This is the post where I go into depth about tonight’s strategic management class — and the bizarre train of thought that my mind boarded during the discussion of tonight’s case. Well, guess what — it’s not happening. Tonight’s case was about Disney and its corporate diversification strategy. Unfortunately, our professor asked us what we thought of Disney films. Nope. Not going there! Unfortunately, I do not have a single story associated with Disney movies that are suitable for general audiences. Most of these stories are associated with a movie called “The Little Mermaid“. For whatever reason, I was forced to watch this movie numerous times during my high school and undergraduate years. I’m not even going to go into some examples of these stories. If Disney movies (and musical sequences) were more like the following, I could probably be a bit cooler with spending so much time watching cartoons:

Yeah, I do question some of the strange emphasis on collectivism and schizophrenic values espoused by some Disney programming (particularly in the form of Saturday morning cartoons), but I think way too much. While I am also big into conspiracy theories, I’m definitely *NOT* one of those people seeing “subliminal going-ons” in cartoons like Aladdin or the Lion King. I definitely never saw this (*WARNING* this next one is in bad taste and most definitely R-rated):

In summary: No, I will not discuss all of the odd occurrences associated with every Disney movie I’ve watched. There are way too many to adequately describe in the necessary situational context. Besides, they make me look guilty of something, but only due to association. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to the wholesome family values it expresses. Trust me, no person or animal was harmed in any of these incidents and most local, state, and federal laws were followed to the spirit and letter.

Today I attended my first Wake County (NC) Libertarian Party Convention in years. I’ve been away from the scene except for a meeting here and there due to classes. I was definitely glad I showed up this time. Here’s the recap of events, not necessarily official, just what jumped out to me.

The event started off with a debate between 4th District Congressional candidate B.J. Lawson and Wake LP Chair Susan Hogarth. I didn’t expect too much difference between the two, since libertarians agree 90% of the time. I’ve worked with B.J. Lawson recently in conjunction with lobbying North Carolina legislators in regard to withdrawing from future compliance with the REAL ID Act and Susan as part of the Libertarian Party, so I respect and value both of them. B.J. introduced himself as a former engineer, medical student, software developer, business, and Ron Paul Republican. Susan introduced herself as a Libertarian Party hack. Followed by a number of questions with answers being “me-too”, a couple of possible contentious questions came up about Fair Tax and immigration. B.J. said we should get away from taxing income; I forgot if Susan gave a me-too, since I tried taking a picture then. B.J. thought immigration was a sovereignty issue; Susan was not a fan of borders other than her farm’s borders (specifically, she mentioned Texas and a northern state that escaped her — I think she was looking for “New Hampshire”).

And in any debate or public forum, there will always be a couple of weirdly-stated answers. These came in regard to questions about federalism and state’s rights. Susan said something like the smallest governmental unit is the individual. Now I know that she was advocating self-governance and wasn’t saying I was a part of the government in any sort of way, but it kind of woke me up. B.J. talked about how the government should look like a pyramid. A pyramid you say? Like maybe one with an eye in the middle of it? Again I knew what he was talking about (more local control, less federal control), but it sounded a little weird.

While all the questions were good, the best by far came from Vice Chair Stephanie Watson. In a candidate debate where everyone agrees on the issues, you start looking at the little things — strategy of the candidates and whose going to best communicate the message. Sometimes this gets out of hand and turns into a retarded debate about a man’s hair, but usually it has relevance. Stephanie asked how each candidate was going to convince otherwise happy Democrats to not vote for incumbent David Price. The answer was pretty simple — attack him on issues Democrats “should” care about but that is weak on in the liberal/progressive sense — the environment, civil liberties, war, and preference for special interests over the citizens of his district. Seems simple enough. Anyway, I don’t live in the 4th District, so I can’t vote for either of them.

In addition to this scintillating debate, we had a number of other very interesting speakers. Next up was gubernatorial candidate Mike Munger. He’s the chair of the Duke University Political Science Department and is really knowledgeable on economics. This guy is a no-brainer for being the best candidate on the North Carolina ballot this year — someone all Libertarians should rally around. Whether the voters of North Carolina agree or not is another question though. After some platform and issues voting, we heard from Libertarian Party of North Carolina Political Director Thomas Hill talking about his campaign for State Senate as well as running for office. Then we heard from state Chair Barbara Howe on issues of interest, particularly ballot access petitioning efforts and the lawsuit against the state’s insane restrictions. Finally, state Communications Director Brian Irving spoke.

Other than election of officers and reports from state party VIPs, the county affiliate decided issue priorities for the upcoming year. In the order from most emphasis to least, we chose to address local issues with regard to reigning in public spending, protecting property owners from eminent domain abuses, addressing common sense solutions to assignment of students to public schools, concentrating on real crime (as opposed to vices that are sometimes called crimes), and removing smoking bans. It’s a pretty ambitious agenda, but with the new wave of motivation sweeping through the LP now-a-days, I think we’ll do a fine job.

It has been brought to my attention by at least one close associate that I did not genuinely answer a couple of the questions from the quiz I posted during Spring Break on March 3rd titled Faith’s Friends Survey. Normally, I don’t censor or retract the things I say or write in support of the general precepts of truthiness, but I will make an exception this time since the requester is a very important person to me and the questions I allegedly lied about dealt with the topic of love. These questions were #10 and #31. I will address each separately and give a new, more sanitized bullshit answer.

10. Love someone so much it made you cry? Would I sound like a heartless bastard if I said “No?”

My new answer is: Yes, I cry all the time. I could be crying because I’m so happy; I could be crying because things just don’t work out. Maybe it’s a little bit of both. Isn’t life so crazy and romantic, both desirable and undesirable at the same time. I tend to let women determine my emotional state and also allow them to turn me into a lovesick pussy quite frequently. I’m co-dependent too, and if you make me cry enough, I will accept being psychologically abused as an expected condition of all relationships.

31. Who is your greatest love? Hmmm. Is this a trick question?

My new answer is: Well, it’s definitely not Jesus. Why would anyone love Jesus more than another person? Christians really don’t mean that sort of thing. That’s why “Christians” love the Superbowl more than their Lord and Savior on certain Sundays. Of course, I love Hope more than anything. She’s my number one friend on Myspace for a reason — she makes me cry, errr, I mean laugh all the time. I’ll say whatever you want, just don’t hit me anymore. When I get to Heaven, I’ll tell Jesus he was my number two on Myspace. He won’t hold it against me, since he forgives everyone for their sins.

Anyway, there’s my retraction. Kind of useless, since I stand by my original answers, even though the answers might have across to some as uncaring and evasive. Vague answers are sometimes funnier and help me keep that air of mystery that my publicist thinks will help my career. I’m sorry if I slighted anyone that I care about in the process. While most of the stuff I blog about is just bullshit, it’s really clear to those around me who know the “real Johnny Crawford” that I can (and quite frequently do) take my very un-funny jokes to extremes. The real Johnny Crawford is also sometimes an asshole, but I don’t really need to put that in my blog for most people who know me to know that.