MAD – SMBC January 29, 2011 – Heh. Fortunately, for some, after the Apocalypse can come an unexpected Golden Age …
Give ’em the Axe – Zits for 1/29/2011 – While there is many the fashion faux pas in my own teen past, I have to believe (and, indeed, hope) that the current trend for heavy cologne (excuse me, “body spray”) is a short-lived one, and that the purveyors of fashion/cosmetics have not implemented a permanent change in male society.
The anti-science party – Sad, but true. I have to wonder, though, how much of the anti-science (evolution, climate change, basic research, etc.) bent of many prominent GOP leaders is because it’s to their political benefit (anti-science = anti-regulatory = pro-business = contributions!) and how much of it is the other way around (business contributions go to those who are anti-science = anti-regulatory). In either case, too many people are fiddling while Rome burns, either for profit, power, or just intentional ignorance.
Revolver that fires shotgun shells – Have to wonder what the kick on that would be. Btw, the BATFE had Taurus pull it after deeming it not a pistol but a short-barreled shotgun, which are illegal. (And which points out how firearm definitions, for legal purposes, can be very slippery things.)
No Longer Caring About Democracy, Bolton Disparages Egypt Protests And Defends Mubarak – While Bolton’s expressed concern about Islamicist radicals taking the reins of the revolt and possible follow-on government are legit, the idea that we should reflexively back Mubarak because of that is as shortsighted as our backing of every other strongman we’ve done for the last sixty years — little of which as ever ended well for the countries in question or US security.
The original Battlestar Galactica series bible is Ron Moore’s rebuke to Star Trek – Avoiding “the usual stories about parallel universes, time-travel, mind-control, evil twins, God-like powers and all the other cliches.” But we will have prophecies and flashbacks and future histories, humans who turn out to be programmed robots compelled to do things, multiple versions of the same people with different personalities, and some divine spirit who’s pulling the strings of destiny somewhere. I’m not quite sure where the vision here went off the rails. (I speak half in jest — BSG did some remarkable and stunning things, esp. toward the beginning of the series — but half in truth.)
House GOP wants to monitor what you are doing online – Not that the Dems have been all that impressive with privacy issues, but the GOP’s willingness to go all Big Brother Police State with information gathering on the off chance that it will protect Law & Order is a lovely juxtaposition to the quasi-libertarianism of the Tea Parties that brought them to power.
Voyager and the Will to Explore – “Long-term projects are guided by the decisions and the will of those who conceive and nurture them. The question now is whether we have the will to keep pushing, Voyager style, into the dark.”
Congress.org – News : More troops lost to suicide – “The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions.” — Robert Wilson Lynd
The Pros and Cons of Pirates of the Caribbean 4, as Evidenced by the Trailer – Here’s the problem (as I see it): what made PotC 1 so good was that it was not about Cap’n Jack Sparrow. It was about Will and Elizabeth. As the series progressed, it became less about them and more about Cap’n Jack hijinx. Now that it’s just about Cap’n Jack … meh.
When will English come to a full stop? | Books | The Observer – I don’t see any reason why English shouldn’t continue on as an (already-established) lingua franca for centuries, if not longer — but I strongly suspect America’s dominance over it will wane, just as England’s did before it.
The culture of conspiracy, the conspiracy of culture – Quoting Teresa Nielsen Hayden on WikiLeaks: “Two or three million people had unchecked access to this material, but my government is outraged that I can read it? What am I now, a peasant?”
React Like It’s 1805 – ” People who claim to be “originalists” without expressing concern about the effect of a standing army on democracy are either disingenuous or uninformed, or both.” Having a large standing army (and, arguably, some need for same) is not only not in keeping with what the Founders (in general) wanted, but has had a significant distortion on our government and taxation from what those Founders — or their succeeding generations — intended. But I don’t think you’re going to hear Scalia or Thomas (let alone McConnell or Gingrich or Hannity) going on about that.
The Reign of Witches Has Not Passed – “The treatment of Bradley Manning is microcosmic of a broader trend that does not speak well for the degree of civilization in our society. And yet we continue to lecture the world as if we were somehow exceptional.”
Gohmert: Without DADT, Military Stands to Lose Thousands and US Will Reach the “End of its Existence as a Great Nation” – So, according to Rep Gohmert (R-TX, natch) we can’t let gays openly serve in the military because the military is already restricted in its freedom, so we can’t give any freedom to the gays there. Um … right. Bottom line, Rep. Gohmert demeans the patriotism and professionalism of our soldiers by suggesting that they’ll run, screaming to the hills, if it turns out that the guy the next foxhole over is (eek!) gay.
Religious Right Keeps Fighting Losing Battle Against DADT – Quoth Liberty Counsel: “I am incensed that these lame duck demagogues refuse to accept the fact that Americans do not want open homosexuality in our armed forces!” Quoth I, I am incensed that these totally lame demagogues refuse to accept the fact that Americans DO want open homosexuality in our armed forces. Or, at least, they don’t think it’s right to kick open homosexuals out.
The blowback to my column of two days ago, in which I argued that we seem to have become reluctant to award the Medal of Honor to those who take aggressive action against the enemy and kill bad guys, has been fierce. It has been angry, vituperative, hate-filled, and laced with both profanity and blasphemy.
Hmmm … angry, vituperative, hate-filled, laced with concepts profane and blasphemous … I think you’re projecting, Bryan …
What is striking here is that readers who have reacted so viscerally to what I wrote apparently didn’t read it, or only read the parts that ticked them off. I’m guessing a fair amount of the reaction has come from those who didn’t actually read the column, but read what others said about the column. It’s been fascinating to watch.
Okay, let me go back and read the column …
… um ….
… okay, yeah, I have a visceral reaction all right. I think I’m going to lose my dinner.
For clarification, here are excerpts from my first column in which I clearly state that it is altogether right that we honor heroism and bravery when it is expressed in self sacrifice:
The Medal of Honor will be awarded this afternoon to Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta for his heroism in Afghanistan, and deservedly so. He took a bullet in his protective vest as he pulled one soldier to safety, and then rescued the sergeant who was walking point and had been taken captive by two Taliban, whom Sgt. Giunta shot to free his comrade-in-arms.
This is just the eighth Medal of Honor awarded during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Sgt. Giunta is the only one who lived long enough to receive his medal in person…
Jesus, in words often cited in ceremonies such as the one which will take place this afternoon, said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). So it is entirely right that we honor this kind of bravery and self-sacrifice, which is surely an imitation of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
I’m not sure there is a clearer or more forceful way for me to say it than I did right there, that we surely ought to continue doing what we have done, which is to grant our highest award for valor to those who risk their lives and even forfeit them, as our Lord and Savior did, in defending the lives of their friends.
Some have accused me of denigrating awards for such valor, which is nonsense, as the words above attest. I can hardly be rightly accused of denigrating an award given to those who I believe exemplify the courage and self-sacrifice of the Savior of the world. I have no doubt that I will continue to be accused of this, but such accusations are entirely without merit.
That’s a very nice spin on it, Bryan, but it just won’t fly. Yes, you say that’s all awfully nice and all … but then you turn around and indicate that it’s not enough. No, it’s not enough that we honor “those who risk their lives and even forfeit them … defending the lives of their friends” — if we’re not making a point to be honoring people who do so as they “kill people and break things.”
Even the very nice reference to Jesus gets this part added in the previous column:
However, Jesus’ act of self-sacrifice would ultimately have been meaningless – yes, meaningless – if he had not inflicted a mortal wound on the enemy while giving up his own life.
The significance of the cross is not just that Jesus laid down his life for us, but that he defeated the enemy of our souls in the process. It was on the cross that he crushed the head of the serpent. It was on the cross that “he disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15).
It’s only important that Jesus died in order to crush his enemy. Saving us is nice, but “meaningless.”
One can imagine — in fact, whole theologies, some of them very orthodox, have maintained — that Jesus’ death was not an “attack,” but a “rescue” … a throwing himself on a spiritual grenade of sin and death, perhaps, or running into the burning building of hell to bring out one more lost soul, or being the sacrificial man at the last ditch, whose actions allow his fellows to get away.
Lots of ways you can see Jesus’ death and resurrection. Turning it into a Commando Raid to Kill the Serpent is … not one I’ve often seen.
I’m not saying that our soldiers have become feminized in the least, especially those who have earned the Medal of Honor. It’s not our soldiers who have become feminized, it is the awards process that has become feminized.
And, of course, feminization is, by definition, bad.
What I am saying is that I am observing a trend in which we single out bravery in self-defense …
Darned feminists, celebrating defensive bravery!
… and yet seem hesitant to single out bravery in launching aggressive attacks that result in the deaths of enemy soldiers.
Congressional Medals of Honor (Army, Navy/Marines, Air Force)
Believe it or not, racking up a body count by “launching aggressive attacks that result in the deaths of enemy soldiers” is not the criterion for receiving the CMOH:
The Medal of Honor … is awarded in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. … The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life.
Nothing there about killing the bad guys. Nothing there about not killing the bad guys.
A shock, yes, I know. Either he’s lying, or he’s just accepting someone’s word as the basis for a screed without making any fact checks. As he put it in his earlier column:
According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one.
Let’s take a look at this most recent girly-girl citation, to Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta, awarded 16 November 2010. Here’s what happened:
Specialist Salvatore A. Giunta distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy in the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan, on October 25, 2007. While conducting a patrol as team leader with Company B, 2d Battalion (Airborne), 503d Infantry Regiment, Specialist Giunta and his team were navigating through harsh terrain when they were ambushed by a well-armed and well-coordinated insurgent force. While under heavy enemy fire, Specialist Giunta immediately sprinted towards cover and engaged the enemy. Seeing that his squad leader had fallen and believing that he had been injured, Specialist Giunta exposed himself to withering enemy fire and raced towards his squad leader, helped him to cover, and administered medical aid. While administering first aid, enemy fire struck Specialist Giunta’s body armor and his secondary weapon. Without regard to the ongoing fire, Specialist Giunta engaged the enemy before prepping and throwing grenades, using the explosions for cover in order to conceal his position. Attempting to reach additional wounded fellow soldiers who were separated from the squad, Specialist Giunta and his team encountered a barrage of enemy fire that forced them to the ground. The team continued forward and upon reaching the wounded soldiers, Specialist Giunta realized that another soldier was still separated from the element. Specialist Giunta then advanced forward on his own initiative. As he crested the top of a hill, he observed two insurgents carrying away an American soldier. He immediately engaged the enemy, killing one and wounding the other. Upon reaching the wounded soldier, he began to provide medical aid, as his squad caught up and provided security. Specialist Giunta’s unwavering courage, selflessness, and decisive leadership while under extreme enemy fire were integral to his platoon’s ability to defeat an enemy ambush and recover a fellow American soldier from the enemy. Specialist Salvatore A. Giunta’s extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, Company B, 2d Battalion (Airborne), 503d Infantry Regiment, and the United States Army.
The citation doesn’t say he got the award for “saving life” nor does it say it was “inflicting casualties on the enemy.” In point of fact, then-Specialist Giunta did both. and with valor. He attacked, he rendered aid, he counter-attacked, he freed a potential hostage.
I suppose Bryan doesn’t consider it all quite as masculine as if Specialist Giunta had launched a berserker attack against the insurgents, regardless of what else was going on around him, but …
I never even remotely suggested that we should stop honoring exceptional bravery in defense of our own troops; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact, as the above excerpts show. To borrow a phrase from Jesus, I say, “You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former” (Matthew 23:23).
See, Bryan seems to think a dire battle situation — of the sort that CMOHs come from are either “defensive” or “offensive.”
Robert J. Miller distinguished himself by extraordinary acts of heroism while serving as the Weapons Sergeant in Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha 3312, Special Operations Task Force-33, Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan during combat operations against an armed enemy in Konar Province, Afghanistan on January 25, 2008. While conducting a combat reconnaissance patrol through the Gowardesh Valley, Staff Sergeant Miller and his small element of U.S. and Afghan National Army soldiers engaged a force of 15 to 20 insurgents occupying prepared fighting positions. Staff Sergeant Miller initiated the assault by engaging the enemy positions with his vehicle’s turret-mounted Mark-19 40 millimeter automatic grenade launcher while simultaneously providing detailed descriptions of the enemy positions to his command, enabling effective, accurate close air support. Following the engagement, Staff Sergeant Miller led a small squad forward to conduct a battle damage assessment. As the group neared the small, steep, narrow valley that the enemy had inhabited, a large, well-coordinated insurgent force initiated a near ambush, assaulting from elevated positions with ample cover. Exposed and with little available cover, the patrol was totally vulnerable to enemy rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapon fire. As point man, Staff Sergeant Miller was at the front of the patrol, cut off from supporting elements, and less than 20 meters from enemy forces. Nonetheless, with total disregard for his own safety, he called for his men to quickly move back to covered positions as he charged the enemy over exposed ground and under overwhelming enemy fire in order to provide protective fire for his team. While maneuvering to engage the enemy, Staff Sergeant Miller was shot in his upper torso. Ignoring the wound, he continued to push the fight, moving to draw fire from over one hundred enemy fighters upon himself. He then again charged forward through an open area in order to allow his teammates to safely reach cover. After killing at least 10 insurgents, wounding dozens more, and repeatedly exposing himself to withering enemy fire while moving from position to position, Staff Sergeant Miller was mortally wounded by enemy fire. His extraordinary valor ultimately saved the lives of seven members of his own team and 15 Afghanistan National Army soldiers. Staff Sergeant Miller’s heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty, and at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself and the United States Army.
Too bad that’s such a feminine tale of saving lives and being protective and nurturing. I’m sure the 10 dead and dozens of wounded dead insurgents are kind of embarrassed to have been taken down by such a “feminized” award-winning scenario.
Staff Sergeant Jared C. Monti distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a team leader with Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3d Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 3d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, in connection with combat operations against an armed enemy in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan, on June 21, 2006. While Staff Sergeant Monti was leading a mission aimed at gathering intelligence and directing fire against the enemy, his 16-man patrol was attacked by as many as 50 enemy fighters. On the verge of being overrun, Staff Sergeant Monti quickly directed his men to set up a defensive position behind a rock formation. He then called for indirect fire support, accurately targeting the rounds upon the enemy who had closed to within 50 meters of his position. While still directing fire, Staff Sergeant Monti personally engaged the enemy with his rifle and a grenade, successfully disrupting an attempt to flank his patrol. Staff Sergeant Monti then realized that one of his Soldiers was lying wounded in the open ground between the advancing enemy and the patrol’s position. With complete disregard for his own safety, Staff Sergeant Monti twice attempted to move from behind the cover of the rocks into the face of relentless enemy fire to rescue his fallen comrade. Determined not to leave his Soldier, Staff Sergeant Monti made a third attempt to cross open terrain through intense enemy fire. On this final attempt, he was mortally wounded, sacrificing his own life in an effort to save his fellow Soldier. Staff Sergeant Monti’s selfless acts of heroism inspired his patrol to fight off the larger enemy force. Staff Sergeant Monti’s immeasurable courage and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, and the United States Army.
It’s a shame all that life-saving stuff at the end waters down all the personal killing done by Staff Sergeant Monti earlier in the citation.
But enough debunking of Bryan’s core thesis, let’s go back to his self-aggrandizing defensiveness. He continues:
It is striking that a certain amount of the criticism I have received actually verifies my thesis.
Note that by noting a “certain amount” there’s no telling if this is all, most, or a handful of his respondents.
In response to my call to also honor those who have killed bad guys in defense of our country, I have been called everything from savage to brute to bloodthirsty to anti-American to un-American to traitor to “expletives deleted” to the antichrist himself.
Golly, I’d love to know about these comments in context. Were they about the idea that CMOHs should be given for folks who have shown valor in primarily attacking the enemy? Or were they about how killing people is not only a valorous event but a Biblically blessed and even morally desirable act? Or maybe they were about the idea that “feminine” is somehow being used as a pejorative …
Surely some of this supports my contention that we have become too squeamish to honor such valor. It’s almost as if it embarrasses us, as if we feel there is something inappropriate about awarding our highest honor to those who kill the enemy in battle. It is as if our culture has become so soft and so feminized that it makes us enormously uncomfortable to think about praising such actions. It’s like we know such warfare needs to be waged, but we’re hoping we don’t have to find out very much about it.
Because “feminized’ means “soft” and “uncomfortable” — and not wildly enthused about killing qua killing.
Remember, of course, that all of the CMOH winners above did, in fact, kill others. Indeed, they actually led attacks.
It apparently is easier for us to honor valor when exhibited in self-defense, but we find ourselves reluctant to honor killing the enemy when we are the aggressor in a military setting.
By my rough count, about 25% of the Medals of Honor during the Vietnam War were granted to soldiers who showed unusual bravery and courage in assertive military action against the enemy. So far, according to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, we have yet to do so even once in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely there have been exceptional acts of bravery of those kinds in these wars, and yet we have failed to grant our highest honor for gallantry to any of them.
Actually, that’s an interesting question — are military operations in Afghanistan (or Iraq) comparable to Vietnam? Let alone WW II, etc.? After all, we’re not talking about typical large unit engagements, or assaults on enemy lines, but anti-insurgency operations, in both urban and rural settings. That leads, it would seem to me, to fewer purely offensive operations of the sort that would lead to “Charge of the Light Brigade” style CMOH opportunities.
And yet, remember that each of the above recipients managed to show valor, not just for all that feminized “saving fellow soldier” bits but also for aggressive actions.
That’s when Bryan jumps on this theological bandwagon:
The Scriptures certainly know nothing of such squeamishness. Remember what drove King Saul into a jealous rage was when the women of Israel commemorated David’s exploits in song:
“Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (1 Samuel 18:7).
And this was not the last of David’s exploits in just wars. He went down to the town of Keilah where he “fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock and struck them with a great blow” (1 Samuel 23:5).
I’m finally snipping a bit of Bryan’s screed because the rest is all about the Righteous Warfare of the Old Testament, Saul and David and the rest.
This is the point where, to be honest, it’s hard to refute Bryan. Because, to be honest, it’s perfectly legitimate, Biblically, to use the Old Testament and Israel’s holy wars against the Philistines and the like to justify Going Out and Killing All the Bad Guys You Can as a sacred and God-approved thing to do.
Does Bryan think these acts would warrant the Congressional Medal of Honor? Is this how Bryan thinks our soldiers should be acting in Afghanistan and Iraq?
For what it’s worth (and I’m sure Bryan would consider me damned for it), I reject these passages as reflecting the will of God.
Skipping ahead, we get …
Christianity is not a religion of pacifism. Remember that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers who came to him to lay down their arms, even when they asked him directly, “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).
A fascinating passage, but let quote it more in full (Luke 3:10-14):
“What should we do then?” the crowd asked. John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
Socialist!
Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?” “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
Wasn’t Bryan just preaching the other day about how “the involuntary transfer of wealth is fundamentally immoral. The voluntary transfer of wealth, on the other hand, is noble and compassionate.” He was condemning taxation for health care, but it would seem to apply for any taxation. Yet Bryan ignores John the Baptist not telling the tax collectors to lay down their tax rolls …
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
No, John the Baptist doesn’t tell them to stop fighting — because, yes, sometimes it’s necessary. He does seem to address what was a more immediate problem regarding soldiers (whether Herod’s or Caesar’s) in Judea at the time — trying to supplement their income through extortion.
War is certainly a terrible thing, and should only be waged for the highest and most just of causes. But if the cause is just, then there is great honor in achieving military success, success which should be celebrated and rewarded.
One could argue that war, even when just, is so terrible that to celebrate it is to sinfully worship its evils — lesser evils, perhaps, but evils nonetheless. It’s like celebrating a mastectomy, even if it’s done for a high and noble cause.
That said, there can be valor in war, exemplified in self-sacrifice toward the cause. That’s not about killing per se. It may well involve the killing of others, as a last resort and to a higher end, or it may be the protection of one’s brethren in arms, or a mixture of both. The Medals of Honor described above all fit the bill. To denegrate them by noting that they reflect some sort of (obviously inferior, if not sinful) “feminization” is, frankly, sickening.
Similarly sickening is the idea that war’s about “killing people and breaking things.” While it’s fine to quote Patton’s “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his,” killing for the sake of killing, even in a “holy cause,” is not a moral imperative. Indeed, it’s a claim that can be made by the “Bad Guys,” too. It devalues human life, the creation of God.
I am reminded of Rear Admiral Jack Phillip at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba in the Spanish-American War, who admonished his men who were celebrating the burning Spanish shop Vizcaya, “Don’t cheer, men; those poor devils are dying.”
And that echoes the older Talmudic tale: “When the Egyptians were drowning in the Red Sea, the angels in heaven began to break forth in songs of jubilation, but the Holy One, blessed be He, silenced them: ‘My creatures are perishing — and ye are ready to sing!'”
Bryan sums up:
The bottom line here is that the God of the Bible clearly honors those who show valor and gallantry in waging aggressive war in a just cause against the enemies of freedom, even while inflicting massive casualties in the process. What I’m saying is that it’s time we started imitating God’s example again.
If we leave aside the self-serving tales of conquest and genocide that fill the Old Testament, the New Testament (you know, the one that Changes Everything when it comes to dietary laws, but not, per Bryan, rules of warfare) doesn’t seem all that sanguine about war. While John the Baptist seems more interested in soldiery acting justly, Jesus mentions, pretty clearly, that violence is a sketchy option at best (Matthew 26:50-52):
And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.
And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Those who individually act in valor in battle, offering up their lives, are worthy of praise. That they do so in pursuit of the death of their opponents is incidental; where they do so in clearly seeking to protect their comrades in battle is even more laudatory, to my mind. That Bryan seems to think that reflects some sort of dubious feminization of the Medal of Honor is, honestly, more indicative of his bloody mindset that anything else.
I’ll close only in noting one more CMOH tale, this one from WW II. Like the above, it’s a blend of fearlessness in striking at the enemy and a devotion to protect one’s comrades in arms. It refers to Private Rodger Young, who died on New Georgia, Solomon Islands:
On 31 July 1943, the infantry company of which Pvt. Young was a member, was ordered to make a limited withdrawal from the battle line in order to adjust the battalion’s position for the night. At this time, Pvt. Young’s platoon was engaged with the enemy in a dense jungle where observation was very limited. The platoon suddenly was pinned down by intense fire from a Japanese machinegun concealed on higher ground only 75 yards away. The initial burst wounded Pvt. Young. As the platoon started to obey the order to withdraw, Pvt. Young called out that he could see the enemy emplacement, whereupon he started creeping toward it. Another burst from the machinegun wounded him the second time. Despite the wounds, he continued his heroic advance, attracting enemy fire and answering with rifle fire. When he was close enough to his objective, he began throwing handgrenades, and while doing so was hit again and killed. Pvt. Young’s bold action in closing with this Japanese pillbox and thus diverting its fire, permitted his platoon to disengage itself, without loss, and was responsible for several enemy casualties.
Was that a somehow feminized Medal of Honor, Bryan? Did they sing girly-girl songs about it? Or was it acceptable only so long as there were enough other medals given to guys attacking Japanese pillboxes just for the sake of killing the Bad Guys?
I finally got around to reading Superman: Earth One — the new graphic novel written by Joe Straczynski and illustrated by Shane Davis. Which means I can now comment on some statements by Bill Donahue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Right, as quoted by the Christian News Service.
“It looks like the new Superman should have great appeal to the Columbine crowd,” Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights told CNSNews.com.
“After all, he’s moody – not pensive, but moody – and he’s got that hood on him. I think people who want to shoot up innocents in high schools will look at him and say, ‘He is hip.’”
Donahue said there is clearly an attempt to portray the new Man of Steel as looking more like he leans towards evil than good.
“Which certainly goes to show how intellectually bankrupt these people are. They can’t create a new figure and make him appeal to the Columbine crowd,” he said. “What they have to do is to hijack and to crib off of an image which people all over the workld can identify with in a fairly happy way. But they don’t want to make him happy. They want to make him moody. So it obviously suggests that there’s something about our age that they think this might appeal. It doesn’t say anything positive about our culture to think that young people might be drawn to a character who looks like this.”
It’s hard to get a grip on Donahue’s arguments here because there’s about eleven kinds of crazy here. But let me try.
This the “new Superman.”
This is designed to appeal to the “Columbine crowd” because he’s “moody” and wears a hoody.
Superman is being designed here to look evil.
It’s bad enough these “intellectually bankrupt” (what does that mean, anyway?) can’t come up with a new character to appeal to the “Columbine crowd,” but they have to “hijack” a “happy” character and make him “moody.”
If any young folks are drawn to a character who looks like this, it’s a bad thing.
Wow. Where to start?
Regarding #1, this is a parallel reimagining of the mainstream Superman character. It’s sort of like seeing someone do a modern interpretation of a Shakespearean play. My understanding is that we may well see more of this particular iteration of Superman (and maybe a world around him), but it’s not intended or anticipated that this is going to replace the “real” Superman.
That said, it’s also clear that Donahue has very little knowledge of anything about the world of comics. I suspect he still thinks of Superman as he was back in the 50s and early 60s, the “Big Blue Boy Scout,” fighting bank robbers and the occasional colorful opponent like Lex Luthor (between prison terms) and Braniac (who looked like Lex Luthor, except he was green).
Remarkably, comics have evolved in some ways since then. They are less designed for 9-year-olds, for one thing. And they attempt (in varying degrees of success) to deal with more mature themes. In some cases, it’s simply being more violent and/or sexy. In other cases, it’s being more psychological, more philosophical, more contemplative of what it means to be unique, or powerful, or to face evil, or to be a vigilante. Superman himself, in recent years, has had to deal with a variety of personal problems.
If someone were to recreate Superman today, is it unreasonable to think that he might not simply be a grinning idiot who stands in front of an American flag and boxes the ears of miscreants? Even the 1978 Superman: The Movie dealt with issues of Supes figuring out his place in the world — what it meant to discover his alien origins; how his step-parents, the Kents, loved and guided him; trying to figure out what he should do with his life, how he could fit in, whether he could or should have a relationship.
All of which echoes what this graphic novel is all about.
The fact is, I doubt very strongly that Donahue actually read this. He read a synopsis (“Hey, did you hear they’re making a new Superman, and he’s in his 20s and moody. Look at this picture!”) and he was away at the races.
That’s the only way I can think of that he might entertain any vague idea that this might appeal to the “Columbine crowd.” Now, to be sure, I’m not quite sure what group he’s talking about here. The Columbine shootings were eleven years ago. I’m not aware of any organized cluster of school-shooting nihilists still on the rampage today, let along a major comic-book-buying demographic.
Donahue seems to think that “moodiness” and wearing a sweatshirt with a hood is a sign of impending bloodbaths. If so, given current teen fashions and perennial teen moodiness, I’d expect to hear about school shootings on an hourly basis. Strangely enough, I don’t.
By the way, my daughter wears a hoody. She also enjoys skull-and-crossbones motifs and the Addams Family. As far as I know, she is not planning on shooting up her school. (Or, to be honest, reading Superman).
The idea that Joe Straczynski is out to somehow appeal to the “Columbine crowd” is laughable beyond imagination. His Superman may be conflicted, but he’s a good man, who takes the lessons of his step-parents to heart, and who acts positively and constructively to defend the planet and the people of Metropolis. I’m sure that some would prefer a Superman that never has any doubts or questions or uncertainty … but I kind of like one who is, dare I say, human.
In short, Donahue’s accusations — this is a replacement of his beloved Superman with some sort of gang-banging, cranky school shootist, as part of an intellectually bankrupt effort to appeal to that particular demographic — would be merely a giggle if Donahue weren’t the self-appointed protector of all that is Christian and Catholic and Good. And that there are people who actually listen to him.
Now, Donahue isn’t the only person making silly comments in this story, but his are sort of the centerpiece of the article. Some of the other commentary (both quoted and through the article’s writer) worth poking fun at:
The creators also portray the new Superman as politically correct — refusing to become “an instrument of politics or policy” of the United States, saying things like: “I was raised in this country. I believe in this country. Does it have its flaws? Yes. Does it have its moments of greatness? Yes. Bottom line is, it’s my home and I’ll always carry those values around with me. But if I do what I can do just for the U.S., it’s going to destabilize the whole world. It could even lead to war.”
I think that concept has been floating around in comics for, oh, a quarter of a century or so. They were a centerpiece of Alan Moore’s Watchmen. And they’ve been addressed in Superman (and other comics) for at least as long.
But for some people, it’s not enough that Superman should love his adopted country, should feel affinity to its values and desire to protect it — he has to be a gung-ho jingoist, out to be “an instrument of politics and policy” of the US. Maybe we should send him into Afghanistan, or Iran, or Korea — or China, or any of our economic competitors. What could go wrong?
Adam R. Holtz, senior associate editor of the youth culture magazine Plugged In, told CNSNews.com that the re-design was obviously spurred by the success of the movie “The Dark Knight,” which re-imagined Batman in a much darker way.
“We have to look at ‘The Dark Knight’ as sort of a template for what they’re trying to do with these superheroes,” Holtz told CNSNews.com. “Unfortunately, it seems like ‘dark’ and ‘brooding’ – and everything that goes with that – sells.”
Note that Plugged In is a production of Focus on the Family, which should tell you where it’s coming from in terms of examining and evaluating “youth culture.”
Actually, I could see Superman: Earth One as a great movie. But, really, was The Dark Knight that much darker of a “re-imagining” than Tim Burton’s psychologically twisted Batman/Joker pairing? Regardless, SEO doesn’t actually break a lot of new ground in terms of what’s been going on in discussing Superman, or Superboy, in comics terms over the past decade. I’d say that TDK was actually a reflection more of the culture and violence/grittiness, as inspired by comics, than the other way around.
Comic book characters both reflect and shape how we look at our time and culture, Holtz said. Disturbingly, the newly re-envisioned Superman is a good metaphor for this particular day and age in America, he said.
“Truth, Justice and the American Way are all under attack, pretty much however you would like to look at it,” Holtz said. “A lot of people don’t believe in Truth or Justice anymore, and the American Way used to be something that we would fight for, but now there are a lot of people who would say the American Way is inherently a problematic thing – and so it gets deconstructed in popular culture.”
Give me a break. Lots of people believe in the Truth as a goal — they just don’t believe in facile presentations of it by dint of authority, or that the Truth is simple and something that can be easily gleaned from a book, a Sunday sermon, or a political speech.
A lot of people believe in Justice. They just don’t think that it, like Truth, is as simple as pointing to evil-doers and punching them out.
As to the American Way — what is that, exactly? Democracy? Capitalism? Care for the poor? Opportunity for the rich? Equal opportunity? Never give the sucker an even break? Tolerance? A Christian nation? What American Way are we promulgating overseas? What are we teaching it to be here at home? Come up with a common definition, I’d be more than happy to comment about whether it’s “a problematic thing.”
Maybe it is a problem that we don’t have a common definition for it. I suspect that Mr. Holtz has an idea of what he thinks the American Way represents. I strongly suspect it doesn’t match mine.
And maybe that’s why it gets “deconstructed in popular culture.” Is that actually a problem?
* * *
So … what did I think of the book?
Not bad. Young Clark being a bit angsty is, as mentioned, nothing terribly new, though it’s nice to see it addressed so directly.
Some of the new plot elements are interesting — the idea that Krypton’s destruction isn’t just a random happenstance, and the idea that Kal-El’s presence here on Earth might constitute a danger to the planet, as well as being a matter of interest to the military. It’s not radically new, but it’s presented well, and creates some interesting conflicts I look forward to being further explored.
The art is serviceable — a bit stiff in places, but well-rendered.
It’s not the most faboo comic of all time. Nor is it the Comic Book of the Beast. I’m glad I read it. If only Bill Donahue actually had.
Picture Books Languish as Parents Push ‘Big-Kid Books’ – NYTimes.com – While I’m sure there’s an element of academic paranoia on the part of parents (ignoring the difference between reading a “chapter book” to a kid and buying one for them to read), I’d say that at least as large a factor is that picture books are freaking expensive, almost prohibitively so.
Gropec*** Lane – “Warning: This post contains repeated uses of words that many people will find offensive.” Though it’s interesting from the perspective of how acceptable language changes over time.
They Hate Us For Our Freedom? : Dispatches from the Culture Wars – “I know that many Americans believe in ‘American exceptionalism’ but we are not granted exceptions from the most basic laws of behavior, and one of those iron laws is that when you oppress a people and commit massive violence against them, you radicalize them. And this counts for both sides. Just look at how much more radicalized we are in response to 9/11 than we were before, how we reacted with such a massive and violent retaliation — even against a country that had nothing to do with that event. But we somehow cannot bring ourselves to acknowledge that the same thing is true of other people.”
Recipes from Valabar’s in Colorado – De notes the recipes from our Big Fancy Dragaeran Dinner the other weekend. It was great food, and good company. Even the trout (not something I’d normally leap at) was fabulous. Thanks, De!
This is not actually Sarah Palin, but it’s the kind of knee-jerk “guns and flags, you betcha!” self-aggrandizing sentiment I think she represents.
Or, if I ought not to be calling people names (which I ought not), the, “Sarah Palin says more doltish things than average.”
*sigh*
Current doltitude: chiding President Obama for daring, daring to stand up for (gasp) The Constitution. Oh, the humanity! He just “doesn’t get it!” The Doltish Right American People aren’t interested in the Constitution unless it has to do with guns! The rest of the time, it’s used by liberals to let illegals in and gays marry and uppity blacks get into the White House. Really! Somebody on the Internet said so!
Sarah Palin Monday night chided President Barack Obama for his support of the right to build the proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York, saying the president “doesn’t get it.”
Yeah! Doesn’t he know that MUSLIMS ARE EEVIL? And the First Amendment is really about protecting Christians? He just doesn’t get it!
“It sounds cliched to say that the president is disconnected from the American people on this issue, …
It sounds cliched because the Right has been attacking Obama for being “disconnected” (and “aloof” and “snooty” and “Spock-like” and “un-American” and “Islamic” and a raving liberal and a traitor and a Kenyan and … well, and “disconnected”) since, oh, about 30 seconds after it looked like he was going to tie up the Democratic nomination.
“… but how else do you describe it,” the former Alaska GOP governor said on Fox News.
Um … he swore to uphold and and protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and, by protecting the rights of some folks to build a house of worship (and swimming pool and library and meeting rooms) on property that’s properly zoned and owned by them, he’s doing just what he was hired for? That’s how I’d describe it.
“He just doesn’t get it, that this is an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location….
Insensitive to the xenophobes and Islamiphobes on the Right, and the folks they can rile up by painting an image of a huge, leering, domed temple arching over Holy Ground Zero, perhaps.
… It feels like a stab in the heart to, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9/11.”
Really. A stab to the heart.
When, pray-tell, will it be okay for an Islamic cultural center to be built a few blocks away from Ground Zero? Next month? In a few years? Decades? After the last surviving family member has passed away? Alternately, where would be far enough away for Americans of the Muslim faith to build in order to not be all heart-stabby? Another block? Several more blocks? Off of Manhattan? Outside of the Eastern Seaboard? Anywhere on US soil?
Do the Americans who still have that “lingering pain” know what else is still in business, or has been built, in that area of New York City? Do they lie awake at night, feeling all stabbed, because there might be something or someone disrespectful of Holy Ground Zero somewhere in the neighborhood?
“Nobody argues that that freedom of religion that the Muslims have to build that mosque somewhere,” Palin told Greta Van Susteren.
I notice that folks who start sentences with “I fully support someone’s freedom to do something …” often end them with “… but they shouldn’t do it because I think it’s a bad idea.” Especially when it’s Sarah Palin.
I mean, actually, there are folks out there arguing that (if I can parse Sarah’s sentence into actual English) our constitutional right to freedom of religion actually doesn’t apply to Muslims. Really. They’re on the Internet and putting out press releases, right alongside their screeds about gays recruiting children and fluoride polluting our precious bodily fluids.
For the mosque to be “so adamant about this exact location just a block or two away from 9/11, again, is that knife, it feels like.
Again with the knife! Lucky she didn’t decide to say, “If feels like a gunshot to the gut” or “a bomb to the roadside” or something. That might have been really inflammatory.
And it’s not like the folks planning this center just had their choice of any location they wanted. Good and suitable property in lower Manhattan doesn’t grow on trees. “So adamant” in this case means they actually managed to buy the property and, in a flagrant abuse of our, y’know, system of private property and property-holders rights, and all those other things Sarah’s usually in favor of when it’s not EEEEVILLL MUSLIMS!!!! involved, decided that that’s where they were going to build their project.
Imagine, the nerve of buying property, filling out all the paperwork, having plans, and then daring, daring to actually build what you planned on building! The nerve!
“If the purpose of this mosque, as we are lead to believe, is to create this tolerant environment, to avoid anything like a 9/11 ever repeating, you have to ask why didn’t one of those 100 [existing] mosques already accomplish such a thing,” Palin said.
Gee, Sarah, let me think. If Christians really all are about spreading the message of love and peace and forgiveness in Jesus Christ, why have we had centuries of a Christian-dominated West with gazillions of Christian churches and with ostensibly Christian nations fighting each other, sometimes even using Christianity as their justification?
“So I don’t buy into that reason, that that’s the purpose of this location being chosen.”
Right. There must be some SECRET, ULTERIOR MOTIVE. Like they’re going to build the place, then they’re going to send a secret radio beacon back through Time in their basement that will help the 9/11 hijackers figure out where New York City is so they can carry out 9/11. The fiends!!
Y’know, I stand by my initial thought. Sarah’s a dolt.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Tough folks to please – “I feel ridiculous defending Graham from other Republicans, but the larger significance of this is important: the GOP base wants to create an environment in which Republican lawmakers should be afraid to even TALK to Democrats.”
Apple Launches Cloud Music Service in Uncharacteristic Fashion – Interesting. I suspect the labels will have a point here, but the idea of hosting my own music store on the cloud rather than on a single (well-backed-up) hard drive at my home is … attractive.
Bike agenda spins cities toward U.N. control, Maes warns – The Denver Post – Wow. Lunatic Fringe ‘R’ Us! I mean, really … the only objection raised here is that it’s a suggestion made by a group within (GASP!) the UN. Which obviously means it’s part of a world-wide socialist anti-American cabal out to pollute our precious bodily fluids! Yeesh.
New Start: the worst GOP obstruction yet | Michael Tomasky – “A semi-serious legislator, the kind trying to do the job he’s paid by taxpayers to do, would get in there and negotiate and get more money for upkeep or Star Wars or whatever, bearing in mind that US-Russia relations on a matter as grave as this should not be held hostage to electoral politics. Believe it or not, that’s how things actually used to work in this country. Not any more. And one party is far, far more to blame than the other. Disgraceful.”
“Freedom:” The Right of Religious Fundamentalists to Discriminate Against Everyone Else | RHRealityCheck.org – “People are allowed to believe whatever bigoted things they want about their fellow human beings. What they aren’t allowed to do is act in bigoted ways contrary to their profession and expect to keep their jobs, a much different thing.” Someone whose conscience does not allow them to serve all members of the public equally should find another line of work, not demand that society allow them to discriminate against their clientele.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
USDA Tightens Chicken Rules – Damn bunch of socialists, interfering with the consumer’s right to buy tainted chicken! What would the Founding Fathers say?
Perversely stupid (cont’d.) – “Constantly arguing in bad faith leads to thinking in bad faith and to living in bad faith, until bad faith is all you’ve got left. Calculation becomes habit, that habit supplants thought and one winds up in the perverse circumstance of earnestly arguing for the goodness of oil spills.”
Palestinian Official: I Call Palestine ‘The New Philippines’ – Without disputing the damage that the Palestinians have done to their own cause, there’s little doubt that the Israeli government, through its support of ever-expanding settlements, is dealing in extremely bad faith (so to speak).
Kagan and military recruiters, redux – “The problem, of course, is that the criticism is factually wrong, a detail her detractors either don’t realize or choose to ignore.”
Ending the ‘war on drugs’ – There’s certainly a role for law enforcement regarding drugs, but treating it as a “war” — complete with getting overly involved in military exploits overseas as well as spending zillions at home with little effect and filling our prisons without actually much impacting drug use or profits … well, that’s been a war we weren’t winning and can’t afford to keep fighting. If you can’t impact the supply, though, you can certainly try to impact the demand.
Lowest taxes in more than a half-century – Money graf: “Looking ahead, tax rates more in line with the recent norm — say, tax rates of the 1990s, when the economy was strong and the budget was balanced — would do wonders to reduce the deficit the right pretends to care about.”
King: If Gays Don’t Want To Be Discriminated Against, They Should Stay In the Closet – People only keep quiet about things they feel ashamed or fearful about. While I don’t expect my gay acquaintances to be going into graphic detail about their sexual escapades (I don’t expect my straight acquaintances to do so, either), I also don’t think they should have to hide the fact of their personal relationships.
Price of Ignoring ToS Details: Your Soul – Not at all surprising. What percentage of people (my guess: low single digits) actually read all the EULA information during an installation? (And, no, I don’t, either.)
Pope Urban Novak II – Right! We must protect the site of the Sermon on the Mount, and act as Blessed Peacemakers by BOMBING THE SNOT OUT OF IRAN! Just like Jesus would do!
Army considers rescinding invitation to evangelist – Yahoo! News – It’s highly inappropriate to invite a speaker to the Pentagon who refers to Islam as “a very evil and wicked religion” — not least of which because (a) Muslims serve in the military, and (b) we have military posted in (and ostensibly in service to the people of) Muslim countries. That’s not censorship — that’s common sense. (Plus: why the hell does the Pentagon have a guest speaker for the National Day of Prayer in the first place?)
Preacher Compares Attacks on Pope to Anti – Semitism – NYTimes.com – The more the Vatican criticizes the attacks being made — painting itself as victim instead of the children who were abused — the more credibility and sympathy it loses. And, on another note, hiding behind what your aide did on your behalf is hardly a substantive defense. “The buck stops here,” as Truman put it.
Star Trek Re-Watch: “What Men Dare Do” – One of the lengthiest and most nicely done April Fool bits I saw all day: part of Tor’s ST:TOS retrospective, in this case a fake TOS episode review. Brilliant.
Obama admin: time to make radio pay for its music – I would rather eat broken glass than fill the coffers of the RIAA … unless, of course, if it were at the expense of ClearChannel. Hrm. While this will likely hurt small broadcast stations (and public radio) more than Big Broadcasting, it’s also clearly a case where something needs to be done to rationalize both the domestic and international markets.
Improved comment collapsing for Google Buzz posts – Nice. I’m still not settled in my use of Buzz, as it falls sort of between GReader and Twitter without really replacing either. But for what I do use it for, this will be helpful.
Pineberry to Make Debut in U.K. Stores – Hmmmm … need to keep my eyes open for these here in the States. Though I’m generally not a big fan of fresh fruit.
RNC’s Filings Reveal Creative Definitions Of ‘Office Supplies’ – Okay, okay, it’s probably (maybe) just expenses entered under the wrong account code (as someone who both does expense reports and tries to reconcile departmental expenses vs. budgets, I’ve seen this happen a zillion times). That said, it’s still damned funny.
Can Animals Be Gay? – NYTimes.com – An interesting (and long) article on same-sex mating and social behavior in a remarkably lengthy list of species. That complicates the “‘Tain’t Natural!” argument (though it can still be noted that it’s less usual than male-female activity), but, then, that’s never been the point, to me, of why we should (or shouldn’t) accept homosexual behavior in humans, which boils down to, “Why the heck shouldn’t we? Where’s the harm?” (Note: “I think it’s icky” is not an actual harm.)
Does President Obama Care About Public Opinion On Afghanistan? – We neither want a President who is a slave to the polls, nor who disregards what the people think. A leader and a servant. It’s a very difficult role to play, and few Presidents have done it consistently well.
Some Christians mad at R. Crumb – Unless they can point to some sex and violence he portrays that isn’t in the Book of Genesis, I suggest they leave off. If you’re going to argue that Scripture is the Directly Transcribed Word of God, then turning around and downplaying any aspect of it seems more than a bit suspect.
Denounced as witches, African children suffer mightily – One wonders where Abp. Akinola, so fiery and frothing at the American church for embracing The Evil Gays, is in stopping these horrifying activities in his own back yard.
Game of choice for extremists and eliminationists – ‘2011: Obama Coup Fails’ – It’s not so much that someone’s developed this game, but that (a) it’s so badly put together, and (b) so badly written. One could write this sort of thing semi-believably by turning the hyperbole-meter down to only 11, and be far more effective. (See Harlan Ellison’s “Glass Teat” column about the Resistance in a Nixonian Fascist State for a less breathless example — and we are talking Harlan Ellison here as a model for calm, which tells you how over-the-top this particular “game” is.)
Byron Williams: Mormon Paradox – Money graf: “In this context, Oaks speaks as a member of the dominant culture who already has the privilege that others are trying to secure.”
GOP Launches Strategy to Trip Up Health Bill – Roll Call – For “We need time to give the public a chance to figure out what’s in it and what they don’t like about it,” read, “We need time to scare the American public into acting against their best interests.”
Man finds missile launcher in Comal County – I find it remarkable that it took as much effort as it did to get someone to take charge of the darned thing. I feel safer!
Ninety Years of Refrigerators, and Logos – I love the classic script version, and think it still has traction in a more modern design era. The new one had potential, but really didn’t end up as anything all that noteworthy (and, if it isn’t, why bother?).
Gulf Dead Zone Looks Smaller, but Appearances Deceive – Pish-tosh. Clearly the ability of Man to have a significant negative effect on his environment is liberal tree-hugging socialist twaddle. I know, because Con-Agra tells me so!
BBC NEWS | Europe | Swedes miss Capri after GPS gaffe – Which reminds me of the time that my in-laws almost booked a trip to Crete for a wedding being held there — only discovering at the last moment on rereading that the nuptuals were being held on Cyprus>.
Marvel as Glenn Beck and a guy from the Ayn Rand Institute assert that the racist anti-semite who attacked the National Holocaust Museum is “a phenomenon of the Left.”
No, seriously. See, Hitler ran the National Socialist Party. He’s just like Obama. And racism is collectivism, which is “a value of the Left.” You can tell because Rev Jeremiah Wright is also an anti-Semite.
‘this is fun’ Is A More Secure Password Than ‘J4fS<2’ – This is fascinating — as well as fun. Too-difficult passwords are highly secure, but promote security leaks by literally forcing someone to write them down on a piece of paper (especially when you are on a system that expires passwords every 90 days or something). Some good advice here. Maybe I’ll pass it on to my company security folks.
Cable: let us experiment with metered Internet – As Les says, “I’m perfectly willing to let them experiment with metered Internet so long as they’re willing to allow me to experiment with their competitors.”
FRC’s Lou Engle-Less “Call” – The Christian Right is now comparing itself to the Black population in the US in the 50s and 60s, in terms of being discrminated against? Yeesh. Get back to me when you’re required to sit in the back of the bus, or drink from separate water fountains, guys.
Ending Discrimination Against Gays Is Itself Discrimination – Actually, the Right is perfectly correct — this idea conflicts with DoMA (though, as a another law, it can supercede DoMA however it wishes). The answer, though, is really much simpler than that — we should repeal DoMA.
So, let me get this straight… – 1. It’s reasonable to want a plan. 2. Not all Gitmo inmates are proven terrorists (that’s part of the problem, people). 3. It’s goofy to equate “putting terrorists into US prisons” with “releasing terrorists in the United states.” 4. Reid really seriously needs to think through what he’s saying before he start frantically rambling about incoherently.
Darwinius masillae – Very cool fossil news — but keep the hyperbole down to a low simmer, folks. If nothing else, we know that what we can learn from such things sometimes changes over time, and the last thing we need is giving the creationists a field day if there’s some sort of reassessment of this find. “See? Evolution is wrong and a hoax! Even the scientists keep changing their minds!”
US to issue ‘prison abuse’ photos – So here’s the strategy: whether or not there are ever further trials, the ideal way to both acknowledge and disavow this kind of evil is to widely publicize it. Which the White House can now do. Good.
Doctors criticise ‘gay treatment’ – Swell. Next up, “Doctor announces treatment for being a right-wing jerk. ‘It takes care of it in two out of three wingnuts,’ doctor declares. Conservatives protest this will only fan prejudice against them, and there’s nothing wrong with being a right-winger.”
The burkha-logic of NOM – This is an excellent article, dead on target on the plight of the poor constantinians (a term I must be sure to remember). Money graf: “This points to the key confusion of the persecuted hegemons. They are unable to distinguish between challenges to their hegemony — to their privilege — and threats to their faith itself. This is a spiritually perilous confusion, particularly so for Christians who claim to follow a crucified outcast.”
Internet Micro-Fame Is A Drug – Okay, this needs to be sent to every artist, athlete, writer, actor, politician, and anyone else who achieves fame for their accomplishments. Bloggers could use it, too.
Get That Man A Straitjacket, Stat – Yikes. Glenn Beck keeps getting nuttier. Unless that’s his way to differentiate himself from Limbaugh and Hannity (who are nutty in their own way, but without the weepiness).
To hell with the Simpsons – Ah, frivolous use of copyright law and DMCA take-downs. Is there no geeky joy you cannot turn to hatred?
Weed Cures Cancer! [Dude] – Is marijuana a miracle cure? No, but it’s no more ridiculous to say that it has no medical value, as Congress declared by fiat. Alas, the “War on Drugs” continues to claim its victims via zero tolerance, even among those who never take a toke.
Bye-bye, Dubai – There’s something very epic and extreme about Dubai — sort of the ultimate expression of wealth and capitalism. That makes its current collapse all the more intriguing, tragic, gratifying, and fascinating.
Summed up – If you promise to blog about the secret once discovered, Doyce, I’ll be ever-so-grateful.
I really tried to stay away. Honest. Yet Bryan Fischer pulled me back in, after (a) posting that
