I love this hypothetical by Yuval Levin today over at The Corner. The premise is that we elect a GOP president in 2016, but the House and Senate remain as they are now, party-wise. The new president wants to cut income tax rates by ten percent. The House passes such a bill; the Senate blocks it.
And let’s imagine that the president then proceeds to announce that, given how helpful he believes his preferred course of action would be to the economy, he will just implement the rate cut himself: His administration will not enforce any legal penalties against people in the 35 percent bracket who only pay a 25 percent tax on their incomes, people in the 25 percent bracket who only pay 15 percent, and so on.
What, Levin, asks, would be the Democrat reaction to such a move? How could they, without making everyone laugh hysterically, make a case that the president was acting unlawfully ... given all the unilateral (legal) moves made by Boss Obama?
That'd be, in case you were unaware, Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee who the other day whined about the GOP supposedly seeking to impeach Boss Obama (something they're not doing), and as part of her "argument" claimed the Democrats never attempted to impeach President Bush.
Except that they did attempt to do just that. And Jackson-Lee was a co-sponsor of the legislation.
... object to what they regard as blatant objectification — scantily clad women were still used as decoration for some presentations, and costumed women were described as “vaguely slutty” by panel moderator Craig Ferguson.
The group claims "groping, cat-calling and other forms of sexual harassment" are prevalent at events like cons. Three points: 1) The claim that groping is a big problem appears ludicrous on its face. We're talking about geeks here, for cripe's sake -- guys that can't muster the nerve to even talk to a girl let alone grope one. I'm not saying incidents haven't happened, but given the penchant for "feminists" to label virtually anything as objectionable, let's just say be wary of taking that claim at face value.
To be clear, groping certainly is way over the line.
2) Really? You're pissed off about cat-calling? Then here's a clue: Don't dress up like comicbook characters. If you put on a Wonder Woman costume, or Power Girl costume, or an Emma Frost outfit, then don't be f***ing surprised if some dudes whistle, howl, or make a remark like "Hey, baby!" (That is, if you got the chops, so to speak.) Because here's a clue (and it's amazing this even needs to be said given these chicks are supposedly comicbook readers): Women in comicbooks dress provocatively. Again, look at Power Girl, for heaven's sake.
And spare us all the "It shouldn't matter how I dress" garbage. If a well-muscled, good-lookin' dude comes dressed as Superman or Thor, don't tell me girls at the con wouldn't be similarly "cat-calling." It's called sexual attraction, Ms. Feminist. Humans are hard-wired for this sort of thing, whether you like it or not.
3) What are these "other forms of sexual harassment?" Again, as noted above, feminists object to virtually anything, the wackiest ones even claiming all sex is "rape." As such, feminists should be allowed no ambiguity with remarks like "other forms ..." After all, a feminist could have a seizure if she saw the word "sex" written on someone's notepad.
Lo and behold, way down in the article, we get to the Geeks' real motivation:
She and her colleagues developed a comic book on the subject in hopes of engaging middle- and high-school students, which is what brought them to Comic-Con.
Best comments about the article:
I'll add one, if you'll pardon the cliché: Get a life.
And Jesse Ventura won, getting $1.8 million
To be fair, Ventura actually sued the SEAL, Chris Kyle, but after Kye was killed the dick Jesse proceeded with his suit against the estate -- Kyle's wife being in charge of it.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
David Brothers is a left-of-center writer of things comicbook, and even he is weary of the current way comic companies are "marketing" their move to greater diversity:
Marvel’s making moves to increase the character diversity in their books, and drawing ire from the usual gang of idiots. Which I’m all for, even though I’m way more for creator diversity, and believe is a good thing. But the thing that’s grating is that instead of putting the work out on its own merits and marketing it about how great it is, a lot of the conversation around it has been about the basics that hate it.
I’ve been seeing Marvel folks, mostly white dudes but not entirely, retweet or address or bring up racists and scumbags and sexists while pushing their books, positioning themselves as taking a stand against these people talking trash.
If you disagree with whatever for genuine reasons, but you phrase it as “I don’t like that the Falcon is Captain America,” the reaction to that is now tilted heavily toward “Oh, what’re you, racist?” instead of it being something more reasonable.
Brothers, who is black, nails it closed with this: "Somebody calling you a ni**er ain’t a badge of honor. You don’t show off your gunshot wounds. You don’t crow about how people hate you in the name of making yourself look good."
Thank you, Mr. Brothers.
'Ya hear that (Caucasian) Dan Slott, Ron Marz, Mark Waid, Rick Remender, Gail Simone, and Tom Brevoort, among others?
Forum: What Should Israel Do About Gaza?
And Mr. Richierich is already well known across the blogosphere and other media: He is the guy who discovered the video evidence of ObumbleCare architect John Gruber admitting to just what the DC Circuit Court ruled last week. That is, that "the ACA clearly prohibits the (healthcare) subsidy for purchases from the federal exchange."
Please welcome him. And stand by for more. See his post directly above on the main page.
Ah, Joe. Always demonstrating you've never recovered from the disease known as Foot-in-Mouth:
To wit: “You know,” Biden continued, “so when they put me in a home, I get a window with a view. You know what I mean? But my daughter is a social worker.”
As the IJReview notes, "... one of your other children is Delaware’s Attorney General, and the other is a lawyer who works for a Ukrainian gas company. I think you’ll be fine."
I thought Dems were the party of "compassion" and "for the little guy."
... isn't it, that the News Journal hasn't reported on the 117 illegal immigrant children placed in Delaware since the initial story?
After all, said initial story only had the most comments I'd ever seen on a Delaware Online article.
First up: House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer says the Dems can win back the House this November. I'll have what he's smoking.
Next up: Bill Maher makes a comparison only a true "progressive" could make -- that ObumbleCare becoming law is a greater achievement than ... the moon landing. Somehow "WTF?" doesn't quite cut it here.
Lastly, "I'm A" Dick Durbin urges Walgreen to be "patriotic" and not move its HQ to Switzerland. Because, y'know, paying high taxes makes you wanna stand up and salute the flag ... especially knowing that complete blithering morons like Durbin are running the damn country.
The ever-politically correct Gail Simone tweets:
The crappiest thing about the newspeak in 1984 is that it turns out we don't need government to enforce it, citizens embrace it willingly.— Gail Simone (@GailSimone) July 24, 2014
Yes, Gail, and YOU are one of the most willing. Any dissent from your far-left PC orthodoxy, no matter how innocuous and/or well reasoned, is labeled "racist," "sexist," "homophobic" and whatever other "-ism" or phobia you can think of.
You've been a big supporter of radical feminist Suey Park, she of "only white people can be racist" infamy. And when asked if you agreed with her statement, you refused to answer, and then proceeded to block on Twitter those who had asked the question.
Way to willingly embrace that Newspeak, Gail. Hypocrite.
It's bad enough (for the Boss Obama administration) that a recent court ruling said ObumbleCare subsidies are only available via states that have established health exchanges (as per the language in the actual law); it's worse that one of the law's architects said exactly that in the past.
Even though the administration, et. al. are arguing that the law "infers" that the federal government can offer subsidies.
Still worse are this architect's -- Jonathan Gruber -- pathetic excuses for his statements ... and the ObumbleCare law's actual language:
"It is unambiguous this is a typo. Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it's a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states."
Un-freakin'-real. The law has a TYPO, for cripe's sake. That NO ONE caught.
Then again, Nancy Pelosi did say that the bill had to be passed so that we could know what's in it, right?
"I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake," he (Gruber) said.
He continued: "There was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step" [of creating their own exchanges]. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo."
Got that? Even though this Obamanaut has more than once stated what the recent court ruling said -- that, again, only states with exchanges can offer healthcare subsidies -- he "misspoke" ... just like the "typo" in the healthcare law.
Anyone who still buys anything that comes out of this administration really is living in an alternate reality.
The non-Council winner was Sultan Knish with It’s Another “Death to the Jews” Weekend.
Full results are here.
The First State's governor sure has learned well from our president -- when it comes to lying, that is. Despite stating that Delaware had nowhere to place any illegal immigrant children that have been flooding our southern border, Jack Markell recently announced that 117 of these children have been placed with families in the state.
[Markell] urged lawmakers to "remain mindful that we are called upon to provide for the least of our brothers and sisters."
He called the U.S. a "nation of immigrants," saying "the humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied minors fleeing dangerous situations at home does not just affect our border states; it impacts all of us as Americans. Whatever one's politics, we are a nation of immigrants."
*Sigh* The 'ol "nation of immigrants" schtick, eh? Conveniently forgetting the term "illegal," eh Jack? Spare me. Not to mention, the whole "fleeing dangerous situations" is mostly bunk. Interviews have shown that the vast majority of those arriving at our borders currently have fled not because of "dangerous situations at home," but because they think they can stay in the United States.
Markell also noted that "the presence of child migrants in Delaware may come at a cost for state taxpayers." Perfect. Just perfect.
He also pulled the racism card, saying "Unfortunately, the debate around immigration has been marked too often by scare-mongering and xenophobia." Again, perfect. *Yawn*
Markell, like Boss Obama, has become a laughing stock; however, unlike Obama and the Democrat Party nationally, Markell and his party will easily maintain power here in the First State. This fact shows how utterly moribund the GOP is here in DE.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
Check out this sidebar headline via ABC News.com circa 11:15am EDT:
Why should they? Who has been held responsible for anything in this administration since day one??
People learn by example, natch.
Texas Governor Rick Perry is sending 1,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border. But the Boss Obama administration suddenly is worried about the law and procedure:
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House has not yet received the formal communication required for Perry to deploy guard troops.
If I were Perry, I'd simply sit back and let out a huge guffaw at that.
Forum: What Will Be The Most Significant Technological Development of the Next Decade?
The year: 1968. A science fiction show called Star Trek makes history by featuring the first interracial kiss on American television.
The year: 1959. A writer named Robert Heinlein makes a Filipino young man his protagonist in what many consider to be his best work, Starship Troopers.
The year: 1973. Marvel Comics' Captain America title features its hero tracking down a villain who ends up being none other than President Richard Nixon himself. The event causes Cap to become highly disillusioned, and he gives up wearing the American flag for a time.
The year: 1980. Writer Gregory Benford's novel Timescape warns of global environmental apocalypse if humans aren't more careful in how they alter their surroundings.
Science fiction has always been an avenue through which creators comment on political, cultural and social matters. Like racism. The nature of society and government. Abuse of power. Stewardship of our planet.
But only in the hallowed halls of academia will you discover such is not enough for this creative genre. No sir. If the creators are not of the "right" color or background, and if the "right" issues aren't being addressed adequately, then there's a problem.
At the University of California, Riverside, a grant was needed to explore "ethnic futurisms" -- because, it seems, "there has long been an unacknowledged tradition of SF written by people of color."
“Alternative Futurisms,” which will launch in September 2015, will bring together African American, Latino, Native American, and Asian American scholars, artists and writers to examine the colonial roots and legacies of science fiction and the power of speculative fiction as a tool for social change.
Science fiction fans and scholars are rethinking what counts as science fiction, explained Sherryl Vint, professor of English and co-director of the SFTS program with Latham. Vint is co-principal investigator of the Sawyer Seminar with Latham and Nalo Hopkinson, professor of creative writing and an award-winning author of science fiction and fantasy.
“The canon is not monolithically white,” she added. “Questions of social justice are emerging, particularly with regard to colonialism, borders, DNA, and profiling. Our seminar will elicit and sustain dialogue among the many peoples of color who are using speculative techniques to combat systemic racism and will seek to displace the hegemony of the post-racial imaginary with a range of ethnic futurisms.”
The "colonial roots and legacies" of sci-fi? Sounds like yet another university-based grievance fest. And who wants to translate that last sentence? Any takers? Here, I'll give it a go:
"Our seminar, comprised almost exclusively of non-white folks, will discuss how science fiction can combat the persistently and incorrigibly racist Western societies, and will strive to abolish the popularity of racial unity themes in the genre and replace them with various racial and ethnic separatist group fictions."
How was that?
Unfortunately for UCR, other than that last deconstructivist-based sentence, there's little new "Alternative Futurisms" offers to science fiction. "Speculative fiction as a tool for social change" is, after all, what sci-fi is.
This story comes about, ironically, at a time when there has been considerable debate within the science fiction community about matters racial and sexual. The rise and popularity of social media, particularly Twitter and Facebook, have served as a catalyst for such. This online brouhaha, for example, between conservative author Larry Correia and lefty writer John Scalzi is a (continuing) microcosm of such. Unfortunately, the predictable accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia by those in the latter camp mar real conversations.
Over the last decade or so, the "Big Two" comicbook companies Marvel and DC have made headline-worthy attempts to "diversify" their ranks -- characters and creators alike -- sometimes by turning long-established characters into something they're not. And, like the liberal (general) science fiction crowd, progressive comicbook fans and creators alike are quick to denounce any criticism of such, however innocuous.
Most recently, for example, it was announced the Marvel character Thor would become ... a woman. (This is in the comics, not the movies, so don't worry about Chris Hemsworth ladies. Oh, wait, was that sexist? My apologies.) Even reactions such as "it's just a cheap gimmick" have been met with angry counters, invoking "misogyny," "angry white males," "marginalization," and, of course, "racism." Like the movie industry's predilection for churning out "reboots" of even classic science films, such announcements, much like comicbook character "deaths," are merely short-term gimmicks, guaranteed to result in a sales boost, however fleeting. I suppose it's just too much work to actually create new (diverse) characters, much like it's the same situation with writing original movie scripts ...?
Science fiction aficionados crave good stories, no matter the race/gender/sexual orientation of the creators or the stories' characters. An all-consuming desire for -- and corresponding knee-jerk criticism toward dissenters of -- superficial "diversity" does little to enhance and encourage the human oneness much of science fiction envisions. Nor, for that matter, does seeking to "displace the hegemony of the post-racial imaginary" with cluttered, separatist racial/ethnic literary enclaves.
Lastly, in terms of access and availability, today there is little to prevent minority science fiction creators from getting their creations out to the public. They certainly don't face, for example, what Benny Russell did in my favorite Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode, "Far Beyond the Stars." All it takes is hard work and a lot of persistence. Just ask sci-fi author great Larry Niven; even a trust fund (white) guy's stories like his got rejected a gazillion times ... but eventually one broke through. And I, for one, am glad he kept at it.
(Cross-posted at The College Fix.)
The non-Council winner was Sultan Knish with A Game Changer In Gaza.
Full results are here.
Feel for Madison Miller, everybody. Because "it happened to her." She was -- gasp! -- denied an IUD because of a religious exemption, just like Hobby Lobby.
Quote of the article: "I’m a little tired of having to stop whatever I’m doing to take a pill at the same time every day."
That's like a guy saying "I'm a little tired of having to open up that damn condom wrapper right at the key moment."
But, alas, it's a whole new world in this, the Age of Obama. Ms. Miller's learned well from the Boss, he who once noted that he didn't want his daughters "punished" with a pregnancy if/when they had sex and made a "mistake." Miller likens having the "right" to prevent a pregnancy to a runner having the "right" to prevent a twisted ankle.
Michael B. Jordan, the new (and African-American) Human Torch in the upcoming rebooted Fantastic Four flick, said that the film's story isn't exactly what we may be expecting:
It’s not your typical superhero film, you know, we aren’t looking at this as like, being superheroes. We’re more or less a bunch of kids that had an accident and we have disabilities now that we have to cope with, and try to find a life afterwards – try to be as normal as we can.
So, does the title now mean that "everyone is 'fantastic' in their own way" ... or something? Or, to put it another way: WTF???
At the very least, this'll give the self-righteous comicbook creators something else with which to prove their moral/cultural "superiority" ... especially moonbat Gail Simone who's never wasted an opportunity to make snide remarks about those who criticize such ridiculous PC moves.
As reported by Doug Ernst and many others, aside from the ludicrous media stunt that is the female Thor, this fall Sam Wilson -- better known as The Falcon -- will assume the mantle of Captain America.
As Doug notes, this makes perfectly logical sense. Sam and Steve Rogers (Cap) have a long, storied history that dates back to the late 1960s. They even shared the marquee on their book for a time. Early 1970s Captain America features some incredibly biting social and racial commentary.
It's akin to Tony Stark and Jim ("Rhodey") Rhodes in the Iron Man title. Rhodes first appeared in IM #118, but chronologically the duo's first encounter -- Stark as Iron Man, that is -- took place during the Vietnam War. Rhodes first assumed the role of Iron Man in the early 1980s when Stark succumbed to alcoholism. He did it again in the early 90s when Stark's nervous system deteriorated. And, of course, he went on in his own suit of armor as War Machine.
Doug notes, too, how Marvel Political Officer Tom Brevoort continues to make an ass out of himself. Here's what he said about Wilson coming on as Cap (my -- and Doug's -- emphasis):
While Sam shares many of Steve’s beliefs in a general sense, he’s also a very different person with a very different background. He didn’t grow up in the 1930s, he’s a modern day man in touch with the problems of the 21st Century. For most of his professional life, Sam has worked as a social worker, so he’s seen the worst of urban society up close, and how crime, poverty, lack of social structure and opportunity can affect the community. So he’s got perhaps a greater focus on the plight of the common man, and perhaps a greater empathy for the underprivileged than maybe even Steve himself.
First, read Doug's take on the "common man" statement. It fits Brevoort (and many at Marvel and DC) to a tee. Second (and admittedly Brevoort gets more leeway here since he used "perhaps"), what was Steve Rogers?? The kid grew up without a father, he and his mother (who died while he was still young) were dirt-poor, and he endured constant bullying due to his sickly, frail nature. Granted, being white as opposed to black in the 1930s was a whole different ball of wax than it is today, but if anything the Captain America title itself has shown time and time again how socially and racially progressive Rogers is.
One of the most poignant examples, in my opinion, was a more contemporary issue -- an annual of The Ultimates, if memory serves. It featured some in-depth conversation between Wilson and Rogers, with the latter remembering some days during World War II. Steve (as Cap) had just finished up attending a benefit party, and after practically everyone had gone, a few black soldiers approached him asking for his autograph. They had not been allowed to attend the party ... for obvious reasons. Rogers was not happy about that. At all.
Nevertheless, if history is any indication, you can bet that Brevoort and the usual cadre of creators will be quick to assign the "racist" label to anyone who doesn't like this Cap transition, even if it is completely devoid of any racial pretext. Because that's what modern "progressives" do. Just look at how these 'bats react to criticism of our president, after all.
Speaking of Iron Man, in other Marvel news there will be a new Shellhead title, Superior Iron Man. No, it won't be written by that idiot Dan Slott, but the premise does sound a bit like Superior Spider-Man:
"What you're seeing in 'Superior Iron Man' is a Tony Stark who’s seen both his worst and best impulses all let loose," (writer Tom) Taylor told Mashable. "It is Tony, but he’s going to be in a zone now where he’s never been. He's more ambitious, cunning, egotistical ... all of those quantities are unharnessed. He has a vision for the world. I like to think his position is defensible — controversial, but defensible."
In other words, Stark will be a dick. Granted, he's always had that potential, but Taylor is gonna "open it up."
UPDATE: As if on cue, regarding Cap:
Conservative media is gonna lose its mind over the Thor and Cap announcements, ginning up outage from people who have never read a comic.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 17, 2014
They will equate a black Cap as another attack on "their" America, yet more proof that some Other is destroying the country.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 17, 2014
What'd I tell 'ya? And just wait until the actual stories in the new Captain America come forth. If they're anything like a lot of other contemporary comicbook tales (y'know, like the Cap vs. Tea Party yarn), it'll give even more of an excuse for guys like Marz to call out legitimate criticism as "racist."
But, alas, that's easier than thinking. Which makes sense since there ain't a whole of original thinking going on in the 'ol House of Ideas, that's fer sher.
UPDATE 2: This Graeme McMillan piece gives hyperbole a whole new dimension. Sam Wilson will be "working for a white master" because Steve Rogers will be "running Cap’s missions from his headquarters in Avengers Mansion” and will "also tutor Sam in how to throw the shield," etc.
At least Marvel's film arm is rolling right along with little bullsh**; next year's Age of Ultron looks sensational if the early buzz is accurate:
The most interesting information is the quotes and story details the EW cover story also provides about Ultron’s new origins. Hank Pym a.k.a. Ant-Man creates Ultron in the comics but we know Joss Whedon is changing that up for his film and what we suspected last year about Tony Stark being responsible is true. With S.H.I.E.L.D. no longer serving as Earth’s defense and first response against the unknown and other-worldly, it’s up to The Avengers. And to help them out and given them a break, Stark develops Ultron, a sentient program, an artificial intelligence that will help him to serve as an Avenger without actually suiting up himself – building off of what we saw in Iron Man 3 where we met an Iron Legion of automated suits in the final act.
This self-aware AI – perhaps an evolution of JARVIS from the Iron Man films and The Avengers 1 - can locate threats and control Stark’s legion of drone suits to deal with them… until Ultron decides that humans are the greatest threat.
The Entertainment Weekly cover is, well, awesome.
Also in the flick will be the Vision, played by Paul Bettany. And check it: Bettany "will have his real face like the Vision from the comics as well." Gotta love it. But since Ultron created Vizh in the comics, I wonder how the Android Avenger will come about in the flick. Maybe the same way? Sounds like it could work.
You've probably heard by now that Thor will be a chick, now. Do it with me: Slow clap. That, or give a great big yawn. It's getting monotonous already.
UPDATE: Oops! Forgot the inimitable Furious D's take! (Thanks, Nate!)
And the non-Council nominations are here!
Forum: How Would You Handle The Current Crisis On The Border?
Yours truly has an entry.
Boss Obama's Dept. of Justice investigates ... a parade float critical of Boss Obama:
The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to investigate a Nebraska parade float that criticized President Obama.
A Fourth of July parade float featured at the annual Independence Day parade in Norfolk sparked criticism when it depicted a zombie-like figure resembling Mr. Obama standing outside an outhouse, which was labeled the “Obama Presidential Library.”
The Nebraska Democratic Party called the float one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.”
The Omaha World-Herald reported Friday that the Department of Justice sent a CRS member who handles discrimination disputes to a Thursday meeting about the issue.
"Discrimination??" Oh, sure, because this sure is an example of "discrimination," a'right.
My God, 2016 can't get here fast enough.
"Let me be clear: An attack on Rick’s integrity is an attack on Marvel’s integrity."
Is that so. Gosh.
As was the point of this post last week, many of the creators at both Marvel and DC have helped create the very atmosphere which led to the silly Remender situation. Anything anybody says/does that (seemingly) goes against the prevailing "progressive" wisdom is immediately pounced upon by these creators ... unless it's (seemingly) done by one of their own. And then the self-righteous indignation begins in earnest.
It's quite obvious Alonso doesn't really believe what he said about Marvel, above. If he did, he'd tell guys like Dan Slott, Ron Marz, Mark Waid, and Gail Simone to curb their condescending, hostile, rude, and factually challenged social media behavior towards those who differ politically from them.
And just in case, spare me the free speech "argument." No one is saying those named above cannot say what they want. It's merely a matter of manners but most especially business sense. One wonders why Alonso hasn't said something like "When you behave like that on social media, it reflects poorly on Marvel."
Since I know everyone is on the edge of their collective seats with worry about this, don't fret -- Batgirl "will have more LGBT characters than ever before!"
The non-Council winner was Kevin D. Williamson with Born on the Fifth of July.
Full results are here.
9/11 Truther Rose O'Donnell is coming back to "The View."
Buzzfeed has a list of 36 Things You Probably Don’t Know about the comics giant. Here are some of the facts that I (amazingly) did not know:
OK, a big WTF to that last one.
How about #7 -- Marvel had an opportunity to acquire DC's characters?? (That's Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, etc. in case you somehow didn't know.) Astonishingly, Marvel declined ... because it thought the characters "weren't very good"?
Interestingly, #16's info about Marvel owning the trademark to the term "zombie" doesn't include the fact that the company actually could not use that term in its comics during the time-frame noted due to Comics Code rules. The term "zuvembie" was used as a substitute, as was the case in some issues of The Avengers circa the mid-#150s.
And #26 should come as no surprise. Rob Liefeld ... and a rip-off? It's not as if it hadn't happened before!
I'm currently in DC for a conference later today. So, because I slept like crap last evening and I've already seen all the DC sights several times in the last twenty years or so, here are a few musings (as usual, because no one demanded it):
-- Getting to DC reminded me of how much I absolutely DETEST driving in big cities.
-- The valet/bellboy and gal at the hotel front desk were incredibly friendly and helpful. Thus, I tipped very well. Good, cheerful service is hard to come by, these days.
-- I spent a good deal of time this morning with CNN on the tube. I wonder why I chose to torture myself so. But it's certainly no wonder why the network's ratings are in the crapper. Virtually the entire three-plus hours featured the hosts parroting Boss Obama/White House talking points and pressing GOP/conservative guests with them.
In addition, their coverage of the current border crisis was abysmal. They featured a story implying the town of Murrieta is racist for their protests against the arrival of illegal immigrant-filled buses: A graphic was shown detailing the town's demographics (70% white, below 10% poverty level) and then compared it to a town closer to the border which is 80% Latino and over 25% poverty level. An interview with the latter's mayor (whose town was more "accepting" of the illegals) showed he believed Murrieta had a racial angle to their protests. The CNN reporter then relayed that to the mayor of Murrieta, asking along the lines of "But can you understand the compassion concern?"
I wonder how quickly the CNN reporters would be willing to accept these buses into their communities.
Shortly thereafter, another talking head pounded Texas Governor Rick Perry about the border situation ... again, with Boss Obama talking points. Make no mistake -- there's certainly nothing wrong with tough questions. But when they all come from one side, not to mention when liberal/Democrat guests just sit there on the split screen nodding their heads in agreement with the host ...
Just now, the two 11am hosts featured a detailed story about the "harrowing" journey these immigrants have to make from a small hamlet in Guatemala. They note how they have to travel the entire length of Mexico to get to the US. Not included: Why Mexico does little-to-nothing about it. Cut back to the hosts who tell us Guatemalans "are great people," and they're "just looking for a better life." I've no doubt about either. But there's a process by which this should occur. And, again, I doubt anyone of these CNN pundits would gleefully welcome these new arrivals into their town, let alone their homes. (CNN is interviewing a foster mom right now who's hosting some "undocumented" kids.)
Does anyone still wonder why Fox News dominates cable news? It's not that they're fairer in their coverage (they are), it's simply that they give the other side (usually the conservative/Republican) a hearing ... and a fair shake.
-- Spider-Man writer Dan Slott responded to this tweet of mine yesterday. Which is funny since he blocked me long ago for daring to challenge some of his more ridiculous tweets. The dude actually actively searches out hashtag mentions??
Marvel's gnomish Dan Slott:
Twitter is insidious. It's a way for you, in 140 characters, to INSTANTLY reach thousands of people, and say the stupidest thing possible.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 9, 2014
Problem solved: Stay off of Twitter, Dan.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
And that is this one, via What Culture:
Her name is Heavy Flo. Get it? She's a character in conspiratorial moonbat Erik Larsen's title Savage Dragon.
Three words come to mind: "What," "The" and "F***."
(h/t to FCMM)
Forum: What Are Your Reflections And Thoughts This July Fourth?
Here's Mark Waid on the recent controversy surrounding fellow comicbook creator Rick Remender's current Captain America storyline:
I am neither supporting nor decrying any comics or stories. But founding an argument on a willful ignorance of facts accomplishes nothing.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 7, 2014
That's rich. This, from the guy who tweeted this about last week's Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision:
Fair warning: anyone who makes a snide or sarcastic comment implying I've not read/don't understand the HL decision gets blocked.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) June 30, 2014
Now, I've no idea about the character and story in question, but I find the irony very delicious here. The self-righteousness of people like Waid, Dan Slott, Ron Marz et. al. knows no bounds, most especially when they're wrong about something. And they always do it in the most snide, condescending manner.
Not to mention, this crew is always on "speech patrol" for something on which to post a grievance. It's always fun to watch when they're on the defensive. You've made the bed; now lie in it.
UPDATE: Gotta love it: The gnomish Dan Slott alludes to this post (without linking to it, natch) only including the "Now, I've no idea about the character and story in question ..." part in his tweet. Which, natch, has little to do with the actual point.
Brilliant, Danny. Now you've done precisely what those fired up about Remender have done.
UPDATE 2: This comment perfectly illustrates the point Slott purposely missed:
I LOVE IT when Liberals eat their own. How does it feel Rick… to be hoisted by your own petard? The PC “Thought Police” showed their usual ignorance and intolerance while revealing their own insecurities and hate.
Remember when this used to be a free country?
Watch out!! Democrat Senator "I'm A" Dick Durbin is -- wait for it! -- fed up with critics of the Boss Obama administration regarding the situation on the southern border. Why? Because the problem was started by ... George W. Bush. In 2008. Six f***ing years ago.
"It was the Homeland Security Act signed by President George W. Bush which says we treat these children humanely,” Durbin said.
Of course, we could humanely send them back to their own country. Not to mention the Act in question was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Also not to mention, a thing called THE LAW has never stopped this administration from doing whatever the hell it's wanted in the past, but all of a sudden ... well, George W. Bush, dammit!
Here's a Twitter pic retweeted by our pal Dan Slott:
Slott asks of writer Tony Lee, a London-based writer who had also retweeted it, and Peter Anghelides, the tweet's originator: "Eep! Is this really how we look to the Brits?"
The text on the original tweet says "Spot the difference competition."
Y'see, it seems the "message" we're suppose to draw from this is all religions have their extremists, and that society shouldn't judge everyone based on the actions of "a few."
Except, as clear thinking people realize (and, thankfully, some pointed out on the Twitter feeds in question), the person on the right won't hesitate to kill you merely for not believing as she does. Or for saying something against her religion. Or merely because you're an Israeli. Etc.
The girl on the left, simply, wouldn't do any of those things. Not even close. The Bible and gun simply represent rights embodied in the very Constitution which governs us (represented by the flag in the background).
Dan Slott often tweets about bigotry and intolerance -- the kind he doesn't like. Like here, for instance. But as we've seen, he gets upset when people think he implies "everyone" of a certain group, yet he doesn't waste any time doing just that to someone else if there's no "requisite disclaimer."
Here's an example of bigotry which is perfectly acceptable to Dan Slott:
Just like the top pic above, that there's little/no difference between an American female who believes in the First and Second Amendments and a Middle Eastern jihadist woman who wouldn't hesitate to detonate a set of bombs strapped to her body just to off a few "infidels," people who believe in gun ownership rights -- again, rights which are codified in our highest legal document -- are dimwitted, gutteral-voiced "'Muricans" to people like the gnomish Dan Slott.
There are many contemporary comicbook creators who think as Slott does. It's how they think about you.
(Thanks to Doug Ernst for the various screen caps.)
The non-Council winner was Sultan Knish with Our Consensus Rulers.
Full results are here.
Via The Federalist, here are some of the dopiest emotion-over-fact "arguments" about the SCOTUS decision from the other day:
Can't believe we live in a world where we'd even consider letting big corps deny women access to basic care based on vague moral objections.— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) June 30, 2014
Yep, because we all know the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby being allowed to set up a paramilitary group to make sure its employees do not visit local pharmacies for contraception.
Gotta make a list: Viagra? Okay. Vasectomies? Okay. Female birth control? Nope. What differentiates these, I wonder?— Markos Moulitsas (@markos) June 30, 2014
Are condoms covered by ObamaCare? Nope. And guess what? Vasectomies aren't either.
Senate ML Harry Reid on SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling: "It's time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women."— Susan Ferrechio (@susanferrechio) June 30, 2014
Sounds like an argument against Hillary for president. I don't want a woman deciding what happens to me, my dad, my brother-in-law, etc.
Welcome to the bedroom of your employees, Hobby Lobby.— Josh (@VagrantSays) June 30, 2014
Best response to this:
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!" "Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave." "The wallet stays, bigot."— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 30, 2014
More moonbat goodness at the link above.
The recent SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision really has caused many a "progressive" to get his/her panties in a real tight bunch. So much so in Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid's" case that, well, he's gonna tweet about the case ... and you're gonna accept what he says, dammit!!
Fair warning: anyone who makes a snide or sarcastic comment implying I've not read/don't understand the HL decision gets blocked.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) June 30, 2014
The Spider-Man writer offers up this gem today:
But here in America, the separation of Church and State is an important constitutional principle. And that goes for EVERY religion.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 2, 2014
So naturally that means the government should be able to force private employers to provide services which violate their religious beliefs.
The cognitive dissonance of the gnomish one is without limit.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
Forum: Which Should America Choose – Shi’ites, Sunnis or Neither?
Well, the Supreme Court is on the contemporary comicbook crews' collective moonbat minds after yesterday's rulings, in particular with regards to the Hobby Lobby case. And they ain't happy. First up, our good pal Dan Slott compares the high court's conservative bloc (and contemporary Christians) to ... 16th century Spanish conquistadors:
You know who imposed their religious beliefs on others? The Conquistadors. And you know what they were? Assholes.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 1, 2014
I'd ask the gnomish one to explain how the SCOTUS (or modern Christians) "imposed" religious belief upon society (well, women, really in this case), but that would require an IQ over 90 and I don't think Dan qualifies. Not to mention, someone responded to Slott's tweet (supposedly humorously) "ask the Aztecs." Yes, indeed -- also ask what would have worse: The Spanish imposing Christianity upon the natives, or the Aztecs imposing their religion ... which routinely (and barbarically) included human sacrifice.
If Hobby Lobby were a Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish owned company, we would not be having this discussion. Is that a fair assessment?— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 1, 2014
Then, there's this retweet by the gnome:
A message to SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby from WW pic.twitter.com/4kuW6jVZ57— Pia Guerra (@PiaGuerra) June 30, 2014
Classy, eh? All because Wonder Woman can't have her employer (who knew she worked at Hobby Lobby?) pay for certain forms of birth control. Talk about your cognitive dissonance. Like this, too (retweeted by comics 'bat Gail Simone):
Indeed -- the company that pays your salary should just STFU and give you whatever benefits you desire. The hell with what their beliefs (or wants) are. They just give you a living, after all.
Along those same lines, here's Tom Brevoort, another political/legal mental midget, chiming in:
@DanSlott Yes, it's an absurd argument. You don't get to decide what taxes you get to pay. Corporations aren't people, aren't human.— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) July 1, 2014
Earth to Tom: Certain contraceptive benefits paid for by your employer are NOT taxes. And corporations ARE people in many (most?) legal realms, including this one. The predilection among modern "progressives" to bring up this corporation stuff ignores over 200 years of legal precedent.
Lastly, here's 'ol Ron Marz who obviously didn't feel like putting as much "effort" into the whole pile-on as Slott, et. al. did:
Actually, if the US soccer team does as well as the SCOTUS did yesterday, we'll be moving on to the quarter finals, thank you very much.
Be sure to check out, too, Douglas Ernst's reaction to these geniuses.
UPDATE: Also check out Truthwillwin1's reaction to the tweets in question.
UPDATE 2: The gnomish one is having a fit because "right-wing bloggers" took him too "literally." Funny, if a "right-wing blogger" had used "Muslims" without the requisite "some" or "radical" inserted in there, guys like Slott would be screaming bloody "Islamophobia" on social media for days.