The War on Cameras – “Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. ‘Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes’ (‘Who watches the watchmen?’).” Indeed. And remember, when security cameras and other privacy intrusions are put into the public square, the answer from authorities is always, “The innocent have nothing to hide.” Strangely enough, they stop saying that when the cameras are turned on them.
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.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
The Ken Buck Rape Case | Mother Jones – This wasn’t a “she-said, he-said” case. It was a “she-accused, he-confessed” case, and Buck still didn’t prosecute. The other factors mentioned are interesting, but fail to address this core fact.
Is Downward Dog The Path to Hell? – Yes, because once you start taking yoga, “loneliness, alcoholism, and promiscuity” are the well-known, inevitable results …
The New No. 2 – Wow — some pretty massive changes to Disney California Adventures. Kind of glad I finally got a chance to see the “before,” so I can hopefully appreciate the “after” …
U.S. College Degrees by County – The concentration of higher education in urban areas is much greater than I’d expected – and rather disturbing, too. Compare the “reddest” areas with the “red states,” too.
San Francisco Earthquake & Fire – Remarkable post-Fire films. Devastated landscapes, still-smoldering ruins, building demolitions, tent cities … but also, a lot of folks still carrying out life and living as before.
Star Trek cited by Texas Supreme Court – Not sure if I should be amused, or make a snarky comment about the uproar from some quarters if the same lines had been attributed to a European court.
Why Fred Phelps’s Free Speech Rights Should Matter to Us All – Another example why the calumny that the ACLU is a “liberal/radical/leftist” organization is profoundly untrue. And, as loathesome as I find Phelps and his Gang of Family Idiots, if they don’t have the right to speak, nobody does.
The Original King of Irony Lives On – And yet, he seems to have made an amazing come-back in the GOP. what that says about the GOP I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Lou Dobbs’ Little Meg Whitman Problem – “The Nation also editorialized today that this latest revelation only adds more fuel to the arguments that immigrants, legal and undocumented, are so thoroughly integrated into our economy that those politicians who seek to scapegoat and demonize their work are almost alway engaging in hypocrisy. The piece argues that we must legalize and regulate this work, instead of demonizing the workers our society is thoroughly dependent on.” But … but … but … without evil, lazy, Welfare-sponging, American-decaptitating, job-stealing, anchor-babying illegals to demonize, we’d have to find someone else to demonize!
So that’s why Koch funded a major evolution exhibit – “The fact that we could be knocked back to a stone age level of technology without going extinct is not a point in favor of welcoming global warming.” But think of the money-making opportunities! Especially if you cunning corner the shell and bead market ahead of time!
Bryan Fischer (courtesy of the American Family Association) is pleased to inform one and all that, faced with a fire on a house that hadn’t paid its fire protection bill … Jesus would have been happy to let the house burn.
A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TN fire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the ground because the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fire protection.
The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandson accidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish the flames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority or responsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’s neighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action and put out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned to the ground after his family had fled for safety.
That actually raises the interesting question of what the fire service would have done (and what Bryan thinks would have been the moral course) had a family member (other than the pets, which died) still been trapped inside.
The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire department several years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached city officials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside city limits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any rural resident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourself a year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’s your choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to forego fire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay the man his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his own choice.
There’s no question that Mr Cranick was shortsighted.
(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, it likely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liability insurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into a legally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate” Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreement and put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimited risk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do – demand that somebody violate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the same time.)
So … legal contracts have a greater binding force than any other commitment or commandment? That sounds terribly Christian, Bryan.
That said, yes, the fire department probably had those sorts of contractual restrictions.
The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The right thing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be no difference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christian thing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing to do.
If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christian thing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused about Christianity, or both.
That’s very convenient, Bryan. Whatever you think is Christian is clearly right, and whatever you think is clearly right then you enshrine as Christian.
On the other hand, I think you are confusing the legal thing with the Christian thing. Which is something Jesus certainly didn’t do.
In this case, critics of the fire department are confused both about right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
Yes, Jesus would have been muscular and punched the fire out.
Notice how compassion — one of Jesus’ most noteworthy attributes — is simply dismissed here as a “weak” and “feminized” and soft.” No metaphysical girl cooties for Bryan, though — he believes in Jesus by way of Ayn Rand.
The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must accept individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to the flesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing and reaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.
And yet, the New Testament explicitly rejects the harshest edges of that law. Paul, for example, makes it clear that if it comes to obeying the Law, no man can be saved. It is only by Grace — by God’s weak and soft and girly compassion — that salvation can be had. Similarly, we are called by Jesus to pray to be forgiven as we forgive others.
We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others who will not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly.
No. On the other hand, we are called on, as those others, to help with that bailing out. If I see someone behaving unsafely, I can simply shrug and say, “I guess he’ll learn soon enough.” We’re called to warn, to try and safeguard, and to compassionately help if the worst occurs.
Take some idiot who travels down an unsafe, lonely highway. He doesn’t wait to caravan with others, he doesn’t carry a gun in his glove box, he doesn’t hire a body guard, or pay $75 for the police to come by to protect him if he calls OnStar.
And, of course, he gets robbed and carjacked and beaten.
Bryan, of course, would argue the fool deserves everything he got. He made the stupid decisions, he has to live with it. He didn’t pay the $75, he didn’t make the smart choice, and, just like the other folks who zoom past, too busy or frightened or disinterested or scornful to assist, a truly muscular Jesus surely wouldn’t lift a finger for him.
Fortunately, the Good Samaritan felt differently. And soft, weak, girly, compassionate Jesus seemed to think that was the right course.
The same folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailing out Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out Wall Street firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companies for making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?
Some of the same folks, yes. And Fischer has a something of a point here — the issue being that in the case of those various governmental bail-outs, they were done as much for the overall health of the economy and the citizenry as a way to reward bad actors in those various firms. (Honestly, I’d probably have been more onerous in the conditions placed, not so much as punishment, as tempting as that would have been, but to ensure it wouldn’t happen again. One can be compassionate and teach a lesson in responsibility.)
Mr. Cranick made a decision – a decision to spend his $75 on something other than fire protection – and thereby was making a choice to accept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christian claim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himself made.
That’s right. Nobody has a “Christian claim” on me for anything. I have a Christian responsibility to help others. That’s a point that Fischer seems to miss. It’s not an matter of someone demanding an obligation from you. It’s a matter of your having an obligation toward others.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a wedding feast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had the chance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil, and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. The bridegroom – the Christ figure in the story – refused to open the door, saying “Truly, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matthew 25:13).
Jesus also told a parable about how a shepherd will do anything to recover a stupid sheep that’s made bad decisions, acted foolishly, and wandered off, lost. The shepherd doesn’t shrug, say, “Well, that dumb sheep deserves whatever it got.”
The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves as accusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. They may want to be careful about that.
Right. “Agree with my point, or Muscular Jesus will punch your face!”
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radio program, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s been intriguing to watch – I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anything I’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christian to even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr. Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all their Christian compassion toward me?)
I’ll assume that’s tongue in cheek, Bryan.
But it is interesting. Apparently nobody among your followers bats an eye toward your bashing of gays, or Muslims, or anyone else who twists you the wrong way. But as soon as they see you doing something that they can imagine themselves being on the wrong side of … well, it’s little wonder how they abruptly realize how easily they could find themselves with the short end of the stick.
Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorry for Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and do what I could to help him in his time of need.
Because compassion and helping is only for friends. Just what Jesus taught.
But even were I his friend, I would not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr. Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have to suffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.
Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on his property, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top of things, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of his insurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on the policy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any help from the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame but himself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss of his home, whether he realizes it or not.
Sure. Cranick made a stupid error. People have lost everything over that. Hopefully Mr Cranick will learn.
But that doesn’t mean that the fire department acted in a Christian, or moral fashion. Legal, contractual fashion, sure. But the fire department — and the city fathers — ought to have something in place to account for this. More on that in a moment.
What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had been able to get away with this – if he’d been able to wait til his house started to burn, then offer $75 and immediately get help – it wouldn’t be long before everybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergency hits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soon nobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fight fires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county, and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.
(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fire protection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health care industry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. If you can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurance company has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to get insurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, either one.)
That’s a major problem with this kind of model — either you kick people in need to the curb, or you allow free riders to take advantage of the system.
What if, however, the there was a mechanism in place where someone could call for help at the last minute (or if the fire department just happened to be there), and pay a significantly higher fee (enough to recoup the added resources plus something to disincent folks from calling at the last minute as a strategy). Maybe the county should contract with the city’s fire department for full coverage.
(Note also that this is the rationale behind a universal requirement for everyone to purchase health coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Only by spreading the pool the widest and being ready to provide care for any who needs it when they need it, can the whole thing be both affordable and useful. But Bryan doesn’t like that model, nor, one suspects, the idea of fire departments providing service to all based on taxes rather than individual subscriptions.)
This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy, secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, and the mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongest and most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse and even reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe and less prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stresses individual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybody more safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
Bryan, you have way too narrow of a vision here. You seem to feel that the only choices are between individual responsibility and being coddled. I think there’s room for both, and that siding with one vs. the other is a sketchy approach.
Further, Bryan, you miss the point that the two are not actually contradictory. Christian compassion is not a right to be claimed, but an individual responsibility for which we will be held accountable. We are called, not to demand the love of neighbors, but to love our neighbors, as one of the Greatest Commandments.
That may be hard to realize, Bryan, and you may commit the folly of neglecting that responsibility, of not, shall we say, paying your compassion “fee.” It does seem to me that you will be held accountable for that.
Chrome reaches second birthday, version 6 goes stable – I’ve been playing (again) with Chrome as my primary browser at home the past few weeks. Better and more stable performance than Firefox, but poorer tab handling and a more limited plugin ecosystem. Still pondering.
Not ready for primetime – Wow. And this is the chief executive of the state? (Notably, Brewer was required, by law, to participate in a single debate. I suspect she will duck any others.)
Brewer’s painfully long pauses – There’s having a brain fart, and then there’s … well, this ought to give Arizonan voters “pause.”
Rick Joyner Very Concerned that Obama Might Be a Treasonous Muslim – He’s a Muslim! Maybe! Except he acts like a Christian! Unless he’s lying! No, he’s definitely a Muslim! Probably! Except God told me he’s searching for Jesus! But until then he’s clearly a Muslim! Maybe! But if so, that would be really bad! (Jeez, do these folks ever listen to themselves and the crazytalk they engage in?)
Gingrich Wants Ground Zero Declared a National Battlefiled Memorial to Stop Park 51 – What makes Gingrich think that declaring Ground Zero a “National Battlefield” would affect the Park51 debate? Even if that magically made it possible to rule one way or the other about any new construction in the zone (yeah, that’s not a new bureaucratic nightmare for the entire WTC neighborhood), discriminating against the center would STILL fail any 1st Amendment test. And would it mean that the various strip clubs and OTB parlors in the area would somehow magically vanish, too?
Could We Still Put a Man on the Moon? : Mike the Mad Biologist – It’s not clear we could, for a variety of reasons. Certainly not without spending a lot of money — an amount that will continue to grow the more we shut down and mothball and discard and abandon what little space program we still have. “Maybe instead of worrying about Musselmen taking over the country and other ersatz notions of honor, the Tea Buggerers could worry about losing technological know-how. But that would cost money. Which is totally Hitler.”
Leaked German Military Report on Peak Oil [Casaubon’s Book] – Unfortunately, too many people are interested in short-term convenience and comfort, and short-term profit, to proactively change the huge role that petroleum plays in our economy.
Robin D. Laws – Protecting Your Hero – That’s a very interesting distinction (iconic vs. dramatic heroes), both literary and from a gaming perspective. And there are times when I’ve enjoyed both, but as Doyce notes, having conflicting expectations between Player and GM as to what a particular game is going to be like is a great recipe for frustration, at the very least.
Sentences to ponder – Yes and no. There can be big difference between various individual candidates within parties, esp. in executive, vs. legislative races. Even there, are Dennis Kucinich and Ben Nelson really indistinguishable? On the other hand, people tend to vote on party lines (at least by default), and personalized differences can serve to swing folks one way or another (or to donate more or less to the cause).
Gabrielle Bell’s comic strip about ComicCon – Boing Boing – An interesting collection, but … well, one commenter put it best. “Comicons are like Star Trek conventions – they’re about the core values. Core values like comic books that are for kids, not those artsy fartsy 20-something angst-ridden disenfranchised white kids with ennui.” Bell makes it sound like the Worst Possible Experience in the World, even when she’s invited to attend and given a freaking per diem.
Keep Calm and Carry On – I actually have a copy of this poster up in my office. It’s a good reminder that, no matter the business brouhaha, flying into a tizzy isn’t productive.
BBC News – Last US combat brigade quits Iraq – A noteworthy milestone — though the many remaining US troops will still be in harm’s way, even if their mission is not explicitly for combat.
YouTube – Is Sarah Palin gunning for 2012? – This is certainly unfair, uncivil, inflammatory, mocking, and disrespectful. However it is just too funny (and creepy) not to share.
Google chief warns of Internet imperiling privacy – The question becomes whether this sort of universal public square will suppress behavior, reimpose more keeping of behavior private, or change what becomes (eventually) acceptable. In either case, I expect a decade or so for society to adjust.
Under fire, SBI blood analyst suspended – Agents’ Secrets – NewsObserver.com – “The criminal convictions or sentences of three people who have since been executed in North Carolina, and four more cases in which the defendants are now on death row, are may be in doubt because of flawed reports.” The more I know about the criminal justice system — and the human failures of judgment, objectivity, or even love of truth, that riddle it — the more convinced I am that capital punishment is inexcusable. Not because the state cannot have a compelling reason to put some individuals to death, but because the state cannot convincingly assert that its evidence for doing so is correct “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
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 ….
New financial unit of measure: the “TDJ” – Big, inspirational art, cathedrals, stuff like that, do serve a purpose, so I can’t immediately hop on DOF’s bandwagon here (since obviously SOME Philistines out there were inspired by TDJ). But I’d suggest that before investing a quarter mil into rebuilding this eye-sore (and handwaving away any suggestion that, well, MAYBE THEY SHOULD CATCH A CLUE ABOUT WHAT THE ALMIGHTY THINKS ABOUT THIS MONSTROSITY), the church in question ought to very, very seriously think about what Jesus would actually suggest in this circumstance, and how much of this is to glorify themselves, not to do God’s work (whited sepulchres can be Jesus-shaped, too).
YouTube – Bistro Bordeaux – No Need For A Corkscrew – Not quite as funny as the guy on the street in an earlier video, but interesting to see. I would not do this with a good bottle, for a variety of reasons.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
High School Students Vote On Saying a Graduation Prayer; Judge Says No – Would it be “okay” if the student body voted on whether to segregate classes by race, or religion? No? Well, not much different here. Majority rule doesn’t trump minority rights — that’s what the First Amendment (and, fundamentally, the Constitution) is all about.
The Son Needed Blood, So What Did the Father Do? – I’m trying to think of an exception to the rule that “A religion that requires a child die rather than violate some element of dogma is not a religion I care to follow,” but I can’t think of one.
The Station That Censors Muhammad May Give Jesus His Own Show – I think there’s a lot of room for a very funny story about a modern-day “Christ in the City.” I suspect this won’t be it, but I’ll add to the predictions given here that there will, in fact, be some violent threats by anonymous (and humor-dead) Christians about the show, along the lines of, “If it worked for radical Islamicists …”
Titanic 2 Is Coming Soon | /Film – OMG — it’s like those cheap knock-off cartoons of Disney flicks that you can find at the grocery store. (Or, alternately, the pr0n adaptations of prominent movie titles.) The list of previous releases by the studio is, itself, a hoot. (Note to SyFy — you really need to get these guys on your payroll, if you don’t already.)
DVR Didn’t Kill The Commercial Star, Says Duke U. – I think the points given are fair enough — though since we got the “skip 30 seconds” button programmed on the remote, that does reduce some of the commercial bits. At most, though, it makes the first and last commercial slots in a break the most valuable, as they are the most likely to be viewed (which, I think, has always been true).
Radio Shack answering machine messages – WFMU’s Beware of the Blog – These are pretty darned awesome. It occurs to me, as more folks go to hosted voice-mail and as answering machines have become cliche, that there’s very little ingenuity among answering machine messages any more. When’s the last time you got one that made you chuckle (and, as a subset of that, wasn’t annoying long)?
Quote of the Day – I realize the “law & order” types have never been fond of the Miranda ruling (rubber hoses and the third degree, anyone?), but the current harping that nobody accused of terror — or at least nobody “foreign” (even if a US citizen) — should be Mirandized because it’s more important to just beat the truth out of ’em and then shove ’em before a firing squad, rather than shilly-shally about with “rights” and “trials” seems particularly despicable (and, may I say, anti-American).
DORK TOWER, Monday, May 3, 2010 – Oh, Lord — how this describes so many games I have been in. (It’s not necessarily a bad thing, unless you’re looking to actually get gaming done ….)
AFA’s Fischer: Any Muslim Unwilling to Renounce Islam Ought to be Denied Entry to the US – I think a look at crime statistics in the US, as well as a review of Western history, will indicate that Christians are guilty of most murders. I think we should force all Christians to renounce their religion or face deportation. (Just kidding, of course, but, yeesh.)
The United and Continental Airline Mashup – What I note most about the (ugly) logo change is that it finally drops any of the “United [States]” red-white-and-blue imagery. Which may well make sense from a global standpoint, but is still sort of sad. As well as (as noted) ugly.
Captcha Advertising – I’m appalled, but I have to applaud the guy who came up with the concept.
Right on cue, McCain starts complaining – So is McCain’s standard now that folks who are likely to face capital crimes should not be Mirandized until they’ve been compelled to state everything they know. Is he actually listening to his own words? Jeez — what lessons did he really learn from the North Vietnamese?
The GOP’s emergency-room argument lives – Money graf: “Sue Lowden’s campaign and its Republican brethren oppose health care reform, but they’ve endorsed the most inefficient system of socialized medicine ever devised.”
Wash. Nuns Investigated By Vatican – Investigated for sexual abuse? Nah. Investigated for “feminism and activism.” Glad the Vatican has its priorities straight.
The American Family’s Financial Turmoil | – Scary Infographic. And, yes, I’m doing better than “average,” but it worries me a lot, as a society and an economy, that this is what the “average” is.
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?)
This is why we can’t have nice things – The GOP has become so addicted to grandstanding, demagoguery, and lying for “points,” that it’s sickening to watch. Money grafs: “Now would be a terrific time for a real debate. Republicans could — get this — raise legitimate objections to the legislation, and raise concerns that — believe it or not — are entirely sensible. But, no. We can’t have real debates because we’re too busy suffering through idiotic mendacity.”
Right-Wing Media Distorts Clinton’s Oklahoma City Speech To Claim He Wants To Muzzle Dissent – Y’know, Conservatives used to be all about personal responsibility, and they still are when it comes to cutting welfare benefits and unemployment insurance payouts, and they’re all about the evil influence of others when it comes to rock music and video games. But let someone even suggest that people take a bit of responsibility for the effects their incendiary rhetoric, and those same folks start sounding like they’re being dragged off to the camps …
A ride down San Francisco’s Market Street, September 1905… – This is just fascinating, including seeing the mix of vehicles — horse carts for most business purposes, but a lot of private autos for passengers. Cable cars, but also some horse-drawn trolleys. Very few people riding horses alone, and nobody paying much attention to what we’d consider traffic laws.
Modifying Morality In the Lab – Sadly, you have to know that there are people in the military and intelligence realm who are avidly reading this research …
A 4/20 Reminder – Unfortunately, the “War on Drugs” not only has strong institutional protection by folks who profit from it (on both sides of the law), but it’s part and parcel of America’s cultural puritanism — the idea that someone might be idle, might be having “fun” (even self-destructive fun), being too much to bear. Only because alcohol was so wide-spread did Prohibition fail — and its cost in building up organized crime in this country is still with us. I don’t think all illegal drugs should be decriminalized, but the current system squanders so much money and hurts society so badly, there must certainly be a way to recalibrate where the legal/illegal dividing line should be.
The freest and most democratic nation? – I love this country. But driving a drumpbeat of exceptionalism only blinds us to the areas where we fall far short of our ideals.
Judging Books by Their Covers: U.S. Vs. U.K. – I always love comparing book covers between editions, publishers, countries for the same book. Some interesting design choices here.
Isildur’s Bane – I’m seriously disappointed by the Obama Adminstration’s actions regarding homeland security and this sort of thing. But it seems a sad truism that, once granted a power, governments never let go of it, and, in fact, use it to argue that they are justified in asking for more.
Working the ref – And, once again, if you can’t win on the facts, try smears instead. (The side note about the GOP firing parliamentarians they felt weren’t being open enough to their own reconciliation efforts is just frosting on the cake.)
The blockade is gone, but it’s not forgotten – Heh. “After all, if the rules let Jim Bunning hold up unemployment benefits for 200,000 Americans just because he feels like it, maybe voters won’t get so outraged when the GOP talks about how important the filibuster is.”
Google Wave Gets a Smarter API – I think Wave needs better/clearer integration with other Google tools. It also needs some success stories in major companies to show how its power can be leveraged and to overcome the critical mass of users problem.
Why DRM doesn’t work… – The core problem with DRM is that it’s intended to keep people away from the product, with an exception to be reluctantly (and partially) made for folks who pay for the privilege. There is little to no incentive for companies to make DRM easier to navigate or less onerous (the idea that their business depends on it is counteracted by their intense fear that online access will destroy their business regardless).
Obama Rebukes Boehner In Testy Exchange, Charges GOP Wants To Kill All His Initiatives – “Boehner made the case that long-term concern over Dem policies — health care, cap and trade — was leading to uncertainty in the private sector, damaging job creation efforts.” By “long-term concern” read “endless obstruction by the GOP to keep anything of substance from actually being passed.”
Kristol Calls GOP’s Preconditions On Health Care Meeting ‘Silly’ – “We have been engaged in substantive debate in health care, we Republicans, for a year, and we are perfectly happy to continue that debate” … as long as you start over and begin with our minority position as the groundwork of anything that gets done.
Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer – Money graf: “The United States is the only industrialized nation without cradle-to-the-grave, universal health care. In no other developed country would a child with cancer have to go without care because an insurance company decided it was not profitable enough to cover him.”
How Google Buzz is Disruptive: Open Data Standards – Some interesting perspective here. And, if I read this right, Google all of a sudden becomes a relatively seamless social aggregator and relay (via RSS), which has lots of interoperability possibilities. That consideration make me think much better of it.
Introducing Google Buzz – We’ll see. For some reason, I just don’t see this taking off (if for no other reason that it means you have to be in Gmail or with a registered Google user).
LOTRO Defragger – Interesting. I guess it would depend on how they manage their internal files of objects and possessions and locations and so forth. I can imagine a game set up to do this automatically and cleverly, but I suspect it’s not high on the list of things developers focus on.
Even dumber than we thought – And yet, this is the woman SO MANY REPUBLICAN LOOOOOVE! She’d be the second coming of George W. Bush. Wait, I guess that explains it.
EFF Fights for Cell Phone Users’ Privacy in Thursday Hearing – That cell phones can be tracked is a pretty cool thing. Do you want the government (or individuals within it) to able to use that ability on a whim, or for no compelling reason other than curiosity? Neither do I.
Inhofe’s Grandchildren Build Igloo To Mock Killer Snow Storm: ‘Al Gore’s New Home’ – Y’know, the old “blizzards vs global warming” is a funny-ha-ha irony, along the lines of “well, I lost my job but I found this $10 bill on the way home, so I guess we’re okay” lines. That the denialists are seriously using it as “proof” to the public that it means that global warming is false is wretched science at best, and intentional deception at worst.
Rep. Blackburn touts Social Security privatization. – Not that Social Security is trouble-free, but did any of these folks actually pay attention to what happened to the stock market these past few years, or what happened to people and institutions that relied upon investment income for survival?
Three Times Makes a Trend – Sadly, not surprising, but worthwhile remembering: a lot of the people most vocal about limiting your freedom are also most likely to criminalize your “aberrant” behavior.
Courting Disaster – Folks support military commissions for trying these guys because they think the end result will be firing squads. Which, of course, they’re not. Of course, the military commissionists would rather these guys just be locked up (somewhere else) and never see the light of day, which has its own problems.
Shame on Missouri [Pharyngula] – Worse, some people won’t see this as a tragedy, but as what is right and fitting and essential to protecting our society. Rrg.
Prisoner Sues to Play D&D in Jail — No, Seriously – I don’t think there’s a constitutional right to play D&D, and prison should, in fact, be a dull, boring, unpleasant experience. On the other hand, the official decision on this is just plain stupid, and, honestly, there are far worse activities that idle prisoners can and do participate in.
Results of Study on Cellphone Use Surprise Researchers – Wheels Blog – NYTimes.com – So either cell phone use isn’t worse than all the other distractions in our environment, or (as has been elsewhere demonstrated) hands-free cell phone use isn’t any better than holding the handset to your ear — except maybe it keeps both hands on the wheel. Maybe.
A Breach In Protocol – Maybe I’ve just grown used to lame RP and intentionally stupid-looking and named-for-yocks super-heroes in CO and CoX, but, yeah, it’s jarring when you see it in Star Trek Online — or, for that matter, in LotRO.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
United States Color-coded War Plans – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – Idle hands are the Joint Chiefs planning committees. No, but seriously, it’s not at all surprising that this sort of planning went on (and, of course, goes on to our day). Though some would argue that by planning for war you make war more likely, conversely if war is pressed upon you nobody wants to hear that we’re unprepared and have no plans …
You Can Go with This, or You Can Go with That… – But — but — military interventionism is full of flag-waving statesmen and rock-jawed patriotic heroes! Health care reform is full of policy wonks and SOCIALISTS!
Drake Lifts Call For Prayers For Obama’s Death – Ewwww. A nice glimpse at the violent / racist / lunatic underside of the Right Wing … which continues to bubble up to the legitimate surface.
US bets $150m on high-risk renewable energy – tech – 23 November 2009 – New Scientist – No doubt we’re going to see a lot of money “wasted” here — but that’s just the sort of thing that government is good for (no jokes, please): making investments that may not actually pay off. If one or two of these bets become feasible, they will more than pay for the overall investment.
Happy Doctor Who Day! – And if anyone had suggested that 46 years later it would still be wildly popular, everyone at the Beeb would have laughted uproariously.
9/11 Defendants To Plead Not Guilty So As To Critique US Foreign Policy – Well, there’s a big duh moment. I don’t think anyone is going to be impressed by anything these guys have to say on the stand — but a lot of people may be impressed that we give them due process, and convict them as criminals.
Do Moderate Dem Senators Recognize Urgency Of Need For Reform? – I sure hope so. It’s not so much the fiddling they’re doing while Rome burns, as the aid and comfort they’ve giving to HCR opponents and their campaign to terrify America into supporting the current for-profit system.
Robertson: Muslims Should Be Treated Like “Some Fascist Group” – So Pat thinks another religion is really just a “political system.” And political groups we don’t like, like “fascists” and “Communists” should be “dealt with.” Got it. Thanks for playing, Pat.
Carrie Prejean: Standing Up For Conservative Women – You know, for folks that scream about political correctness (toward people they don’t like), Conservatives sure seem to play the “victim” card a lot.
The Right Wing Phrase of the Day Is “Political Correctness” – So let’s whip that pendulum back from “political correctness” (toward folks we don’t like) back to “out and out prejudice,” shall we? That’ll help loads. Oh, and, Martha? Try “Radical Christian chaplains? Still on duty. Christian psychiatrist (of all things) praises a holy crusade in the Middle East and tries to convert his patients to Christianity? Hush-hush.” Think that sounds unrealistic? Think again.
Women in Texas – Some happy news about women in Texas, for a change.
DVD Game Show Collection for $9 + free shipping – I imagine if there is enough air time there, it could be economical as buy-watch-toss entertainment. For less than the price of a movie, one could get several hours of entertainment. Mind you, this particular collection would have me paying money to NOT watch it.
I really tried to stay away. Honest. Yet Bryan Fischer pulled me back in, after (a) posting that
