The song is excruciatingly annoying, yes, but anyone who has a drop of artistic blood in their veins can see that the ride is a visual masterpiece. I went on the Disneyworld one a few years ago for the first time since I was 10, and was blown away with how gorgeous everything was. The colors, textures, shapes.. everything was amazing, so much so that I even forgot about the stupid song. It's a seriously sad day when the genius design of Mary Blair is marred by the addition of garish, color-saturated Disney characters against her lush, clean, and sophisticated palatte.

The attraction was also about celebrating differences and seeing the world outside your backyard. I don't think putting a big fat "USA" scene right near the end of the ride (Hey everyone! We saved the best for last, hyuk hyuk!) is even the least bit in line with what it was originally supposed to be about.

Ok, so this dude got his statistics on the "United States" from just two states: Texas and Nevada. The Texas stats are over 10 years old. And the Nevada report, from 1999 to 2002, doesn't even mention breeds... it does, however, say this:
"Often people ask what breed of dogs are most dangerous? The question can be prompted by a high profile attack by a specific dog or may be the result of media driven portrayals of a specific breed deemed "dangerous"... Singling out one or two
specific breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. This often ignores the true scope of the problem at hand."

The truth is, there are no reliable population statistics for ANY breed, since that would require widespread breed registration. There are some small registries, but how many people actually use them? How many pit bull owners do you think are going to bother? How can we say that pit bull make up 3% of the dog population when A) we aren't even sure how big the dog population is, and B) we have NO CLUE how many of them are "pit bulls?"

Ok, so this dude got his statistics on the "United States" from just two states: Texas and Nevada. The Texas stats are over 10 years old. And the Nevada report, from 1999 to 2002, doesn't even mention breeds... it does, however, say this:
"Often people ask what breed of dogs are most dangerous? The question can be prompted by a high profile attack by a specific dog or may be the result of media driven portrayals of a specific breed deemed "dangerous"... Singling out one or two
specific breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. This often ignores the true scope of the problem at hand."

The truth is, there are no reliable population statistics for ANY breed, since that would require widespread breed registration. There are some small registries, but how many people actually use them? How many pit bull owners do you think are going to bother? How can we say that pit bull make up 3% of the dog population when A) we aren't even sure how big the dog population is, and B) we have NO CLUE how many of them are "pit bulls?"

Saying that "pit bulls" cause 50% of all serious attacks is like saying "retrievers" cause 50% of attacks. "Pit bull" isn't a breed, it's a vague term applied to a very large group of breeds including the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, English Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Presa Canario, American Bulldog, Mastiff and even the Boxer, just to name a few. Let's take the Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Flat-Coated Retriever, Chesapeake Bay Retriever, and Duck-Tolling Retriever and mash them all up into one "breed," and see what kind of statistics we get, hm?