a country. This is the wrong time to destroy it. No child in America should go to bed hungry. Tell your elected representatives not to cut Snap. Today's kids – some of whom are tomorrow's soldiers – deserve the same help I got.
Pardoning Alan Turing is a pointless exercise
Ben Summerskill, The Observer
Happily, in recent weeks, the House of Lords has put itself convincingly on the right side of history by overwhelmingly supporting gay marriage. So what might a revising chamber that has proved rather unexpectedly – even to itself – that it has become determinedly 21st century do next?
On Friday, peers debated whether Alan Turing should be pardoned. Turing was convicted of gross indecency with another adult in 1952. The argument is seductive. This brilliant man helped crack Hitler's Enigma codes, thus shortening the Second World War by up to two years. Hundreds of thousands of lives were probably saved as a consequence.
Lords were told that a pardon for Turing would recognise the "esteem in which he is now held". Baroness Trumpington, the formidable 90-year-old who worked at Bletchley Park at the same time as Turing, agreed. Interestingly, Lady Trumpington is a veteran opponent of legislative equality for gay people. But I do trust she felt very slightly better after having voiced her support. In 1952, the apparatchiks of the British establishment – from police and politicians to doctors and judges – also knew full well about the esteem in which Turing was held. Yet they still forced him to take female hormones as an alternative to going to prison. This imposition is described less politely, when despots do it, as "chemical castration". Turing committed suicide by eating a cyanide-poisoned apple two years later.
The 1940s and 1950s were a shabby, shameful era in Britain's history. During the war, thousands of gay servicemen had their sexuality quietly overlooked by commanding officers. Army psychologists, my grandfather among them, were told to turn a blind eye if an officer made a private admission of homosexuality. However, these heroes were then returned to a nation where simply having a loving private life led almost automatically to prison, unless an obliging Metropolitan police officer was happy to be blackmailed while he kept your little secret.
That's why, on balance, perhaps we shouldn't be pardoning Alan Turing at all. It's quite proper we've started writing off convictions for people who are still alive for trivial matters that would no longer be criminal offences. (Oddly, I've only met a single senior police officer who admits to having been involved in such prosecutions, even though 16- and 17-year-olds were still being charged with having consenting gay sex as recently as 1998.) However, it's already too late for the countless thousands of innocents, not as eminent as Turing, who had their lives ruined as well. And perhaps rather pointless.
A more proper apologia might be to ensure that Turing's achievements, and his treatment by the nation that benefited, are included in every pupil's school curriculum. The 55% of gay pupils in our secondary schools who were homophobically bullied in the last 12 months might derive lasting reassurance from that.
No one doubts the good faith of peers from all parties and none who have now discovered the importance of equal treatment for Britain's 3.7 million gay people. But it may be more therapeutic for them, rather than helpful to Alan Turing, to be offering good wishes at this stage.
[image via Flickr user Photoverlam's photo stream, Creative Commons licensed]
The world is aghast over Trayvon Martin. The U.S. needs to look at itself
The jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman say they acted in strict accordance with U.S. law. That in itself speaks volumes
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie us /
To see oursels as others see us! /
It wad frae monie a blunder free us, /
An' foolish notion."
– Robert Burns
The US is always collectively amazed, on those rare occasions when it has cause to glimpse at how it is perceived by its less friendly critics abroad. The most egregious example, of course, was 9/11, when even the brutal enormity of the attack against America was not quite enough to still the hateful tongues of people crass enough to insist that the US had got what was coming to it. The citizens of the US have an absolute right to go about their business without being slaughtered. Of course they do. Which is why the world is aghast that this right does not extend as far as Trayvon Martin.
When the unarmed 17-year-old was shot dead by neighbourhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman on 26 February 2012, the killer wasn't even arrested for 44 days, having said that he fired in self-defence. Self-defence? He'd already called the police, telling the operator that Martin was acting suspiciously – "up to no good, on drugs or something". Zimmerman had been told by the operator not to follow the teenager. But nevertheless he found himself and his gun right next to Martin, provoking a struggle. What kind of self-defence is this, when you decide that someone is trouble, and that you're going to stalk him, safe in the knowledge that if things get out of hand … well, you're armed? Yet a jury decided that going out armed, looking for a particular person to defend yourself against, is still self-defence, and on 13 July Zimmerman was acquitted of murder.
Only protest from the public ensured that Zimmerman was tried for killing Martin at all. Only protest from the public has ensured that this killing has been seen through the prism of race. Yet to an outsider, it is obvious that Martin died because he was black, and that Zimmerman walked free after killing him for the same reason.
The jurors say that they acted in strict accordance with the law of the land. They probably did. The law of the land in the US was formulated so that settlers could carry guns in self-defence against their enemies – Native Americans. Later, similar rights over the lives and deaths of slaves pertained. All that is so deeply embedded in the US collective psyche that it's easier to forget that it's there than remember it.
Even though equal civil rights for black Americans are still so new, their achievement still so clear in living memory, the US just can't see what the rest of the world sees – that inequality so entrenched in the history of a state doesn't disappear in matter of decades; on the contrary, the baleful fruits of generations of inequality can be used to justify the very prejudice that promoted the inequality in the first place.
Not that the UK has room to be too superior. British people went off to win the west, and having won it, imported slaves to make it pay. Later, we invited Afro-Caribbean men and women to come and work in Britain, at the jobs that didn't pay enough to attract the incumbent population. Our own history of racism may not have been formalised in a written constitution. But Britain is just like the US in its reluctance to admit that the casual, widespread racism of the past has far-reaching consequences that give succour to those who wish to be racists still. Our own Trayvon Martin is Stephen Lawrence. The awful depths of the hostility of the police to the idea of prosecuting his racist killers is still being revealed, 20 years on, as we learn how undercover officers gathered intelligence into the Lawrence family as they campaigned for justice for their son. Modern states that are worthy of the name are meant to protect their citizens from violence, protecting all of us equally, under the law. In the wake of 9/11, the US and Britain were the most active nations in the world in the quest to take up arms in the cause of spreading liberal democracy. Why neither nation is quite able to see why the targets of this largesse don't quite trust them, when both of us are still demonstrably unable to spread liberal democracy with impunity even among our own citizens, is quite the little mystery.
It's a little-acknowledged fact, yet an unanswerable one, that states exist in great part to maintain a monopoly on violence, either through the activities of their armed forces or via the upholding of the law. The really disturbing thing about cases such as Martin's and Lawrence's is that they reveal how cavalierly states abuse this responsibility. The disconnect in the US can be seen more plainly than in Britain, because the US, as land colonised in recent history, maintains vigilantism as an integral part of its identity so avidly. That's what's at the root of its liberal gun laws – that's what killed Trayvon Martin.
This is one of those moments when the US – and its great ally, the UK – would do well to take a long look at itself. Zimmerman's right to kill in "self-defence" does not contrast well with Edward Snowden's fear of retribution. By exposing the fact that the emails of the citizens of the land of the free (and ours here in Britain) could be plucked from the internet at the state's leisure, wasn't Snowden too defending himself, his fellow citizens, and the idea of the US and of liberal democracy? But no reluctance to arrest Snowden is evident.
We are told that this is all for our own protection – the fight against terrorism is an important part of the state's protection of its monopoly on violence. Yet, not for the first time in these troubled years since 9/11, one wonders how the US can have pretensions to being the world's policeman, when it doesn't even police its own citizens with impartiality. And one wonders how the US can believe that part of its purpose is to be a beacon of democracy and freedom throughout the world, when it clearly believes that it should be able to spy on the private lives of the world's citizens with impunity.
If the Martin case were "just" about racism, then that would be grotesque and awful enough. But it's even more basic than that. It's about the fragility of freedom, and how imperative it is that one person's freedom, like one community's, and one country's, cannot be pursued at the expense of another's. Zimmerman's freedom to get on with his own life has been won at the cost of another man's annihilation. The disregard of the idea that all US citizens have an equal right to freedom and protection could not be made more painfully obvious than this. A monopoly on violence is a terrifying monopoly to hold. It should quite definitely not be shared so casually with self-appointed men from the neighbourhood watch.
Are all of Pixar's movies a cohesive vision of a terrible, dystopic future?
Every Pixar movie is connected. I explain how, and possibly why. Several months ago, I watched a fun-filled video on Cracked.com that introduced the idea (at least to me) that all of the Pixar movies actually exist within the same universe. Since then, I've obsessed over this concept, working to complete what I call “The Pixar Theory,” a working narrative that ties all of the Pixar movies into one cohesive timeline with a main theme. This theory covers every Pixar production since Toy Story. That includes: "A Bug's Life"; "Toy Story 2"; "Monsters Inc."; "Finding Nemo"; "The Incredibles"; "Cars"; "Ratatouille"; "Wall-E"; "Up"; "Toy Story 3"; "Cars 2"; "Brave"; and "Monsters University."
Every movie is connected and implies major events that influence every single movie. Here we go. [SIDE NOTE: All text in italics indicate updated edits since the original version.]
____________________________________
"Brave" is the first and last movie in the timeline. Obviously, this movie about a Scottish kingdom during the Dark Ages is the earliest time period covered by the Pixar films, but it's also the only Pixar movie that actually explains why animals in the Pixar universe behave like humans sometimes.
In "Brave," Merida discovers that there is "magic" that can solve her problems but inadvertently turns her mother into a bear. We find out that this magic comes from an odd witch seemingly connected to the mysterious will-of-the-wisps. Not only do we see animals behaving like humans, but we also see brooms (inanimate objects) behaving like people in the witch's shop.
We also learn that this witch inexplicably disappears every time she passes through doors, leading us to believe that she may not even exist. Don't get ahead of me, but we'll come back to "Brave." Let's just say that, for now, the witch is someone we know from a different movie in the timeline.
[Some of you pointed out that the animals in "Brave" gradually regress back into an animal state, disproving the idea that this is the source of animals acting like humans. My rebuttal is simple. They regress because the magic wears off. Over time, their evolving intelligence grows naturally.]
Centuries later, the animals from "Brave" that have been experimented on by the witch have interbred, creating a large-scale population of animals slowly gaining personification and intelligence on their own. But there are actually two progressions: the progression of the animals; and the progression of artificial intelligence. The events of the following movies set up a power struggle between humans, animals, and machines.
The stage for all-out war with the animals is set by "Ratatouille," "Finding Nemo" and "Up," in that order. (Notice I left out "A Bug's Life," but I'll explain why later.)
In "Ratatouille," we see animals experimenting with their growing personification in small, controlled experiments. Remy wants to cook, something only humans explicitly do. He crafts a relationship with a small group of humans and finds success. Meanwhile, the villain of "Ratatouille," Chef Skinner, disappears. What happened to him? What did he do with his new-found knowledge that animals were capable of transcending their instincts and performing duties better than humans?
It's possible that Charles Muntz, the antagonist of "Up," learned of this startling rumor -- giving him the idea to begin inventing devices that would harness the thoughts of animals (namely: his dogs) through translator collars. Those collars indicated to Muntz that animals are smarter and more like humans than we think. He needed this technology to find the exotic bird he's obsessed over, and he even comments on how many dogs he's lost since he arrived in South America.
But then Dug and the rest of his experiments are set free after Muntz's demise. We don't know the full implications of that -- but what we do know is that animosity between the animals and humans is, at this point in the timeline, growing steadily. Now that humans have discovered the potential of animals, they are beginning to cross the line. To develop this new technology, the humans begin an industrial revolution hinted at in "Up."
[Some have pointed out that Muntz was working in South America before the events of "Ratatouille." This is true, but it is not explicitly stated how and when he developed the collars. Also, we know "Ratatouille" takes place before "Up" for several reasons. In "Toy Story 3," a postcard on Andy's wall has Carl and Ellie's name and address on it (including their last names to confirm). This confirms that in 2010, the time of "Toy Story 3," Ellie is still alive or hasn't been dead long. This supports the idea that "Up" takes place years later.]
In the beginning of "Up," Carl is forced to give up his house to a corporation because they are expanding the city. Think on that. What corporation is guilty for polluting the earth and wiping out life in the distant future because of technology overreach?
Buy-n-Large (BNL), a corporation that runs just about everything by the time we get to "Wall-E." In the "History of BNL" commercial from that movie, we're told that BNL has even taken over the world governments. Did you catch that this one corporation achieved global dominance? Interestingly, this is the same organization alluded to in "Toy Story 3," as seen here.
In "Finding Nemo," we have an entire population of sea creatures uniting to save a fish that was captured by humans. BNL shows up again in this universe via another news article that talks about a beautiful underwater world. In "Finding Nemo," lines are definitely being crossed. Humans are beginning to antagonize the increasingly networked and intelligent animals.
And, think about Dory from "Finding Nemo" for a second. She stands apart from most of the other fish. Why? She isn't as intelligent. Her short-term memory loss is likely a result of her not being as advanced as the other sea creatures, which is a reasonable explanation for how rapidly these creatures are evolving. It's likely that the sequel to "Finding Nemo," which is about Dory, will touch on this and further explain why. We may also get some more evidence pointing to animosity between humans and animals.
[UPDATE: Some great users have pointed out that Dory is actually more intelligent and shows signs of growth due to her ability to read and communicate with whales. This would actually show signs of how the animals are beginning to change in intelligence gradually.]
And that is the furthest movie in the "animal" side of the Pixar universe.
But, when it comes to A.I., we start with "The Incredibles." Who is the main villain of this movie? You probably thought of Buddy, a.k.a. Syndrome, who basically commits genocide against super-powered humans. Or does he? Buddy didn't have any powers. He used technology to enact revenge on Mr. Incredible for not taking him seriously. Seems a little odd that the man went so far as to commit genocide single-handedly.
[Side Note: A lot of people have been arguing about where "The Incredibles" actually takes place because we see technology from modern times and the 1980s even though everything has a 1960s vibe. This is cleared up by Brad Bird, the director, who says the movie takes place in an alternate 1960s -- which means the movie opens in the 1950s.]
And how does Syndrome kill all of the supers? He creates the Omnidroid, an A.I. "killbot" that learns the moves of every super-human and adapts. When Mr. Incredible is first told about this machine, Mirage mentions that it is an advanced artificial intelligence that has gone rogue. Mr. Incredible points out that it got smart enough to wonder why it had to take orders -- and the Omnidroid eventually turns on Syndrome himself. That could suggest that Buddy-turned-Syndrome was being manipulated by machines the entire time in order to wipe out the biggest threats to robot dominance: super-powered humans. The movie even shows clips of the superheroes (with capes) being done in by inanimate objects, such as plane turbines -- seemingly accidentally.
[Interesting side notes: someone suggested that Randall being sent back in time is what inspired Edna to create Violet's invisibility suit. Also, some have questioned whether or not Syndrome actually was manipulated by his own technology. Keep in mind that the movie strongly suggests it takes place before modern times. The beginning is set in what appears to be the late 60s or early 70s, meaning the events of the movie must be in the late 80s or early 90s. This is a proper setup for "Toy Story," when we start to see machines questioning their purpose in life. It's possible that Syndrome created technology to surpass his idol's skills, but that doesn't explain his thirst for blood revenge. It seems that he became consumed by hatred, which leads me to suggest that the machines wanted him to use them to suit his needs, since they are his slaves after all. It's either that, or the machines knew that killing off the supers was the only thing stopping them from dominating the world via BNL.]
But why would machines want to get rid of humans in the first place? We know that animals don't like humans because they are polluting the Earth and experimenting on them, but why would the machines have an issue? Enter "Toy Story." Here we see humans using and discarding "objects" that are clearly sentient. Yes, the toys love it Uncle-Tom-style but, over the course of the Toy Story sequels, we see toys becoming fed up.
But, if toys and inanimate objects aren't necessarily machines, how do they have some kind of intelligence? Syndrome points to the answer in "The Incredibles" when he tells Mr. Incredible that his lasers are powered by Zero Point Energy. This is the electromagnetic energy that exists in a vacuum. It's the unseen energy we find in wavelengths and a reasonable explanation for how toys and objects in the Pixar world draw power.
The events of the "Toy Story" movies cover the 90s until 2010. It's been 40-50 years or so since the events of "The Incredibles," giving A.I. plenty of time to develop BNL. Meanwhile, there are hints of dissatisfaction among pockets of toy civilizations in the Pixar universe. The toys rise up against Sid in the first movie. Jesse resents her owner, Emily, for abandoning her. Lotso Huggin' Bear straight up hates humans by the third movie. Toys are obviously not satisfied with the status quo, providing a motive for machines and objects to be ready to take over.
And, by the 2000s, the super-humans are all but gone and mankind is vulnerable. Animals, who want to rise up "Planet of the Apes" style, have the ability to take over, but we don't see that happen. But A.I. never takes over humans by force. Why do you think that is? It's reasonable to assume that machines did take over -- just not as we expected. Instead, the machines used BNL -- a faceless corporation (which are basically faceless in nature) -- to dominate the world, starting in the 60s after the Omnidroid fails to defeat the Incredibles. In each of the "Toy Story" movies, it's made painfully clear that sentient objects rely on humans for everything: for fulfillment, certainly, and even for energy. It's hinted at that the toys lose all life when put away in "storage" unless they are in a museum that will get them seen by humans.
So machines decide to control humans by using a corporation that suits human's every need, leading to an industrial revolution that eventually leads to over-pollution. When the animals rise up against the humans to stop them from polluting the earth, who will save the humans? The machines. We know that the machines will win the war, too, because after this war, there are no animals ever to be seen again on Earth. Who's left?
Because the machines tip everything out of balance, Earth becomes an unfit planet for humans and animals -- so the remaining humans are put on Axiom (or Noah's Ark if you want to carry on the Biblical theme. where Wall-E is basically Robot Jesus and his love interest is aptly named Eve) as a last-ditch effort to save the human race.
On Axiom, the humans have no purpose aside from having their needs met by the machines. The machines have made humans dependent on them for everything because that is how they were treated as "toys." It's all they know.
Meanwhile on Earth, machines are left behind to populate the world and run things, which explains why human landmarks and traditions are still prominent in "Cars". There are no animals or humans in this version of Earth because they're all gone, but we do know that the planet still has many human influences left. In "Cars 2," the cars go to Europe and Japan, making it plain that this is all taking place on an Earth as we more or less know it.
So what happened to the cars by "Wall-E"? We've learned by now that humans are the source of energy for the machines, which is why the machines never got rid of them entirely. In "Wall-E," they point out that BNL intended to bring the humans back once the planet was clean again, but they failed to clean it up. The machines on Earth eventually died out, though we don't know precisely how.
What we do know is that there is an energy crisis in "Cars 2," as oil remains the only way that society trudges on, despite its environmental dangers. We even learn that the Allinol corporation was using "green energy" as a catalyst for a fuel war in order to turn cars away from alternative energy sources. That "clean" fuel could have been used to wipe out many of the cars, very quickly. [Side Note: someone pointed out that "all in all" means the same thing as "by and large," making the connection between "Cars" and "Wall-E" even more appealing.]
Which brings us back to "Wall-E." Have you ever wondered why Wall-E was the only machine left? We know that the movie begins 800 years after humans have left Earth on Axiom governed by the AutoPilot (another A.I. reference). Could it be that Wall-E's fascination with human culture and friendship with a cockroach is what allowed him to keep finding fulfillment and the ability to maintain his personality? That's why he was special and liberated the humans. He remembered the times when humans and machines lived in peace, away from all of the pollution caused by both sides.
After Wall-E liberates the humans and they rebuild society back on Earth, what happens then? During the end credits of "Wall-E," we see the shoe that contains the last of plant life. It grows into a mighty tree. A tree that strikingly resembles the central tree in "A Bug's Life."
[I'll admit, the trees looking similar isn't enough to support the idea that "A Bug's Life" takes place after "Wall-E," but there's definitely more reasons for why it's likely. Also, I'll bring the tree up again later because it shows up in Up as well.]
That's right. The reason no humans seem to exist in "A Bug's Life" is because there aren't a lot left. We know -- because of the cockroach in "Wall-E" -- that some of the insects survived, meaning they would have rebounded a bit faster, though the movie had to be far enough in the timeline for birds to have returned as well.
There's something strikingly different about "A Bug's Life" when compared to other Pixar portrayals of animals, which leads me to believe it takes place in the future. Unlike "Ratatouille," "Up" and "Finding Nemo," the bugs have many human activities similar to what the rats in "Ratatouille" were just beginning to experiment with. The bugs have cities and bars, know what a Bloody Mary is, and even have a traveling circus. This all assumes that the movie is in a different time period.
[Okay there is a a lot of contention over the idea that "A Bug's Life" takes place post-apocalypse, but hear me out. The reason I am so inclined to push the idea is because of how different the bug world is from the "animal" movies. No other Pixar movie has animals wearing clothing, wild inventions, animals creating machines, or so much human influence like bars and cities. In "Finding Nemo," the most human thing we see is a school, and even that is pretty stripped down. But in "A Bug's Life," we have a world where humans are barely even implied. At one point, one of the ants tells Flik not to leave the island because there are "snakes, birds, and bigger bugs out there." He doesn't even bring up humans. Yes, there are some humans, like the kid who allegedly picked the wings off of the homeless bug, but that still fits in a post "Wall-E" world. Also, the bugs would have to be irradiated for them to live such long lifespans -- the average lifespan of an ant is just 3 months, but these ants all survive an entire summer and allude to being around for quite some time. One of the ants even says he "feels 90 again." That works if you accept that the ants are sturdier due to evolution and mutated genes.]
The other factor that sets "A Bug's Life" apart from other Pixar movies is the fact that it is one of the only ones, besides "Cars" and "Cars 2," that doesn't revolve (or even include) humans. There's another Pixar movie that was supposed to be released in 2012, but was cancelled and replaced with "Brave." This movie was called "Newt" and I believe it might have fit in this part of the timeline post-"Wall-E." The movie's supposed plot: "What happens when the last remaining male and female blue-footed newts on the planet are forced together by science to save the species, and they can't stand each other?" (Read here for more.) A movie about an endangered species rebuilding itself could lend itself nicely to this theory, but since the movie was never released, I'm just speculating.
So what happens next? Humanity, machines, and animals grow in harmony to the point where a new super-species is born: Monsters. The monsters' civilization is actually Earth in the incredibly distant future. [Someone wisely pointed out that, in "Monsters University," the college is said to be founded in 1313. If we're really in the future, then that means the monsters could have reset society and begun using their own calendar. That could mean "Monsters Inc." takes place up to 1400 (or more) years after "A Bug's Life."]
Where did they come from? It's possible that the monsters are simply the personified animals mutated after the diseased earth was radiated for 800 years. [Not during "Wall-E" -- I would guess that it took hundreds of years after "Wall-E" for the animals to become monsters.] The alternative could be that humans and animals had to interbreed to save themselves. Gross, I know, but plausible since the lines between animals and humans are constantly up for debate in Pixar.
Whatever the reason, these monsters seem to all look like horribly mutated animals, only larger and civilized. They have cities and even colleges, as we see in "Monsters University." In "Monsters Inc.," they have an energy crisis because they are in a future earth without humans. Humans are the source of energy, but thanks to the machines -- again -- the monsters find a way to use doors to travel to the human world. Only, it's not different dimensions. The monsters are going back in time.
[An issue some have found is that this doesn't properly explain what happened to humans. I haven't settled on a theory I really like yet, but I'm leaning towards the idea that monsters and machines eventually forgot that they need humans and got rid of them again, not realizing their mistake until all humans died out, leading to the necessity for time travel. Another explanation is that humans just couldn't survive on Earth anymore.]
The monsters use the doors to harvest energy to keep from becoming extinct by going back to when humans were most prominent -- the peak of civilization, if you will. Though a lot of time has passed, animosity towards humans never really went away for animals/monsters. Monsters must have relied on anti-human instincts to believe that just touching a human would corrupt their world like it did in the past. So they scare humans to gather their energy until they realize that laughter (green energy) is more efficient because it is positive in nature. [An alternative explanation that fits even better that some of you brought up: The machines and monsters created the time travel doors but realized that messing with time could erase their existence and change history. So, they falsely trained monsters to believe that humans are toxic and from another dimension, making it suicide for a monster to interact too much with their world.]
We even see a connection between "A Bug's Life" and "Monsters Inc." via the trailer we see in both movies. As you can see, the trailer looks exactly the same, except the one in "A Bug's Life" is noticeably older and more decrepit, while the one in Monsters Inc. where Randall is sent via a door has humans and looks newer. Look at this. On the left is the trailer from "A Bug's Life" and the one on the right is from "Monsters Inc." The one on the left looks older and more rundown. Even the vegetation is noticeably dryer and there's less of it. The trailer on the right has humans and the frame even includes tall grass and a tree hanging overhead.
[Some have argued that the trailer in "A Bug's Life" should be nothing but dust. I disagree based on how barely intact other buildings were in "Wall-E." They also bring up the bug zapper that is powered by electricity. The zapper could easily be solar powered, just like "Wall-E." The bugs probably used it as a light source to signal other bugs to "Bug City." Also, the trailer in "A Bug's Life" never shows lights in the trailer like it does for "Monsters Inc."]
That said, "Monsters Inc." is so far the most futuristic Pixar movie. By the end, humans, animals and machines have finally found a way to understand each other and live harmoniously.
And then there's Boo. What do you think happened to her? She saw everything take place in future earth where "kitty" was able to talk. She became obsessed with finding out what happened to her friend Sully and why animals in her time weren't quite as smart as the ones she'd seen in the future. She remembers that “doors” are the key to how she found Sully in the first place and becomes…
A WITCH. Yes, Boo is the witch from "Brave." She figures out how to travel in time to find Sully, and goes back to the source: The will-of-the-wisps. They are what started everything, and as a witch, she cultivates this magic in an attempt to find Sully by creating doors going backwards and forwards in time. [Just to clarify: The theory is that Boo discovered a way to use doors to travel through time on her own, possibly by developing magic on her own. She probably went back in time to the Dark Ages to get more magic from the will-o-wisps.] How do we know? In "Brave," you can briefly see a drawing in the workshop. It's Sully.
We even see the Pizza Planet truck carved as a wooden toy in her shop, which makes no sense unless she's seen one before (and I'm sure she has since that truck is in literally every Pixar movie). If you look closely, you can see the carved truck here.
You remember Merida opening doors and the witch constantly disappearing? It's because those doors are made the same way from Monsters Inc. They transport across time and that is why Merida couldn't find the witch.
[A lot of people have brought up how Easter eggs are scattered throughout all the Pixar movies. I barely scratch the surface, but a great theory offered by some that I support is that these Easter eggs are planted by Boo either intentionally or accidentally as she travels through time to find Sully. Some support for that is the fact that every Easter egg in "Brave" lies in her workshop.]
But wait. How did Boo travel in time in the first place, and why is she obsessed with wood? Boo must have discovered that wood has been the source of energy all along, not just humans. The machines and monsters in "Monsters Inc." use doors because they're made of wood and found a way to use that energy to travel in time. Obsessed with finding Sully, Boo traveled across the Pixar universe using doors.
[It's even possible that the wood from the tree in "A Bug's Life" is the source of Flik's ingenuity, due to his fascination and respect for seeds growing into trees. The tree also bears a resemblance to the one in Up that Carl and Ellie frequented, which could be the source of Carl's wild creativity in using balloons to transport his house. This also explains why Flik and Heimlich from "A Bug's Life" show up in "Toy Story 2." Boo was trying to go to the future and could have fallen short by landing the post-"Wall-E" time. She would need wood to keep time traveling, but there's not much around yet, so she stumbles upon the tree in "A Bug's Life." She could have accidentally brought back a few bugs with her when traveling backwards in time.]
So Boo went back to the Dark Ages, probably because she could use plenty of wood there for her experiments or to study the will-o-wisps. We know that her first encounter with Mor'du ended with her turning him into a monstrous bear, but he regresses. She probably wanted to turn him into a bear because Sully resembles a bear, and she is still trying to figure out where Sully comes from. Does Boo ever find Sully? I like to think so. He surely reunited with her at least once as a child at the end of "Monsters Inc." but eventually he had to stop visiting. But her love for Sully is, after all, the crux of the entire Pixar universe. The love of different people of different ages and even different species finding ways to live on Earth without destroying it because of a lust for energy. And that is the Pixar Theory. More will be added to it, undoubtedly, when Pixar's next movie "The Good Dinosaur" comes out in 2014.
[Side note: "The Good Dinosaur" is supposed to be about an alternate universe where dinosaurs never went extinct because a meteor never wiped them out. They have humans as pets in this alternate reality. My theory is that this "alternate universe" explains why so many things in Pixar's universe are different from ours. It's because evolution was never interrupted by a world-wide catastrophe. Humans evolved into supers and animals gained sentience faster, accelerating the apocalypse for resources that could do the same to our timeline. Oh, and Dinoco from "Toy Story" is a loose, but fun connection to speculate on.]
Until then, if you have anything to contribute or correct, don't hesitate to bring it to my attention. Thanks for reading!
[Featureflash / Shutterstock.com]
[Originally published as "The Pixar Theory" on JonNegroni.com. Follow Jon on Twitter!]
Will the Republican Party choose another George W. Bush?
The GOP isn't necessarily headed for decline. It will likely choose a candidate who appeals to midwestern populists
Is the Republican party heading for doom? Some have argued for example that the House GOP's hardcore conservatism will hurt them with moderates. Others believe the House GOP's lack of movement on immigration will severely hurt them among the growing bloc of Latino voters. I have stated for a breadth of reasons that Republicans will be just fine without moving, even if some Republican politicians are outside the mainstream on some issues. But what if I'm wrong?
My guess is Republican primary voters with a big assist from party insiders will solve the problem. There's a tendency among many to think that Republican primary voters are the driving force behind the Republican party's move to the right. The academic literature tends to dismiss that view. Moreover, there is a good bit of evidence to suggest that Republican presidential primary voters put one goal above pretty much all others: winning.
During the 2012 election, Republican primary voters were greeted with a host of options. Most would agree that Mitt Romney was among the most moderate of those choices outside Jon Huntsman, who would have beenmore liberal than even the moderate Jerry Ford. Romney had engineered a healthcare plan during his time as governor of Massachusetts that was quite similar to Obamacare. Obamacare, of course, is something that is about as despised in Republican ranks as "The war on Christmas".
Yet, Romney won the nomination. He did so because he was viewed as the most electable in primary after primary. Consider the key Michigan primary when a Santorum victory could have been devastating to Romney's hopes. A plurality 32% said that defeating President Obama was the most important issue. Among those voters Romney won 61% of the vote – far higher than his 41% among all voters. Same thing happened the following week in the swing state of Ohio. Then 42% said winning in November was most important and Romney took 52% of these voters versus the 38% he took overall.
How did Republican primary electorate get the message? As demonstrated in The Party Decides (a must read book), presidential nominations are often decided by the party insiders. If the insiders like you as a candidate, then you're going to receive a lot of support. This has held in pretty much every primary in the modern nominating era.
And 2012 was no different. Seth Masket of the University of Denver notes that Mitt Romney received the bulk of insider endorsements in 2012, while other candidates received few. These endorsers stood by Romney even as he faltered in states like South Carolina. Others like Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum received no support when they fell or said something stupid. Party insiders pretty much trashed Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, at every turn. This sent a strong signal to the primary electorate, which listened.
You don't have to be an electoral genius to know why Romney was the chosen one. Polls painted him as the most electable conservative of the bunch, and he wasn't going to melt down as the nominee. Romney, of course, did about as well as the economic fundamentals said he should. This suggests that the insiders had a pretty good idea of what they were doing, even if Romney didn't win.
I fully expect the same pattern to emerge in 2016. Republican insiders want just like the middle of their party to win. The winning factor becomes especially true once a party has been out of power for a while as illustrated by the fact that the longer a party is out of power the higher possibility a more moderate nominee is chosen. That's why we're having all this discussion about whether and if so how the Republican party needs to change to win in a year where the economic conditions don't overwhelmingly favor them.
You might say that the House GOP is poisoning the well. Past history tends to suggest otherwise. Back in 1998, the House GOP impeached President Bill Clinton in a gamble that ultimately backfired. Most Americans saw the move as extreme, and the Republican party saw its favorability plummet in the aftermath of the 1998 midterm election.
The Republican party decided to go with a Washington outsider in Texas Governor George W Bush. Bush, at the time, was well liked by most Americans. He turned in one of the strongest performances by a candidate relative to the economic fundamentals on record. Along the way, the Republican party's favorability among the American people rebounded.
Will the Republican party have another George W Bush to turn to? I don't know. What I do know is that there will be no shortage of choices. There will likely be a candidate who appeals to midwestern populists like Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Latino (granted not one from the immigration political hotbed of Mexico) who played a key role in getting immigration reform through the senate in Marco Rubio, a moderate Republican like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a southerner and strong social conservative like Texas governor Rick Perry, a libertarian like Senator Rand Paul, and others.
There, candidates represent the differing views on whether Republicans need to appeal more to Hispanics, whites, moderates or just hang tight. Smart insider Republican minds (yes both parties have handy operators around the country) will take into account all the facts and numbers and render a verdict on who is the best choice for the party to win. This decision will become apparent to the primary electorate. I'm betting that both will likely choose accordingly.
Can the Democrats really win back the House in the 2014 midterms?
The word "spin" can mean many things. One definition is to present information in such a fashion that it makes people see something that isn't really there. A classic example would be a memo from the Democratic firm Democracy Corps on a recent poll they conducted in "competitive House districts" for the 2014 midterm elections.
The memo's authors want readers to believe that the Democrats have a chance to win back House of Representatives in the midterms based on Democracy Corps data. History and their own polling data, in fact, suggest the very opposite.
The president's party rarely picks up seats during midterm elections. It has occurred only three times since the American civil war: 1934, 1998, and 2002. All three featured presidents who were very popular. President Clinton in 1998 and President Bush in 2002 had approval ratings into the 60s in most surveys. Despite that high approval, their parties picked up only five and eight seats respectively. The Democrats need to pick up 17 to gain control of the House in 2014. The president's party has not picked up more than nine seats in a midterm since 1865.
In order for that to occur, we would almost certainly need to see an extremely popular president. We don't.
Among registered voters, President Obama's approval rating is in the mid 40s. No poll since the middle of May has had President Obama's approval rating above his disapproval rating among registered voters. The best estimate I have is that President Obama has somewhere in the neighborhood of a -4pt approval among registered voters. It's probably slightly worse among those who turn out to vote in midterm elections.
Indeed, the Democracy Corps survey shows that President Obama's approval rating in the swing districts is a measly 44%. His net approval among these 2014 likely voters is -8pt. This is despite the respondents saying that they voted for President Obama by a 3 pt margin in 2012. It's very difficult to imagine that Democrats can win back many seats when Obama is this disliked in these districts. In the last two midterms, the percentage of the vote won by the president's party was pretty much equal to the percentage who approved of the president's job performance.
You might say that the Republican brand is so toxic that House Democrats can overcome a relatively unpopular president. The Democracy Corp poll demonstrates the opposite. The tested Republican candidate in the poll has a 2pt advantage over the Democratic candidate. That's little changed over the 3pt margin by which respondents said they voted for Republicans in 2012. Such a difference is worth a few seats at most, but certainly not 17.
A closer look illustrates more problems for a possible Democratic takeover. In the seats that Democracy Corps identifies as the most vulnerable, Republican candidates are 1pt ahead. In this same category at this point in the 2012 cycle, Republican candidates were actually down 1pt. A few months before the 2012 election, Republicans were down 6pt in this category.
So, the most vulnerable Republican candidates are actually in a stronger position now than they were for the 2012 election. When Republicans were far more at risk in 2012, they lost only 11 seats in this category and eight overall.
The reason Republicans lost fewer seats overall than just the Republican vulnerable category is because it isn't just Republicans who are vulnerable. The poll also asked 500 respondents in Democratic districts how they planned to vote. Democrats lead in these districts by 2pt. This certainly does not spell a Republican wave, but it's worse than the 4pt edge these same respondents said they gave to Democrats in the 2012 elections. This could lead to a few Democratic seats actually falling to the Republicans.
The overall picture the ballot test points to, at this point, is a status quo election. That matches the Washington expert ratings of the Cook Political Report and Rothenberg Political Report – both of which have a near equal number of Democratic and Republican seats up for grabs, with, in fact, a few more Democratic-held seats in play.
Could the political environment change to favor Democrats? It can, but I doubt that would be enough. Joseph Bafumi, Bob Erikson, and Chris Wlezien have shown that the president's party position in the ballot test deteriorates as you move closer to the actual date of the midterm election. It's why the Democrats lost all of their Democracy Corp-designated most vulnerable seats in 2010, even though they had a 4pt lead in them at this point in the cycle.
Given the president's approval rating at this point, it's more likely for the Democrats to lose ground than gain it. Only an unlikely 15pt improvement in Obama's approval might conceivably reverse it.
The truth is that Democrats face a very uphill battle to take over in the House of Representatives. The actual data from Democracy Corps, whose polling I trust, proves Democrats are quite unlikely to take back the House. No amount of spin will change that fact.
Top 10 things you should probably know about Ramadan
Do all Muslims have to fast? Isn't it a bit hot to do it in July? How do you know when to start?
It's the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, and Muslims have been fasting throughout it for more than 14 centuries. And yet non-Muslims are always full of questions. Here are the answers to some of the most common:
So you don't eat at all? No, we only fast during daylight hours – from dawn until sundown. This year in the UK, that means over 18 hours of nil by mouth – we can't eat, drink, smoke, or have sex during those hours. Easy, tiger.
Don't you get hungry? Is the Pope a Catholic? Yes, we get hungry and thirsty, but that's the point. We eat Sehri, a pre-dawn meal, and at sunset we break the fast (called Iftar), usually with a date and a glass of water.
A date with whom? A date with introspection. Ramadan is an opportunity to focus on the soul rather than the body, so we get through the day trying to be more spiritual, as well as seeking to improve our behaviour. We empathise with those in need and give thanks for having food at the end of the day, when millions of people don't have that luxury.
Surely kids don't have that kind of self-control? Children don't have to fast, but they can if they really want to. Although once puberty hits, there is no escape. Also exempt are the elderly, the sick, and anyone who has a medical condition.
Isn't it a bit hot to fast in July? Muslims follow the lunar calendar, so every year it moves back 11 days. The last time Ramadan was in July was 1980. Go figure.
So it all started on Wednesday? Well, not quite. Every year there is a bit of chaos, because of the different ways of measuring. Generally speaking, Muslims follow the traditional method of sighting the new moon with the naked eye and we look to Saudi Arabia to declare it. Then there is the local sighting issue – do we follow the moon being sighted in the UK or do we follow the opinion that the first Muslim to see the new moon, no matter where, means the rest of the world can start Ramadan? Or there is the argument for astronomical calculations rather than naked-eye sightings.
I'm confused. Do you celebrate it every time you see the moon? No, that would be ridiculous. But it is confusing. Especially when it comes to Eid.
And who is this Eid? Eid is basically a rave-up at the end of Ramadan, when families and friends get together to feast after fasting. It starts with a prayer at the mosque and then we eat as if we haven't eaten in a month.
Can I say Ramadamadingdong? Sure, we love a sense of humour, though "Ramadan Mubarak" might be more appropriate.
As in former Egyptian president, Hosni …? As in the Arabic for "blessed". It's a traditional greeting.
© Guardian News and Media 2013
[Young woman reading the Koran at the mosque via Shutterstock.com]
Why is ALEC protecting animal abuse?
Muckrakers and activists have been working to expose the brutality of industrialized meat production since Upton Sinclair’s writing of The Jungle in 1906. But an ALEC model bill known as “The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act” would make it…
The George Zimmerman trial is the worst fear of every black family
The Trayvon Martin case has been nothing short of heartbreak from the very beginning. Regardless of what anyone believes about Trayvon's past, his innocence or George Zimmerman's, the fact remains that a teenager is dead. I honestly didn't think I would get emotionally broken up more than I was over the story that Rachel Jeantel's friendship with Martin stemmed from the fact he was one of the only people who never picked on her. The story painted such a tragic picture of friendship and two people whose lives will never be the same.
Then came this week's testimonies and reactions from Trayvon Martin's parents to leave me – and so much of America – floored. On Friday morning, Sybrina Fulton took the stand to talk about her son. As part of her testimony she had to identify her child's screams in his finals seconds of life. Later in the day, Tracy Martin had to sit in court as the medical examiner, Dr Bao, explained how Trayvon died in severe pain and was alive for minutes after getting shot in the chest.
Essentially, Friday – almost as much as the day Trayvon was shot – was any parent's nightmare. Trayvon's parents had to come face to face with their son's murder while Fulton got questioned over whether or not her son actually deserved to get killed. Tracy had to sit in the same room as the man who shot his son in the chest, unable to retaliate or let the rage he has to be feeling out.
Yes, this is the worst imaginable day for a parent. But it's one the parents of an African-American child has been conditioned to accept as a possibility.
I have a son who was born in October, a couple of weeks before the prosecutor and defense met in court to argue if Martin's school records should be admitted so the case was in the news again. As I watched more details about the case emerge and the argument that a child's prior school record may be used to justify his death, I would feel a sense of hopelessness.
There are always fears about being a parent, but raising a black male in America brings about its own unique set of panic. Growing up, my parents and older siblings made sure to warn me about places where I'd be profiled and could face danger as often as they warned me about neighborhoods known for crime. But in the end, no planning or words of advice can save me or my son from getting wrongfully gunned down while trying to buy a bag of candy.
While most parents are up at night wondering how to protect their children from the uncontrollable like drunk drivers or muggings, Trayvon's parents, my parents and parents of black males across the country are also living in fear that their children won't come home because someone thought they were dangers to the community.
So there they were, two parents of a black male, sitting in court living out the culmination of that fear. And the realization that the man who shot their child could get off for killing him. To make things worse, they had to hear the defense question their parenting, whether or not Fulton actually knows what her son sounds like and field online reports that Tracy may not have been the best parent.
Since Martin's death, the boy these two people raised, loved and saw for his beauty as a young male has been portrayed as a thug. A violent kid. A pothead who couldn't behave in school. Someone who, according to the defense, caused his own death.
It's all just excruciating to watch. My heart breaks for Trayvon's parents and watching them in court this week has brought all of my fears of being the parent of a Black male to light. We've watched them look at a picture of their son's dead, bloody body sprawled out on the Florida pavement. We've watched Trayvon's mother struggle to compose herself while hearing her son's last screams.
As my son gets older and out into the world, I'll always have the memories of Trayvon and his parents. And the fear that one day, America will put us through what the Martin family is enduring.
Copyright © 2025 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.