Low-budget theme park rides

For some morbid reason I enjoy watching POV videos, if for no other reason than to partially enjoy the theme park experience without the cost, the heat, and the pushy eastern Europeans. But another purpose they serve is validating why I'm better off NOT wasting the money, simply because I can identify the faults that make the ride not worth bothering with.

Case in point: the 'Men in Black' ride, which is basically just the Buzz Lightyear ride, but not as colorful. In fact, aspects of the ride look distinctly cheap and cheesy, like they painted some of the monsters on carved sheets of plywood.

 

Were I on this ride, I'd be grimacing at the schlocky effects, that are less than convincing for a ride based on such a big-budget film series. Maybe the bar is set high with Disney rides like the Haunted Mansion, which even though it was designed and built decades ago, is still hard to top even with modern technology, 3d effects and what not. If I had stood in line for an hour to get on this MIB ride,

I'd be a little bit cheesed after seeing this. It's like they refurbished some circular fans and propped these with paper mache monsters.

Stupid Spotify Ads

Can't figure out what the deal is with Spotify radio.  It's a robust internet radio with many songs to choose from, and I've spent a ton of time on in trying out new and interesting music.  But the commercials that they play consist of advertisements for either Kentucky whiskey or contraceptives.  What sort of drunken freak do they suppose that I am?

Russell Moore and 'Red Ragtop' by Tim McGraw

I generally enjoy the podcast by Russell Moore of Southern Seminary called "the Cross and the Jukebox", in which Dr. Moore gives a Christian overview of different songs, generally of a classic country flavor but also including more contemporary numbers as well.  Recently he covered the song Red Ragtop by Tim McGraw, an annoying song with an even more annoying pro-abortion message nestled within it. 

What struck me about this song (and what I shared in the comments, and which was apparently too graphic to note, as it was deleted) was the fact that to me the title of the song, "Red Ragtop", has embedded within in the sound of "red rag", which in a way is evocative to me of hemorrhaging following abortion, namely the aftermath of the grizzly, abortive D&C procedure in which the unborn child is destroyed (something not usually talked about by the "women's health" propagandists of the mainstream media.  If we all believed the mainstream media, abortion would be described as nothing more than a "health decision" with no long-term health and/or psychological ramifications.)  I suppose I can see how the comment was irrelevant, but then again, half of what I post in my 1000+ some Disqus comments online are generally irrelevant.  I rarely go back to my comments once I leave them, but I speak my peace and move on.  It's generally confrontative basement-dwellers that spend all day following a comment thread.  Not me.  I don't care.

But in the situation with this comment, I was morbidly curious to see if it would land, and alas, it didn't.  Still, the song title brings to mind the less-than-pleasant aftermath of abortive butchery to me, of failed elective surgeries, of 9-11 calls from abortion clinics that are unable to provide adequate "women's health" when abortions go bad. 

I have a fear that we're going to wind up with the incumbent for another 4 years, and that's going to mean more legislation geared towards killing the unborn, at the expense of the collective taxpayer.  I really fear for the direction this country is going sometimes.

Al Mohler's daily podcast is good as always, but it always makes me chuckle when, addressing news stories related to unwanted pregnancy and birth control, he makes comments about "pregnancy as something that must be avoided at all cost".  If Mohler had more of a Voddie Baucham view of Christian family size that sort of statement would have a lot more impact, but when a Christian decides to have only two children...?  Isn't that functionally "pregnancy as something that must be avoided at all cost"... after a convenient number of children?

A Valid Abortion Debate Question (free to be used at the political debate of your liking)

I've been percolating this question in my head for awhile now, originally thinking this would be ideal for a presidential debate question, but the more I think about it, this could be a fair question to ask the pro-abortion candidate at ANY political debate. I think this is a fair question, yet at the same time is a massive setup that cannot be answered by a politician without either looking very evasive or looking really awful (or both).  I post this here since I will probably never get a chance to use it, but if anyone reading this, for any reason, happens to be at a political debate and wants a good question, feel free to use it. Maybe you are the one debating the pro-abortion candidate, or maybe you're just someone in the audience who gets to ask the pro-abortion candidate the question. Whatever the situation, feel free to use this one, as I think this is a fair and thoughtful question to ask anyone who supports abortion...

Good evening, (Pro-abortion candidate Name)
I would like to propose a role-playing scenario (that I believe is a completely plausible) and I would like to hear your particular response to this situation:

You are visiting a local Planned Parenthood clinic in your district, to thank your voter base for their support, and while there the clinic facilitator takes you on a tour of the building. While on the third floor you pass the area where the live-birth abortions are performed. A doctor is about to help a "patient" and, seeing you, comes over, shakes your hand and thanks you for your support of "reproductive freedom". He looks at you in all seriousness and then makes an unusual request. "Our principle nurse is out today," he begins, "and I'm wondering if you could help me out."

Puzzled, you tell him that you have no medical qualifications and are in no position to help out. Seeing your confused expression, he laughs and assures you with "Oh, don't worry. I'm just doing a live-birth abortion today. Basically, I give a drug to a woman who's several months into her pregnancy, and it will cause her to prematurely go into labor, delivering the fetus alive. All I need for you to do is put on some scrubs and sit over there in that rocking chair. I will hand you the fetus after it's been delivered, and all you need to do is hold it until it dies of exposure. All told, it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. Then the medical incinerator is right behind you."

So that's the scenario. Considering your views on a "woman's right to choose" that you believe in, if presented with this scenario, would you participate? Would you hold that living child and be willing to let that child die of exposure in your hands?

Kate's "Nightmare" - People Magazine's Stupidity

I really should NOT read magazine headlines at the checkout at the store, because it just frustrates me completely, and then I get started writing inane blog posts. 

So People magazine has an important headline about one of the royals, Kate something, who decided to run about naked in public, and how she's experiencing a "nightmare" due to her public nudity being caught by the media.  A nightmare.  Over something so idiotic.  Not the nightmare of the suffering and sickness and death around the world, but the nightmare of stupid behavior and it's consequence.  The nightmare of being a tabloid joke....?

And this is important enough for People to put on the headline?  What an absolutely dumb magazine that I will never pick up.

But what is the deal with the royal family of Britain?  Do they serve any practical, functional purpose?  Other than lewd behavior on the cover of tabloids, what purpose do they serve?  Isn't England run by a parliament, and doesn't the prime minister make most principal decisions for the nation?  So why does the UK retain the nonsensical royal... oh, why do I bother asking rhetorical questions that have no answers. 

I will NEVER retire! (I think)

This article got me thinking about retirement, and how I've neve given thought to stopping work. Not just because my 401k has been a colossal joke over the decade, but more because I just can't envision stopping work. Besides, whenever you hear about someone retiring, then inevitably die shortly after. From a Christian perspective, is retirement even a biblical concept? Genesis 3 describes man working the ground "all the day's of his life."  Nothing in there about a gushy pension and watching 'Frasier' reruns all day. It's all the days of life until you die. File this in the "other" "Answers in Genesis" category, I guess. I'll probably be a Walmart greeter. Maybe I could be one of the people working in the paint department that's never there when you need help. Where do they go all day? Perhaps there's an employee lounge, and they just spend 90% of their day sitting on a couch in the employee break room?

Also been musing over more of the gnostic goofiness in the news about a 4th century fragment about Jesus' wife
  From the 4th century. Give me a break. Plus it looks like it was done in fingerpaints. Why does nonsense like this get the headlines anyway? I'm expecting more books, and another idiotic National Geographic special.

Teeel - Ojai Valley

Recent find in some of my sonic travels.... good stuff.