As reported by Doug Ernst, Marvel's latest way to shame you is by lambasting any objection you may have to the new Spider-Man movie Mary Jane being a black woman.
Once again, any objection to this, however innocent, means you're a intolerant racist.
The gnomish Dan Slott, of course, was one of those screaming "racist," playing "Captain White Privilege." Maybe Dan could put actions where his mouth is by giving up some of his privilege via giving his writing chores to a minority. Don't count on it.
"Guardians of the Galaxy" director James Gunn chimed in too, stating that if you complain about MJ's ethnicity, "your life is too good."
Cripes, at this point, it is surprising that Gunn hasn't changed his last name to assuage the perpetually aggrieved SJW crowd.
Long-time comics creator Chuck Dixon says what many of us have known for some time -- that "the rise of 'social justice' in comics and how DC and Marvel seem to be wanting to change genders or ethnicities of long-established characters just for political correctness’ sake" is helping with comicbooks' downfall.
Why aren't things getting better?
"Because they’ve chased so much of the readership away. People simply stopped reading comics when they voluntarily pulled comics off the newsstands in the 1990s and became a boutique industry exclusive to comic shops."
"Why don’t the comics sell more? Because they’re crap. That’s why they don’t sell more.”
Indeed. I really can't fathom why anyone, let alone conservatives, would shell out $4.00 for the stuff that's put out these days. When I occasionally get a current issue from a buddy it's incredible how creatively stunted the stories are -- especially compared to 15-20 years ago. Everyone talks the same, the characters are all seemingly really stupid as they're ultra-quick to start needless fights, and, of course, the forced political correctness is head-shakingly laughable. (Here's but the latest example.)
One thing Chuck forgot is what we, Doug Ernst, Avi Green, and others have documented for years -- the nasty, disdainful, and dismissive way modern creators treat fans (especially those who in any way question them) on social media.
In the category of "You Can't Make This Sh** Up," HBO's Casey Bloys -- in response to the question "whether we’ll see more rapes of men to balance out the gendered violence" -- said:
“I take your point—so far there aren’t any male rapes…. [I]s it something we think about, yeah I think the criticism is valid, you know ... so I think it’s something that people take into account.”
Welcome to the Brave New World.
The early 90s film "The Rocketeer" is getting a reboot and there's been a fairly significant change. Ready? Can you guess?
Got it yet? Come on ... !!!
You got it -- star Billy Campbell's role is out ... and the protagonist will now be played by ... a black woman.
"The Hollywood Reporter says the company is prepping a brand new sequel/reboot called The Rocketeers and the new hero is an African-American woman.
This new version will be set six years after the original film. The first Rocketeer has disappeared fighting the Nazis, so an unlikely pilot takes up the mantle and battles the scientists who are trying to mass produce the rocket technology for the enemy."
... the ethnic roles and affiliations were reversed?
Philadelphia police are looking for five men in connection with an assault outside Geno's Steaks on June 11.
Patrick Kane, a victim of the attack, provided this account.
He said he and his wife, Brooke Kane, had spent the night at a friend's wedding and then at an after hours club with another couple, when they all decided to grab a bite to eat at Geno's.
They were just finishing up their cheese steaks when Brooke Kane's girlfriend asked another group of patrons if she could bum a cigarette, Patrick Kane said.
"That is when the guys just lost their minds," said Patrick Kane, 31 and a maintenance supervisor at an apartment building.
In seconds one man stood up, put his hand over the face of the woman and pushed her across the sidewalk, said Patrick Kane.
"'Don't mess with us, we belong to ISIS,'" Kane said the man shouted at them.
Brooke Kane, a daycare teacher, stepped in to help her friend. The ISIS comment was not a joke she told them before she too was struck, Patrick Kane said.
Police said video of the attack was "too graphic" to release.
Sounds an awful lot like the now-backtracked edited audio recordings of the Orlando shooting 911 calls.
What’s one of the first things that comes to mind when you hear “San Francisco”?
Schools have been adopting liberal/progressive school discipline policies for years now, doing away with punishments like out-of-school suspension and replacing them with “less severe” alternatives like “restorative justice” — where misbehaving students get to “talk about” what ails them.
The idea is to keep disruptive kids in school so that they can learn, but it completely misses the point in that such kids don’t care about learning, and worse — they ruin it for the kids who want to learn.
And you know what they say about good intentions …
It seems even progressives have an upper tolerance limit. Teachers in the San Francisco Unified School District are fed up with restorative justice-style approaches as they claim “[s]tudents have been choked, they’ve been slapped, they have been given death threats almost daily.”
But the district, and the teachers union, remain committed to the current discipline policy.
“The policy is something we believe in, that kids should be in the school,” Lita Blanc, spokeswoman for Educators of San Francisco.
Ah, they believe.
The persistent problems with one first grade student at the school convinced teacher Erika Keil to complain to the principal, who opted not to renew the probationary teacher’s contract for next school year. The move sparked outrage from dozens of parents and teachers who descended on the school Tuesday to protest the principal’s decision.
The protesters toted picket signs reading “Advocating for student safety will cost you your job” and “Kick me, I’m a SFUSD teacher,” among others.
“To me, she did a fantastic job dealing with a difficult situation,” Keil’s colleague, Kathy Harriman, told ABC 7.
SFUSD board president Matt Haney told ABC 7 the school board could reverse the principal’s decision to dismiss Keil, but admitted that was unlikely.
Monroe students, parents and teachers, plan to continue to protest until Keil is reinstated.
The violent first-grader, meanwhile, remains in the classroom to torment his classmates, parents told the news site.
“That student has remained in the classroom without proper support,” [parent Louella] Hill said.
Talk about your Catch-22. Given that the federal Department of Education’s own policies have played a very significant role in tying schools’ hands when it comes to discipline — based on the premise that penalties affect a disproportionate percentage of racial minorities — it should be very interesting to see how this turns out.
But until then, parents will continue to vote with their feet. They’ll lobby their legislators to allow (more) charter schools, they’ll hoof it to private and parochial schools, and they will homeschool their children.
Cross-posted at The College Fix.
That is, on a Diversity Council like Australia apparently has.
This council now has a new goal: to eliminate the term "guys" from everyday use.
[...] the DCA says “guys” is a gendered word that can make women feel left out.
“We want to get people thinking about the language they use in the workplace and whether it’s inclusive or excludes people,”Diversity Council of Australia’s CEO Lisa Annese told news.com.au.
“We’re not telling people what to say, we’re encouraging people to think about the words they use at work so everyone feels respected, valued and included. We know from research that when more inclusive language is used at work, people are greater engaged and more proactive.”
Ms Annese suggests using phrases like “Hi everyone” or “Hi team”.
“A really good test is reversing the gender. Would you walk into a mixed gender group and say ‘Hello ladies’ or ‘Hello girls’? No, because men would be offended,” she said.
Sooo ... what's next -- ditching words like "mankind"? "Man"?
The Diversity Council should file a complaint with the Cylon Imperious Leader. After all, recall his quote prior to the big assault on the Twelve Colonies: "The final annihilation of the life form known as Man. Let the attack begin."
The latest comicbook nuttery: SJWs (that's social justice warriors) are petitioning Marvel to make Captain America ... gay. Or bisexual. Or whatever.
The Twitter hashtag #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend has been trending, and here's a sample:
what do you mean #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend he already has one and his name is James Buchanan Barnes just that marvel won't recognize it— jaziel (@WANDASWIDOW) May 24, 2016
And if there's any person to act on these demands, it's Spencer. I can see it now: He'll make Cap gay, although it won't really be Cap -- it'll be some alternate dimension version or something -- but it will give Spencer yet another reason to Twitter rant about (Republican/conservative) "bigotry" and "intolerance." Even though the vast majority of the complaints against him will be the aforementioned canon argument, not "homophobia."
Marvel's new Nighthawk is not the one older fans might think of -- the Batman analogue who was a member of the classic super-team The Defenders -- but an alternate reality version brought into the Marvel Universe "proper" (due to yet another silly "big -- crossover -- event").
This 'Hawk is, and was, a member of the Squadron Supreme. No, not the version Mark Gruenwald made famous with his mid-1980s limited series, but the one J. Michael Straczynski created in Supreme Power and later a new Squadron Supreme. His parents were killed by (white) racists, and this has made him one angry vigilante.
New series writer David Walker explains his take on the character:
Nighthawk is driven by rage. He is angry with everyone and everything, and he has trouble containing that anger, so he focuses it and turns it loose on what he feels is the most obvious responsible party. Of course, it is far more complicated than that, which is part of what makes this character interesting. Here you have a black man, whose parents were murdered by racists, and he blames the racist ideologies that inform our society for their deaths.
Traditionally, superheroes act as extensions of law and order. They may act outside the boundaries of the law, but when all is said and done, they are at service to law and order, which makes them part of the status quo of the criminal justice system. The problem with this system is that it often falls short of adequately serving black people in America. We have seen this time and time again, when police officers kill unarmed blacks, and the court system fails to convict the killer. The two biggest threats to black people in this country are racism and the criminal justice system that is infected by the disease or racism. At some point, if you are a black superhero, fighting to protect black people, you are going to reach a crossroads where you will realize that you must protect them from the forces of law and order—from the status quo.
Indeed. Get this: The series is set in ... Chicago. And Walker seriously claims racism is the deadliest threat to blacks?? "Time and time again" we have seen men in blue shoot and kill blacks?
Yet again, Marvel's comics division business model is one big head-scratcher.
I've a better title for this book, Mr. Walker: Nighthawk: The Mistaken Narrative.
Because entertainment isn't just entertainment anymore -- it has to send a message, you see -- the LGBT advocacy group GLAAD is calling for the new Star Wars films to go gay:
As sci-fi projects have the special opportunity to create unique worlds whose advanced societies can serve as a commentary on our own, the most obvious place where Disney could include LGBT characters is in the upcoming eighth Star Wars film," reads GLAAD's statement, referring to 2017's Star Wars: Episode VIII. "2015’s The Force Awakens has introduced a new and diverse central trio, which allows the creators opportunity to tell fresh stories as they develop their backstory. Recent official novels in the franchise featured lesbian and gay characters that could also be easily written in to the story.
While GLAAD calls for LBGT characters in the new Star Wars films, it should be noted that the orientation of the three major new characters - Rey, Finn and Poe Dameron - were not revealed during The Force Awakens.
I still think Luke has gotta be gay. I mean c'mon:
Retweeted by the gnomish Dan Slott:
Free speech & parody are critical pillars of our culture. This kind of attack isn't just unAmerican, it's inhuman. https://t.co/n6MGhOcLtb— Seth Green (@SethGreen) April 30, 2016
What a hoot.
Here's the ultra-PC (when it suits him) Ron Marz:
Seems apparent some dudes need to grow up. A LOT. https://t.co/0Up55ixTEY— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 29, 2016
Lastly, Kurt Busiek on being a citizen:
I think it is a fine and healthy thing to distrust one's leaders. To be skeptical and wary, a constituent rather than a cheerleader.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) May 1, 2016
Philly.com laments the struggle the Philadelphia School District has in finding teachers:
And then right next to that headline we see this:
Though MSM outlets will never tell you, you can bet your bottom dollar that these two are linked. These "new" approaches to school discipline include things with fancy names like "restorative justice." While a good idea in theory -- doing away with harsh penalties like suspensions for relatively minor infractions like lateness or dress code violations -- the reality is that school officials are getting pressure not to suspend kids for serious violations, like fighting ... or worse.
From Newsarama: Cyborg's greatest danger comes from "being a black man living in Detroit."
Writer John Semper elaborates (somewhat):
He faces his greatest danger, which is being a black man living in Detroit. Justice League was once set in Detroit, he’s working out of S.T.A.R. Labs in Detroit, but no one has ever made the city a part of the saga. Detroit is a very unique city; it’s got a wonderful history, it’s got music, it’s got all kind of great things. It’s got a large black population, and here we’re telling the story of a black man in Detroit.
It’s also a city that’s in a great deal of distress, so there will be a lot of stories that will emanate from that. And in a way, Detroit will be a part of Cyborg’s identity, like Batman in Gotham, and Superman in Metropolis. We’re gonna Cyborg a big part of Detroit.
Now, Semper's comment doesn't go into all that much detail, but given what we've seen in modern comics these days one can take an educated guess as to what that "greatest danger" means. Let's see ... police brutality? Alleged "conservative" policies which led to situations like that in Flint? Opposition to gun control? Gentrification?
Perhaps this comment says it best in response:
Maybe they could do something intelligent and brave, like explore how heavy regulations, high taxes, gun control, and suppression of individualism and individual rights (all the things voting for Democrats gets you) have turned Detroit and Chicago, once cities America was proud of, into poverty-filled war zones. Nah. They'll go with the puerile, tribalistic, undergraduate social 'sciences' identity politics getting shoved in everyone's faces from every angle and remind me why I stopped buying comics, watching new television shows, and won't be watching the NFL this year either.
It's bad enough Boss Obama and his acolytes can't bring themselves to, in any way, associate terrorism with radical Islam -- now they're actively censoring the words of other world leaders who say it!
Here's what French President Francois Hollande had to say at a recent meeting (which was attended by Obama):
“But we're also well aware that the roots of terrorism, [Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq. We therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we're doing within the framework of the coalition.] And we note that Daesh is losing ground thanks to the strikes we've been able to launch with the coalition.”
Note what the official White House audio translation leaves out (hint: it's in brackets in the above quote) in the clip below:
And now it even appears the video from the White House website has been deleted!
DC Comics "Rebirth" is supposed "to reaffirm to fans the company’s commitment to readers," according to publisher Dan Didio.
An ... interesting way to show that commitment is the book New Superman, "a comic that is set in Shanghai and whose main character is a 17-year old Chinese teen who finds himself with Superman’s powers."
Wow. I can't think of a more interesting superhero comic than one whose setting is on the other side of the planet in one of the few remaining authoritarian regimes, and whose protagonist represents a whopping 1.2% of the total US population.
But hey, what do I know. This is the industry which could care less if its creators treat those who sustain it like what your dog just excreted in the backyard.
But at least their SJW bonafides aren't in any danger.
"Man-caused disaster caused by radical adherents to a religion with whom we're not at war results in life-function stoppage of at least 23."
"If you think Luke is gay, of course he is. You should not be ashamed of it. Judge Luke by his character, not by who he loves."
Director J.J. Abrams says Star Wars "will include gay characters."
“When I talk about inclusivity it’s not excluding gay characters. It’s about inclusivity. So of course.”
Meanwhile, no one outside of the mouthy, perpetually indignant Social Justice Warrior set could give a damn. They just want a good story, and not a rehash of what's come before.
Bleeding Cool's Rich Johnston: "Is This The First LGBTQ Moment In The New Star Wars Comics?"
First line of the article: "No, not Poe and Finn. Not yet. Despite the desire."
Talk about existing in your ever-lovin' bubble ...
A friend of mine recently lent me the first two trades of the "critically acclaimed" series which began over two years ago. It chronicles Superman and assorted super-pals assuming control of the planet.
It's based on the hit video game of the same name.
The story takes place on an alternate Earth, and the Joker has apparently grown tired of dealing with Batman. As such, he travels to Metropolis where he kidnaps Lois Lane, and then surgically attaches a device to her heart. If Lane's heart ceases to beat, a nuclear device will explode, obliterating Metropolis.
Joker uses a Kryptonite-laden form of Scarecrow's hallucinogenic gas on Supes, and as a result believes Lois to be a bad-guy. He skyrockets Lois into space, killing her. Joker's nuke explodes, leveling Metropolis. Superman promptly kills the Joker.
From there we see little that we haven't read already in Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme, Mark Waid's Kingdom Come, and numerous issues of The Authority. Not to mention, Mark Millar's superb Superman: Red Son.
Writer Tom Taylor is an amateur compared to those who've come before. Superman comes across like an angry middle schooler ... you can never quite grasp the protagonist, nor feel his grief at the loss of Lois.
Taylor injects the typical stuff we've all seen elsewhere in contemporary fare: Catwoman lecturing the president (and Batman) about "doing better" and giving him (them) a hard time with the usual litany of liberal gripes, including gun control. (Y'know, an issue way down on the list of voters' concerns.)
Perhaps the most laughable scene regarding this issue is Superman playing chess with the Flash and out of the blue saying "I want to ban guns."
Flash counters with "Do you think people will let you?" (as if they could do anything about it) and to be sure, the issue is debated, along with other matters. It's just done rather clumsily.
A la Squadron Supreme, two teams of heroes form -- Superman, Wonder Woman and Shazam lead those who want to exercise their (super)power to alleviate the ills of the world; Batman leads those in opposition. (In Gruenwald's SS, ironically it was the Batman analogue Nighthawk who formed the opposition team against Superman/Wonder Woman analogues Hyperion/Power Princess and co.)
Superman, once the notion of killing is out of his system, proceeds to off Martian Manhunter and Green Arrow in the process of establishing his "better world." And both deaths don't seem to mean much. Superman and Wonder Woman's attitudes were like "Meh, had to be done." The Soviet Superman in Red Son had a higher moral plane.
The second trade features essentially worthless battles with Apokolips acolytes and Lobo, and furthers the battles between the two superhero armies. I started to get bored. But I guess I'll continue reading ... since I ain't paying for it.
It's insanity like this:
Police were responding to a report of a stolen car when they ran Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno and found he was facing a deportation order, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. He would later be turned over to federal immigration agents.
Figueroa-Zarceno was subject to deportation for failure to appear at an immigration hearing in 2015 and from a 2012 conviction for drunken driving, the Chronicle reported.
The San Francisco Police Department has since launched an investigation to determine if any officers involved are subject to discipline for a possible breach of local sanctuary-city laws.
“We want to make sure that the police officers who committed this offense and obviously violated the law themselves are held accountable,” Jeff Adachi, a public defender, told KGO.
Taking the absurdity a step further, the department celebrated the illegal immigrant’s release back into the community — Figueroa-Zarceno, who has lawyered up, was released on bail Wednesday after being held for two months.
“We are happy and relieved that Mr. Figueroa-Zarceno has been restored to his family,” SFPD spokesman Sgt. Michael Andraychak said, according to the Chronicle. (Source)
"Rule of law" applies only to little people. And non-"progressives."
Remember, if you question in any way the science behind
global warming climate change, you're "anti-science."
So, I wonder what that makes the ghouls at NARAL -- the National Abortion Rights Action League -- since they've taken issue with a Doritos ad from last night's Super Bowl:
(By the way, NARAL's current name is "NARAL Pro-Choice America," having altered it several times apparently to make it more "socially palatable." I decided to use the one which best describes its mission.)
Our 'ol pal, the gnomish one Dan Slott, tweets yesterday:
In 2016, you see someone using— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 7, 2016
"SJW" in an argument you know 2 things:
They're on the wrong side of history
and they're not worth your time.
Well, they're trying to take over the culture. The fact that Slott is getting push-back is a sign people aren't just rolling over and taking it. The rise of The Donald (sadly, in this case) is another example.
We need to get from some to enough. And really, we’ll know we’ve achieved success when Captain America can have a boyfriend, and Wonder Woman can have a girlfriend. For queer representation in superhero comics, that’s what success looks like.
You see? You can't just create new characters who happen to be gay. Apparently, that's too difficult for the modern cadre of comicsfolk. You can't even just retcon secondary characters with nebulous backgrounds into gay characters.
You have to make the biggest cultural icons that are out there gay.
Only then will the SJWs consider that a success. Only. And if you object, you're a hateful homophobic bigot. (Adjectives are subject to change, natch, depending on the "aggrieved minority class" being discussed at the time.)
As The Federalist's John Trent writes, "The push for diversity in comics is a vision of the anointed that is unsatisfied with representation that reflects reality."
Social Justice Warriors don't want just acceptance, you see. They demand that you agree with everything they believe and say -- else you're evil incarnate. If you say "Hey Captain America can't have a boyfriend -- that goes against his entire history!" you'd best be ready for an onslaught of ultra-PC verbal violence which you've never before experienced.
Like anything else SJWs have touched (and remember -- there's a big difference between a standard liberal and a SJW), comics in their current form will wither away to nothingness. They're already a pale imitation of what has come before, and with the pandering to the SJWs, coupled with the ridiculous creative laziness of those in charge, it'd be little surprise if comics as we know them cease to exist in the next decade.
... "progressives" have immediately jumped on the fact that a Texas grand jury has indicted the two people responsible for the undercover sting videos of Planned Parenthood, meaning the latter is completely exonerated? But ...
... when it's a grand jury refusing to indict a cop who used deadly force (especially against a minority), it's a miscarriage of justice and an indictment of the justice system itself, right?
I know, I know ... just when you think you've seen it ALL, along comes something else.
PBS(!!) recently gave Muslim activist and author Haroon Moghul a forum by which to lobby for a Muslim character in, of all places, STAR WARS.
Indeed. For, we all know that everybody immediately associates "Ben" and "Luke" with their religious origins. Mm-hmm.
Star Trek would make more sense for this activists's desires; of course, however, there's been very little discussion of Earthly religions on the many Trek shows over the universe's 50 years.
And hey -- wasn't the captain of the Kelvin in JJ Abrams' 2009 Trek reboot a Muslim? We actually never knew, just as we don't know much about any Trek character's religion, but he sure looked like he could have been (especially since the same actor played a Muslim in Iron Man and, not to mention, has a Pakistani background.)
Back to Star Wars: couldn't it be argued that the famous Admiral Ackbar from Return of the Jedi is based on the Arabic word "great"?
Oh, and lookee here -- someone agrees with me from six years ago:
…the Arabic word for "great," akbar, has been adapted into George Lucas's Star Wars franchise, in the form of Admiral Ackbar, a heroic character and military commander whose success in space helps Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance repel Darth Vader's Galactic Empire. Featured in Return of the Jedi, Ackbar is just one of many characters and settings in the Star Wars universe that have an Arabic background. Luke Skywalker's home planet, Tatooine, takes its name from the Tunisian city of Tataouine (al-Tataouine in Arabic). Darth Vader's home planet is Mustafar, a slight variation of Mustafa, an Arabic name that means "the chosen one" (and is one of 99 names for the Muslim prophet Muhammad). Attack of the Clones showcases Queen Jamilla, whose name is a slight variation of jamilla, an Arabic word for "beautiful." And Revenge of the Sith features Senator Meena Tills, whose first name means "heaven" in Arabic.
So, give us a break already, Mr. Moghul. Islamophobia, such that it is, still lags well behind anti-Semitism as a social/cultural problem, and it's really not even close.
Maybe we actually need more overtly Jewish symbols in our science fiction.
This would ever happen today? That is, you think Arsenio would be able to survive this confrontation unscathed?
I, for one, doubt it very much.
"People can interpret the relationship however they want to interpret it," said Joe Russo when oddly asked if Cap and Bucky's relationship is somewhat sexual in Civil War.
"For us, we’ve always interpreted the relationship as two brothers. They’re very close characters, they have a relationship with each other that is very deep. The bond between them is very strong, [which is] what motivates the storytelling. These are both characters that came from nothing. Captain America was basically an orphan, and Bucky’s family took him in. When he was sleep for several years, he lost everything that was dear to him. And when he took the serum and became Captain America, he gave away a large part of himself for a patriotic cause. So, you have a character who is searching for the only thing that he has left from his past… and that’s Bucky. And people interpreted that relationship all kinds of ways and it’s great to see people argue about it what that relationship means to them."
At least (for the time being) we have some guys (the Russos) with some common sense. And, it's good to see ComicBookMovie.com use the term "oddly" in its write-up of the matter.
Wonder now if they'll be denounced as homophobic ...
"School choice should be easy, consistent and nondiscriminatory" says the Delaware Enrollment Preferences Task Force, and this means, in part, not having to provide any sort of identification to school officials.
"Our students do not care what party we are aligned with and they deserve schools that will, first and foremost, accept them and then nurture and educate them in a way that ensures that Delaware's future is bright," Task Force Co-chair Kim Williams, a Democratic state legislator representing Newport and Stanton, wrote in the report's foreword.
The report also noted that most task force members believe parents should never be asked to prove Delaware residency, provide proof of identity or show their child's birth certificate to school officials.
So, this task force cares not that Delaware taxpayers would fit the bill for those coming across the PA state line to attend northern Wilmington schools? Really?? Hey, a reminder: You represent us.
In addition, group members recommend that schools not be able to inquire as to the behavior (re: misbehavior) of school choice/charter applicants. In other words, if a kid has been suspended numerous times, the potential school shouldn't know ahead of time. Sounds just dandy! (/sarcasm)
Here's an idea: Why doesn't this task force take a poll about these concerns? Anyone wanna bet that the results will be akin to those regarding voter ID?
Just another reason why your average play-by-the-rules voter is beyond fed up.
Our pal Dan Slott retweets:
There is absolutely nothing bad in seeing yourself in a character who doesn't look like you, or is another gender, race, etc. than you.— Femmes in the Fridge (@FemmesinFridges) December 21, 2015
Here's but one of innumerable examples. We're sure you've read 'em all before.
In a nutshell, let's rephrase that tweet above from the real 'bat SJW perspective: "There is absolutely nothing bad in seeing yourself in a character who doesn't look like you, or is another gender, race, etc. than you ... unless that character is straight and white, of course."
Really wish this idiot would get his head straight. Just once.
Read this and try not to say to yourself "What. The. F***?"
Anyone think the morons at the News Journal or the three politicians would rush out there to exclaim same about the political right ... and/or law-abiding gun owners?
I've shaken my head so often of late it's about to fall off ... and this certainly doesn't help:
You knew it was gonna happen -- the usual comicbook 'bats have chimed in with their "superior" intellects about the terror attacks in France last Friday ... because, after all, they're soooo smart. Because they write comics. And have thousands of Twitter followers.
Here's Captain America scribe Nick Spencer saying that the LAST thing we need to do is ... stop allowing mid-east refugees into our countries:
The GOAL for ISIS is that we stop accepting these refugees. People pretending to 'get tough' are actually caving in to enemy's demands.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) November 14, 2015
The world helping these refugees has been a real PR problem for ISIS. The world turning on them now would be their best recruiting tool.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) November 14, 2015
Folks, it doesn't get much more progressive-elitist bullshittery than that.
Here's our 'ol pal Ron Marz:
The last time there was an attack this horrific, our foolish response gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted. Let's not do that again.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 14, 2015
Then there was this retweet by Marz, Mark Waid and Kurt Busiek:
Before I log off, I leave you with this. It's maybe the most important thing to know about the Paris attack. pic.twitter.com/x57bXmpOYP— Hend Amry (@LibyaLiberty) November 14, 2015
The sad fact of the matter is that ISIS knows it can count on touchy-feelie types like these dopes to disseminate memes like the above. Face it: there was NO massive anti-Muslim backlash after 9/11, no matter what "progressives" tell you. The Left fears the "dreaded" right-wing -- and groups like the NRA -- more than they fear radical Islamist groups. Remember, Hillary Clinton referred to the GOP as her "enemy," not ISIS or al Qaeda, or anyone like that.
President Lemon immediately went after the NRA and believers in the 2nd Amendment after shootings in Roseburg, Oregon. But Friday after the France attacks? "I don't want to speculate." Absolutely unbelievable.
Speaking of Bernie Sanders (and not France related), here's Marz again:
#DemDebate is a conversation between intelligent adults, It's refreshing. (Small number of participants helps.)— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 15, 2015
Real "high bar" 'ya have there, Ronnie.
Lastly, this may be the most sensible tweet of all:
I feel like everyone is suddenly an expert on everything related to terrorism, and I feel like I know nothing at all.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 16, 2015
... just remember the following:
Yeah, that's Marvel bigwig Tom Brevoort saying they "probably" wouldn't allow Frank Miller to do a Captain America tale a la his Holy Terror story.
Cap can, however, go after the Tea Party and put forth messages that being against illegal immigration is racist/hateful/xenophobic/outoftouch ... but battle radical Islamic terrorists? INSENSITIVE! INTOLERANT!
And this from Grant Morrison on the Miller work:
Batman vs. Al Qaeda! It might as well be Bin Laden vs. King Kong! Or how about the sinister Al Qaeda mastermind up against a hungry Hannibal Lecter! For all the good it's likely to do. Cheering on a fictional character as he beats up fictionalized terrorists seems like a decadent indulgence when real terrorists are killing real people in the real world. I'd be so much more impressed if Frank Miller gave up all this graphic novel nonsense, joined the Army and, with a howl of undying hate, rushed headlong onto the front lines with the young soldiers who are actually risking life and limb 'vs.' Al Qaeda.
I'd be impressed if Morrison bought a pricey mansion along the US-Mexico border with no fences or other means of security. Or spoke out against the government so that he'd become targeted by the IRS (or whatever state enforcement arm). Or had his healthcare premiums skyrocket after being outright lied to by the chief exec. Or ...
But comics creators at large didn't have to be that vocal about Miller's anti-al Qaeda work, because the innumerable media voices did it for them:
Newsarama: “[Holy Terror] doesn't look at the villains in any way or explore the differences between Muslims and terrorists "a mean and ugly book.”
Robot 6: “ ... the work of someone who was profoundly affected by the events of September 11th, to the point where fear took over from whatever artistic drive used to push [his] work."
Wired: "Fodder for the anti-Islam set."
Comics Alliance: "The slurs against Islam continue as the book goes on ..."
USA Today: "winds up buried under its one-dimensional barrage of patriotism ... the rah-rah enthusiasm for wasting terrorists so nastily would seem more fitting or even a cathartic experience for some."
ComicBookMovie.com: "probably the most ridiculous, shallow, offensive piece of propaganda I think I’ve ever read."
Think Progress: "noxious politics ... viciously Islamophobic sentiments ... twisted thinking."
Las Vegas Weekly: "... in service of an ugly story and uglier politics."
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "a nasty, though visually arresting expression of xenophobic rage against Muslims ... conflates all Muslims with terrorists with a racist gusto."
So, comics have always involved politics, the contemporary creators say? Sure, but now and for many years, the tales have had to be of the "right kind." That trashing radical Islamists is "racist," "noxious," and "ugly," while going after the Tea Party and utilizing a long-time racist group as the voice for a very legitimate and popular political point of view, shows just how far "progressives" and the Democrat Party has fallen.
Part of this is down to the bristling idea that superhero comics shouldn’t—and, bizarrely enough, can’t—feature commentary on current social issues. That, to some people, superhero comics are meant to be for young kids, and because they deal with people in spandex punching people in spandex, they should be sequestered off in a land of magic pixie dust, not rooted in our own world.
Is it political? Of course it is. It’s what Captain America as a character has been like since his creation. Like I mentioned, in his first appearance, he punched a goddamn fascist in the face.
But the other part of it is an alleged shock that a dude running around calling himself Captain America and fighting for the little guy might have some left-leaning ideals. The main furor that burst forth this weekend over Sam Wilson: Captain America #1 has been very much from sites that Spencer and Acuña lampoon in the issue itself: That somehow, by choosing to not be a mouthpiece of the Government or SHIELD and stand solely for the American people, Sam is now “Anti-American.”
"Fighting for the little guy?" What about the little guys who are miffed about the politicos who could care less about unabated immigration, especially those along the southern border who bear the brunt of it, with all that entails? Why doesn't Wilson stand up for them?
Whitbrook and innumerable commenters at the article scream about how Cap is "political" because his first cover had him punching Hitler in the face. As if a genocidal fascist and lawful immigration concerns of millions of Americans are on the same level?? Seriously? Is that where we're at now?
Conservatives aren't upset that Cap is "suddenly political" as Whitbrook and others would have you believe -- it's the continuation of the politics that superheroes champion ... as we've detailed here quite often.
The author mentions Cap's "Secret Empire" tale; as I wrote over two years ago, "I wonder if any comics writers out there would be brave enough to have Capt. America fight the Secret Empire again ... but this time with Barack Obama as Number One?" The crimes for which Richard Nixon would have been impeached arguably pale in comparison to some of the things we see today; however, because the media, in its myriad forms, likes and approves of Barack Obama -- while it hated Nixon -- don't hold your breath waiting to see Boss Obama as the new Number One.
Also as we've written here at Colossus, conservatives and the very concept of patriotism are routinely lampooned in comics' panels. In Captain America itself, the Cap of the 1950s was shown to be a mentally unstable loose cannon -- so much so that his virulent 1950s anti-Communism led to unveiled racism in the 1970s.
In the 1980s one of Cap's replacements was John Walker, formerly the Super Patriot. He too was portrayed as a psychotic, with even a panel in an issue of West Coast Avengers showing him mumbling to himself ... and the Avengers who are listening in are freaked out about it.
l love, also, how Whitbrook ponders conservatives being upset that Cap wouldn't represent the federal government. Why would conservatives be miffed that Cap doesn't want to be the "mouthpiece" for the feds ... or SHIELD? Are not conservatives inherently distrustful of government?
Perhaps the most laughable aspect of this whole thing is how "progressives" are pooh-poohing the very notion of why wouldn't Cap get political and go after people who are breaking the law (who, ironically, are trying to stop people from breaking the law) ... because these are the very same folks who were upset that Batman was going to go after Islamic terrorists! That's right -- as the LA Times reported, DC insiders were wary of the political concept behind what eventually would become Holy Terror ... sans the Caped Crusader.
Cap can punch Hitler in the nose, but Batman can't off radical Islamic killers. This is the politics of contemporary comics ... and this what pisses off conservatives.
Actually, it's the Sons of the Serpent, a long mainstay baddie organization in Marvel Comics lore. But this time, being it's 2015, and that Marvel, among other comic companies, has been co-opted by elitist I-know-better-than-you "progressives," the Sons of the Serpent supposedly fill in for ... Donald Trump.
As Chuck Ross reports, Captain America: Sam Wilson #1 has the villains around the US-Mexico border hassling illegals attempting to make their way into the US.
So what does Cap do? Flies in and busts some Serpent heads. (Cap is now Sam Wilson, the former Falcon, the original Cap's longtime partner.)
Which, in the whole scheme of things, makes perfect sense. Again, the SotS has a loooooong history of making trouble in the Marvel Universe, and this is no exception. Historically, they're white supremacist nasties with whom the Avengers, to name one, have dealt several times.
But writer Nick Spencer -- like way too many other creators these days -- doesn't even try to be subtle. He's trying to link -- make -- The Donald (to) these thugs, and in the process totally invalidate arguments against illegal immigration.
Don't believe me? Check it:
Apparently hate speech is just fine so long as it brings in the ratings. Let's all be entertained by Trump!— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) October 13, 2015
(Quick aside -- jump to present day: Trump blasts illegals from Mexico as criminals; on the other hand, Democratic candidates get chided and protested for daring to say "all lives matter" instead of "black lives matter" ... the Serpents' Dunn and Hale would indeed be proud to see their work continued. The difference being, of course, that only the former gets grief from the popular media.)
But hey, that was back when Marvel actually attempted to be even-handed politically, or when dealing with issues of civil rights (which the pages of The Avengers and Captain America did quite often in the 1960s-70s), it was pretty straightforward stuff with which any decent American couldn't argue. Basic human and civil rights for blacks and other minority Americans? Women? The writers back then handled the delicate political topics expertly.
The problem with Spencer and his contemporary peers is that they take their far-left politics and inject them into the characters we all know and love, and in the process belittle the very legitimate political concerns of a huge number of Americans. Anyone remember when Cap and the Falcon went after the Tea Party?
Illegal immigration is a hot political topic, and a quite legitimate one. But Spencer would reduce the discussion to one that is completely black and white (no pun intended): Wanting to prevent illegal immigration, and/or enacting common sense methods to reduce it are xenophobic and racist. Period. You're no better than the Sons of the Serpent, for cryin' out loud ... and neither is the current Republican front-runner.
I'd say it's insulting and beyond boring, but it's way past that point now. With the current crop of creators that infest the industry today, I'll continue to wait for printed comics' slow, agonizing death.
The company is "celebrating" the 50th anniversary of SHIELD with a ... "special" issue.
(Before we continue, bonus points for anyone who knows what the acronym SHIELD means -- there's three versions, actually.*)
Fury #1 features both Nick Furys -- the original (white) guy, and the former "Ultimate" (black) version modeled after Samuel L. Jackson. Apparently some crazed individual plans to travel back in time to ... assassinate a young Barack Obama in 1965. (The prez was born in 1961.)
Now, you may ask "Why? What could possibly be gained by doing that?"
All you need do is scope out these panels. There it is -- (black) Nick Fury examining scenes of 1965 America and 2015 America. In the former, we witness a black youth being beaten by police. In 2015 we see -- wait for it! -- the 'ol "Hands Up, Don't Shoot," a black youth standing with his hands raised in front of police decked out in riot gear and pointing rifles at the kid:
Of course, that expression and the whole movement based on it was a fraud, but what does writer David Walker care? He's a got a narrative to push, and in a nutshell that narrative says "Nothing has changed at all in 50 years for African-Americans."
But back to the president. Check out this panel:
Well, duh -- temporal mechanics says killing anyone in the past will "change the world as it's supposed to be." But really -- other than being the first black president, which certainly is a symbolic event -- what has Obama done that has been so "world changing"??
Have race relations improved since his election? Not according to this recent NY Times/CBS News poll:
... nearly six in 10 Americans, including heavy majorities of both whites and blacks, think race relations are generally bad, and that nearly four in 10 think the situation is getting worse.
By comparison, two-thirds of Americans surveyed shortly after President Obama took office said they believed that race relations were generally good.
Anyone remember Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention?
Maybe that's why people had such a positive view of race relations prior to him being elected. Then his actual actions spoke for him, and, well, see those current poll numbers again.
I'm sure writer Walker could care less about those numbers, and would probably blame it all on "racism," as asinine as that would be, natch. It shouldn't be the least bit surprising, though, for, after all, he adheres to the fictitious story surrounding Michael Brown. So hell, why not create a story where we're supposed to believe that, other than pure symbolism, Barack Obama is some mythical, larger-than-life figure whose presence in history needs to be preserved at all costs?
Martin Luther King Jr., who truly is a monumental historical civil rights figure, and whose actions truly effected great (racial) change, would have been a much more logical focus of such a story.
* Original: Supreme Headquarters, International Espionage, Law-Enforcement Division.
1991 meaning: Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate.
Movie/TV show meaning: Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division.
... and Wonder Woman is one. Supposedly.
Poor Ron Marz. Always looking for something with which to rip that "other" political party. Here, he's jumped on a comment by Jeb Bush (made at the most recent GOP debate) regarding his brother Dubya:
Except for that collapsed building he's standing on. https://t.co/hZKBg3XJZZ— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) September 17, 2015
Indeed. Not even eight months on the job after his predecessor, Bill Clinton, turned down an offer to have Osama bin Laden handed over to the US ... because supposedly the legality was dubious.
How many were cheering Clinton on for that?
Well, he's apparently very sleepy. That's something. https://t.co/SxUgUof8eu— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) September 17, 2015
This is in response to fellow comics guy Fabian Nicieza tweeting that Ben Carson "was probably a great neurosurgeon, but can someone please tell me based on WHAT QUALIFICATIONS should he be President?"
Hmm, as opposed to what -- a community organizer, say?
Oh, and Marz and Nicieza must be RACISTS for mocking Dr. Carson.
Son's teacher said "whole entire" today. Son raised his hand and told her that was redundant. #GoodBoy— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) September 17, 2015
Isn't that special. Apple, tree and all that. (Note: I've deleted the previous "offspring" reference as, after consideration, it's out of bounds. Even though Marz brought it up for his own silly purposes, I should have left it alone. Bigger fish and all that ....)
And, as "good" "progressives" always do -- jumping on the SJW bandwagon for ridiculous causes -- here's the gnomish Dan Slott on the Texas clock-making kid:
.@CNNPolitics Good job deleting the offensive tweet. But you're still getting it wrong. The term you're looking for is "falsely accused".— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) September 16, 2015
Oh gosh -- CNN's tweet was "offensive." You know why you've never seen Slott tweet about the many other students younger than Ahmed who were ridiculously disciplined for antics supposedly involving "guns?"
1) Because like all SJWs only "certain" people matter;
2) Slott hates guns and as such probably secretly agrees with what happened to those kids, and
3) Slott is a douche.
Of course, many other creators jumped on the Ahmed bandwagon. We all know why, too.
Yesterday, a 9th grader at a school in Texas brought a homemade clock to school. According to reports, Ahmed Mohamed, a supposed technology aficionado, wanted to show it off to his engineering teacher.
But apparently it began beeping in English class, and when Ahmed showed it to that teacher, she said "It looks like a bomb."
Here's a pic of Ahmed's device.
The English teacher held on to the clock, and, it seems, notified the principal. A little while later, the principal and a cop pulled Ahmed out of class. And that's when things got a little ... silly.
They led Ahmed into a room where four other police officers waited. He said an officer he’d never seen before leaned back in his chair and remarked: “Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”
Ahmed felt suddenly conscious of his brown skin and his name — one of the most common in the Muslim religion. But the police kept him busy with questions.
The bell rang at least twice, he said, while the officers searched his belongings and questioned his intentions. The principal threatened to expel him if he didn’t make a written statement, he said.
“They were like, ‘So you tried to make a bomb?’” Ahmed said.
“I told them no, I was trying to make a clock.”
“He said, ‘It looks like a movie bomb to me.’”
The police believed Ahmed was being evasive. Nevertheless, they ended up not pressing charges after they were convinced everything was kosher.
It's seems highly unreasonable that Ahmed had to be cuffed and fingerprinted.
The police ended up not charging him with anything after everything settled down.
But the social justice warriors were aghast. Automatically, as if on cue, social media lit up blaming the fact that Ahmed is Muslim for his treatment. That (like the quote above says) because his skin is brown.
A popular former Delaware blogger took to social media yesterday too, emphatically stating that "His name is Ahmed -- that's all you need to know."
To all of which I say, "Bullsh**."
Ian Tuttle at The Corner shows exactly why:
And the list keeps going.
As Tuttle says, the story isn't about “Islamophobia” and “white privilege”— "it’s about a few people in positions of authority who overreacted to the possibility of a weapon. Which, as it happens, is a too-frequent occurrence all over the country, regardless of the color of your skin."
The real difference between Ahmed and all those above is that the former got invited to the White House and numerous other places as a result of his school's actions.
You can probably figure out why, in part. That bullet list (no pun intended) features discipline related to guns. All Ahmed did was make a clock that just happened, at a glance, to look like an explosive device. (/sarcasm)
If race/ethnicity played any part in this whole fiasco, in the long run it was to Ahmed's overwhelming benefit. What did all those (younger) kids get for their even more obvious innocent actions?
I dunno. Do you?
John Nolte has still more.
This past weekend I wrote about "retroactive repression" -- a term used to make us feel all giddy about our contemporary moral superiority by altering the past with modern sensibilities.
The latest: The early 80s mystery show "Hart to Hart" starring Robert Wagner and Stefanie Powers will be rebooted ... featuring a gay couple.
According to Variety sister site Deadline, who first broke the news, the new “Hart to Hart” is described as a modern and sexy retelling of the classic series that focuses on “by the book” attorney Jonathan Hart and free-spirited investigator Dan Hartman, who must balance the two sides of their life: action-packed crime-solving in the midst of newly found domesticity.
Isn't that special.
h/t to Paul Hair.
"[T]he book holds 'white readers accountable for their complicity in the real-world situations that the comic analogizes,'" says comicbook critic Emma Houxbois.
But of course.
Read more about the storyline from my pal Douglas Ernst.
The new Daredevil creative team will be giving the Man Without Fear an ... illegal immigrant as a sidekick.
Remember -- Matt Murdock is a lawyer.
Because why not, right? It's a lot easier to reappropriate classic characters than to actually create new ones.
This will be the first time in Marvel’s history that they will publish a series starring a Korean-American character made by Korean-American creators – writer Greg Pak, and artist Frank Cho.
The key difference between this new Hulk and the traditional Bruce Banner version is that Amadeus Cho is going to actually enjoy becoming the Hulk.
“[Amadeus] is going to be a very different kind of Hulk. He’s 19 years old, he’s on top of the world, he thinks he’s right about everything…and he might be,” Pak told Entertainment Weekly. “Or he might not be. But this is a kid who’s got a ridiculous amount of confidence. A lot of it has been justly earned, but he may be in over his head, and he’s going to come in here and he’s determined to be the best Hulk there’s ever been. He loves being the Hulk. And that may cause massive trouble for everyone else in the Marvel Universe. It’s just a great recipe.” (Source)
The article notes that Cho is "officially the 7th smartest character in the Marvel Universe, just behind Tony Stark, Reed Richards, Bruce Banner, and Beast."
That's only four ahead of him, so who are the other two? And why is Cho ranked behind four white guys, hmm? Not to mention, isn't Cho being so smart and into science kind of stereotyping Asians?
A federal judge has ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her deputies to appear in his courtroom Thursday and explain why Davis should not be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses. … In a brief but tense encounter between Davis and a couple dozen marriage-equality demonstrators who crowded into her office, the clerk repeatedly refused to comply with the court order.
“Under whose authority are you not issuing marriage licenses?” someone in the crowd asked Davis.
“Under God’s authority,” she responded.
A Muslim flight attendant has filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEO) claiming she was suspended from her job for not serving alcohol
Why would a devout Muslim want to be a flight attendant when half your job is serving alcohol.
This is just like the devout Muslim who sued soft porn retailer Abercrombie and Fitch because she wanted to wear the hijab.
The EEOC is suing Star Transport for rightfully terminating two Muslims who refused to do their job. If these Muslim truck drivers don’t want to deliver alcohol, then they shouldn’t have taken a job in which part of their duties would be to deliver alcohol. It’s that simple.
So, we have the government going to bat for some religious liberties but not others.
The job is the job. If your personal moral or religious code prevents you from doing the job, you should be rightly fired. However, if you are a private entity you should be allowed to provide service to whomever you wish and deny whatever you wish. It is wrong to compel a observant Muslim or Jewish restaurant to serve pork. I would be wrong to ask them to cater an event where pork or pigs were a major factor.
It would be wrong for a wedding hall that caters to Muslims or Mormons to be forced to allow alcohol on its premises.
Why can't we get this right?
That's what you do to people who rely on your cash for their living ... but for some reason feel the need to piss all over you if you have different opinions.
You may have read about the nonsense at this year's Hugo Awards. Check out Larry Correia's take on it all if you want to get caught up. Basically, science fiction has been hijacked by those of similar mind to college campus nuts who go out of their way to label anyone who disagrees with them as "racist, sexist, homophobic, etc." All in the name of "diversity," you see.
Scifi author John Scalzi is one of these nuts, unfortunately. Scalzi jumped onto the scifi map with the awesome Old Man's War a decade ago, and while his tale borrows heavily from greats Robert Heinlein (Starship Troopers) and Joe Haldeman (The Forever War), he makes his own mark.
Unfortunately, his subsequent stories went downhill from there. As did Scalzi's relationship with approximately half of his audience due to his smug, I-know-better-than-you elitist style of "progressivism."
One article to which Scalzi links is sadly funny. Seriously, who freakin' cares about the gender/race/sexual orientation of a writer ... as long as the story is damn good?? Not to mention, what has stopped women, minorities and/or gays from entering the field ... if their tales are good ones?
Oh, but guys like Scalzi care. There are now, it seems, gender/race/sexual orientation quotas for science fiction quality. And if you disagree, "[fill in '-ist' epithet]."
John has his latest book out set in the Old Man's War universe, titled The End of All Things. But y'know what? Despite having read (bought) all the previous entries in the series, I'll be skipping this one. Because why should I give my money to a person who openly sh**s on people for (honest) political and cultural disagreements? He's the same as comicbooks guys Dan Slott, Ron Marz, Mark Waid, Gail Simone, and Kurt Busiek.
How delightfully delicious.
Dan Slott, writer of Spider-Man and more hypocritical than a Bill Clinton-loving feminist, sniveled before the social justice warrior crowd a week and half ago after he supposedly was "insensitive" -- insensitive to an apparently gay comicbook fan who stated he was metaphorically "bleeding" (because of lack of progress on the comics diversity front. I guess.)
It seems Danny Boy was defending Marvel editor-in-chief Axel Alonso who had also taken issue with the race/gender/sexual orientation SJW bean counters in an interview.
Of course, Alonso incurred that group's wrath -- for the "crimes" of giving creator chores for Blade to white guys, and stating that Hercules would be straight (not gay or bi) in his new upcoming series.
But, after Slott's initial defense of his editor, check out his mewling apology to the SJW snowflakes:
An apology to any & all LGBTQ readers and fellow geeks and fans.
I screwed up. I was so focused on seeing a situation from my side of the equation, I didn't come to the table with enough empathy for others. That's all on me.
Saying the equivalent of "change is coming" and "can you cut us some slack" is a pretty awful thing to say to someone who's hurting-- to someone who wants, needs, and deserves change NOW. Not tomorrow. Now.
Not going to couch this in "Here's what I was thinking", "here's how you misread what I said", or "here's how I have been trying to bring diversity into comics". Because the word that keeps popping up in any of that is "I", "I", and "I". And, end of the day, "I" don't matter in any of this.
This is about the people who are being effected by the actual injustice and unfairness of it all. And the only thing you really need me to say that starts with "I" is:
I screwed up. And I am genuinely sorry.
(Um, you'd think a writer of a Marvel flagship title would know the difference between "effected" and "affected.")
Alas, Slott is attempting to maintain his "progressive" bonafides by getting on his knees and seeking forgiveness from a perpetually aggrieved group.
But he'll keep shitting on right-of-center fans who arguably make up a (much) larger percentage of comicbook readers and fans than the eternally angry SJWs.
And so it goes ...
So much to say ... but why do so when the inimitable Doug Ernst does it so perfectly?
"We’re going to beat the hell out of you. And you’re going to crack. You’re going to fight back. And then we’re going to roll over every other moron on this street,” says Sergeant Binghamton to Superman.
So "edgy." So "relevant." So ... predictable. The only thing missing is Superman holding his hands up in a "hands up, don't shoot" gesture.
You want to be really "edgy," comic creators? Try something like Steve Englehart's Capt. America "Secret Empire" story from the early 1970s -- but replace Richard Nixon/Number One with Barack Obama.
It's beyond hilarious when so-called "progressives" can't keep track of the politically correct hierarchy and f*** up. Such was the case this weekend at the annual Nutroots Nation lunatic fringe conference in Phoenix.
MSNBC reported that Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders both failed to appease the angry protesters chanting “Black lives matter,” who forcefully approached the stage partway through O’Malley’s conversation with journalist Jose Antonio Vargas.
“It’s not like we like shutting s**t down, but we have to,” Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors said. “We are tired of being interrupted,” she asserted with no apparent sense of the irony.
“Every single day folks are dying. Not being able to take another breath," she explained to any listeners who might be unclear on the concept of dying. "We are in a state of emergency. If you don’t feel that emergency, you are not human.”
Translation: if you don't side with us unequivocally, you're not worthy of consideration or conversation.
O'Malley made the fatal mistake of saying "Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter.”
He should have stopped right before that first comma.
"Proudly undocumented" MC José Antonio Vargas couldn't regain control of the conference after O'Malley's "gaffe," and then Bernie Sanders' attempt at placating the crowd. And he really didn't try:
Megyn Kelly on Boss Obama's "priorities":
Kate [Steinle]’s murder has since exploded into a national debate on illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities, and crime. With the White House ducking the issue of its own acquiescence in these cities’ decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted. When asked repeatedly this week to speak to this case, White House spokesman Josh Earnest declined to weigh in other than to refer folks to the Department of Homeland Security.
A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson. A man we know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally and his administration also sent in the DOJ and 40 FBI agents dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed. Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco?
Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray’s death. And again sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the president spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Katie Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?
Obama has a bit over a year left in office. If the answer isn't obvious by now, you're a moron.
Jim Geraghty from his e-mailed Morning Jolt adds:
The message from the White House was pretty clear after the Trayvon Martin shooting, Ferguson, and Baltimore: This is a legitimate reason for outrage, and we’re as outraged as you are. The silence from the White House indicates Katie Steinle’s murder is not a cause for outrage. And while Donald Trump made his comments about crimes committed by illegal immigrants from Mexico before Steinle’s murder, the gang-tackling denunciation indicates that quite a few media voices believe that just bringing up the issue of crimes committed by illegal immigrants is somehow illegitimate or morally wrong.
But of course. It's just like anyone who wants a secure border, better immigration enforcement, and no assorted perks for illegals (like drivers licenses, in-state college tuition) is "anti-immigrant." It's a pathetic, sad joke, put forth by "progressives" like Boss Obama and perpetuated by the dopes in the mainstream media.
Donald Trump is an opportunistic blowhard, but his I-don't-care honesty has struck a chord with the anti-PC segment of the population.
The "sanctuary city" bullsh** has to end. As WPHT radio's Rich Zeoli was tweeting last week, why don't people begin thumbing their collective noses at other laws ... and declare a "sanctuary city" against those laws?
Looks like Brandywine Creek State Park may have to cease those Civil War re-enactments soon.
Based on Marvel Comics' Brian Michael Bendis's claim that the new Spider-Man isn't one "with an asterisk," here's what his Avengers roster and TOS Star Trek crew would look like:
The "half" asterisks for the Hulk and Spock are due to the former being a plain 'ol white guy only some of the time, and the latter being only half (white)-human.
It truly is amazing the mindset that Marvel Comics has these days.
It was recently announced that the "new" Spider-Man will be Miles Morales, a teen of black-Hispanic descent. Co-creator of the character Brian Michael Bendis appears to have a very warped idea of how young kids play:
The enormity of Miles Morales’ place in comic book history didn’t really hit Bendis, a father who has two kids of color among his four children, until recently. His 4-year-old adopted African-American daughter found a Miles Morales Spidey mask in the toy aisle of a department store, put it on and said, “Look daddy, I’m Spider-Man!” he recalls.
“I started crying in the middle of the aisle,” says Bendis. “I realized my kids are going to grow up in a world that has a multi-racial Spider-Man, and an African American Captain America and a female Thor.”
Many kids of color who when they were playing superheroes with their friends, their friends wouldn’t let them be Batman or Superman because they don’t look like those heroes but they could be Spider-Man because anyone could be under that mask.
As Douglas Ernst (to whom the hat tip goes for this story, and who totally shreds Bendis's insanity) says:
What? What neighborhood did Mr. Bendis grow up in, where little white kids were telling black friends they could pretend to have been bitten by a radioactive spider, but they couldn’t pretend to look like Steve Rogers?
What neighborhood did Mr. Bendis grow up in, where a white kid’s imagination allowed him to be a green ninja turtle, but not James Rhodes?
It must have been a neighborhood that cultivated a mindset which comes up with this sort of logic: “Our message has to be it’s not Spider-Man with an asterisk, it’s the real Spider-Man for kids of color, for adults of color and everybody else.”
This is just like the "bigotry of soft expectations" that many (white) "progressives" harbor with respect to minorities. Just as blacks and other minorities can't, and shouldn't, be expected to conform/do/behave/etc. as the majority population does, they also now can't identify with white superheroes.
But ... whites can identify with minority superheroes, you see!
Does it surprise anyone that a rich, white liberal like Bendis has just inadvertently reinforced white supremacy?
In closing, here's Doug again:
One of my favorite G.I. Joe characters as a kid was Roadblock. When I watched the Rocky movies I loved Apollo Creed. My brother introduced me to Marvel’s Iron Man, and I took a liking to James Rhodes. My favorite football player was Marcus Allen. Likewise, I loved G.I. Joe’s Flint, Rocky’s “Italian Stallion,” Iron Man’s Tony Stark, and the New York Yankees’ Don Mattingly. My “heroes” weren’t heroes because they were black or white — they were heroes because they were just “cool.”
According to Bendis's logic, it's perfectly OK for Doug to have liked all the minorities he mentioned. However, if Doug were black, Stallone, Stark, Mattingly, et. al. would all have to have asterisks after their names -- because Doug would not be able to relate to them.
Because of their white skin.
Comedy Central's Larry Wilmore had a fit yesterday due to some of Fox News's talking heads not immediately diving in with the "racist" label to describe the horrific church shootings in South Carolina.
Saying the network's coverage “makes my fucking head explode,” Wilmore was miffed at
Elisabeth Hasselbeck suggest[ing] the violence was an “attack on faith,” her co-host Steve Doocy also suggest[ing] it had something to do with religion, guest E.W. Jackson outright disput[ing] race-based suggestions about the crime, and anchor Jenna Lee later sa[ying] that despite the “hate crime” designation it’s too early to know what happened.
Since it was pretty clear early on that the killer's motivation was racial hatred, I get Wilmore's angst.
HOWEVER -- how many times have we seen the mainstream media equivocate over other instances of such violence?
Answer: Many. Here's but one (very good) example.
If the MSM -- and the Obama administration -- were consistent, here's how they'd have played out the coverage of the S. Carolina shootings:
In addition, despite the now-silly sounding comments by some at FNC, at least they weren't immediately sucked into a narrative like, say, "Hands up, don't shoot" which still persists among some MSM types despite it's (proven) falsehood.
The News Journal's Carron J. Phillips chastises Rachel Dolezal's self-identification as black.
As "progressives" would say in any other case, "Who is HE to judge, hmm??"
Maybe that Politically Correct Hierarchy Handbook will eventually come out so us average peons will know how to, well, navigate it.
Also be sure to get a chuckle out of Phillips' "cultural appropriation" nonsense. Good to see the News Journal is hiring some "original thinkers!"
Speaking of "progressive" comicbook morons, here's Gail Simone who apparently prioritizes forms of self-identification:
Oh, my god, these are hilarious. #RachelDolezalMemoirTitles— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) June 16, 2015
Hey, here's a thing! How about we go five minutes without making a transphobic joke while discussing Spokane NAACP ladies?— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) June 16, 2015
Got that, everyone?
Someone who identifies as a certain race: laughable.
Someone who identifies as a certain gender: inviolate.
I'd ask Simone to explain the lack of consistency, but there's no concept of the "C" word among "progressives."
Lesser comicbook guy Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid shows he is "better" than greater comicbook guy John Byrne:
.@JohnByrneSays Wow. WOW. Did Byrne really just say the transgendered were MENTALLY ILL? Wow.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) June 10, 2015
Of course, Byrne just pulled that idea out of his ass, right? Oh, wait ...
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.
Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.
And Waid is the author of ... plenty of funny books.
Waid'll probably tell Dr. McHugh never to buy any of them now, too.
Just remember, contrary to the claim that "progressives" are the "party of science": To the radical "progressive" set, it's more important to believe the "right" things than to believe actual facts.
(Note: I could care less what transgendered people do or want, as long as they leave me alone. And, "progressives" are not unique in believing the "right" things over facts. But they're the ones who actually boast about being the party of the latter.)
Lead -- lead!! -- story yesterday at Delaware Online.com: Racial diversity down in Delaware state government.
Reaction of typical "progressives": "My God!! We gotta do something!"
Reaction of normal people: "OK. So? Isn't competence more important than skin tone?"
Nuttiest and completely-devoid-of-reality comment of the article: "Racism exists in epidemic proportions in state government," said Silvester Beaman, president of the Interdenominational Ministers Action Council.
Y'know, over the weekend I watch the ESPN "30 for 30" about Richard Jewell -- y'know, the guy falsely accused of being the Atlanta Olympics bomber. The mainstream media f***ed this guy's life up royally.
And that was in the dawning day's of the Internet. News outlets are in a 100 times bigger rush to get the "scoop" these days. And the "racist cop enacting vengeance on hapless black people" is terrific "progressive" mainstream media cause célèbre, without a doubt.
Facts. Be. Damned.
No, not really, but just consider ...
Writer Eli Keel says "And fans who grew up with a certain version of a character have a hard time letting go of the past. (Also, unfortunately, a bunch of fans are way racist.)"
Of course. So why isn't Keel an anti-Semite -- or, why can't we call him such -- based on his article's headline, hmm? Or, why does he want a black guy to become a popular Marvel villain? Why not a hero?
Of course, social justice warriors are anything, if not inconsistent, natch.
You gotta read his ideas for a rebooted X-Men. Is it any wonder why comics are failing? Who the f*** wants to read about Professor X and Magneto embroiled in the real civil rights movement, them following Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. respectively?
Maybe Keel doesn't get that we're dealing with SUPERHEROES. The whole premise of mutants is to write fiction with a civil rights allegory -- super-powered beings with abilities far above those of normal man.
His solution for "erasing" the Jewishness of Magneto? "... make the many other Marvel Jewish characters interact with and respect their heritage and culture more openly."
Yeah, that'll work. After all, the new Muslim Ms. Marvel's pontificating on things Islamic has resulted in a "whopping" less-than-thirty thousand books sold per month. (If you want to see how these sales figures stack up historically, just Google it. Hint: They suck.) So now we should demand characters like Kitty Pryde ramble on about the significance of the seder plate.
In a superhero comic.
Yet another reason I haven't bought a new comicbook in almost ten years. I'll stick with Essentials and assorted trade paperbacks of great stories of the past.
Tweet from comics guy Kurt Busiek:
Reading a Hugo nominee for Best Novella, that’s edited by someone up for Best Editor. It’s both terribly written and badly edited.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) May 31, 2015
Yep. See the title of this post.
Majorly f***ed up comparisons, that's what.
Just look at what Osama Siblani, publisher of the Arab American News -- "the largest and most widely circulated Arab American publication in the United States" -- said recently:
Yes, you heard that right -- Pamela Geller is worse than ISIS for hosting that Mohammed cartoon contest (among other things).
Let that insanity sink in for a moment: Worse. Than. ISIS.
And Siblani is supposed to be one of those "moderate" Muslims we hear the administration (and many other lefties) talk about?
"Big" story today about a mom getting irked at United Airlines because the captain made an emergency stop at Salt Lake City en route to Oregon. Why?
Because mom warned that her daughter might have a "breakdown" and go berserk.
An Oregon mother has claimed that her family was forced to leave a United Airlines flight last week due to a misunderstanding involving their autistic daughter.
Donna Beegle told KPTV that her family was flying back to Oregon from a Disney World vacation this past Tuesday when her 15-year-old daughter, Juliette, began to get hungry during a layover in Houston.
"I asked the flight attendant if they had anything hot, because Juliette is very particular about her food," Beegle told the station. "If it's warm she won't eat it, if it's cold she won't eat it, it has to have steam rolling off of it."
Beegle says the attendant told her that warm meals could only be served to first class passengers.
"The flight attendant said, 'There's not anything we can get you,' so I said, 'Well, how about we wait for her to have a meltdown, and start crying and she tries to scratch, and then you'll want to help her.'"
After Juliette began to fuss, Beegle says the attendant brought her a meal as requested, and her daughter calmed down. However, that was not the end of the matter.
Right -- that's when the pilot made his unscheduled landing ... and had the family escorted off the plane.
A few thoughts:
-- Being a teacher I am well aware of -- and sensitive to -- the special needs of the different types of autism, so I certainly believe mom's warning about a "meltdown."
-- The mom is a doctor. (Not sure if that means MD or PhD.) Why would she not have something ready for her daughter to eat that, at the very least, a flight attendant could have zapped in a microwave? Why would she expect first class service while in coach?
-- The article says the daughter became hungry "during a layover in Houston." Didn't she get her "steaming" meal then? Why not?
-- Did she inform flight attendants about her daughter ahead of time? The article doesn't say she did. How come? Wouldn't that have made sense?
There certainly may be more to the story, but it appears this is yet another instance of someone wanting everyone to cater to them sans basic personal responsibility and preparation.
Here's Marvel's Fabian Nicieza on the X-Men's Iceman coming out as gay:
How u can call yourself an #XMen fan and bitch about a story exploring exclusion and uncertainty through sexuality is absolutely beyond me.— Fabian Nicieza (@FabianNicieza) April 22, 2015
Yeah, a mutant who's been an outcast his entire life and has dealt with the hate and suspicion that comes with it has been hesitant to admit ... his sexuality??
Gee, let's see, which is more socially unacceptable -- being a mutant with powers vastly more powerful than that of a normal person, or being a guy who likes other guys?
Gimme a royal break.
And here's Joe Quesada, former Marvel EiC:
And how does Bobby’s being gay change him? @CD_Murray Does it make him less of a hero, less of a person, less of a man?— JoeQuesada (@JoeQuesada) April 23, 2015
Not at all. What it does do, though, is make so-called creators lazy, politically correct, and stupid.
One of the original X-Men, Iceman, will now be gay.
I mean, at this point, why the f*** not? And hell, why stop there? Why not make the whole team gay?
Ironically, I was just reading X-Men #56 and 57 from the classic Neal Adams collection ... and in those issues Bobby Drake (Iceman) was sure torn up -- and jealous -- about Lorna Dane aka Polaris. Not to mention, there's a scene where he thinks to himself about Jean Grey "What a gal!"
But screw all that. We have cultural score to settle, dammit!
In a report today about an assault and carjacking at the Regal Cinema at the Brandywine Town Center, we read the following:
Troopers describe both suspects as black men, aged 20 to 25 years, standing roughly 5 feet 10 inches to 6 feet tall. Both were described as having an average build, but there was no description available on their physical appearance or clothing, Hale said.
What the ...?? Has the News Journal finally grown up?
Michelle Rodriguez of Fast and the Furious and Machete fame, says her possibly playing the Green Lantern is "the dumbest thing [she's] ever heard."
"I think it's so stupid because of this whole minorities in Hollywood thing. It's so stupid. Stop stealing all the white people's superheroes. Make up your own. You know what I am saying? What's up with that?"
But, as Douglas Ernst points out, the social justice warrior (SJW) hordes must have been out in force quickly thereafter, as Rodriguez later added the following on Facebook:
Hey guys, I want to clarify about my comment yesterday. I stuck my foot in my mouth once again. I said that people should stop trying to steal white people’s superheroes. I guess it got taken out of context because a lot of people got offended or whatever. I have a tendency to, you know, speak without a filter — sorry about that. What I really meant was that ultimately at the end of the day there’s a language and the language that you speak in Hollywood is ‘successful franchise.’
I think that there are many cultures in Hollywood that are not white that can come up with their own mythologies. We all get it from the same reservoir of life, the fountain of life. It doesn’t matter what culture you come from. I’m just saying that instead of trying to turn a girl character into a guy — or instead of trying to turn a white character into a black character or latin character I think that people should stop being lazy. People should actually make an effort in Hollywood to develop their own mythology. It’s time to stop. Stop trying to take what’s already there and try to fit a culture into it. I think that it’s time for us to write our own mythology and our own story. Every culture. That’s what I really meant, and I’m sorry if it came off rude or stupid. That’s not what I meant. So, cheers.
Doug (rightly) says, "When Ms. Rodriguez apologizes for speaking without a filter, what she really means is 'I’m sorry for telling the truth.'”
Before the usual SJWs get on Michelle too harshly, they should know -- if they don't already -- that she is an open bisexual.
Then again, knowing idiot SJWs as I do, that means zilch. Rodriguez should be prepared to be called a "self-hating bi," an "Aunt Tom" and whatever other filth the heinously self-righteous SJW pricks routinely throw against those who dare to veer from their rigidly enforced orthodoxy.
Douglas Ernst has the latest insanity via one of Marvel's "progressive" bigwigs, Spider-Man writer Dan Slott.
You see, if you have an issue with Peter Parker being anything but a white guy, you're a racist. In fact, when describing Peter Parker, the word "white," Slott says, shouldn't be included in the first one thousand words of any description.
He also believes, because Peter Parker -- Spider-Man -- is white, non-Caucasians cannot "relate" to him.
Perhaps most ridiculously, when a commenter noted that Parker's identity as white is "cultural saturation," and that his "grandma knew him [Parker]," Slott responded by saying "My grandma knew Jim Crow laws. Din't make 'em right."
What. The. Hell.
Maybe the heat got too much for the thuggish gnome, for earlier today he tweeted the following:
Saying "Anybody could be Spidey regardless of race" isn't saying he "should be non-white". I'm pretty sure "ANYBODY" includes white people.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 24, 2015
This is typical Slott -- go off on some ridiculous rant where you infer people are "racist," then backtrack. Which, of course, makes him look like even more of a snobbish a**hole.
And notice how he obfuscates "Peter Parker" with "Spider-Man." This is typical goal-post moving. *Yawn*
We then see this most recent tweet from the gnome:
"I'm not a racist, but..." Is a line I've seen way 2 much in the past 3 days. On that note, shutting off my internet & getting back to work.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 24, 2015
Let's be clear: There is absolutely nothing wrong with stating "I'm not racist, but I think Peter Parker/Spider-Man should be white." None. Especially since the character was conceived as just that, and has been that, for over fifty years. It's ridiculous to even include that preface, for what it's worth.
I seriously doubt Slott would take issue with someone saying "I'm not racist, but I think T'Challa/Black Panther should be black." Because it's a perfectly legitimate sentiment. In fact, T'Challa has to be black, Slott says, because that's how Stan Lee and Jack Kirby envisioned him -- a king of an African nation.
Yet, somehow Peter Parker/Spider-Man being white because that's how Stan, Jack, and Steve Ditko envisioned him is ... stupid. And racist.
(By the way, Dan, you do know there are white Africans? That the whole continent isn't a single entity?)
On a related note (and you just knew this was coming!), here's Slott when someone points out that Luke Cage would never be turned into a white guy:
False argument. RT @*** @DanSlott Luke Cage would never be cast as white, and rightfully so. The outrage would be palpable.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
Luke Cage's race is built into who he is and why he does what he does. There is nothing inherently "white" about Peter Parker.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
So, again, Peter Parker being raised in a white New York City suburb by two white relatives, attending predominately white schools, dating white women, hanging out with mostly white friends ... means there's "nothing inherently white" about him.
And why is Luke Cage/Power Man's origin specific to an African-American? Explain to me how that couldn't easily be modified to suit a Caucasian?
Confused? Trying to figure this all out?
Good luck. Slott is a master at making little-to-no sense. As noted, he's already trying to backpedal. I don't blame him, but how/why Marvel lets this dope spew his nonsense as he does on social media I'll never know.
Hell, even ESPN draws the line when one of its employees goes haywire on social media. I'm not advocating that Slott be suspended or anything; however, it would serve Marvel Comics well if it were to tell him, "Act like a damn grown-up and a professional for once, huh?"
... can infer that a killing is based on Islamophobia, even when the evidence is scant:
“No one should ever be targeted because of who they are, or what they look like or how they worship,” [Obama] said. “Most recently with the brutal murders at Chapel Hill of three young Muslim Americans, many Muslim Americans are worried and afraid.”
The motive for those killings is a parking dispute. This may change, of course, as the investigation continues, but really? Our president can't utter say "Islamic" and "terrorism" in the same sentence, but like a good "progressive" can immediately infer "hate crime" even when the motive appears to be anything but.
Here's our 'ol pal Ron Marz showing how he dialogues with folks who hold an opposing viewpoint:
Delightful to see the people complaining about #FreeCommunityCollege are those most sorely in need of an education.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 9, 2015
Gail Simone on the attacks in France:
Urgh, just heard about the attacks. Terrible.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) January 7, 2015
And that's her only tweet about it at present. Good thing it wasn't some right-leaning anti-government type who did it, or worse -- a cop who shot an unarmed African-American. Then, her feed would be flooded with tweets!
Lastly, Tom Brevoort retweets this laugher:
Talk about your ever-lovin' straw man to take down oh-so easily! First, who the hell ever blames the entire black race for the actions of a black shooter? And who but the most outlandish extremists (on the other side) blame all Muslims for radical Islamist attacks?
But here's what Tom and his buddies do: For the actions of a lunatic who shoots up something related to government, they hurry to blame the most remote of ancillary evidence on 1) conservatives, 2) Republicans, 3) the Tea Party, 4) Rush Limbaugh, and 5) the Tea Party (again).
Speaking of which, here's some from a fairly recent post, courtesy of Kurt Busiek:
Notice it's not "Hey, c'mon, all politicians use such imagery so let's stop the nonsense," it's an immediate (and stupid) repetition of what the MSM was yammering about at the time.
If Palin was a Muslim, she'd be inviolate to folks like Busiek.
... talk about "standing with Charlie," etc.
Q: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?
A: Oh, well, I'm afraid of what the…that's where I'm really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I'm afraid for my life if I do.
Q: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they'll just send you a strudel.
A: They'll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I'm not going to say a word about them.
That is MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell responding to radio host Hugh Hewitt back in 2007.
My pal Douglas Ernst also noted that Muslim Marvel Comics scribe G. Willow Wilson (who writes the new -- Muslim -- Ms. Marvel) tweeted this yesterday:
The usual suspects will say "where are the Muslims condemning this?" All major Muslim inst. already have. Your media doesn't cover it.— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) January 7, 2015
While I am the last to trust our media implicitly, and while Ms. Wilson probably does have a point to some degree, what she and others who're quick to jump on the "it's only a small minority of Muslims" etc. bandwagon tend to forget are uncomfortable facts like these.
Here's a sampling:
Source links are available for each cite at the link above.
Here's another tweet for 'yas to chew on:
Remember when Ben Affleck called Bill Maher 'racist' for saying Muslims will kill you if you 'draw the wrong picture'?— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) January 7, 2015
“Associated Press censors Muhammad cartoons, sells 'Piss Christ' prints” http://t.co/OWd5zjhMnt— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) January 7, 2015
Lastly, here's Marvel bigwig and resident moron Tom Brevoort offering up a supposed "lie" that no one has actually said or even implied to my knowledge:
The greatest and most harmful lie of the 21st century is that to combat terrorists, we must become terrorists, to combat hate we must hate.— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) January 8, 2015
Nevertheless, I'll help Tom out: How is "harmful" to hate terrorist barbarians like those who killed the cartoonists in France and folks like ISIS? WTF should we do, Tom -- invite 'em over for dinner, for cripe's sake?
I've a feeling that Brevoort's "become terrorists ourselves" idiocy is a not-so veiled reference to the waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods utilized post-9/11. If so, simply spare us -- because any such moral equivalency is insane.
Indeed, a much greater and harmful lie in this 21st century is the notion that "outreach" and "being understanding" to ... "people" who could give less of a sh** about either and would still murder us without a second thought is a sensible policy.
Another great and harmful lie is what is noted above -- the "tiny minority" aspect along with the notion that Islam "has nothing to do" with folks like the France killers.
Just remember, 'tho: Any attacker even remotely connected to Republicans and/or conservative ideology = complicity.
Attack after attack by radical Islamists = not indicative at all of the belief system, and if you in any way question such, you're an Islamophobe.
A St. Louis chain of Family Dollar stores is under fire for posting signs that read "Please remove all hoods before entering Family Dollar."
The fact that the signs went up after several robberies does't matter. The fact that without hoods on, security cameras can better ID perpetrators doesn't matter. It's RACIST, dammit!
“I would call it discrimination. That's not right. It shouldn't matter that you're going in there with your hood on. If you're not stealing, and you're buying, purchasing something, what's the problem? That shouldn't be an issue," said one resident.
"Discrimination?" Against hood wearers?
If even some of these are authentic, the mindset behind them is truly scary.
Here's an example:
Sorry, pal. There have been plenty of college players who never made it in the pros.
When the Rams drafted you, I had the impression you were a pretty reasonable guy. Now, just get over yourself.
Maybe you can get the Oprah show back on track now ...
Maybe this is why Chuck Hagel was forced out? Nah ... he's not smart enough to have thought of this utter nonsense:
When it comes to Department of Defense doctrine on military treatment of detained persons, “unlawful enemy combatants” are a thing of the past. That term has been retired and replaced by “unprivileged enemy belligerents” in a new revision of Joint Publication 3-13 on Detainee Operations, dated November 13, 2014.
Who's to blame? Congress, mainly.
In today's News Journal: In tech world, minorities remain quiet about lack of diversity.
In other words, the lack of diversity in the tech sector is a "problem."
But ... why?
Here's something that should absolutely not concern you:
About 1 percent of engineers at Facebook, Google and Twitter are black, and around 3 percent are Hispanic. For all the success of women like Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, and Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, men fill nearly 70 percent of jobs and more than 80 percent of technical positions at leading tech companies.
The article also notes the complaints of some minority tech workers about their "activism" on behalf of more diversity. They're concerned that they'll be seen as less serious or detract from doing the actual job.
Well, duh. Maybe that's because most people could really care less about superficial inanities that really have little to do with the product produced by such companies.
"When you ask Muslims to condemn or denounce heinous actions, ideologies or groups," argues one Muslim writer, “what you’re saying is that you don’t trust any Muslim."
If I condemn ISIS, I am – in essence – condemning myself: I am condemning myself and my communities to the continuation of the never-ending onslaught of suspicion, dehumanization and interrogation that is far from unique to us (especially when living as minorities) but is the most public.
When I am watching TV and I see pictures of ISIS fighters, I don't feel any relation to them, I don't feel any connection to their theology. I want Muslims to get to the point where we see an act of terror and don't have to think, "How will I get blamed?"
I was about to write up my own rebuttal, but the first commenter at the link above did it for me perfectly:
Isn't it funny, "Huffington Post" provides a rationale for some Muslims who do not condemn "radical" Islam, yet as a white, conservative, Christian, heterosexual, legal, American, I'm made to feel by the Left that I have to apologize for everything perpetrated by white, conservative, Christian, heterosexual, legal, Americans going back hundreds of years!
NBC's "point man" in the Muslim Middle East, Ayman Mohyeldin, couldn't say which extremism—Christian, Jewish or Muslim—poses the greatest current threat to civilization":
That's right, this idiot actually invoked the Crusades. And then was "rescued" by a NY Times reporter who jumped in to say that global warming is civilization's greatest contemporary threat.
Elsewhere, ultra-moonbat Rosie O'Donnell amazingly has her "The View" gig back -- despite her 9/11 Trutherism (actually, that's a plus in Hollywood, apparently) -- and went out of her way to praise Ben Affleck for "taking on" (if you can call it that) fellow lib Bill Maher on the subject of radical Islam.
Geez, the one time Maher makes a rational point and his fellow "progressives" are all over his sh**. Par for the course, natch.
As an aside, can anyone imagine an ultra-right wing Birther with the popularity of a Rosie O'Donnell not only being on a mainstream like "The View," but having been invited back to it?
... to the god of Climate Change.
Philly Daily News editorial: Climate change more of a threat than terrorism.
Even worse: the usual dolts at MSNBC forward the idea that -- wait for it! -- the NRA is exacerbating the Ebola situation. That's right, the National Rifle Association.
So, to wit: We can't stop flights from Ebola infected areas because slavery, so let's blame it on ... gun rights activists!
"Logic" in the Age of Obama.
Back in May of 2010 -- May 5th, to be exact -- several (Caucasian) students at California's Live Oak High School wearing shirts with the American flag on them were asked to leave school because they refused to turn their shirts inside-out.
What, what? Students had to turn their shirts around ... because American flags were on them?
Yep -- it was Cinco de Mayo, after all.
School officials at the heavily Hispanic school were concerned that Latino students would be offended by seeing Old Glory on the Mexican holiday (a holiday not even widely celebrated in Mexico), and that some fights could result. Indeed, some 200 Mexican/Mexican-American students protested in a march that day upon hearing about their devious Old Glory-clad peers.
The gringos went to court ... and lost. The Ninth Circuit recently declined to hear their appeal, citing "prior events" that took place at the school, including an "altercation" (presumably between a white and Hispanic student), as a rationale. (There had been some 30 fights between white and Latino students in the past six years at the school.) The appellate panel said "school officials 'acted properly to prevent a substantial and material disruption of school activities.'”
The US Supreme Court indeed has granted a lot of leeway over the last few decades to public school officials when it comes to regulating student speech. One notable ruling from seven years ago is the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case (Morse v. Frederick) in which a (public school) student unfurled a banner with "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" on it across the street from his school during the Olympic torch relay.
SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the case (emphasis added):
Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers . . . poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care from the dangers of drug abuse. The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.
Perhaps anticipating the ensuing controversy, those in the majority with Roberts emphasized that this ruling "applied only to advocacy of illegal drug use." Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, noted the "Bong Hits" case "'provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue' ... including student opposition to the drug laws themselves" (emphasis added).
You probably should be. The courts have pretty much been all over the map when it comes to lower ed. student speech rights.
The standard for such rights had been the Tinker case from 1969. The SCOTUS ruled then that students were indeed permitted to wear black armbands at school to protest the Vietnam War. The famous quote to emerge from the case was "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."
But since then, Tinker has arguably been eroded, despite Justice Alito's reassurance in the Morse case. In addition to Morse, 1988's Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier allowed school administrators to censor student newspapers, even despite "protective" measures taken by student writers and editors.
Which brings us back to the situation at Live Oak High School. Does Morse apply here? Why or why not? Have we actually reached the point in this country where showing the American flag can legitimately be banned ... despite it being displayed in front of our schools ... and in each classroom within?
As an educator, I can fully appreciate the need for an "orderly educational environment," and back in 2007 during the Morse case I was fairly sympathetic to the high court's reasoning.
But these days, I'm not so sure.
If we're actually at the point where a display of our own flag can be considered "offensive" -- and hence banned -- then where does it end? Will administrators now ban student displays of other national flags because they may offend some students, i.e. native-born Americans? And/or because such displays, like at Live Oak HS, may lead to some student scuffles?
Or, are only certain (politically correct) groups permitted to be "offended?"
More importantly, will this case now go to the US Supreme Court ... and will the justices legitimize the heckler's veto that the case enshrines?
(Cross-posted at The College Fix.)
The fun-extinguishing SJWs are out in force again, this time moaning about two t-shirts featuring three classic DC superheroes.
The first shirt shows Superman embracing Wonder Woman, kissing her, and the caption reads "Score! Superman Does It Again"
The second has the very recognizable Batman symbol with the caption "Training To Be Batman's Wife."
Robot 6's Brett White writes "Both shirts present undeniably sexist messages" and
These shirts are problematic because they presume that women need men — either to save them or to marry them — in order to get them interested in superheroes.
Best comment: "It never ends…. This site should just be in an Ad Lib format. ______ outrages fans. 'Fans outraged about lack of things to be outraged about!!' It’s outrageous!!"
January 2017 can't come soon enough: Justice Department expected to ban profiling by federal law enforcement
Though details are not final, the new policy is expected to prohibit undercover surveillance without specific information about criminal activity, according to the Times.
Current rules, approved in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, give law enforcement wide discretion to monitor religious groups. The changes would extend current bans on racial profiling to religious and other groups, and for the first time would not include an exception for national security investigations.
Radical Muslim extremists in the US? No worries.
Tea Party groups interested in teaching about the Constitution? Must be STOPPED.
RELATED: The FBI is treating the Oklahoma beheading as "workplace violence." Joe Scarborough is having none of it.
Back on the 19th I wrote a post ridiculing Philly.com for, among other things, offering up a sympathetic look at one of the alleged attackers of a gay couple. It appears I may have been hasty in voicing my frustration with the inconsistency of so-called "hate crime" laws, and about the nature of that apparent "hate" attack in particular.
While I still feel that any hate crimes legislation is laughable if it doesn't include provisions for gay Americans, it seems there was (a lot) more to the story of the gay couple's beating than previously told. For instance:
According to court records, the couple, ages 28 and 27, were walking around 10:30 p.m. when they encountered a group of friends out celebrating a birthday.
The couple and the group exchanged words, leading to an argument that resulted in an altercation, during which members of the group used antigay slurs, according to the records. One man suffered a broken jaw, broken orbital bones, and a cut that required 24 stitches; the other, facial fractures.
Attorneys for Williams and Knott have characterized the incident as a mutual fight and not motivated by the victims' sexual orientation.
OK, so it wasn't just the group berating the couple for merely being gay. Both parties apparently tossed around some epithets and then things got out of control.
This doesn't justify the beating; however, how often have we read, say, about a black-on-white attack where racial epithets were used against the victims ... but no hate crimes charges were filed (because the motive ascribed was "robbery/economic")? If the gay couple in this case uttered some nasty words themselves, then why isn't their attackers' motivation then, just "retributive?"
If hate crimes laws are to be used in addition to other charges, then -- again -- they need to be utilized consistently. (But don't hold your breath.)
RELATED: The LGBT community's hypocrisy.
Today we seek to balance two principles that are critically important to us: freedom of speech and protection from discrimination. Freedom of speech and expression is important to us because we are a community of artists, artisans, and curators of all backgrounds, aesthetics, and viewpoints. If you search our site, you will see a wide variety of items testifying to our diversity and our seemingly limitless creativity.
This freedom, however, is not without limits. In the past, we have taken actions to protect our community and to preserve our integrity as both a creative and an ethical space. We want Etsy to be safe, welcoming, and respectful for everyone, including artists, women, and minorities. For this reason, it has long been against our policies to allow content on our site that demeans people based upon race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation.
You can probably guess what's coming: They will no longer be associated with anything related to the (Washington) Redskins. Because, they say, Native Americans "have long considered [the name] offensive, disparaging, and racist." Which isn't true, of course, but that's not the best part ...
The best part is ... that Etsy.com still sells Nazi-related items -- plenty of things to buy with swastikas on 'em. 456 items currently, to be precise.
So much for that "demeaning people based on religion," eh?
It began a week ago when Ohio University Student Senate President Megan Marzec took advantage of the then-popular ALS "ice bucket challenge" to ... bash Israel.
In a video she made, instead of ice/water, Marzec uses a red liquid to symbolize the shed "blood" of Palestinians for which Israel is supposedly responsible, all the while muttering about the "genocide in Gaza" and "occupation of Palestine":
Marzec goes on:
“I’m urging you and OU (Ohio University) to divest and cut all ties to academic and other Israeli institutions and businesses.”
“This bucket of blood symbolizes the thousands of displaced and murdered Palestinians- atrocities which OU is directly complacent in through cultural and economic ties with the Israeli state,” she explained.
Despite the rest of the Student Senate not taking kindly to Marzec's stunt, things went to the "next level" this past Wednesday.
At a meeting of the Student Senate that evening, pro-Israel students, the so-called "Bobcats for Israel," spoke out in favor of the embattled nation and against Senate President Marzec and her "blood bucket" stunt, among other things. For this, the students were arrested and charged with "disturbing a lawful meeting" (a misdemeanor):
Video is available at here.
Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection (to whom the major hat tip goes for this story) received a note from an Ohio U. tipster stating (my emphasis)
I don’t see how Ms. [Becky] Sebo was being unduly disruptive. Some of the context from the livetweeting shows that she was being shouted down by Marzec, and that audience members were attempting to physically assault her.
At any rate, Marzec ordering the arrest of her critics is ironic, because Marzec has been arrested for the same thing. And the crowd’s chanting of “fascist” and “undemocratic” is ironic, given their applause for arresting the Bobcats for Israel.
The student newspaper The Post reports that President Marzec appears to have been the instigator of the whole imbroglio, interrupting the initial "Bobcats" speaker (Sebo) who was criticizing Marzec and her past actions:
Three minutes into Sebo’s speech, Marzec interrupted Sebo, saying that the speech was blocking other students from speaking.
A chant was led by many of the Student Senate members, repeating phrases such as “this meeting is being hijacked by fascists” and “shame on bullies.”
Keep in mind that Sebo was speaking during time allowed for public comments, the "Student Speakout."
After the arrest of Sebo and three of her companions, Marzec "stood on a table" and said "she would 'never apologize for standing up for the people of Palestine.” She also stated "And I will never stand up for fascists. And this body won’t either.”
This, despite her interrupting someone else talking and then shouting her down (Sebo) ... and then having her thrown out of the forum.
Missed irony much?
(Cross-posted at The College Fix.)
When the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam -- the first openly gay football player to be selected for an NFL team -- I was like, "Cool -- the Rams are showing they don't care what anyone thinks. They think Sam's got the talent, and they're giving him a shot." (By the way, the Rams were also the first team to break the NFL color barrier back in 1946 ... a year before the much more noted Jackie Robinson did it in baseball.)
Ultimately, Sam was released by the Rams (the team is loaded at his position, and most thought Sam would have a tough time making the team), but has been picked up by the Dallas Cowboys and placed on their practice squad. But ... then comes this ridiculous news:
According to NBC’s Peter King, NFL officials called teams around the league to gauge their interest in signing former Missouri defensive end Michael Sam, the NFL’s first openly gay player, to their practice squads.
“The Rams waived Michael Sam, the first openly gay player trying to make an NFL roster, he was unemployed for two days,” King said. “During that time a league official contacted multiple teams asking if they had evaluated Sam as a probable practice squad player.”
Here we go -- one of the last bastions of pure merit-based employment has been battered by the PC Police. Because, of course, the NFL was worried about the predictable media onslaught had Sam not been picked up by a team.
Best comment of the day: "Every single player who didn’t make the cut should come out as gay."
This one by Mark Steyn is both grim and dead accurate. His point about how hard won social change was in the Victorian Era is something that I overlooked. One of my nerdier traits is reading Victorian era authors (Poe, Chesterton, A.C. Doyle). If you look at them and how they change over time, they get more grim as the era comes to a close. The idea that 11 year old prostitutes were so common as to be unnoticed is not a world I want to live in. Similarly, the slide off the cliff from tyrants who at least attempted to retain the veneer of a civilized person to the ISIS brand of evil that celebrate the most violent depravities is dire.
I know Steyn tends toward the bleak and sometimes misses the mark, I don't think he does so out of bombast like Coulter who, frankly, is out of ideas other than shrill ridicule. Steyn knows that our current state of western democracy is an aberration in history and is a fragile and precious thing. How we keep it is going to be the question we wrestle with in the very near future.
An article at Inside Higher Ed highlights (no, not in hot pink) a ... "controversy" at the University of Iowa: the opposing team's (football) locker room is painted pink.
Well, this is the Age of Political Correctness, especially on college campuses:
While it remains a beloved bit of visual smack-talk for many Hawkeye fans -- and was even featured in a recent ESPN ad about college traditions -- some students and faculty have decried the color scheme as sexist and discriminatory.
"There is no denying that [former Iowa football coach Hayden] Fry’s tactic is rooted in an antiquated age when homophobic and sexist epithets were the norm in sports," [protester Kembrew] McLeod said.
Since 2005 Jill Gaulding, a former University of Iowa law professor, has threatened to sue or file a federal complaint against the university under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the law that forbids gender discrimination at colleges. On Thursday, Gaulding, who is now a lawyer with the nonprofit law firm Gender Justice, said the "discussions are still ongoing," and that the locker room's color is a type of gender slur.
"It sends the message that anything associated with female is lesser-than," Gaulding said. "The minute I read about the pink locker room and how the university had built it even pinker, it felt like somebody had just reached out and slapped me across the face. It was that insulting. People know what it means."
Erin Buzuvis, director of the Center for Gender & Sexuality Studies at Western New England University (uh oh), agrees with Gaulding that the locker room is a Title IX violation, but says a lawsuit victory would be tough. Still, she notes (my emphasis)
"Title IX's application to athletics is aimed at equalizing the treatment of female athletes as well as their opportunities to play," Buzuvis said. "If you accept that using pink in the visitors' locker room operates a symbolic gesture of emasculation towards the team's opponents, the pink locker room certainly represents a form of unequal treatment, since the symbolism trades on pink's association with women and stereotypes about women's inferior athleticism."
But ... is that a stereotype? In general and taken as a whole, are not men ... superior athletes?
Before you go off with steam coming out of your ears, consider:
The mean difference has been about 10 percent between men and women for all (Olympic) events. The mean gap is 10.7 percent for running, 8.9 percent for swimming and 17.5 percent for jumping. (Source)
Men golfers hit the ball farther, in some cases a lot farther. Men tennis players hit the ball harder and faster. Baseball players throw faster and hit the ball farther than (women) softball players. Etcetera, etcetera. Why do we have separate sports leagues for the sexes, after all?
Men's sports are far more popular with spectators because the competition level is greater. The athletes are faster, stronger, and more durable. This is just a biological fact, despite U. of Iowa's student newspaper's complaint that the "sexist norm of male superiority" still exists, and despite those who believe gender is merely a "social construction."
By the way, there's actually some psychological research to back up what the Iowa football squad (and others) have done to opponents' locker rooms. One researcher says the color pink acts like "a tranquilizer that 'saps your energy.'" Pink is also used frequently in "drunk tanks" and jail cells. In addition, the notion that pink is a "girl's color" is actually relatively new; it didn't really begin to take hold until the 1940s.
In closing, I get that efforts to encourage male athletes (and coaches) to cease using terms like "sissy" and anti-gay expressions need to be established and enforced. But over-zealous complaints about things like using pink in locker rooms -- because it facetiously calls into question opposing players' toughness, and even their masculinity -- are just another example of institutions like a "Center for Gender & Sexuality Studies" finding "reasons" to justify their existence.
(Cross-posted at The College Fix.)
Let that sink in good, folks.
According to the LA TImes' Tiffany Hsu, it's "informal worker."
And what do they do? They "labor unofficially" in a "gray economy."
How about this from the UK:
An estimated 1,400 children were victims of child sexual exploitation between 1997 and 2013, according to an independent inquiry commissioned last fall by Rotherham’s Metropolitan Borough Council. But because the perpetrators were overwhelmingly “Asian” — for the most part, Muslim men from Pakistan — local authorities, from social-services managers to law enforcement, regularly neglected reports of rape, assault, and sex trafficking for fear of being deemed racist.
The Mirror notes that one teenaged girl was raped over 250 times during a two-year period. When she reported it to police, they did zippo: "She was told that, given that it was her word against her alleged abuser’s, her case 'probably wouldn’t go to court.'”
We've seen that here, albeit to a lesser extent (at least for now). The administration and the compliant media scoff at the term "War on Terror," and refer to acts of terrorism with ridiculous euphemisms like "Man-Caused Disasters." Identifying terrorists as radical Muslims, for the most part, is a big no-no -- we can't offend a religious minority, y'see ...
... and so on.
We don't have to go the UK route ... all we have to do is just wake the hell up.
As we noted yesterday, Marvel's Dan Slott -- certainly not the most mature gent on social media -- got hoisted on his own petard when he defended Marvel's use of this Spider-Woman cover by artist Milo Manara.
Best of all, Slott is getting hammered by the Left. And why not? It consistently has been he, and his cohorts in the industry, who present themselves as paragons of virtue, lecturing everyone (especially those dastardly conservatives) about racism, sexism, homophobia, and the like.
Except when their employer(s) needs to make a buck.
Here's what The Mary Sue notes about the Spider-Woman title (my emphasis):
At this year’s San Diego Comic-Con, at a panel called “Women of Marvel,” the publisher announced a new ongoing Spider-Woman series. The series, part of Marvel’s “Characters and Creators” publishing initiative that “aims to speak directly to… women and girls,” joins nine other female-led series published by Marvel. According to company’s Editor-in-Chief, Axel Alonso, these superheroines “are not the big-breasted, scantily clad women that perhaps have become the comic-book cliché” but are “defined by many things—least of all their looks.”
I suppose Alonso has an "out" in that, on the cover in question, you can't tell if SW is "big-breasted" and she's certainly not "scantily clad." You could even argue against the "looks" aspect, although that'd certainly be pushing it. Having a perfectly shaped ass is part of (a girl's) "looks."
Still, it'd be amusing to see Alonso make the above "case," wouldn't it? Couldn't be any worse than Slott's meandering over the matter of this cover. But to the point: How freakin' hypocritical is it for Marvel to state what it did about Spider-Woman ... and then hire a dude like Manara who's known for drawing (overly) seductive poses like that on the cover? And then hypocrites like Slott and Tom Brevoort exercise verbal gymnastics in every way imaginable to justify it?
Nevertheless, Slott isn't giving up -- with being a SJW (Social Justice Warrior), that is. Here he is from yesterday:
Sorry. There is no "reverse sexism." We live in sexist world that's tipped in my favor. "Reverse sexism" only works if we ARE at equality.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 25, 2014
In the back and forth in that thread, race is brought up, too. In SlottWorld, making sweeping generalizations about men ("all men are rapists!") -- and white people (Leonard Jeffries, anyone?) -- are permissible, because the "playing field" is not yet equal.
Whatever. There's so much ridiculous inconsistency in Slott's Twitter feed commentary as to defy description. No freakin' wonder the guy is such an Obamanaut.
It's been a while, and I see there was a recent "controversy" over a variant Spider-Woman cover, so let's get right to it ...
... the cover in question can be seen here, and was asked for by Marvel. Now, for the NON fun-extinguishers among us (i.e. the non-politically correct), this cover is no big deal. But for the 'bat creators this should be -- after all, how in the hell can Marvel commission such a flagrantly sexist and objectifying piece of art?
Dan Slott, who has no shortage of the "right" beliefs, amazingly defends the cover, calling the matter a "false controversy." And that's just for starters. Be sure to check out his Twitter feed, if you can stomach the hilarious hypocrisy.
Then there's our 'ol pal Ron Marz, who's miffed -- MIFFED, I tell you -- about some of the "abject and unapologetic racism" seen in Ferguson, MO. Of course, by that we know he means only white racism, but that aside, Marz is "concerned" about that, yet mocks comics blogger Avi Green thusly:
Listening to Roger Waters again. It's enough to drive that nutty blogger guy who follows me crazy ... if he wasn't already crazy.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) August 22, 2014
Not only has Avi brought up what a raving hypocrite Marz is for continuing to back a raging anti-Semite like (Pink Floyd's) Waters, yours truly has, too. Ya'd think that someone concerned with racism, bigotry, sexism, etc. 24-7 (like Marz) would take a stand ... shun Waters for his Jew hatred. But, nah -- the music's good! Funny how that didn't matter with regards to Orson Scott Card and Ender's Game, eh?
In addition, as Avi notes, unlike Dan Slott, Marz is upset at the Spider-Woman cover:
Nobody cares about your explanations or justifications. Own that you did something stupid, say you're very sorry, and then SHUT UP.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) August 21, 2014
Except that ... "If only he'd admit he went overboard with Green Lantern's fridge scene ..."
Lastly, there's good 'ol Mark Waid, who back on the 19th tweeted the following (see if you can spot the irony):
"Non-hyperbolic," yet ... "hands-in-the-air," "in the back" ... Uh huh.
And so it goes ...
Jonathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy discusses the case of Steven Salaita, the former Virginia Tech professor who had been offered a gig at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign.
Salaita's U. of Illinois job offer was abruptly rescinded after he had made a series of hateful tweets about Israel and defenders of that country. (The College Fix has numerous articles about the situation.) Immediately, many spoke out in favor of Salaita's right to free expression -- his "academic freedom," if you will. The support comes from both sides of the political spectrum, but has been most vociferous on the left.
Some of the pro-Salaita free speech arguments are persuasive (like FIRE's Adam Kissel's), but I find myself more in Adler's corner. He writes:
I largely share [Northwestern University law Professor Steven] Lubet’s views. His point about the disingenuous (or uninformed) characterization of the tweets in question is particularly well taken. As he notes, when defending Nazi marchers in Skokie, Ill., “the ACLU never soft-pedaled the Nazis as merely passionate critics of international banking.” I agree with Lubet that an academic should not be fired or denied a job offer, because of his or her political views, but I also question whether someone with Salaita’s record of hateful and offensive rhetoric is capable of being an effective academic and educator.
That last line really sticks with me. Trained in my last college undergrad years as a social studies educator, my (high school placement) cooperating teacher (amazingly, a conservative) was adamant about never allowing his personal opinions to leak into class discussions. He even outright refused to offer them when directly asked about them by students, in and out of class.
And these were mere opinions. We're not even talking about outrageous/vulgar/profane remarks in public forums.
Imagine if you were a Jewish student in one of Salaita's classes. What if his class was a requirement for your major? You think you'd get a fair shake knowing he knew you were Jewish? Or even worse, Israeli?
Which brings me to another aspect of this situation which really gets me: the brazen hypocrisy of "progressive" (I usually use quotes with the term because all-too often contemporary progressives are anything but) academics. They're often right on the front lines in the effort to abolish speech they do not like ... often dubbing it "hate speech." Speeches against affirmative action are "racist" (or, at least "racially insensitive"), people against abortion are "anti-women," and those in favor of traditional marriage are "homophobic," are a few examples.
Yet, Salaita's vulgar anti-Jewish/Israel tweets were instantly defended by "progressives." "Academic freedom," you see.
If Salaita's remarks are to be inviolate due to academic freedom, would Salaita's defenders say the same regarding a white supremacist professor? How many of you reading this believe they would?
There's a substantial difference between having a political opinion ... and gross inappropriateness. Salaita's feelings about Israel and Jews could have been offered in a much more seemly manner; indeed they should have been, given his position.
This being said, I admit this is a difficult arena in which to tread. Too broad a brush should not be used in making judgments; each instance, including that involving Professor Salaita, needs to be considered individually and carefully.
(Cross-posted at The College Fix)
There's also been some audio evidence pop up of late which contradicts the "[Brown] was running away"/"He had his hands up" narrative. YouTube has numerous vids and transcriptions of what this witness said.
None of this, however, automatically vindicates cop Darren Wilson. What it does is further eviscerate the mainstream media. Just imagine if this was 1990 and there was no Internet, no Fox News, and very little talk radio.
There's been another shooting of an unarmed black teenager, and what played out last summer is sort of repeating itself. To wit:
Today the name of the cop involved in the shooting was revealed: Darren Wilson. His race, at this point, still remains a mystery, however. Also revealed was the situation which led to the confrontation between Wilson and Brown: It seems Brown was a suspect in a robbery.
Here is the Missouri statute pertaining to the use of deadly force to effect a felony arrest. Based on the police's initial statements, these (at least one, certainly) appear to apply to this case.
To be sure, the Ferguson police didn't do themselves a lot of favors with the delay in issuing Wilson's name and the account of the incident (which, I understand, still isn't 100% complete). Nor was, as noted above, the overly "military" nature of the post-shooting response to protests.
But also not doing anyone favors are responses like that of WDEL's Al Mascitti who today went on a rant about "white people" (especially Tea Party types, of course) being the only ones who support police in this case, and even made a comparison of the "hopelessness" of black communities across the country to that of ... Palestinians in Gaza. (He even said that people "know" Hamas rockets launched into Israel "don't hurt anyone," but they provoke an unreasonable response.)
The details will keep coming out, and the inter-political philosophy squabble of various viewpoints about the incident will make for interesting discussion.
But there's certainly one thing you can count on: The mainstream media has its NarrativeTM, and it will stick to it ... no matter the facts.
UPDATE (by Hube): The latest reports indicate that Wilson was unaware of Brown's robbery activity when he stopped him. Brown and a friend were stopped for walking in the middle of the street and blocking traffic.
UPDATE 2 (by Hube): This site notes that, although Wilson stopped Brown and friend for walking in the street, once he saw cigars in Brown's hand he thought he might be the robbery suspect.
Olivia Cole, a "poet, author, and activist (of course)," is miffed -- MIFFED, I tell you! -- about the high quantity of those damn Caucasians on the silver screen. And she's GONNA TELL YOU ABOUT IT!!
First, let me note that I am white. I am a white woman who goes to the theater to see probably a dozen films (if not more) in a given year, a white woman who readily consumes TV shows and series and often blogs/tweets about them. I love film. I love what Hollywood could be, but I must say that I don't love what it is, and that is a machine generating story after story in which the audience is asked to root for a white (usually male) hero over and over and over (and over) again. I'm tired. I'm tired of directors pretending that white actors are the default and that people of color are a distraction when it comes to filmmaking. I'm tired of black women in Hollywood being relegated to roles of slaves and "the help" over and over again. I'm tired of films convincing themselves that they are taking on something fresh and new, the likes of which the world has never seen, but in actuality adhering to tired tropes and stereotypes.
"First, let me note that I am white" ... Gee, I couldn't have figured that out by the photo at the beginning of your piece. I bet you have plenty of black friends, too, right?
*Sigh* This is just yet another in a loooooong line of never-satisfied cultural "progressives" who lack the enjoyment gene. How sad it must be to go through life always on the lookout for something to bitch about.
(h/t to Carl.)
Yes, we've come to this point.
... 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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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!)
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."
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?
That'd be Simon Waxman's contention that the US military's naming weapons after Native Americans (like the Tomahawk missile, for example) is as racist as the nation's capital's football team name.
(h/t Doug Ernst)
It's still making a ton of cash and critics love it, but the radical PC crowd still has its collective panties in a bunch over X-Men: Days of Future Past. This past week we've seen articles lamenting its "lack of diversity;" now, because Wolverine replaced Kitty Pryde in the crucial story role, the film is "sexist."
Do it with me: Y.A.W.N.
Once again, who's a bigger box office draw -- Hugh Jackman or Ellen Page? Who's by far the more popular comicbook character, Wolverine or Kitty Pryde?
If you answered the first choice for each, you win.
Movie makers wanna make money. Case closed.
(Thanks for Carl for the article tip!)
Yeesh -- here's yet another "progressive" happily proving his bonafides with another article lamenting the "lack of diversity" in, again, the latest X-film ("Days of Future Past"). Just take a look:
You get the point. I wonder what it's like to be perpetually aggrieved ... about something, anything, everything. And the only "joy" you get is by bitching about the most inconsequential stuff.
Gavia Baker-Whitelaw shows yet again why she's just another wacky social justice warrior complaining about the usual "lack of diversity" -- this time regarding the X-Men movie franchise.
Seriously? Yes, unfortunately. Gavia acknowledges that the mutant characters "have always been good at building this political allegory (disenfranchised populations) without becoming overly preachy," but "they’ve also been downright abysmal at acknowledging people who face this type of discrimination in real life." Oh, but hasn't the author listened to Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott? These are only comicbook characters! Real life? C'mon!
Folks, if there ever was a set of mainstream comicbook characters (and stories) that best deals with bigotry and prejudice, it is the X-Men. Bitching that Wolverine has replaced Kitty Pryde as the main focal point of "Days of Future Past" (gasp! How dare a white male character be so damn popular!) will only make all but the most radical Maoist diversity nuts chuckle in disbelief.
The last we saw of Baker-Whitelaw, she was miffed at something similar. She still fails to grasp that green is the most important color to [comicbook] flick makers.
Carl brings word of comicbook scribe Chris Roberson blaming -- wait for it! -- ALL men for the psycho in California who murdered a half dozen people because he wasn't getting laid.
Get it? ALL MEN. Even if you don't come anywhere close to the mental instability of the killer (Elliot Rodger), it just doesn't matter:
So many women have been the victims of violent assault that it’s easy for well-intentioned dudes in the majority to play the “Not All Men” game, even if they are smart enough not to SAY that phrase. THEY don’t assault women, after all. They might not even objectify women. They might have had their consciousness elevated, and are consciously feminist, and avoid doing or saying anything that could be interpreted as overly sexist.
But I’m here to tell you, as one of those kinds of guys, that we are STILL part of the problem. Because of the culture that we belong to, and the unexamined assumptions that were engrained in all of us, even those raised by the more forward thinking and progressive of parents.
Now just imagine for one moment Roberson opining the above ... and replacing "Muslim" for "men." Think it would happen? What about "black" for "men"? Nope. Those two demographics are sacrosanct, dammit. Only men -- or to be more precise, white men -- can be blamed as a group for the ills of all mankind. Roberson will get nothing but cheers from "progressives" for his thesis, and his prog bonafides will remain in good standing, without a doubt.
But in the real world, guys like Edward Trimnell know better.
I'm always struck by straight white guys like Roberson (and scifi writer John Scalzi who retweeted Roberson's screed) who launch into these self-righteous lectures, but never seem to do anything concrete about it. Y'know, like scoot on over and let an historically oppressed female or minority take over their gig. Oh, but forget that. Because in this case (and seemingly, in this case only) THEY have earned what they've gotten.
But you? You're just a beknighted peon. Do what they tell you.
On the heels of students across the country petitioning for "trigger warnings" on college class syllabi -- so they won't have to be offended by any of the course material! -- comes New York University's Jonathan Zimmerman. The professor of history and education offers up his own ... unique syllabus for his "Introduction to United States History" course:
XI. The 1970s: Remember the disco hit “Stayin’ Alive”? If you’re not into that, you should think about stayin’ home. Talk about trauma! XII. The 1980s and the Conservative Revolution: Weaned on liberal heroes like FDR and JFK, left-leaning students have a tough time this week. They’re like, Ronald Reagan? Really?
XIII. The Clinton Years: Let’s imagine that your dad had an affair with a younger—OK, a much younger—work associate. If you don’t want to go there, you don’t want to come to this class either. It’s pretty gross.
XIV. George W. Bush and the War in Iraq: If you thought America was a force for good in the world, you’re in for some shock and awe. Let’s leave it at that.
XV. Obama and Beyond: To those who imagined that utopia was just around the corner: Sorry! And for people who still think the president was born in Indonesia, this class will make you even more bat-crazy than you already are. At least you were warned.
Be sure to check out the rest of the syllabus for even more chuckles!
Our DOJ chief did this at Morgan State University, an Historically Black College (HBC) in Baltimore whose enrollment is over 86% black. Yep, legal segregation has long since ended, but somehow, HBCs continue to exist, with percentages akin to the above.
And this -- when diversity is supposed to be the educational end-all to be-all. But where's the "diversity" at an institution like Morgan State where there is less than 2% white population, and the rest spread out among other groups? As Jeffrey Lord notes,
The school at which Holder spoke — had those percentages of race been reversed, with an 86.7 percent white majority and a 1.8 percent black minority — would soon have Eric Holder’s Justice Department swooping down on it to charge it with “disparate treatment.”
Indeed. First Lady Michelle Obama was in Kansas for the same reason Holder was in Baltimore, and lamented “Many young people in America ... are going to school with kids who look just like them.” Uh huh.
*Sigh* Just like "hate crimes" laws, "diversity" applies to only one group.
Now, using a camel to illustrate "Hump Day" is ... racist:
The “Hump Day” event, put on by the Residence Hall Association (RHA), was supposed to be “a petting zoo type of atmosphere” in which students could hang out and take photos with a live camel. According to Aaron Macke, the group’s advisor, the camel is owned by a local vendor and trained for special events.
But the event was subsequently cancelled after students took to Facebook to proclaim their concerns. The students said they were concerned about the money spent on bringing the camel to campus—around $500—and the implication that it would be racially insensitive to Middle Eastern cultures.
What. The. F***.
At this point I honestly wouldn't be the least bit surprised if an event is canceled because "attendees will be wearing clothing primarily made of cotton, and since the country has a sordid history involving the cultivation of that crop, we feel it would be insensitive to students whose ancestors were part of that sad chapter of said history."
The latest incident in the wave of Heckler's Vetoes occurring across the land:
A Fargo first-grade class won’t be participating in the school's talent show after a concerned parent called a planned act “racist.”
The students were supposed to be performing the song “Y.M.C.A.” during Bennett Elementary School’s May talent show.
But one mom, Elaine Bolman, said asking her daughter and her classmates to dress up like an Indian is offensive.
“I'm not in a position to do anything for these educators, and hopefully those people that are can make the right choices so all students of any culture and race won't feel singled out or like their race is being stereotyped against,” Bolman said.
Those upset at Ms. Bolman should "play her game," so to speak, and accuse her of homophobia. After all, two members of the Village People (who originally sang the song) -- including the Native American character -- are gay.
Two days in a row! Yesterday it was the Philly Daily News's Jenice Armstrong. Today, we're treated to yet another picture of St. Louis Rams draft pick Michael Sam smooching his boyfriend, this time with the Inquirer's Fashion Columnist Elizabeth Wellington informing us that "A kiss is just a kiss -- except for this one."
That's just what we need -- a fashion writer telling us what's "great" about a football player kissing his boyfriend. Please.
Wellington points out that Sam's jersey (#10, but he's, y'know, gotta make the team first!) outsold that of every other draft pick save Johnny Manziel, even beating out that of #1 overall pick Jadeveon Clowney. I hope she's aware that this certainly isn't due to Sam's overwhelming football presence. The guy was one of the last picks in the entire draft. She also notes that "negative reactions" to Sam's draft "overflowed on Twitter," but points to only one example -- that of Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones, who seems to be the only one cited by the media as having a negative response to Sam['s kiss]. Wellington fails to note the Maoist reaction by the Dolphins and the NFL: Jones is to undergo "educational training" for his Twitter outburst. Wouldn't "Quit being a jerk" and "Keep your yap shut" be sufficient? Apparently not in PC-ville.
And this may be the best part: Wellington quotes an associate professor in "culture, gender and race studies" on the "kiss" offering up "enlightening" tidbits like "Emotions are at the core of humanity." She also notes an associate director of "Africana Studies" who says "It was as if people didn't see the interracial aspect of [Sam's] relationship anymore and they zoned right into the gay aspect of it." Man, these guys earn their pay, eh? (Hopefully, no one is majoring in their subjects.)
Contrary to what Wellington reports, I've seen virtually nothing negative about Sam being picked by the Rams. As noted yesterday and many other times here at Colossus, I have been a life-long Rams fan so I follow them regularly on social media. The response to Sam was easily 98% positive. Of course, these are Rams fans, so their opinion is probably biased in favor of the team even if they do have some misgivings about Sam. However, if what Wellington says here --
Through that kiss, Sam also declared, Don't be surprised when I show up at functions with my boyfriend and I thank him after an amazing play to win a crucial game
-- is accurate, then you're likely to see another Chris Kluwe situation, where off-the-field antics and advocacy become a distraction to the team. I mean, what player thanks their significant other after a play -- at the game DURING the game? No one should care if he shows up at functions with his BF, but Sam going out of his way to "thank him" (and why would Sam thank him anyway? What did he do to help win the game?) during a game would be akin to any other over-the-top antic by a player following a significant play.
Bottom line: Sam is a so-so draft pick who may or may not make the Rams' roster. The brouhaha over him is largely a media creation, but that doesn't mean Sam isn't brave guy by coming out when he did. That certainly took guts, as professional sports (and even sports in general) may be the last bastion of such acceptance. I wish him the best, especially so since he may be part of my beloved team.
RELATED: Ben Domenech has a terrific article up on the whole Sam situation, and raises a point I was concerned about: What happens if the Rams end up cutting Sam? Will the team be dubbed "homophobic?" You can bet your bottom dollar that they will, at least from some of the usual suspects.
ALSO RELATED: Always make sure to be offended by the "right" things. Offended by Michael Sam's kiss? Off to re-education. Offended by profane music lyrics played in a victorious locker room? How dare you seek to censor us!
I don't think you could find a more shallow article than this by the Philly Daily News's Jenice Armstrong. It's not the subject matter per se; it's just that she touches all the "right" buttons regarding the "historic" draft of Michael Sam into the NFL. Sam is the first openly gay player to be drafted, in case you missed it.
"Kisstory" is how the New York Daily News dubbed the passionate lip-locks between Michael Sam and his boyfriend, who happens to be white and very good-looking. The headline-making smooches took place Saturday after Sam, who is African-American and quite the hunk himself, learned he'd been drafted in the seventh round by the St. Louis Rams.
Their kisses were the real deal. Done without an ounce of shame or reticence. They were two men in the moment expressing profound relief and joy. It was a sweet, unadulterated outpouring of feelings captured by an ESPN film crew. Watching all that raw, honest masculine emotion made me tear up.
To the homophobes reading this, I'd like to point out that the world didn't come to an end because Sam kissed his hot boyfriend, Vito Cammisano.
Let's see, you got the obligatory reference to 1) race; 2) interracial relationship; 3) "genuine" expression of "masculine" emotion; and 4) invocation of a "phobia" so as to dissuade any criticism. *Yawn*
As a lifelong Rams fan, I couldn't care one whit about Sam's sexuality, as long as he can play the game and doesn't make being gay a distraction like former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe did. But perhaps even more fascinating (well, not really, knowing the mainstream press as we do) is the fawning over Sam (and his draft is significant, let's make that clear) ... yet Tim Tebow was relentlessly mocked
Take this article by Deadspin's Tommy Craggs. Let's, as "progressives" like to do with conversations regarding homosexuality, (stuff like "Just put 'gay' where 'black' used to be!" for example) replace "homosexuality" where Craggs has "faith," and "Michael Sam" where "Tim Tebow" is. Now do you think this article would be "acceptable" by contemporary MSM standards (such that they are)? I seriously doubt Craggs would criticize those who called a tough hit on Sam -- whose pummeler then mocked him with a "limp wrist salute" -- "dangerous territory." Indeed, he'd be screaming "HOMOPHOBIA!!" at the very top of his lungs. In addition, what do you think the reaction would be if MSM sports types said "I wish he'd just shut up," or "It's embarrassing to think the Rams could win with Sam!!" You got it: "HOMOPHOBES!!" (QB Jay Cutler said the first quote about Tebow, and ESPN's Merril Hoge, the second.)
Tebow ultimately disappeared because his performance on the field didn't cut it. That's what matters, after all. Sam, drafted almost last in this year's draft, has a long way to go to make the Rams' roster. If he gets cut by St. Louis, what do you think the immediate MSM reaction will be? That the team "wasn't ready for [an openly] gay player"? That the team is "homophobic?" Such MSM types already pondered just this with the aforementioned Chris Kluwe, despite his lousy on-field results.
One of the concerns of the dirty Donald Sterling matter was the right to privacy -- the expectation that whatever you say in the privacy of your own domicile is (or should be) sacrosanct. Pundits discussed state laws which require only one party's consent to record something (audio or video; most states in the US are one-party consent), and, of course, whether Sterling has the "right" to be a bigot in his home.
Chug on over to Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon where even if you tell a racially insensitive joke between two people of different races and a bystander/someone passing by hears it, you can be brought up on charges:
Lewis & Clark College has declared two students, one African-American and one white, guilty of creating a “hostile and discriminatory environment” after racially themed jokes spoken between the friends at a private party were overheard and reported to campus authorities.
On November 23, 2013, roughly 20 students, many of them members of Lewis & Clark’s football team, attended a private party at a campus residence hall. During a game of “beer pong,” one African-American student jokingly named his team “Team Nigga” and would exclaim the team’s name when scoring a point. The student also exchanged an “inside joke” greeting with a white friend, who welcomed him by saying, “How about a ‘white power’?”, to which the African-American student replied in jest, “white power!”
A student not present at the party overheard the language and reported it to Lewis & Clark’s Campus Living office, which turned the matter over to the college’s Campus Safety division. Campus Safety investigated the alleged “racial and biased comments” made at the party, interviewing the two students and questioning them about the language used both at the party and within Lewis & Clark’s football program. After the investigation’s conclusion, Lewis & Clark charged both students with “Physical or Mental Harm,” “Discrimination or Harassment,” and “Disorderly Conduct.” Although the students’ conduct charges and ensuing disciplinary hearings were spurred by the complaint about the November 23 party, Lewis & Clark made clear that it intended to investigate “[o]ther acts of potential hate speech and bias that have occurred recently on campus” as well.
Lewis & Clark found both students guilty on all charges and rejected each of their appeals. In one student’s disciplinary letter, Lewis & Clark wrote that the student’s language “contributed to the creation of a hostile and discriminatory environment.” In rejecting the same student’s appeal, Lewis & Clark claimed his speech “caused reasonable apprehension of harm to the community.” Lewis & Clark placed both students on probation and required each to complete “Community Restitution” in the form of “Bias Reduction and Bystander Intervention Training,” among other sanctions.
Sterling made legitimately racist comments and was clandestinely recorded to pretty much reveal that fact to the public at large. These two students are friends and if anything, their "racial jibes" towards each other demonstrate that -- gasp! -- we can indeed laugh at each other ... and still be comrades!! Who'da thought? (Idiot college administrators, that's who.) And they're reported on by someone who happened to be passing by?? I mean, REALLY?
Thank goodness for groups like FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). Their tireless efforts provide that needed "sunshine" as "disinfectant." It recognizes that Lewis & Clark is a private college; however, it
... does make promises of free speech to its students. Its policy on Freedom of Expression & Inquiry states, for example, that students are “free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately.”
How 'bout that.
Thankfully, even many in the L&C community know this case in BS. Forty faculty members sent a letter to college administrators "criticizing the college’s 'questionable treatment of free speech and of our students’ right to due process,'” and the stonewalling by same.
We'll keep you posted.
So said Bill Clinton just last year. His wife, Hillary, failed to put the nutjob group on the terrorists watch list during her tenure as Secretary of State.
The former president's belief directly contradicts what the group's leader himself has stated: That "God had told him to abduct over 200 girls and women." (Notice no mention of jobs or poverty there.) The group's name roughly translates to “Western education is sin.” Notice it's not “We are terrorists because we are poor,” as Pundit Press notes.
Clinton, like way too many other "progressives," is still stuck to the silliness that being poor causes one to resort to terrorism. The hoops "progressives" jump through to not blame [radical] Islam for violent acts remains truly astonishing ... especially when the "terrorist" label is very easily applied to their domestic political opponents.
Meanwhile, the Boss Obama administration has really gotten tough with the group:
RELATED: How dare someone write a comicbook about a superhero battling evil bad guys? It's outrageous! Oh, that's right -- the villains are radical Islamists.
Child psychiatrists, psychologists and educators say they’ve seen an escalation in the anxiety levels of today’s youth, who are constantly exposed to doomsday talk about the destruction of our planet. But despite the fact that we live in a world with more volatility and fear, experts say there is hope. And to stay mentally strong, they all advocate not just calling for change, but acting for it.
Dr. Anthony Levitt, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre’s director of research in the department of psychiatry, agrees climate-change anxiety increasingly enters into the discussions he has with many of the young people who come to see him. “Younger people [teens to mid-20s] appear to be much more accepting of the science and facts than older people,” Levitt observes. He’s also seen an uptick in climate-change-related anxiety in parents with younger children.
“For most people who are anxious about climate change, the anxiety is escalated by the fact they do not see an answer or a way to make a change. Worry plus powerlessness leads to distress,” says Levitt, who is also a professor in the psychiatry department at the University of Toronto.
Let's see, in my youth we had bouts of nasty weather, but then we were warned of a new ice age. (Anyone else recall the brutal winters of the late 1970s?) In addition, what about "the world is doomed" scenarios posited by the likes of Paul Ehrlich? Guess what: Neither of those were even close. Ironically, probably the greatest actual danger kids of my era were (also) warned about was (and is) scoffed at by many on the Left. Hell, even basic facts like JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald being a commie are downplayed and outright ignored.
So, let me reiterate once and for all for those who care: Yeah, I believe there's climate change or whatever nom de guerre is on the plate currently. Is man part of it? Yeah, probably. But this doesn't mean you and I have to drastically alter our lifestyles to conform to whatever it is that morons like Al Gore or Barack Obama say we should. Especially when their carbon footprints are magnitudes larger than our own. Just as the world didn't end due to overpopulation and/or lack of food based on ridiculous Ehrlich-ian "evidence," I highly doubt humanity will cease to exist, or even be in grave danger, because it cannot adapt to whatever climate changes come about. Indeed, if anything, it is highly likely that as the technology curve increases ever-dramatically in the next few decades we'll move to cleaner, safer and renewable energy sources. All easily within grasp this century.
But hey, if you insist on remaining a pessimist, keep in mind that the climate chicken littles have stated that the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere will remain there for about a millennium. There's nothing we can do about it. So why worry about it, huh??
As reported this morning by The Corner, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has withdrawn from the commencement ceremony at Rutgers University. Why? What else? Because some radical, hypocritical "progressives" had protested her appearance, and she ultimately did not want to be a "distraction."
Jay Nordlinger's subsequent take is spot-on. (I particularly like this: "If conservatives wanted to try their hand at the Left’s game, they could say, 'Rutgers apparently can’t stand the sight or sound of an independent black woman.'”) Conservative students have to put up with "progressive" speakers all the time. And there's nary a protest. I'd add that's partly because conservatives, compared to many "progressives," actually have manners. Nevertheless, as personal anecdote, I had to put up with Jumpin' Joe Biden as my college commencement speaker back in the late 80s. Although I wasn't happy about it, and certainly didn't heckle the guy during his speech, my good buddy seated next to me wasn't as constrained. And in retrospect, good for him. Some of his heckling even caused a few profs to turn around and give him a nasty glare, but he remained undeterred. What were they gonna do, after all? We graduated!
Nordlinger calls it "a dirty game," but in my view, that's precisely what the Right has to start playing. Indeed, as a commenter notes at the link above, Boss Obama didn't withdraw as Notre Dame commencement speaker despite protests related to the president's abortion views. The college suffered millions in lost donations as a result, but it didn't back down, just as President Lemon did not. Conservative invitees need to follow this example.
The Legislative Black Caucus in South Carolina is demanding Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom apologize for comments he made about HBCs -- Historically Black Colleges. Let's just see what he said:
"I'm committed to the university because it's a university, not because it's a historically black university. I think the sooner this state gets away from the concept of talking about historically black universities is a step forward for this state," he said. "We no longer talk about historically white universities. I think we need to deal with the issues of funding needs at South Carolina State because it's an institution of higher learning."
The Black Caucus said "Eckstrom needs to research why historically black universities exist."
Funding matters aside, I'd imagine Mr. Eckstrom is fully aware of why such institutions exist. But how does that make what he said inappropriate? As we've noted numerous here at Colossus (see here, for one), when the University of Michigan argued before the US Supreme Court about affirmative action, much of its rationale hinged on what they dubbed a "critical mass" of diversity that [supposedly] enhances educational benefits. So ... where is this "critical mass" at HBCs that would enhance the education of its students?
Don't attempt to rationalize it. Because, like much of political correctness, you can't.
Central Parkway is an alternative school for kids with disciplinary issues. No kidding.
Matthew Balan at Newsbusters features how Salon.com yet again is obsessed with pure nonsense regarding the usual race and gender paradigm, this time regarding mainstream superhero films.
...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....none of those movies have starred anyone other than a straight, white man in the lead role. The Avengers franchise has managed a handful of female characters in non-romantic roles, plus Falcon and Nick Fury in the supporting cast, but the mere concept of an openly LGBT character still feels like a pie-in-the-sky dream. Meanwhile in Marvel comics, Northstar came out in 1992, opening the floodgates for a whole host of other LGBT heroes....
...[T]he chances of Peter Parker coming out in Amazing Spider-Man 3 are more or less nil. Hollywood is (sic) yet to produce a big-budget blockbuster with any kind of LGBT character in the lead role, never mind having an established hero come out after decades of heterosexuality....Considering the fact that white male geeks already have Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, Peter Parker, Reed Richards and Charles Xavier to heroize their nerd cred on the big screen, it's difficult to argue that they still represent some kind of oppressed minority. It's probably time to give someone else a chance.
OK, here goes:
1) The films are "still decades behind the comics" because ... they're decades behind the comics. But that's only because the technology that allows such films to be made (and made well) is a recent development. You couldn't make Spider-Man in 1985. Well, you could, but the result would be like this. Or like the 1990 Captain America flick -- so bad it went straight to video even after being promoted in cinemas. Obviously not big money-makers. Speaking of which ...
2) Does this Salon writer (Gavia Baker-Whitelaw) seriously believe that studio execs would make a move like turning Peter Parker gay? Or any other [of Marvel's] major character(s)? Only if they want to lose a ton of dough. Which they obviously do not. This isn't because they're "homophobic" or cultural dinosaurs; it's because they simply want to make money. And Hollywood makes the vast majority of its cash with safe, don't-have-to-think-too-hard films like Spider-Man and The Avengers.
3) No Marvel movies have featured anything but a straight, white man in the lead role? Wrong. In 1998, Blade came out and was a surprise hit (especially since it was rated "R"). Its star, in case you didn't know, is Wesley Snipes. He's black:
4) Comicbooks (and their movies) don't actually represent real life. Or, they aren't supposed to for the most part. After all, hadn't you noticed that people don't actually acquire the powers of a spider after being bitten by one (radioactive and/or genetically modified)? Or, that we didn't actually have the means in the 1940s to transform a 98-lb. weakling into a superhuman powerhouse? The X-Men, of all superheroes, "represent" societal outcasts and/or oppressed groups. You can decide who that applies to ... and that's precisely the point. Marvel's mutants can relate to virtually anyone -- gays, racial minorities, bullied geeks/nerds, bookworm types, you name it.
Lastly, comicbooks are a much easier medium by which to introduce and/or promote traditionally underserved groups. I understand Baker-Whitelaw's point(s); however, you're not really going to "score any points" by pressuring film studios to make Spider-Man gay, or putting Tony Stark in polygamous relationship. Even altering something like the family of a staple character so as to "improve diversity" gets silly, as with Fantastic Four's rebooted Human Torch.
Unlike people like Baker-Whitelaw (by the way, that last name sounds "racist"), folks could really care less about racial bean counting. They're not "Hey! Johnny Storm needs to be black!" nor do they give a hoot that Blade is a black guy. (And the latter makes the point the best: A very fringe Marvel character with a minority protagonist in an "R" rated film which made a ton of dough.) They just want to be entertained.
A bill unanimously passed the Cali State House that "encourages California schools to teach students about the racial significance of Barack Obama’s presidency." It also notes that Boss Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." The original version indicated that he won the Prize, in part, merely because of his race. (Actually, the original wording seems to point out that the American people deserve the Nobel Prize for their "wisdom" in electing Obama.)
Since the bill uses the term "encourages," I don't see all that big a deal with it. However, I recommend checking this out, and then pondering if the current administration (and its acolytes) aren't following a more increasing "authoritarian patriotism" course ...
At Dartmouth, at least:
This time, the fracas is over a fundraiser for cardiac care that the Phi Delta Alpha fraternity and the Alpha Phi sorority had planned to jointly sponsor, reports Campus Reform.
Problems arose because a single student, junior Daniela Hernandez, was offended by the party’s theme of “Phiesta.”
This hyper-sensitive dolt Hernandez also invoked the latest hot term "cultural appropriation" in her complaint. She was miffed, too, at the "Americanization" of Cinco de Mayo ... which is funny considering the "holiday" isn't all that big in Mexico.
I wonder if Hernandez has, or goes to, a barbecue on July 4. Or goes out for a few beers on March 17. If so, how dare that hypocritical cultural appropriator!!
As a result of Hernandez's bitching and moaning, the Greek organizations ditched the event. *Sigh*
Interesting quote today at Robot 6 which captures comic creator Greg Rucka's thoughts on the douche who thought this shirt was appropriate for a big [comic] convention. Of course, as the ever-lovin' Furious D points out, the comics industry isn't exactly blameless when it comes to gender insensitivity, now is it?. After all, they routinely churn out material like this. And here, is it possible that many creators' shitty attitudes online are due to having to deal with "fans" on a routine basis who would wear shirts like that? Or, the other way around -- many fans' shitty attitudes are merely emulating those of many creators?
But back to Furious who nails it here: "When I was just a fledgling nerd a woman having an interest in the same things that I was interested in was viewed as a gift from Heaven." Indeed! What sort of "guy" would wear a shirt at a huge convention that exemplifies pre-fifth grade male sensibilities? Y'know, the 'ol "girls are icky" schtick? Doesn't that mind-set disappear around age 13 or so when the hormones begin moving and all of sudden you notice that girls are the greatest thing ever? Apparently not, for some.
Furthermore, don't let dopes like this turn the case of one (or more) socially inept buffoons into a cause célèbre for feminism and gender parity. Seriously -- equating the term "fangirl" with "blacks," "Jews," "Asians" or whatever? Dude, WTF.
Lastly, does anyone think if the offensive shirt had "conservatives" instead of "fangirls" there would be such an uproar? Yeah, me neither.
UPDATE: Well well WELL! Looks like the company that made the offensive shirt also offers it with "fanboy" instead of "fangirl." And has so since a year ago. But don't let stop the self-righteous!! No, no, NO. Take writer Kieron Gillen, for instance:
I'm not sure that "we profit off all kinds of hate-speech!" is much of a defense: http://t.co/hrVcp3Q3if— Kieron Gillen (@kierongillen) April 23, 2014
"Hate speech." Ye gad.
Um, why? Because she got shot by a lunatic?
Chalk yet another one up to political correctness.
These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These “alternative-style” debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.
Well, if your judges share the same idiotic philosophy, of course you'll score well.
Two black women won a recent debate on whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted; however, instead of actually addressing the topic, they changed it: "The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities."
Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like “nigga authenticity” and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “Fuck the time!” he yelled.
This year wasn't the first time this had happened. In the 2013 championship, two men from Emporia State University, Ryan Walsh and Elijah Smith, employed a similar style and became the first African-Americans to win two national debate tournaments. Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students.
Aaron Hardy, who coaches debate at Northwestern University, tells of instances where "... judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs."
Truly unbelievable. I wonder how these folks would feel. What's even more unbelievable is that this actually has to be said in 2014: “I think it is wildly reductionist to say that black people can’t understand debate unless there is rap in it—it sells short their potential.”
Uh yeah, 'ya think?
I had to chuckle at this Kurt Busiek retweeted response to politically correct scifi writer John Scalzi:
@scalzi And the point isn't "ALL men are menaces to women." The point is "ALL women have been menaced by men."— Molly Lewis (@Molly23) April 17, 2014
Now, while the "ALL" part of her second point is certainly debatable, I would certainly buy it if she said "A LOT." But this is beside the point. A tweet like this tweet is permissible among the Scalzis and Busieks of the [entertainment] world because it impugns a politically incorrect group -- men -- and "protects" a politically correct group -- women.
I wonder: Does anyone think Scalzi or Busiek would tweet (or retweet) something like "So again, let's say we don't pretend that terrorism isn't a issue MOSTLY about Muslims. Not ALL Muslims, but certainly too many of them"? Or, "And the point isn't "MOST Muslims are terrorists." The point is "MOST terrorists are Muslims"?
Nah. Neither do I. That subject ain't "incorrect" enough for them.
That would be CNN's "National Security Analyst" Peter Bergen's contention that “U.S. right wing extremists [are] more deadly than jihadists.” To wit:
White supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology.
OK, now let that sink in for a moment.
Ready? First, that "contention" is based on [supposed] figures from 9/12/2001 to the present. Pretty convenient that, wouldn't'cha say? Second, Bergen is a director for the George Soros-funded "progressive" New America Foundation which conducted the study from his "facts" are gathered. Also quite convenient. Third, the "political reasons" used for the "right-wing extremist" attacks are dubious. The study included "hate crimes" as "political" in its tally, and some of the killings are clearly questionable as to their "political" nature:
For example, they included a 2009 shootout in a Pittsburgh home where Robert Poplawski killed three police officers after his mother called the police during an argument. Later it was revealed that Poplawski had anti-Semitic views and was an alleged skinhead.
Yet the disparity in media coverage between even failed jihadist terrorist attacks and this latest incident in Kansas is emblematic of a flawed division in the public’s mind between killing that is purportedly committed in the name of Allah and killing that is committed for other political ends, such as neo-Nazi beliefs about the need to kill Jews.
What a riot. Bergen actually believes there's a paucity of media inclination to cover incidents like that in Kansas City the other day as opposed to jihadist-inspired violence. What freakin' planet do guys like Bergen live on?? Because it's certainly not the same planet on which its American mainstream media immediately pounces on any smidgen of evidence to link conservative/right-wing/Republican-based/Tea Partyesque groups to a terror-style attack. Just ask ABC's Brian Ross, for cripe's sake. This, not to mention, the reflexive MSM screaming of "Islamophobia" whenever [radical] Islam is questioned or implicated in a matter as if it's endemic, when in fact anti-Jewish hate crimes far outnumber those that are anti-Muslim. Not surprisingly, Bergen doesn't see fit to mention Muslim anti-Jewish hate, which is just as virulent -- and overall much more common -- than that of neo-Nazis.
The NARRATIVETM, natch.
What's more, his donations to the "controversial" cause were leaked by the IRS to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group. Brendan Eich was recently named CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, makers of the popular Firefox web browser. What Eich did with his own money a few years back is what -- gasp! -- is so "controversial":
Why, then, the ruckus? Amazingly enough, it is entirely due to the fact that Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign urging a ‘yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 8. When this fact first came to light in 2012, after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group, Eich, who was then CTO of Mozilla, published a post on his personal blog stating that his donation was not motivated by any sort of animosity towards gays or lesbians, and challenging those who did not believe this to cite any“incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.”
Upon being named CEO last Wednesday, Eich immediately put up another post which among other things pledged in direct terms first that he would ensure Mozilla continued offering health benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees; second that he would allocate additional resources to a project that aims to bring more LGBTQ individuals into the technology world and Mozilla in particular; and third that he would maintain and strengthen Mozilla’s policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s worth emphasizing that Eich made this statement prior to the storm of outrage which has since erupted, and that with these policies and others Mozilla easily ranks among the most gay-friendly work environments in the United States.
It wasn't enough. Eich resigned yesterday. Amazingly, numerous employees had taken to social media to call for Eich's ouster. How d'ya like that? The supposedly "tolerant" employees call for their boss and part founder of the company for which they work ... to leave??
Because he donated to a campaign promoting traditional marriage.
You see, it's not enough in today's society to believe as Eich does -- favoring traditional marriage yet simultaneously holding anti-discriminatory views about gays. I wonder if Eich has an issue with gay civil unions; I would doubt that he does, based on the quote and statements above. A Google search did not provide anything specific. Granting Eich has no issue with civil unions (and California's Prop 8 had nothing to do with [gay] civil unions, by the way, just the definition of the term "marriage"), that still would have been insufficient for the gay lobby. Don't agree? Then see here. Even though civil unions would [have] confer[red] precisely the same governmental benefits as traditional marriage, the gay lobby argues it would "relegate [gays] to second-class citizenship, maybe third-class -- and that's not enough." And it's about rights and not politics? Uh huh: "Being married and wearing a wedding ring sends a message to society," said Jeffrey Zarrillo, one of the plaintiffs who sought to overturn Prop. 8.
Lastly, here's Andrew Sullivan (who, if you don't know, is gay):
Will he (Eich) now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
I simply await the day when a socialist/leftist who harbors sympathies with, say, Maduro in Venezuela, or Castro in Cuba, or Morales in Bolivia is hounded and forced out of his/her job. Oh wait -- that sounds like 1950s McCarthyism?? BINGO.
Douglas Ernst has more on this.
UPDATE: Business Insider and Slate reporters call Eich's donation to Prop 8 as akin "to someone who 'donated some money to the KKK'" and said that "support of traditional marriage to supporting the 'the civil right to own slaves.'" I'm surprised they omitted that it was like the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Sheesh.
UPDATE 2: James Taranto contradicts the earlier report that the IRS was the culprit behind the revelation of Eich's Prop 8 donation. He notes that Califorina law requires "disclosure of personal information–name, address, occupation and employer’s name–of anybody who gives $100 or more to a campaign for or against a ballot initiative."
And that is Helen Ubinas's Philly Daily News article "We allowed Bartram High fiasco to happen." The high (or low) light:
[The whole situation] should sicken and shame us. But if it did, we wouldn't have generations of young people more schooled in combat than chemistry.
Charles Williams, professor of psychology and education at Drexel University, calls it the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
"The message here is that we don't think poor and black [and] Latino kids can learn, that they ought to learn," Williams said.
"Soft bigotry says that Bartram High School is going to be off the hook because well, those are poor black and Latinos, so what do you expect? And so behavior that is not normal suddenly becomes normalized and accepted."
Uh huh. Isn't this the same high school that emphasizes so-called "restorative practices (or justice)," which is supposed to "build relationships" with chronically disruptive students instead of suspending or expelling them? How many times have schools all across the country been treated to inservices and workshops like these? How many times have teachers across the country been told that blacks and Latinos have their own "unique culture" and hence many "traditional" disciplinary measures enacted by teachers and/or administrators are "biased," "insensitive" and ultimately ... "racist?" And, perhaps "best" of all, our own president has issued edicts to address the "disparate" (and "racist") disciplinary rates in our schools.
Astonishingly, Ms. Ubina didn't even once mention what Bartram's students' home lives are like. Now, why would that be? Given all of this, please enlighten us, Ms. Ubina, how exactly -- and realistically -- would you remedy a situation like that at Bartram High?
You say we allowed Bartram High to happen. True. And it happened virtually purely a result "progressive" policies and theories.
Here we go again: The mainstream media is hyping a "new warning" about the "extreme consequences" of ... global war, er, uh, climate change. Here's ABC News's Jim Avila: "And while global warming is easiest to see at the poles, this new report by a United Nations science panel says there is no more debate. Global warming is real, here now, wreaking havoc worldwide and is caused by humans." And that's just for starters.
Need I remind you what all these "debate is over" folks have screamed about previously: Snow a "thing of the past." The polar ice caps would be gone by now. Etc. We're told you can't look at cold weather instances as proof that global war, er, climate change isn't happening, yet hot weather instances are utilized constantly to make the climate change case.
You know what? Shut up. The climate may indeed be changing and man may indeed be [even largely] responsible. But the constant chicken-littleling has grown beyond tiresome. As some of the newscasts indicated, the United States's greenhouse gas emissions have declined over the years, but those of countries like China and India have gone up. So, WTF are we supposed to do about that? Tell them they can't industrialize after we have already done so? And isn't that what Boss Obama is about, after all -- letting other countries know that the United States isn't special, that we're just another country among all the rest in the world and that we have no right to demand anything of a country we wouldn't demand of ourselves? Further, aren't Boss Obama and "progressives" also all about science? They constantly tell us this, especially regarding the topic at hand. Yet, what happens when a State Dept. study concludes that the Keystone Pipeline will have virtually no effect on global war, er, climate change? Boss Obama sits on his hands. Same for so-called fracking. And why isn't the US going all-out on natural gas development?
Yeah, we can also continue to develop even cleaner options, but it makes zero sense not to develop resources that we have plenty of (which will benefit us greatly in the piss-poor economy) and are less GHG-intensive than oil and coal. But, alas, recall the Victor Davis Hanson maxim.
Check out the quote from Kelly Sue DeConnick, writer of Captain Marvel and Pretty Deadly, made at the Emerald City Comicon:
The message that we send when we don’t represent the broader culture in our stories is that ‘You are other.’ … As a community, as an organism, it is a thing that makes us ill. It is actually bad for us.
*Sigh* Of course, the clamor for "diversity" for folks like contemporary comics creators does not include political diversity. Or diversity of certain types of religion, like, say, Mormon. Are these folks "The Other," Ms. DeConnick? Am I, as a right-leaning comicbook fan, "made ill" by, the not only omission of [positive] role models, but the denigration of those like me in your medium's stories?
Like college/university "diversity," comicbook diversity is only concerned with skin hue and the "right" beliefs. Political ideology, and certain religions and ethnicities are exempt from the interminable demands for diversity. But for comicbook creators, maybe you should take a bit of advice from this commenter: Instead of a paroxysm over diversity, " 'the message we send' when publishers put out crappy comic books is that they don’t care about their characters and they don’t care about their readers."
And what a week it was! First up, apparently it's major news that a Native American -- oops, First Nations -- Cree member has joined the Justice League. Her name is Equinox. The writer is a plain 'ol white guy, but don't worry -- the article notes that he was "keen to check his privilege."
Next up, Bleeding Cool's Rich Johnston (who wrote the above article) seems to have a thing about "white privilege" as, for some reason on a comics site, he felt the urge to discuss the recent "racism" flap surround Stephen Colbert. It seems Johnston has suffered the fate that Colbert is now dealing with from the radical PC (and perpetually offended) Left, despite the fact that Johnston has "checked [his] privilege so often that I qualify for air miles." What a [hilarious] shame, that.
By the way, speaking of the whole Colbert imbroglio, our pal Douglas Ernst got some ink in the BBC about it, especially since he's been a very vocal opponent of that "everything offends me" social media "activist," Suey Park
At Comics Alliance, Andrew Wheeler is a bit miffed at an Iron Man film universe-related video featuring Ben Kingsley (the Mandarin) and Sam Rockwell (Justin Hammer). He devotes a large article to the -- wait for it -- inherent "homophobic" message. If you can make it through the whole thing, Wheeler basically comes off as another aforementioned Suey Park, albeit probably a bit less angry. I tell 'ya, if these yahoos ever get some real power, we'll be facing a society similar to that of this not-very-well known Christian Bale movie.
Avi Green discusses the New York Magazine's "puff piece" about G. Willow Wilson, the post-9/11 Muslim convert who authors Marvel's new (Muslim) Ms. Marvel.
Oh gosh, look -- there was an ECCC (Emerald City Comicon) panel titled "Comics and Healthcare." I'm sure Boss Obama is all tickled pink.
That of hate crime.
The District Attorney's office will charge three teenage girls as adults in connection with several assaults on Temple students that took place Friday.
Najee Bilaal, 16, Zaria Estes, 15, and Kanesha Gainey, 15, have already been arraigned, D.A. spokeswoman Tasha Jamerson said. Estes and Bilaal are being held on a $100,000 bail, and Gainey's bail was set at $75,000.
Bilaal, Estes and Gainey have been charged with aggravated assault, conspiracy, possession of an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.
But ... no hate crime. For the obvious reasons, natch.
Thanks once again to the incomparable Nate Winchester, I was alerted to this latest Cracked.com offering. I'm a big fan of the site (hence its listing in Colossus's "Favorite Reads"), with contributor "Seanbaby" being my fave. However, especially within the last year, there seems to be too many of their writers who display a copious degree of cluelessness about that which they are opining. Case in point is Henrik Magnusson with his article about what this post's title says. It all begins with #5 in which, by any objective person's view, Superman makes a compromise decision which placates both sides of a situation. But since Supes doesn't side with the environmentalists, well, he's such a dick!!! Magnusson would have the Man of Steel give the middle finger to average workers who plead with him not to put the kibosh on their only source of income. These workers know the plant has been an environmental clusterf*** for years, but with Supes' help, an agreement is forged by which the company will do what's right. (A little Superman threat doesn't hurt, either!). Magnusson also thinks that Lois Lane's 1st Amendment rights supercede all this -- she should have the right, dammit, to out this plant and expose them! Maybe Magnusson could put some of this fire behind our real lapdog mainstream media so they'd do some actual reporting on President Lemon.
Also included -- predictably -- is Frank Miller's Holy Terror. Shunned by DC because of its ... "sensitive" nature, Miller took what was originally a Batman tale and turned it into one starring the generic hero The Fixer. Magnusson's title for this section is "Not-Batman Stars in Islamophobic Propaganda." Because the Fixer goes after al Qaeda. Got it? It's Islamophobic to have a good guy go after murderous terrorists just because they happen to be Muslim. Consider: It's really hard to imagine someone screaming "Germanophobia" over the cover of Captain America #1, isn't it?
Yep, that's Cap socking 'ol Uncle Adolf in the kisser. How is this different, again, from what the Fixer does to al Qaeda? Someone explain this to me. Because all I can come up with is that today, contemporary political correctness doesn't like the latter ... because Muslims are supposedly a "protected class." Or something. I know, we hear that "not all Muslims are terrorists" and all, and this is true -- just like not all Germans were Nazis, either.
Furthermore, if Holy Terror is so reprehensible, then why not include Truth: Red, White and Black on the list? One could easily label Truth "anti-white" and/or "anti-American," after all. The 2003 tale deals with "never-before-seen" issues surrounding the origin of Captain America, specifically how the US government attempted to recreate Professor Erksine's super soldier formula -- how the government tested imperfect copies only on African-American soldiers. This is supposed to be an analogy to the infamous Tuskegee experiment where hundreds of black farmers, most of whom were already infected with syphillis, were monitored for several decades, never being told they were ill. But the US government certainly didn't single out specific races in its various questionably unethical experiments over the years. The TV film Nightbreaker starring Martin Sheen and his son Emilio Estevez, for example, details what soldiers (of all colors) were exposed to in the early nuclear, post-WW II age. Not to mention, the Tuskegee experiment has often morphed into the legend that US operatives gave those hundreds of black men syphillis. This isn't too surprising with Joe Quesada-era Marvel as their knowledge of actual history has been found wanting. Quesada, when once discussing Truth, for example, ridiculously stated that "most of the US military" is black. He also wrote in an Iron Man tale from the early 2000s about the "extensive US nuclear testing during WW II." I'll let you figure that one out because I know you're not dumb.
There's also the question of moral equivalence with Truth, something with which the Left has an almost biological need to do when it comes to comparing the United States to other nations. Truth would put us in pretty much the same category as the above-mentioned Nazis, which, as with just about every other such comparison the Left makes, is smirk-inducing.
Magnusson's #1 entry is really a head scratcher as it's the Captain America "Secret Empire" storyline which I've written about previously. While "Empire" can be a bit hokey, it is a clear sign of its times, and is hardly a worthy example of a "disastrous" attempt of politicking. But Magnusson's #4 entry is his best: the ridiculous Marvel 9/11 tributes that featured its most murderous villains weeping over the infamous terror attacks. That's right -- Dr. Doom, Magneto, Dr. Octopus, the Kingpin ... you name 'em. As Magnusson writes, "they went with three guys who have a bigger body count individually than all of al-Qaida combined." Marvel claims the panels in question are "symbolic." I call 'em "idiotic."
Conspiculously missing from Magnusson's article are the numerous examples regarding The Authority, J. Michael Strazynski's Supreme Power, Image's The Big Lie, Captain America vs. the Tea Party, and the myriad other instances we've noted throughout our almost nine years of blogging here at Colossus. But should we really be surprised??
... for a potential Iron Fist TV series, that is. We've been back and forth on this subject matter; on the one hand, making superficial changes in what seems like a mere nod to political correctness is silly (a la making the Human Torch a black guy and/or Dr. Doom a chick), on the other there's the [legitimate] matter of rectifying issues associated with the times in which most of the classic superheroes were created.
Reading through Andrew Wheeler's article about Iron Fist I was struck with a memory of watching the very good Bruce Lee biopic Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. I recall how incredibly disappointed Lee was when his idea for a TV show -- Kung Fu -- was picked up by a network ... but cast a white actor (David Carradine) to play the title character instead of Lee. Sign 'o the times, unfortunately. And hell, this happened all the time, from the 40s (and before, natch) through even to the present day.
The other aspect that the character of Iron Fist possesses is that of the "Great White Hope" where a white character is "needed" to somehow "save the day" after being placed in an "alien" situation. "Enlightened" Hollywood still follows this mantra religiously, notably with teacher movies like Dangerous Minds where a cultured, white educator comes in to "save" hardened, inner city toughs. Is this not patronizing to the Nth degree? Kevin Chow, who's taken up a petition to make Iron Fist's Danny Rand an Asian guy, notes the "GWH" aspect with regards to Asian culture:
“Never mind Danny Rand, you have Snake Eyes, Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai, Daniel-san [in The Karate Kid], Wolverine, every Steven Segal and Jean-Claude Van Damme movie ever, hell, even Batman for chrissakes!”
Point taken. But Chow would be a lot better received if he didn't dawdle in the ridiculous notion of "cultural approbation," as if that in itself is a bad thing. (Just recall this recent inanity from Salon.com.) If anything, it should be considered a compliment if someone desires to "appropriate" an aspect from another culture; again, the patronizing comes in when the "appropriators" are somehow "needed" to do some "saving."
Chow also glosses over the fact that by making Danny Rand an Asian guy, Marvel'd be perpetuating the stereotype that all Asians know martial arts:
I don’t think so. Look, the problem with the Asian martial artist stereotype is not the art itself. The problem has always been how Asian martial artists have been portrayed in Western media. As someone who has practiced martial arts and admires and respects it, I don’t run away from that aspect of my heritage.
That's pretty lame, if you ask me. It also reminds me of the scene in Revenge of the Nerds where a football player asks nerd Takashi if he "knows karate." Y'know, because he's Asian:
Would Chow say "I don't think so" if one assumed all African-Americans know how to play basketball? Or would that, too, be merely "how it's portrayed?" I doubt it.
All this being said, overall I don't believe it to be a big deal if Iron Fist is altered to be an Asian guy. After all, I.F. is a B or even C-list Marvel character, and this potential series will be on Netflix, not even network or cable TV.
Big Hollywood is reporting what I already suspected about the upcoming Cap 2: Winter Soldier flick: That SHIELD's secrets will reveal a government conspiracy of some sort (hell, we already wondered that from watching The Avengers; recall Nick Fury yapping with that mysterious quartet on video, seeking approval for various actions ... who were they?), and with far-lefty Robert Redford starring in a villainous role, this virtually confirms such. This doesn't concern me as much as what I read about the second Cap sequel:
“We’ve definitely set out on a more realistic road in the Cap movies, you know,” [screenwriter Christopher] Markus told Den of Geek. “Even more grounded than in the other MCU movies. And so it kind of rules out Cap fighting the Dinosaur Man or something like that. There are some that aren’t gonna start and other ones that — I mean there’s a couple we’re playing with right now that we really want to take elements from. Which we’ll not reveal. … All I’m saying is psychotic 1950s Cap.”
Spinoff in the link above offers an in-depth analysis of just who the 1950s Captain America is (was); his initial introduction into the Marvel mythos, despite its politics, is one of the more well-done 1970s offerings by noted creator Steve Englehart. It began in issue #153 when "a" Captain America and, then, of all people, "a" Bucky, were raging through Harlem beating the snot out of people. Cap's partner, the Falcon, stumbled upon them, and virtually immediately knew they were imposters. The ersatz duo then proceed to hatch a plot to capture whom they believe to be the fake Cap (our own Steve Rogers, the real Cap), and in the process we learn just who this Capt. America and Bucky are ...
The 1950s Cap is really William Burnside, a fanatical devotee of the real Captain America. He was such a fanatic that he wrote his college thesis about Cap, and in the process discovered files regarding Project: Rebirth (that which created the real Cap) as well as details about the super soldier serum used to turn Steve Rogers into that super soldier. Later (get this), he underwent the 'ol plastic surgery to turn himself into a copy of Steve Rogers, and became a government agent as a new Cap during the Korean War. But the war quickly ended, and the gov. ended Burnside's new career. (All this was told in Capt. America #155, see above left.)
Burnside subsequently became a teacher, but when the Red Skull attacked the UN building, he and his new pal, Jack Monroe, took a chance and injected themselves with that serum Burnside had discovered years prior. They took on the Skull as the new Cap and Bucky, and won. But by taking just the [super soldier] serum and not being exposed to other parts of the process (like "vita rays"), Burnside and Monroe experienced psychotic episodes. The government quickly put the kibosh on their fledgling careers, and placed them into suspended animation.
Here's where the "worrisome" (so for those right-of-center, of course) comes in: Years later, an anti-Communist zealot freed Burnside and Monroe, hopefully to assist against the commies in the continuing Cold War. This Cap and Bucky saw Communists everywhere, including among historically oppressed African-Americans. (This is where the Falcon first notices them, as noted above.) Englehart's story is a masterwork of Marvel continuity; however, as he did with the also-masterful "Secret Empire" story some twenty issues later, his villains are fanatical, power hungry rightists who are beyond devoted to snuffing out any who oppose them. In retrospect, what Richard Nixon did during Watergate (the analogy for "Secret Empire") pales in comparison to what we see today, currently. And Englehart's message via the 1950s Cap is that anti-communism equates to Joe McCarthy-style witch hunts ... not to mention that you're nuts.
Englehart's stories are a product of their times, to be sure. Which means translating the 1950s Cap to 2016 or 2017 whenever Cap 3 comes out has the extreme potential to be just another Hollywood "blast conservatives" slug fest. Which, in these times won't be received very well. Consider: Englehart made the Capt. America who fought Communists in the 1950s a psychotic nutjob. Aside from the Silver Age 1960s (Marvel Comics' own "rebirth," so to speak), fighting Communists was mostly anathema for superheroes. Fascists? Not so much. (If you've taken a poli sci course you know that far-left=communism, far-right=fascism ... but in a circular political spectrum model the extremes are essentially the same and meet.) Captain America continued his battle against fascists into the next decades, including, but not limited to, the Grand Director (who was actually Burnside himself, natch), The Watchdogs, Crossbones, Dr. Faustus, Karl Stryker, and the Super-Patriot. Another version of that last one, named John Walker, ironically eventually assumed the role of Capt. America after the US government used its "muscle" (including, ahem, the IRS) to demand Steve Rogers serve it. Rogers resigned the role of Cap and Walker took over. But writer Mark Gruenwald portrayed Walker as -- wait for it! -- mentally unstable. Walker became more bloodthirsty, killing his enemies, something Steve Rogers would never do if it could be helped.
See the message? "Patriotic"="unstable" and "visceral." This was during the 1980s, natch, and we all know who was president then! The writer even showed Steve Rogers, when contemplating resigning as Cap so as not to be a government lackey, thinking of possible missions he could be sent on -- with a panel detailing a hypothetical replacement fighting (gasp!) Communists in Nicaragua. In recent years, we've seen Captain America investigate the Tea Party, for cripe's sake.
And hey, maybe that's precisely who the villain, if the 1950s Cap is revived in the present day for Captain America 3, will be -- an "anti-government Tea Party type." Knowing Hollywood (and contemporary comicbook creators), this would make perfect sense. To them. Because the insulated "progressive" bubble in which they live tells them so.
Unbelievably, this was the absolutely first story at Philly.com around mid-day today:
Hot Air details the Catch-22 the diversophiles frequently find themselves in again. In this case, it's the Ferndale Public School District in Michigan where there's a contract which contains some usual affirmative action-associated mumbo jumbo, but also some legally curious and unintentionally funny words/clauses:
Should there be two (2) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications for the position and one (1) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications is a current employee, the current employee with the greatest seniority shall be assigned. Special consideration shall be given to women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith. However, in all appointments to vacant positions, the Board’s decision shall be final.
First, why would women be granted "special consideration" for an education position? They make up approximately three quarters of all teaching positions and about 62% of administrators. But worse, how in the hell would the district determine an employee's religion? It's impermissible to inquire about such let alone promote somebody based on it.
Not too surprisingly, the local ACLU is incurious about all this.
There's probably no better take down of this latest bullsh** politically correct nonsense than Matt Walsh's:
Bossy liberal feminists have just invented another ridiculous reason to be offended.
Sheryl Sandberg, a Facebook executive, has partnered with the likes of the Girl Scouts, Condoleezza Rice, Beyoncé, Jennifer Gardner, and Google to promote the “Ban Bossy” campaign. Calling it the new “B-word,” Ms. Sandberg claims that women — especially young girls — are typically dismissed as “bossy” when they attempt to take charge and assert themselves, whereas men and boys are praised as leaders.
She says that “bossy” has a specifically female connotation, and the word is partly responsible for holding women back and making them feel timid and self-conscience.
Now, as much as I appreciate Ms. Sandberg, Beyoncé, and the Girl Scouts chiming in to tell us all what we mean when we say things (kind of bossy of them, actually), I still prefer to consult the dictionary on these matters.
According to that old misogynistic book of lies, bossy means “given to ordering people around, highhanded, domineering, overly authoritative, dictatorial, abrasive.”
Be sure, as they say, to read Matt's whole post. But ... "a specifically female connotation?" Tell that to Larry:
Even better is Walsh's response to the purveyors of PC feminism who were miffed at his "Bossy" post!
Via Chicks on the Right: Liam Neeson's new flick Non-Stop features villains all-too typical by contemporary "progressive" standards ...
SPOILER ALERT!! See spoilers "below the fold" ...
...the villain is not a hijacker but a terrorist -- someone who wants to murder everyone on the plane to further a political goal.
The terrorist is a 9/11 family member. Yes, you read that right; the terrorist is a 9/11 family-member who lost a loved-one in the World Trade Center on that terrible September morning.
It gets worse…
After 9/11, this 9/11 family member-turned-terrorist then joined the military but found himself disillusioned by the pointless wars.
The 9/11 family member-turned-terrorist is upset because America hasn’t done enough to ensure there will never be another 9/11. And so he figures that if he can get an air marshal blamed for a terrorist attack, America will wake up and anally probe us before we're allowed on a plane, or something.
It gets worse…
The villain's sidekick is a member of the American military willing to murder 150 innocent people for a payday.
It gets worse…
The one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.
Of course! But I especially like how the villain was disillusioned by the "pointless wars," but at the same time is pissed off that the US "hasn't done enough" to thwart another 9/11. That's some logic gold, there, eh?
Oh boy, you know what that means:
According to one Harvard student, the “doctrine of academic freedom” should be replaced by a standard of “academic justice.”
“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?” asked Sandra Korn, a member of the class of 2014, in an editorial in the Crimson, Harvard’s official newspaper.
Korn proposes instead that “[w]hen an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.”
Of course, you know by now that to radical "progressives," "justice" is whatever they deem it to be. In effect, no matter how factual or scientifically-based, Korn would thwart a study or class being available to students because it may fly against her supposed notions of "[academic] justice."
By the way, Korn "is a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality" major. So, this ridiculous edu-garbage is pretty much what you'd expect.
The original article is here.
We've discussed the rumors of Jordan, a black actor, playing the blond-haired, blue-eyed Johnny before; however, looking at the images of the entire quartet -- especially Teller as Reed -- all one can say is "WTF????" As someone noted in the comment section of the first link, what is this -- "Fantastic Four 90210??" Teller looks like he's thirteen. Bell doesn't appear much older. And the only one of the four I've ever seen in a film (which doesn't mean much, admittedly) is Mara (she played Heath Ledger's oldest daughter in Brokeback Mountain).
And, naturally, the PC Police are out and about, crying "racism" when anyone dares to take issue with Jordan playing the Torch. The funniest thing about this is that at least one commenter takes this on in ... an ironic way:
Why Jonny?[sic] Why not Reed? A black guy can't be smart? He has to be the dumb jock?
Really, I think Reed being black makes a ton more sense if you were going to racebend anyone. Not that they should be. They should be promoting black heroes instead of using white ones with black actors.
At the CBR forum on the topic, this comment might be even better: "Like someone suggested they should turn Richards and Grimm into gay lovers to fill the quota."
If there's the slightest inkling of "homophobia" by a non-politically correct entity, BEWARE the mainstream media enforcement mechanism. For instance, watch out if Michael Sam is drafted lower than the power-that-be think he should be. Hell, just look at all the media attention already given to the man.
But what if a fellow Hip Hop artist was gay? What would happen then?
[Rapper T-Pain] told Vlad TV that he believes the perception that rap has become more 'gay-friendly' in recent years is a little off the mark. "I think the radio is getting more gay-friendly," he said. "I don't think urban music is getting more gay-friendly because if that was the case, Frank Ocean would be on a lot more songs.
"I know n***as that will not do a song with Frank Ocean just because he gay ...
Don't expect much scrutiny to this. After all, we're talking about two "oppressed" categories here. Just as Muslim feelings towards homosexuals are rarely scrutinized by the MSM, so it is with those of African-Americans. Just consider a few years ago with California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state. 70% of blacks voted for the measure. They, along with mostly Catholic Hispanics, cast their vote based on their faith.
How about that, eh?
... but you get suspended for the one instance of responding in kind. Such is what happened to Philly sports talk host Mike Missanelli. After years of receiving e-mails from a deranged fan, e-mails which included "the use of racial epithets, threats against Missanelli's daughter and calling an ex-girlfriend a whore," Missanelli finally responded. But -- gasp!! -- he used a "homophobic" slur in said response! In today's world, there's no greater offense! As such, Missanelli got a week suspension.
This is relevant to this post from yesterday, where a member of the LGOMB thinks it's no big deal if a gay (man) scopes out another (straight) guy's package. But heaven forbid if a (straight) guy objects! Or, makes a comparison to (straight) gender differences and how they're analogous.
Via Doug Ernst: This shouldn't surprise a soul:
Buzzfeed Editor Editor Peter Lauria: I have noticed that most of the guests are mostly white males. Of 22 episodes you’ve had —
Seinfeld: Yeah, let’s get into that. Take a look over here, Peter. What do you see? A lot of whiteys! What’s going on here?!
Oh, this really pisses me off. This really pisses me off, but go ahead. [...] There were a lot of things about ‘Comedians and Cars’ from the very beginning — the first ten I did were all white males and people were writing all about that. People think it’s the census or something. It’s gotta represent the actual pie chart of America. Who cares? Funny is the world that I live in. You’re funny, I’m interested. You’re not funny, I’m not interested. I have no interest in gender or race or anything like that, but everyone else is kind of calculating ‘Is this the exact right mix?’ To me it’s anti-comedy. It’s anti-comedy. It’s more about PC nonsense than “Are you making us laugh or not?”
In response, complete dolt Kyle Chayka at Gawker says Seinfeld is a racist:
Jerry Seinfeld, the most successful comedian in the world and maker of comedy for and about white people, isn't interested in trying to include non-white anything in his work.
Which is too bad, because Seinfeld is downplaying the work of everyone from Richard Pryor and Bill Cosby to Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kaling, and Eddie Huang, who are all in various stages of their own sitcoms that just might turn out to be the next Seinfeld.
In conclusion: Yes, comedy should represent the entire pie chart of America, and the glorious, multicolored diversity pie should be thrown directly at Jerry Seinfeld's face.
Hmm. Let's see what sort of "multicolored diverse" articles Mr. Chayka has written of late:
Of course, you see how utterly ridiculous this is. And for "progressives" like Buzzfeed's Lauria and Gawker's Chayka, "multi-colored" and "diversity" are only necessary when it comes to Caucasians. Unless, that is, when it comes to applying the concept to themselves. (See also here and here.)
Maybe next Chayka can do an article on this worthy topic: Using white paper can cause racism in young children. I sh** you not. So says, natch, an “early years consultant who advises local authorities on equality and diversity.”
The very best thing we can do to such complete nonsense is just what Seinfeld did -- laugh at them and look 'em in the eye and tell 'em how f***ing ridiculous they are.
It could happen, according to Bleeding Cool:
But surely the most interesting proposition they raise is that Josh Trank and Fox are open to gender-swapping iconic F4 villain Dr. Doom, who is expected to be the Big Bad here as well. Here’s how they’re approaching casting the character: the studio is likely to go for a big name and isn’t ruling out switching genders for the role.
Uh ... whaaaaat??? Last May rumors surfaced that a black actor may take over the role of the Human Torch; now we possibly may get a Doc Doom with breasts. Why not change the team moniker to the Politically Correct Four? And why stop at the Torch and Doom? Why not an Asian Reed Richards and Native American Sue Storm? And, how about making the Thing out of dry ice instead of rock, so that when his body sublimates there can be ample room for a discussion of anthropogenic global warming?
And both come via Philly.com, natch. The first is an AP story out of Oregon that (amazingly-but-not-really) gets national headlines: Trader Joe's backs black-neighborhood store plan.
The Trader Joe's grocery-store chain has dropped a plan to open a new store in the heart of the city's historically African-American neighborhood after activists said the development would price black residents out of the area. Critics said the development would displace residents and perpetuate income inequality in one of the most rapidly gentrifying ZIP codes in the nation.
The Portland African American Leadership Forum said the development commission had in the past made promises about preventing projects from displacing community members but hadn't fulfilled them.
It sent the city a letter saying it would "remain opposed to any development in N/NE Portland that does not primarily benefit the Black community." It said the grocery-store development would "increase the desirability of the neighborhood," for "non-oppressed populations."
TJ's is too pricey? My daughter works part-time at a local TJ's and always begs me to come shop there because many of their prices are cheaper than "big name" chain supermarkets. And she's right. Still, haven't we heard about how some health issues in the African-American are due to not having "healthy" foods available in their communities? Why yes, we have. So, why then would this community want a supermarket known for its healthy products out of the community??
Elsewhere, in Philly, women are complaining about men not protecting them from a rash of purse snatchings:
"Where are our men? Why are they not protecting us?" [Tyema] Sanchez continued, her voice full of frustration. "Men are failing us. I feel as though we are not being protected."
One may wonder why Philly.com chose to emphasize this part of the story since it's actually only a small part of it. And one may also wonder why there was no Women's/Gender Studies professor was interviewed to say how wrong-headed Ms. Sanchez is for demanding that those with Y-chromosomes protect her. After all, how long have we been conditioned now to view the sexes as "equal" in every arena imaginable ... despite how silly the notion is?
"Rescuers have freed a man who had been stuck for hours in a pipe at a water treatment plant in New Jersey." The dude's name is Asef Mohamed. So, naturally, the report adds this: "United Water officials said they have no idea why Mohamed did it."
No. Idea. Not one clue. Not even a guess.
But of course. I mean, we can't upset that idiot Eric Holder now, can we?
This should come as little surprise, nor should the paper's lies:
For example, African-American students represent only 15 percent of public school students, but they make of 35 percent of students suspended once, 44 percent of those suspended more than once and 36 percent of those expelled. Statistical information does not in itself prove discrimination. But research has shown that black students do not engage in more serious or more frequent misbehavior than other students.
Just don't ask they Times about that research. Because it's nonsense. As a former Education Dept. lawyer rebuts:
The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Armstrong (1996) that there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since that is “contradicted by” real world data. For example, blacks, who are only 13% of America’s population, commit nearly half of all murders — four times the general rate.
[As] Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has noted, black teenagers are 25 times as likely to get arrested in Chicago as whites, and the black homicide rate for teenagers is 10 times higher nationally than for whites.
Yet, incredibly, the Education Departments treats that false presumption as fact, and insists that there is no evidence of “more frequent” misbehavior by some groups, and that ”research suggests that the substantial racial disparities of the kind reflected in the CRDC data are not explained by more frequent or more serious misbehavior by students of color.”
And check out where the Times says that there are "two kinds of discrimination": "... and cases where policies — like mandatory suspension, expulsion or ticketing — are administered in a race-neutral manner but have a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race." This is pure Orwellian nonsense at its finest. How is it "discrimination" when the policies are administered in a RACE-NEUTRAL MANNER?? How, and on what basis, is this "unjustified?"
As previously noted, two US Supreme Courts cases -- United States v. Armstrong and People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education -- have established that what the Dept. of Education plans on doing in our schools is clearly unconstitutional.
There's a lot more here.
RELATED: The Wilmington (DE) News Journal agrees with the Times ("The statistics are on [the Obama administration's] side. Minority students and students with disabilities suffer more and greater discipline for transgressions than white students do. It is happening across the country, but a handful of states standout. Unfortunately, Delaware is one of them."); however, they offer this common sense caveat:
The trouble with the Holder-Duncan order is that the federal data is incomplete and the policy offers schools little help in fixing the problem. We are afraid it will merely create another federal mandate to fill out more paperwork merely for the sake of filling an in-basket in Washington.
In addition, as we noted in our last post, the Journal recognizes the Catch-22 schools are in:
Only a few years ago, after the shootings at Columbine and again at Newtown, Conn., the public – and elected officials – demanded armed guards in schools and zero tolerance policies for transgressions. Now the complaint is that the guards are leading to more arrests and zero tolerance policies are mindless bureaucratic traps. The schools will be criticized no matter which way they turn.
Indeed. What this is, folks, is an edict for outright denial of reality. The feds are mandating that teachers and administrators live in the Land of Make Believe.
ALSO RELATED: Linda Chavez tears apart this nonsense.
The Obama administration is seeking racial quotas in the nation's public schools. No, not quotas for some perceived racial balance just for a school's population, but for the number of students disciplined. In other words, if the discipline figures for a school don't more or less equal that of the school's [racial] population ... then it's racist.
It’s part of a larger effort — backed by teachers unions, civil rights advocacy groups and other organizations — to combat the “school-to-prison pipeline,” in which minority students are disproportionately kicked out of school and subsequently end up in the criminal justice system.
But within its guidance, most of which is not controversial and merely reinforces existing nondiscrimination laws, the administration also declares that schools’ disciplinary policies cannot have a “disparate impact” on one particular group.
In plain terms, it means district rules, guidelines and enforcement cannot result in the punishment of more black students than white students for the same offense, for example.
With that in mind, school leaders surely will keep a close eye on whether the same number of children from given racial groups are disciplined in equal number and equal measure for the same behavior.
“You have to make certain that your school discipline cases match those percentages. If you don’t, you’ll have the feds on your doorstep,” said Joshua Dunn, a political science professor at the University of Colorado and director of the university’s Center for Legal Studies. “If they actually do enforce these guidelines, there will be unintended consequences. This creates some rather destructive incentives. I don’t think there’s any way around that.”
The feds are pushing methods "for creating safe and positive school climates, which are essential for boosting student academic success and closing achievement gaps.” In other words, things the schools should be doing that parents used to. Yet another thing on teachers' and administrators' plates all the while politicians clamor for accountability on the academic front. At any rate, you now can't just kick a kid out of the classroom for being a constant disruption; you have to find out why the kid is doing what he's doing, and then take actions to help "remedy" it. You know, while your 30+ other kids are still sitting in class awaiting instruction. Take a look at the doublespeak and wishful thinking on the part of the feds:
"Maintaining safe and supportive school climates is absolutely critical, and we are concerned about the rising rates and disparities in discipline in our nation’s schools,” said Secretary Duncan. “By teaming up with stakeholders on this issue and through the work of our offices throughout the department, we hope to promote strategies that will engage students in learning and keep them safe.”
Requiring racial quotas in discipline will make schools and classrooms anything but safe and supportive. Why in the world does the government care more about the chronic problem students than the vast majority of students who wish to ... learn?
Hans Bader, a former attorney with the [federal] Education Dept., notes that ultimately, this sort of federal "oversight" could get it into trouble:
“The only practical way for a school system to comply with the Education Department’s demands is to adopt a de facto racial quota in discipline. But this itself puts the school system in legal jeopardy, since at least one federal appeals court has said that schools cannot use racial targets or quotas for school discipline, since that violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Bader added that in the case of People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, the court ruled that “a school cannot use race in student discipline to offset racial disparities not rooted in school officials’ racism (so-called “disparate impact”).”
Bader adds that, regarding People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education,
... it didn’t just strike down overt use of race to achieve a racial target or racial balancing. It voided even the requirement of racial balance, thus disposing of any potential argument by the Education Department that it’s OK to require racial targets or balancing, as long as the school is merely told to achieve the target, but not (explicitly) told to use race to achieve it.
So, maybe a school district that'd be willing to stand up to Eric Holder and Arne Duncan (good luck, though -- money, after all) can emphasize this case, among others. Others such as United States v. Armstrong (an 8-1 decision) which held that "crime rates are not the same for different races, and that racial disparities in crime rates and conviction rates are not proof of racial discrimination." Bader continues that not disciplining black students for misbehavior or some other violation just because some other black students were previously disciplined (more than white students) is "as crazy as ordering police to stop arresting black criminals just because they previously arrested more blacks than whites."
The feds state also that even if a school discipline policy "is neutral on its face," and "is administered in an evenhanded manner," if it has that disparate impact on students of a particular race, it's bad. Ironically however, policies like much maligned "zero tolerance" measures (those applied to whomever no matter what whenever the policy is violated) came about partly because school officials were fearful of "lawsuits charging that principals disciplined unequally based on race or other factors." Setting straight, specific guidelines enabled administrators to say "Look, you did this. This is the consequence. It's written right here." Schools set up their own codes of conduct which did the same thing. But then ... the racial numbers still weren't "balanced" after the implementation of these measures! B-b-b-b-but ...! (Also take a look at Kilroy's coverage of Delaware's Christina School District's intervention by the feds regarding disparate disciplinary measures. One of the points of contention was that, yes, the district was using terminology that was too subjective, thus making the point about the origin of zero tolerance policies. What a Catch-22. A school board member even noted that the district's definition of "inappropriate behavior" needed to be "thoroughly defined.")
Let's cut to the chase: As was alluded to above, if law enforcement was required to arrest people in proportion to their numbers in the general population, the result would be chaos. Crime would be beyond rampant and society would crumble. (UPDATE: Has this already begun?) Why should we expect schools, then, to follow such a ridiculous idea? Would you want your child to attend a school where the most chronically disruptive students weren't only not removed from your kid's class, but weren't even disciplined period?? What do you think that class would be like? What do you think that school would be like? It seems that when consultants, lawyers, advocates, and school officials ask why there may be disparate disciplinary rates among races in schools, the reasons bandied about rarely, if ever, include the obvious: that maybe, just maybe, students in certain [racial/ethnic] groups actually misbehave more often than others. And then consider this: should we do away with penalties things such as lateness to school and/or class? If there is a preponderance of students of a particular race coming late to class, how would that be evidence of teacher/administrator/institutional racism? Would clocks now be considered prejudiced? (Well, yes, actually. Because staff would be treated to something akin to this, where they'd be "educated" on how certain groups are different, and that "linear time is an inherently Caucasian-Western concept." And, hence is discriminatory. Or something.)
Ultimately, this is all the product of the current Democratic-led Education Department which, as Bader says, "outsource[s] civil-rights policy to left-wing radicals" and leads to guidelines and interpretations "which were probably drafted by left-wing civil-rights bureaucrats with little understanding of how classrooms operate in the real world."
The Oneida Indian Nation "is refusing to accept recent polling that finds widespread, bipartisan support for the Redskins’ name." Why? Because Public Policy Polling didn't indicate in their question that the NFL team's name was offensive. Here's what PPP asked: “Do you think the Washington Redskins should change their nickname, or not?”
What would OIN have the question ask instead? Apparently something like "The dictionary says the term 'Redskin' is a racial slur; do you support Washington keeping that name for its football team?" Yeah, nice push polling there. The dictionary also says "gay" means "happy." So? And the actual history of the term isn't exactly what OIN claims.
Related the former Minnesota Vikings Chris Kluwe matter noted most recently here, Hudson Taylor opines via CNN.com that heterosexual athletes who are questioned about their sexuality don't do enough if they merely say "I'm not gay."
While [Green Bay Packers QB Aaron] Rodgers effectively put an end to the discussion of personal life and vowed to "keep on trucking," what was left unsaid was any support for the LGBT community or contemplation of the broader questions such rumor-mongering raises about our sports culture and the specter of acceptance.
Why is it up to Rodgers to do that? Hudson notes in his article that Rodgers is "intensely private;" why does he have to do more than just answer the question of whether he's gay or not, let alone answer it at all? Y'see, this is where advocates for the LGBT community tend to ... lose many in the straight community who are otherwise if not completely sympathetic to their situation, at least understanding. It's not enough to just accept gay team/classmates; you have to be proactive about the lifestyle ... and even promote it. Rodgers, according to Hudson, should have added something like, "Yeah, I'm not gay but what would have been the big deal if I was?" Even though the Packers QB is, again, "intensely private."
A lot of the remainder of what Hudson says is certainly admirable: He's a [straight] college wrestling coach who has taken an active role in battling homophobia in sports. He speaks highly of the aforementioned Kluwe, but seems to take his side of the current squabble with his former team, despite the fact that the accused have vigorously denied Kluwe's allegations, and that there's little dispute that Kluwe's "outspokenness" on LGBT issues became a distraction to the Vikings when he was still on their roster.
Via Douglas Ernst: Filmmaker Kevin Smith is going to demonstrate how ... "brave" of a guy he is with his next endeavor: A movie titled Helena Handbag, about "mankind teaming up with Hell to fight a rapturing giant Jesus."
Gee, how "edgy!" How "courageous!" How "daring!"
As Doug says,
If Kevin Smith wants a movie that no one else would make, perhaps he could write a film that pits Giant Muhammed against Mothra. Giant Muhammed could also have a harem of topless women the size of The Sacred Mosque Al-Masjid Al-Haram. But Smith won’t go there because it’s easier to needle Christians with “Christzilla” than it is to make a film that lands on the radar of the world’s nuttiest Islamic clerics. Just ask Mark Basseley Youssef (formerly Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims.” He’s the guy the Obama administration couldn’t act fast enough to pull out of his home for a perp walk. Crime? Daring to criticize Islam.
Not to mention, there's the little tidbit about being scared shitless. Just ask MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell about that: In a rare moment of complete honesty, Crazy Larry admitted that "I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I'm afraid for my life if I do." When asked about, say, Mormons, O'D responded, "They'll never take a shot at me. Those other people (Muslims), I'm not going to say a word about them."
The ever-indignant Furious D has more. Which certainly makes sense since his Offend-Bore Matrix comes into play here. The OBM says
The use of insulting portrayals of politically correct targets to give a project more appeal to critics and within Hollywood, but fails to sell tickets because it offends a large swathe of the audience while boring the rest.
So he makes films like Red State, a horror film about Hollywood's irrational fear of "psycho American Christians" inspired by America's craziest pseudo-Christian religious cult the Westboro Baptist Church which consists of 1 large family and approximately 5 other people, who haven't actually done any physical violence. In fact, all the Westboro dicks seem good at is attracting attention for being obnoxious.
It got him some attention, but the film wasn't the noble disaster he needed to bow out. So why not ... follow that up with an apocalyptic comedy about battling Jesus.
Indeed. And that's precisely the Offend-Bore Matrix -- it'll give more "cred" to Smith in the comfy bubble of Hollywood, but he won't make squat at the box office. And, Smith won't have a damn thing to worry about safety-wise, despite the "message" of flicks like Red State.
Have you ever wondered if refusing to date a transgender woman is bigoted? Here's the answer you'd probably expect from a place like the Democratic Underground. (Beware: Major deconstructivist-type euphemisms and jargon. If you haven't a clue as to what's being said, don't feel too bad):
... the answer is somewhere between no not necessarily but probably so. In that, a narrative of desire around trans bodies does not exist & in that absence one of degradation and shame is offered in its place. So automatically you have sexualities and accompanying desires shaped in a context of transphobia, which both excludes and pathologizes trans bodies as abhorrent.
A lot of male sexuality is also constructed around employing hierarchies of womanhood as trophies, to prove their own worth and engage in a process of gendering themselves through access to womens’ bodies. Within that framework, some hold more currency and others (transwomen) can actually subvert heteronormative male sexualities. The opinions and shared norms of sexuality among peers, performed on womens’ bodies, plays a huge part in constructing their sexuality as well. You can imagine where transwomen fall on this scale. There’s also the fact that most men dont even have enough literacy of our bodies and our lives to even know who we are and if they are attracted to us. And dont attempt to do so because of cisnormativity.
With that being said, we live in the world we live in. If a man chooses not to date a transwoman, whatever the reason, that is his choice (though one probably informed by cisnormativity.) I am however concerned with if, in not dating transwomen, he also reinforces cissexism and transphobia in his words and actions. Everything is not for everybody nor does it have to be (even though ironically transwomen seem to always get the short end of this stick hmmm.) But what are men doing to not actively continue & participate in this cycle of shame around transwomens’ bodies? What are they doing to stop putting our lives at risk? How are they discussing our bodies and lives? In choosing not to date us, are they offering up bioessentialist rhetoric and trying to delegitimize/undermine our genders?
If you managed all the "-ism" lingo you probably see the conclusion is yes -- if you're a [straight] male and will not date a transgendered woman, you're engaging in bigotry. And further, by not doing so, you're even putting transgendered folks' lives at risk! How about that, eh?
Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists. If dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A&E has chosen profits over African American and gay people – especially its employees and viewers.
You can read the entire GQ interview with Robertson here. His supposed "praising" of Jim Crow laws is on page one, and the "comparison" of gays to terrorists is on page two.
As I've said in the past, I've never seen this show (and don't plan on watching it) but I do believe the network had every right to do what it wanted regarding Robertson. They axed him ... and then they brought him back. I totally understand how certain groups would get offended by some of his remarks; of course, the issue beyond the remarks is the media interpretation -- and coverage -- of such. As we well know, only remarks made (or actions taken) by certain people/groups are socially/culturally impermissible. This is why Robertson was so quick to be dismissed in the first place, while Capital One could have cared less about Alec Baldwin's noxious behavior (and hey -- where was GLAAD then?), not to mention MSNBC regarding myriad instances. Just to note two institutions, natch.
... but convert to Islam and call for the death of another person? Get inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
KISS led the popular vote, while [Cat] Stevens brought up the rear. However, the Hall has a sort of “electoral college” that gets to override the people’s choices.
This leads to a frankly bizarre situation, in which bands like Yes (10.88% of the popular vote) and Deep Purple (11.93%) beat out Stevens (5.37%) but don’t get inducted.
Yep, Cat Stevens, who in the 1970s (after "years of multi-platinum success" and hence, making a ton of dough) converted to Islam and assumed the name Yusuf Islam, called for the death of author Salman Rushdie and supported Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. And the Hall calls all this ... "courageous." That's right -- "courageous."
That had to be how this dope got in. What else explains it? He finishes last in the popular vote, yet gets in thanks to the PC powers-that-be because his conversion was "courageous." And over a group like Yes, too, which makes me even angrier. (Yes is one of my favorite music groups. Deep Purple is one of my old college friend's fave bands.)
I like what Kathy Shaidle wishes: A smackdown of Stevens/Islam by KISS's Gene Simmons (who's Jewish) on live TV.
That's what "tolerant" and "sensitive" comics creator Gail Simone tweeted early this morning about Fox News's Megyn Kelly,, after several days of mocking the pundit's comments about Santa Claus "being white':
In other news, @megynkelly still a horrible person.— Gail Oakenpants (@GailSimone) December 17, 2013
Good gad, what exactly did Ms. Kelly do to merit such a denunciation? Well, she committed the most evil thing someone could do in the eyes of a radical "progressive": She dared to challenge said radical "progressive" dogma. In a segment on her show last week, Kelly addressed an essay by a black woman, Aisha Harris, who "was upset about the commercial depiction of Santa Claus as white." Ms. Harris had written "Fat old white man who is, quote,melanin deficient, made her feel ashamed as a child." Harris opined that perhaps Santa should be replaced by "Santa Penguin" (or "Penguin Santa," or whatever). In her response, Kelly basically stated that, "Sorry, but Santa is a white guy."
Uh oh. The mainstream media, and other self-righteous keepers of the PC flame like Simone pounced. It wasn't Harris whose comments were portrayed as ridiculous, but Kelly's. She was "insensitive." "Uninclusive." And, of course, "racist." For pointing out that Santa Claus is a white guy. Now, for the irrepressible dolts like Simone, the pundits at MSNBC, the Daily Kos, et. al. the fact of the matter is that Claus was indeed a Caucasian. How is Kelly pointing that out -- in response to a racialist complaining about a "fat white guy" who's "melanin deficient" -- racist and intolerant? Or, as Simone tweeted, "evil?"
Has anyone in the MSM questioned the insensitivity of Ms. Harris' remarks? Not that I've seen. Let's understand this: Kelly wasn't demanding that people of other races shouldn't play the role of Santa, nor that such depictions of him be chided. She was just addressing the typical racialist "progressive" PC nonsense that is spewed forth from the bowels of sites like Salon.com. After all, imagine if a white columnist had written that a semi-mythical black individual was a "fat old black man who is, quote, melanin over-abundant, made her feel ashamed as a child"?
SORT OF RELATED: A "no pun intended" tweet from Simone, I'm sure:
My MOVEMENT editors are the best. So creative and awesome and supportive!— Gail Oakenpants (@GailSimone) December 17, 2013
Retailer Quits Phantom Group Over Concerns About Religious Content Of Jesus Island. Be sure to read through the entire thing.
I’m sorry, but why is this news? Is the underlying message that it’s “censorship?” Or that you should think it is?
Don’t misunderstand me – I don’t find this material offensive, and even if I did I could care less if a private entity decided it wanted to back out on it. But there’s another aspect to consider: Imagine if the subject was Mohammed, instead of Jesus. Would outfits like Bleeding Cool consider this story newsworthy? And if they did, would it be focused on the censorship aspect, or the insensitivity angle? (Bleeding Cool didn’t think the head of Archie Comics yelling “penis” in front of male underlings, and subsequently getting sued for it, was worthy of their bandwidth, after all.) In addition, take a gander at the reader comments about this matter. Would they be as they are, again, with my Mohammed hypothetical? Or would Bleeding Cool and its readership engage in what Frank Miller faced when he had the audacity to want Batman fight the terrorists of al Qaeda? And, would the usual cadre of small-minded-but-big-mouthed modern creators like Ron Marz chime in at how “needlessly provocative” such a story is? Would Gail Simone “treat” us all to another days-long cutesy Twitter hash tag fest “lampooning” the “intolerance” of the tale?
Just remember the other facet: As MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell once said in a moment of pure honesty, going after someone like [the Mormons] is easy because they don’t fight back. Going after Muslims is risking a death sentence.
Naropa University administrators and religious studies professor Don Matthews are at odds about his suspension last week over complaints that he threatened students and refused to speak during classes.
Matthews was placed on paid suspension for the rest of the semester early last week.
He said the suspension was racially motivated and the university didn't grant him "due process" before suspending him. University officials, however, said Matthews' actions posed a threat to the Naropa community and warranted immediate action in the form of suspension.
Matthews was protesting "institutional racism" at the university, and had vowed to continue his classroom protest until "bias" was excised permanently from Naropa. He also filed a complaint at the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights regarding the college's "lack of diversity" and "racism." He claims the suspension is retaliation against him.
*Sigh* I'm constantly amazed at such complaints considering that colleges are, if anything, ridiculously overly conscious about racial and ethnic sensitivity. Diversity is essentially the official religion of the university community. Indeed, Naropa has a "Community of Color" group, the head of which is a big supporter of Matthews. Imagine the "institutional racism" which permitted a group like that to exist, eh?
Nevertheless, actions by guys like Matthews can only be experienced at a place like your typical American university. Frankly, I'm amazed he was suspended, and that Naropa took the sensible action that it did. A prof is basically free to engage in all the histrionics he wants, but if you're actually refusing to do that for which the college pays you -- namely, teach -- then there should be a problem. As Richard Aubrey says in the comments at Joanne's:
If I, a student, pay some hugely inflated price for four credits of, say, Reformation theology, I have contracted to get four credits of Reformation theology. I am owed it. I need it for the junior level class for which it is a prerequisite.
I did not pay a chunk of my parents’ savings, my summer job, or my future debt enslavement in order to watch a professor massage his ego in public. If I don’t get my four credits of Reformation theology, the U is in breach of contract and must take action regarding its agent which put it in this position. Or refund my premium.
Now, I know this is harsh, but it’s the way it works in the rest of the world. Like to apply it to academia.
As noted, Matthews is also accused of threatening and belittling students. He threatened to sue students on his Facebook page and via e-mail for "defamation," and told a student in class that he/she "needed therapy." Naropa President Charles Lief says that Matthews indeed is "passionate" and "teaches on the edge," which he claims is what makes the university "unique":
"He's provocative. He brings a different perspective, which is obviously unique to Naropa and unique to Boulder. He's an African American, Christian minister who comes to the university from an urban world that, frankly, many people here are not familiar with."
What does that mean, exactly -- "from an urban world"? Is this the same sort of "academic speak" that purports to exonerate Matthews for his actions because ... blacks are "[culturally] different"?
For the most part, the university is free to believe and apply such nonsense, and Matthews is free to believe as he wishes and to be as "provocative" as he pleases. However, some common cultural and societal norms have to be in place; penalties for refusing to actually teach and threatening/belittling students should be one of them, obviously.
The co-CEO of Archie Comics' says she couldn’t have discriminated against her underlings - because they’re white men.
In papers filed in Westchester Supreme Court, Nancy Silberkleit's lawyer says a gender discrimination lawsuit filed against her earlier this year by a group of Archie Comics employees should be tossed in part because white guys aren’t members of “a protected class.”
The embattled co-CEO's filing also mocked the five employees’ claim that she’d used her “gender as a weapon” by yelling “Penis! Penis! Penis!” during a business meeting.
“Plaintiffs fail to allege that any such comments were directed at any of the plaintiffs in particular, or they could cause extreme emotional distress even if they had been,” her court filings say.
First, imagine if the gender roles were reversed. Second, this is a perfect microcosm of leftist thinking -- we're all members of a "group," not individuals, and some are more "protected" than others. Third, there's been (thus far) nary a word from the comicbook creators in Twitterville. Our 'ol pal Ron Marz, for example, is still obsessing over George Zimmerman.
Geez, ya'd think what with the way guys like Ron Marz, Dan Slott and Tom Brevoort were all high and mighty about what people asked regarding the new [Muslim] Ms. Marvel, the company would be more sensitive. Guess not:
A Hindu group has called on ABC to apologize following an episode of Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. that suggested the god Vishnu, like the hero Thor, might be an alien.
In the Nov. 19 episode, which tied into the events of Thor: The Dark World, Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) and hacker Skye (Chloe Bennett) have an exchange designed to deliver exposition about the Asgardians, who in the Marvel Universe are ancient aliens who were mistaken for gods when they visited Earth thousands of years ago. “Do you think other deities are aliens, too?” Skye asks. “Vishnu for sure, right?”
Normally this would be a non-story despite what the group thinks (it later states that it "believes in free speech, but..."), but considering the ridiculously PC nature and rabid manner in which many of the company's creators go after any fan (or non-fan) who dares utter something critical of their characters, creators or stories, I frankly hope this ruckus kicks them in their pompous asses.
That said, Universal Society of Hinduism? Get a life. And I'm certain just about any other religious group, Christian included, would have objected had the actors referenced their religion. I doubt, however, that Marvel would have been brave enough to mention a Muslim deity or figure since to do that would have brought on death threats. Hindus aren't known for doing that sort of thing. (Just recall MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell's remarks regarding criticizing the "right" religion.)
Nothing of this sort surprises me anymore:
In a letter sent to colleagues in the department after the sit-in, [professor emeritus Val] Rust said students in the demonstration described grammar and spelling corrections he made on their dissertation proposals as a form of "micro-aggression."
Student demonstrators alleged that there is a “toxic” racial climate in the graduate school, including in Rust’s classroom. Organizers told the Daily Bruin last week that they decided to host the demonstration after a recent report examining racial discrimination among the university’s faculty stated that UCLA’s policies and procedures do not sufficiently address racially motivated instances of discrimination.
Yes, you understood that correctly -- minority graduate students are claiming racism because their professor emeritus had the gall to correct them.
The hilarious thing is, such departments are staffed and headed by some of the most "progressive" individuals you will ever encounter -- people who would be eternally cognizant of such "micro-aggressions" in and out of the classroom -- but they still get eaten alive by the very "philosophies" they guard and/or espouse.
(Via Fausta's Blog.)
Just look here.
Policies originally designed to keep guns out of schools have instead kept excessive numbers of Pennsylvania students out of their classrooms as educators applied the rules in an overly broad manner, says a new report by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.
And black students, Latino students, and students with disabilities are more likely to be suspended than their peers, says the Nov. 14 report, which is based on a statewide, district-by-district analysis of Pennsylvania data on suspensions, expulsions, and school referrals to police.
The implication being, of course, that such policies are racially motivated. But ... I thought the education industry is among the most progressive of institutions? How can this be?
The answer is, such policies are not racially motivated, but are borne out of a desire to protect students and maintain order. [For] all students. Certainly, "zero tolerance" policies in anecdotal cases have been taken to ridiculous extremes. There are plenty of examples. But consider:
But in practice, the law's reach extended beyond its original intentions as districts expanded the definition of "weapons" beyond firearms and removed students from the classroom for more minor, discretionary offenses, such as school uniform violations and talking back to adults, the report said.
"I understand the mentality that you've got to get the bad kids out of school so the good kids can learn, but when you actually look at who's doing what in schools, it really doesn't break down that cleanly or that simply," report author Harold Jordan said in an interview.
Actually, it does in most cases, Mr. Jordan. And while I can certainly sympathize with not suspending a student for a dress code violation (unless it involves repeated violations and/or highly inappropriate dress), talking back to teachers/administrators isn't supposed to warrant a suspension in certain cases? Saying "F*** you!!" wouldn't warrant such? And, exactly how have such disciplinary policies evolved from the 1995 federal Gun-Free Schools Act? Such student code of conduct policies have existed for long before that.
This is yet another flawed "disparate impact/proportionate representation" argument. Instead of focusing on making students behave better, the onus is on teachers and administrators to be more "accepting" or "forgiving" of [chronically] disruptive behavior. The article proposes "positive behavioral interventions" and no removal of any student unless "there is a real and immediate threat to safety." Which means that, a student could run up and down the hallway for a half hour screaming obscenities, and since there wasn't "a real and immediate threat," this pupil shouldn't be suspended. And an administrator or counselor would have to spend time "advising" and discussing with this student why what he/she did was "inappropriate." Not to mention, as we've written about many times here, it wouldn't be surprising if the staff was required to undergo "diversity" or "cultural sensitivity" training which, condescendingly, would propose that [minority] behavior is "misunderstood" by [white] teachers and other school personnel.
Ironically, whereas once liberals wanted the same rules to apply to all, regardless of background, now we have to take "certain things" into consideration. But these "certain things" must always be of a benign, or positive, vein. You know, that African-American students as a whole, "are loud", for example. it's anathema to ask hard questions or mention uncomfortable points.
Your average parents who actually care about their child's education don't give a hoot about the above nonsense, and/or they guffaw at it. And where such ridiculously PC school policies are in effect, such parents will vote with their feet -- if school choice is allowed where they live. I'm sure people like Mr. Jordan above would then label these parents as "racist," or at least "classist" or "elitist" ... merely for desiring a decent, chaos-free education for their kid, when, all in all, it's folks like Jordan whose advocacy results in such parental decisions.
Check out the synopsis of the new Killweather graphic novel:
It’s a story as old as time: Extremist right-wing radio host gets legislation passed to criminalize sex reassignment surgery, then surgeons kidnap him and forcibly do a sex-change operation on him.
Yeah, I'm totally sure that sex reassignment surgery is on the top of every "extremist right-wing" radio host's list of things to worry about. Then again, maybe I spoke too soon: after all, would it be any surprise if a future Obama successor demands that everyone's health insurance cover such surgery ... and that you and I pay for it?
Here's a challenge for these "original" comics creators: How about, say, an extremist left-wing Occupation-style activist gets legislation passed that outlaws all religion ... and then operatives from the Vatican kidnap him ... and perform an exorcism on him?
Here: The Boycott on Normalcy.
The Outhousers report that the new Ms. Marvel will be a Muslim chick -- "Kamala Khan, a Muslim American teenage girl with the ability to shapeshift."
The book will be written by G Willow Wilson, herself a convert to the Muslim faith. She says "The comic will ... see Khan struggle with her faith, although ... she won't evangelize her faith in the comic." I am indeed curious to see what those "struggles" will entail. Knowing modern comics as we do, the safe bet is that we'll be treated to what Geoff Johns did with the Muslim Green Lantern. Also, recall what transpired when Frank Miller wanted Batman to go after al Qaeda. Will we see Khan "struggling" to deal with American "Islamophobia?" The stereotypes of terrorism? Or will Wilson really be daring and delve into how her faith treats women, for instance? Will she question actions such as these? We will see. That is, if the book makes it to ten issues, which I highly doubt.
Meanwhile, our ridiculously politically correct pal Ron Marz of course chimed in on the subject:
Glad there's gonna be a comic with a teen Muslim girl hero, because we need diversity. Also glad, because it upsets all the right people.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 5, 2013
I always get a real kick out of the all-consuming need "progressives" possess for "diversity." Why doesn't Marz, say, freely give up some of his writing jobs to people of the "correct" hue/religion/sexual orientation? I mean, if it's sooooo important? Doesn't Marz acknowledge his "white privilege," for heaven's sake? And, who exactly does this announcement "upset," Ron? Aside from extreme hardcore racists (of which there are pitifully few, if any, in comic fandom), who's miffed? I personally couldn't care less, but there will be those like myself who question what Wilson will write of Khan's "struggles," as I noted above, like will they cover a broad cross-section, or will they merely be the same PC tripe that comics have given us for over a decade or so, now?
ELSEWHERE: As you'd expect, Comics Alliance loves this news. It says of Muslims: "... one of the most maligned and misunderstood minority groups in America today." Actually, for contemporary comicbook creators and many opiners, that title should be awarded to conservative Americans.
Newsarama interviews writer Wilson. At article's end Wilson notes "It’s not at all a serious reckoning on religion in the U.S. or a clash of civilizations. I’m not interested in that."
Sounds like a good idea, Ms. Wilson.
UPDATE: Avi at FCMM notes that creator Wilson has a questionable history:
Wilson is the same writer who attacked Holland for taking security steps to prevent terrorist attacks, spoke disrespectfully of apostates, among others, and even interviewed an Islamofascist from Egypt named Ali Gomaa, who himself wrote an anti-Israel screed in the WSJ.
If she uses such antics in Ms. Marvel I give the book four issues, max.
UPDATE 2: Douglas Ernst has some thoughts.
That would be the group Asian Americans Advancing Justice, who must be actively patrolling everywhere to see if they should be offended. In this case, the store Pottery Barn was selling two costumes -- that of a sushi chef and a kimono -- which the hyper-sensitive group claimed were "culturally offensive." Here's a pic of what's offensive, according to the group. Really?
Ling Woo Liu, "director of strategic communications" for the AAAJ (as opposed to what -- tactical communications?) said that Pottery Barn's apology was "very passive." Is that so. Well I'd say, Ms. Liu, that you're very boring.
I await now, among others, Irish groups having a cow over Leprechaun outfits, and Scandinavians moaning about Viking costumes.
Look at what Philly.com's Jimmy Kempski does with his NFL week 7 picks:
The "Washington team." How so-delightfully PC. Kempski = total tool.
But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed toward African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.
When considered that way, Redskins can’t possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait. Nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent.
It’s fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But if you take a step back, isn’t it easy to see how offense might legitimately be taken?
Let's see, what would the equivalent be if "Fighting Irish" used, say, "Blacks" instead of "Irish?" Wonder what the result of that would be?
Ultimately, what matters is if Native Americans are offended by the DC nickname. And guess what? They're not. Not even close. Ninety percent (yes, ninety) of Native Americans said they are not offended by the name "Redskins." In fact,
Because they make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses of 768 people who said they were Indians or Native Americans were collected over a very long period of polling, from October 7, 2003 through September 20, 2004. They included Indians from every state except Alaska and Hawaii, where the Annenberg survey does not interview. The question that was put to them was “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”
Again, 90% said "no." In addition, check out ESPN columnist Rick Reilly's article from September for further non-PC facts about the 'skins. But these won't stop the mainstream media and elitist "progressive" whites ... because they "know" better. Just as they "know" that getting a photo ID is ridiculously cumbersome for minorities despite polls showing the population in question vehemently disagreeing with them, these same anointed "know" that Redskins is a racial slur -- because shut up. And if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is going to meet with one group of Natives (who, of course, are opposed to the Washington team name), then why doesn't he also meet with someone Adrian Jawort, a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, who notes that actual history doesn't exactly jibe with that of PC idiots like Bob Costas and our president: That "red skins," among other things, was used by Natives themselves, and with pride.
In conclusion, if the mainstream media and academic institutions across the land are clamoring that something is "insensitive," "racist" or "intolerant," then you'd best investigate what exactly that "something" is. Because it's a good bet it's only those noted adjectives to conceited "progressives" who perpetually purport to know better than everyone else.
Doug Ernst has further thoughts.
UPDATE: Costas this morning admitted that most Natives aren't miffed by the team name, but wants a heckler's veto anyway:
[Costas] then admitted that most Native Americans are not offended with the name, but that since other people might be, it should still be changed.
Here's what I'm offended by: Costas' mouth. STFU already.
UPDATE 2: How 'bout this? It seems the most vocal Native in favor of getting the Redskins to drop their name is not even a member of the tribe from which he claims to be. But he is a big Obama supporter and donor. “He has no ancestry in the Six Nations but he has a lot of powerful friends in D.C.,” a NY State assemblywoman said.
What a surprise.
Maybe the dude should have a chat with Elizabeth Warren. After all, she got away with it.
Thank goodness Bob Costas finally weighed in on how offensive Washington Redskins team name is in this, his 30+ year of sportscasting!— proteinwisdom (@proteinwisdom) October 14, 2013
Local story: The winner of the Little Miss Hispanic Delaware pageant was stripped of her title when it could not be proven she was actually Hispanic. Jakiyah McKoy is black, but anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about Latinos knows there are many blacks included in that demographic. So, what do we see now?
Blacks are making accusations of racism. Hispanics are facing the hypocrisy of lack of proof of ethnicity ... due to illegal residency in the US. McKoy's backers claim one of her grandmothers was from the Dominican Republic, but resided in the US illegally, thus there is no documentation to prove her background.
If this didn't involve young children it would be hilarious. Be sure to read through the article because you'll encounter so many ["progressive"-based] hypocrisies as to defy description:
As we've noted myriad times here, it's always entertaining to see what happens when political correctness, [radical] multiculturalism, racial bean counting, and identity politics come together ... and tear themselves asunder.
All that being said, pageant officials could have avoided all this had they not allowed McKoy to participate knowing she did not have the necessary verification. And they did know. So, the fault ultimately lies with them.
Yeah, I didn't hear about this either. If the hues were reversed, natch, plastersville for weeks on the MSM: Greenville Wal-Mart Shooter Picked Victims By Race.
#1: Recognize that even when your good intentions are truly good, that's totally meaningless. Great advice. This applies to virtually all "progressive" policies, most recently the total boondoggle that is [Boss] ObamaCare.
#2: If you feel defensive when talking about race with a woman of color or reading about race in a piece written by a woman of color, assume the other person is saying something especially true. Uh huh. There'd be no reason at all to get defensive about hearing/reading "Only white people are racist" and/or "White people are the bane of civilization." No reason at all. Whoever says such (especially a minority) is "especially correct."
#3. Look for ways that you are racist, rather than ways to prove you're not. And they do exist, dammit. You're white. So quit trying to prove otherwise. Especially when a minority is telling you so. Because what they say is especially true.
#4. Listen to people of color, even if you don't know many. Anyone else now thinking of George Costanza's methods of proving he wasn't a racist?
#5. Use your feminist powers to identify instances when people of color are under-represented or misrepresented, and speak out about it. "Proportionate representation" at all costs. But remember -- if people of color are over-represented, keep your damn yap shut.
Y'know, the lame "What Would You Do?" segments. As you'd expect from an arm of the MSM, the show focuses on perturbations of what's politically correct, not stuff that actually happens. Their latest nugget that caught attention was a cheesy 20-something in a "patriotic" T-shirt who was berating customers for patronizing a café run by Muslims. An American soldier happened to be waiting in line, and upon hearing the twit's bigoted rant, soldier guy reamed the twit out. Apparently this was so surprising, so unexpected ... that outfits like the HuffPo used headlines like American Soldier Responds To Anti-Muslim Comments In An Incredible Way on 'What Would You Do?' (My emphasis.)
But why doesn't John Quiñones and co. set up shop, say, in a situation like when General David Petraeus was screamed at by radical students in New York? Or, when right-leaning speakers are routinely shouted down during talks/lectures at various campuses across the country? Ha. We know why ABC won't. The show that is concerned about feelings, mores and attitudes -- especially towards minorities -- couldn't care a whit about viewpoint diversity. Which brings me to this item from Ace today: A gay rights group in Italy called Equality Italia is calling for a boycott of Barilla Pasta because its owner, Guido Barilla, said in an interview that he "would never do (a commercial) with a homosexual family."
Oh, but he added "... not for lack of respect but because we don’t agree with them. Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role.” Equality Italia called this ... an "offensive provocation." Barilla, like pretty much anyone attacked by PC Orthodoxy crowd, went on to explain his comments a lot further, saying he "simply wished to underline the central role the woman plays within the family," that he has "the utmost respect for gay people," and "respect[s] gay marriages."
It won't suffice. Twitter was already off an running blasting Barilla's "homophobia" with the #boicottbarilla hashtag.
Now, as Ace notes, "homophobia" now means you must "affirmatively campaign for their political agenda." We've also seen this with other PC darlings like "racism" -- being against affirmative action, for instance. And hell, during these last five years we've seen that mere opposition to President Lemon's policies is "racist." Just because he's black. Here's just one of the latest examples.
UPDATE: As if on cue, insulated northeast big city white "progressive" John Featherman of Philly.com invokes Godwin's Law and quotes Martin Niemöller, Protestant pastor and public foe of Adolf Hitler, about all those "they came for." And, Barilla is "homophobic." And, Featherman won't eat Barilla anymore. Even though Barilla agrees with gay marriage but has the audacity to believe in smart marketing that makes his company money.
Via Taranto comes word of yet another instance of race-based politically correct hilarity:
Don Terry of the Southern Poverty Law Center reports on a "hate crime" in New York City, under the headline: "Columbia University Professor, a Sikh Physician, Injured in Teen Mob Attack." Here's the post's first paragraph:
Shortly after a white supremacist stormed into a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and killed six worshipers last year, Dr. Prabhjot Singh, a Sikh-American physician and assistant professor of international affairs at Columbia University, co-wrote a column for The New York Times noting the "long history of discrimination and hatred directed at Sikhs in America."
There's that old trick of "Let's get what we want in the part everybody will actually read" while obscuring the reality. In this case, we find way down in the eighth paragraph:
The band of teenagers was reported to be mostly black, but Amardeep Singh [program director at the Sikh Coalition] said that both the Sikh Coalition and "the victim"--Dr. Singh--declined to answer questions about the race of the attackers.
Decline to answer questions ...? How come?
"It's not helpful," Amardeep Singh told Hatewatch. "We don't think it's helpful in reducing racial tensions. We're trying to get the country to live up to its best values. We're a community that is profiled. There's no reason for us to profile anyone."
Oh, I see. Unless you're white, though!
Robot 6 says for "Banned Books Week" it's going to take a look at "corrupting" comics. The question is, though, why are some of those on its list ... "corrupting"??
The second item on its list -- how is this "corrupting"?
The third item is about the graphic novel March, about the American Civil Rights Movement. It had direct input from Rep. John Lewis, who lived through it. How is this "corrupting"?
How is the third item "corrupting"?
In fact, how are any of the entries aside from the first "corrupting"? (That has to do with the classic book Seduction of the Innocent about the -- here it is! -- corrupting influence of comicbooks on youth.) The last entry discusses a bit about diversity in comics, but what, exactly, is "corrupting"? There's a mention of a panel discussion about "Representations of race, ethnicity, gender, and disability in comics," but again, I fail to see the "danger" in that.
This isn't the first time Robot 6 and others have made questionable judgments about comicbook "banning," potential or actual. Back in March they were miffed that the graphic novel Persepolis was taken out of a high school library, despite adult content. Here's some other examples. As noted at the immediate link, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund sure seems ... "choosy" about whom it protects and goes after.
The Northern California Federation Youth Football League changed its “mercy rule” this season, imposing hefty fines on teams that beat others too badly, a local television station reported.
If a team with players between the ages of 7 and 13 beats another team by 35 points or more, the coach will suffer a one-week suspension and the team will face a penalty of $200, KCRA reported.
Robert Rochin, the deputy commissioner for the league, said the league was losing a lot of players each season because some teams were getting creamed so badly. Really? Well maybe Rochin and co. could do a better job of evening out the choosing of players so there's more parity among teams? Geez ... or, what about a "mercy rule" like baseball and softball leagues have -- like when a team is winning by more than ten runs after five innings the game is over?
Cali, like in many other instances, resorts to PC overload. Obviously, you'd wish that coaches would be sportsmen and not run up the score, would play second and third stringers, and simply run the ball a lot. Then again, even given all that, if there's such a disparity in talent levels, a crushing score difference may just be inevitable. Case in point: For a couple seasons when I was coaching girls basketball at my school, we were insanely loaded with talent. We'd play our starters for the first quarter or two, and then typically put in the second and third stringers. But even they were magnitudes better than the other teams' starters. How do you tell your girls not to score? Of course, certain things were off-limits -- fast breaks, steals, virtually no defensive pressure, 3-point shots -- but if you tell your team to just pass the ball around, it looks like you're belittling the other squad worse than scoring a ton on them. It's a delicate balance. You cannot satisfy everyone. And you'll never satisfy the PC Police. Ever.
Carl sends me word of the latest issue of Daredevil whose writer, Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid, has included a brief Trayvon Martin allegory. But first, just so you know Waid's mindset on that whole deal, let's go back to the time of the George Zimmerman verdict:
Zimmerman initiated the conflict. That is the bottom line. Had he done what 911 TOLD him to do, that kid would be alive today. Full stop.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
Remember, it's Racism Savings Time tonight. Don't forget to set your clock back 60 years before you go to bed.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
@AcidAttack89 Agreed system is flawed, but if races were reversed in this case, defendant would be on death row right now.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
And, of course, there were the typical "come backs" by Waid to those who dared to question his tweets on the issue, such as:
It's times like these that you get to see just how many of your followers are racists.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
And there's plenty more where they came from. *Sigh*
So now we have Daredevil #31 where DD is fighting against ... the Sons of the Serpent?? This shows you how pitifully desperate Waid is to keep his ridiculous NarrativeTM alive. The SoS have been around since Marvel's earliest days. They're a -- wait for it! -- white supremacist group! But, y'see, Marvel's earliest days weren't exactly great days for American blacks. The Civil Rights movement was still in its infancy, after all. (One of the SoS's earliest appearances was in the pages of The Avengers where they went after Giant Man's [black] assistant, Bill Foster, who later assumed the role of Goliath himself using Pym's growth-changing formula.) But that doesn't matter one iota. They're a perfect way for Waid to make his "point" about Trayvon Martin in 2013! After all, we know how widespread and numerous white supremacist organizations are these days, right? I mean, other comicbook writers have told us so, too. There was Ed Brubaker in Captain America, and even Rob Liefeld in the same title.
Here's the panels from the issue of Daredevil in question. Now granted, when Carl tipped me to this, I was expecting a bit more. The whole Sons of Serpent stuff is just one of a few plots that Waid is juggling around here. But in these two panels, look at what Waid says. The "suspicious-looking Black teenager" line is patently obvious (and notice he adopts the PC capitalization of the word "black"), but notice the others -- the defendant is an "entitled society harpy" with a "long and recorded history" of racism, and the black teenager who was shot was an honor student who happened to be tutoring another kid. Of course, the only real connection to the Zimmerman/Martin matter is the line "suspicious-looking Black teenager." To me, it's a good bet Waid is counting on people making that obvious link, and then hopefully buying the rest of the "connections," which actually happen to be total bullsh**. George Zimmerman certainly ain't "entitled," nor is he a member of the hoi polloi. (And, he's not even white.) And Trayvon Martin wasn't an honor student who tutored other kids. (Ironically, it was Zimmerman who did that.)
Oliver Sava at AV Club says the above
... is a great way for Waid to explore a major theme of the series in a different context. Fear is an essential part of Daredevil’s character, and Waid’s plot looks at fear on a broader scale as New York City citizens rebel against a justice system that has betrayed them. This anger is bred out of fear that the system in place is no longer serving the best interests of the public, and all it takes is the smallest spark to turn that fear into a raging fire.
Which makes sense. Waid didn't necessarily have to get all the facts about the Zimmerman case right to make the [supposed] larger point that Sava notes above. The problem is, in the Zimmerman case, the justice system (and the mainstream media, natch) had a bias against Zimmerman from the very beginning. From constantly referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" to completely ignoring cases that mirrored his (with the races reversed), the verdict then led to preposterous yammerings like "Keep your black/boys inside, now!" as if white-on-black racist killings and a crooked justice system are today akin to those of 1950s Mississippi. The sad fact is that young men like Trayvon Martin have much more to fear from other teenagers ... who look like him. But just don't bring that up to Waid, though. Besides referring to you as a "racist," he may shout something like this.
Alas, this is all totally predictable. Waid, like other comicbook "geniuses" Erik Larsen, Ron Marz, Dan Slott, and, regrettably, Kurt Busiek, lives in an insulated bubble, a product of northeast urban liberalism which essentially deifies certain narratives. And, again, the comicook fan has to ask him/herself: "If this guy feels the way he does about my cultural and political beliefs, then why the f*** should I turn my hard-earned money over to him?" The answer is you shouldn't. But it is your choice, of course. I chose long ago not to part with any cash to purchase something by someone who vociferously trashes my political (and other) beliefs. It's perfectly natural, after all. Waid and other "progressives" do it all the time. Just ask Orson Scott Card, among many others.
Avi over at FCMM has more.
The politically correct verbal gymnastics that the MSM will do so as not to appear "racist" are downright pathetic. Amy Ridenour notes how the WaPo noted the race of the Washington Navy Yard shooter yesterday:
"He was a tall black guy," said her co-worker, Todd Brundage, who is black. "He didn't say a word."
Ridenour also notes how the paper had since edited their original story to omit any mention of the suspect's race. Nevertheless, she made a screen cap of the original story. But I'm actually willing to give the WaPo a bit of a break here, since, as more info became known and the shooter's picture became widely available (it's at the top of the various WaPo webpages now), including quotes about the suspect's race are moot.
Then again, why even bother to make such edits? What's it really matter?? Does anyone think the paper (or any other MSM outlet) would be so ... sensitive about such if the guy was a Tea Party member? And is the shooter (Aaron Alexis is his name) just black? Are we sure he isn't a black Hispanic? ;-)
... let's jump on rapper A$AP Rocky who committed the sin of standing an "awkward distance" from gay NBA player Jason Collins when the duo introduced the next act at the MTV Video Music Awards, and appeared to make "mocking facial expressions" toward him. Philly.com's Gabrielle Bonghi writes that A$AP's actions "sparked outrage of all kinds on the internet."
But of course. But the PC Police and radical multicultis are once again in a bind. They're outraged at the rapper's supposed homophobia; however, he is a minority, so they cannot show too much outrage at him.
Also, here's a good question for 'ya: what's more shocking: A rapper being homophobic, or being charged with assault?
From David French:
Within moments the most horrific images of 9/11 were scrubbed from our televisions, and within hours the academic-thought police began its vigilant lookout for Islamophobia.
The result? Twelve years later our national and even military policies are shot-through with heartbreaking and inexcusable naïveté (the stories of our misguided rules of engagement in Afghanistan, for example, are infuriating), and the result is more suicide bombings, burning churches, public beheadings, and — just last year — a savage attack on a diplomatic outpost left vulnerable in part because of that same naïveté. In some quarters — mainly in the academy and mainstream media — truth is treated as virtual hate speech, and we can’t bring ourselves to acknowledge evil.
Every time I see @MileyCyrus slap that black woman's butt, I think about the way that enslaved blacks were whipped for white entertainment.— Aura Bogado (@aurabogado) August 26, 2013
As if we needed more proof that those who constantly clamor about others' racism are the real racists.
*Siiiiigh* What's next, folks? Is race and/or racism lurking behind everything these days? Here, I made a few tweets myself so I could be like the HuffPo, Macklemore, and Ms. Bogado:
But in all seriousness, folks -- this is where we are today. "Racism" is everywhere to an alarmingly increasing number of people. Such is the fallout from inanities of like comparing Trayvon Martin to Emmett Till, claiming that requiring an ID to vote is like Jim Crow laws, and stating that comparisons of Boss Obama to Tiger Woods aren't due to golf, but due to the worst stereotypes of black men.
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. And ultimately, dangerous.
Or, The NARRATIVETM, if you will.
(Just keep silent about such, though, during "honest conversations about race," you racist.)
Folks in the real world left shaking their heads:
AMHERST, Mass.—In an effort to recognize a relatively young academic discipline that many in the academy have never heard of before, nearly a hundred students and scholars gathered at Amherst College over the weekend to discuss their research and ideas for how to grow Black German Studies.
Like African American, Women and Queer studies, Black German Studies has an admitted social justice focus, says Dr. Sara Lennox, a professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and an early founder of the Black German Studies movement in the U.S.
“We’ve made the field legitimate. You can now do this work and get tenure,” says Lennox.
Indeed! And that tenure surely a good thing since without that college employment (with said degree) you'd be waiting tables at Olive Garden.
Left wing (surprise!) comics guy Gerry Conway has learned the hard way what it means to be a modern "progressive." It doesn't matter what you've said/done over the course of many years; just be perceived to have wandered off the "orthodoxy plantation" one time ... and you'll be destroyed:
This whole blow-up over comments at the PBS Superheroes panel has left me horrified and heartbroken. I feel completely misunderstood.— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) August 11, 2013
Conway is talking about a panel discussion he attended alongside some other creators, notably Todd MacFarlane.
But really, Gerry? You're surprised this happened? It doesn't matter what your life's philosophy has been. It doesn't matter what you support and believe. You say the wrong thing -- even if it was just perceived wrongly -- and you're through when it comes to contemporary "progressives." Just ask Bill Clinton about the 2008 Democratic primary and subsequent presidential campaign. Or Geraldine Ferraro. And many, many others. Modern "progressivism" is PC-bound to several ideological stances, criticism of which is anathema. [Certain] races is one. [Certain] religions is another. And, certainly, alternate sexual lifestyles.
Heck, I get regular hate-tweets from right wingers, religious bigots, GOP supporters, and misogynists.— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) August 11, 2013
To get hate tweets from people whose positions I've always defended is disheartening. Read my stuff, THEN attack me.— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) August 11, 2013
Live and learn, Ger. You're learning the hard way, unfortunately, when it comes to your present-day ideological brethren.
Via Taranto we see that Reuters is hyping President Lemon's call for some "soul searching" on race here in America because -- gasp! -- "many Americans have no friends of another race" (the actual headline) according to a poll it cites. Of course, based on the first paragraph alone, Reuters could have easily written a headline that says "Most Americans have friends of another race":
About 40 percent of white Americans and about 25 percent of non-white Americans are surrounded exclusively by friends of their own race, according to an ongoing Reuters/Ipsos poll.
So, about 60% of whites and 75% of non-whites have friends of another race. Yet, Reuters writes a headline from a negative POV. Because, y'know, it wouldn't fit in with Boss Obama's [faux] request for that "soul searching," after all. Or, if you will, The NARRATIVETM.
And the inconsistent race reporting rolls on:
There are regions and groups where mixing with people of other races is more common, especially in the Hispanic community where only a tenth do not have friends of a different race. About half of Hispanics who have a spouse or partner are in a relationship with non-Hispanics, compared to one tenth of whites and blacks in relationships.
Y'see, here the MSM is back to merely using the term "Hispanic" as essentially a separate race. When the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin affair was in full swing, it was then important to note the former's race as "white" -- separate from Hispanic. Of course, Hispanics can be of several races as the classification "Hispanic" (or "Latino") is mainly due to language/cultural difference. Just see any official government/state/educational form if you don't believe me. But the MSM -- as Reuters does here -- rarely, if ever, acknowledges such. If acknowledging the difference can further The NarrativeTM -- that is, that America remains an incorrigibly racist nation that hasn't changed much since the Civil War (as was the case with George Zimmerman) -- it will do so without hesitation. In this article, however, merely utilizing "Hispanic" as a separate racial category paints the group in a positive light -- they're more "racially enlightened" as they have more friends and marriages outside of their "race."
Sterling Beard on Slate's decision not to use the team name "Redskins" for the country's capital football team because it's "extremely tacky and dated" (it'll use just “Washington” or “Washington’s NFL team”):
We await the day that Slate decides to refer to the New England Patriots as “Massachusetts' NFL team” on the grounds that the name is too nationalistic.
Or, why workers in "Civil Rights" offices must have waaaaay too much time on their hands:
From now on, words and phrases such as “brown bag lunch” and “citizens” will be off-limits for Seattle government employees. The city’s Office of Civil Rights sent out a memo this week advising employees to refrain from using “potentially offensive” language in the workplace and in official government documents.
The Office recommends "lunch and learn" or "sack lunch" instead. I never heard of the former, but out west "sack" is frequently used in place of "bag," so that's certainly not weird. But whoever says "brown bag lunch" anyway? Isn't it just "bag lunch?" At any rate, you know why the word "brown" has to be excised, right? "To avoid potentially racial connotations to the phrase." Couldn't just apply, y'know, to ... the COLOR OF THE FREAKIN' BAG!!
In lieu of "citizen," the Office recommends using "resident." Because, after all, non-citizens might get offended. I've no idea why they might get offended since they're not citizens, but who ever can figure out the types of "intellects" the inhabit contemporary Offices of Civil Rights, right?
UPDATE: Prof. Stephen Clark writes to Insty:
You are absolutely right when your write, “These people are illiterate idiots. They should be mocked mercilessly and never taken seriously. Likewise the even bigger idiots who listen to them.”
However, not only are they idiots, they reveal themselves, all of them, to be racialist to the core. They are literally not normal. Normal people, and by that I mean the great majority of people, do not read racial intent into colloquial expressions of longstanding that have never before had racial coloration. These people are not normal, and they should be dismissed as such. In truth, they are paranoid cranks.
The former, whose highly regarded Ender's Game will shortly be released as a major motion picture starring Harrison Ford, is anathema to Hollywood types and is the subject of a rather large boycott effort. Why? As we've noted here several times, Card is a Mormon and outspoken opponent of homosexuality. Polanski is a highly regarded film director and producer who just happened to have brutally raped a 13 year-old girl in 1977. He subsequently fled the country and hasn't returned since. He was rewarded for this with myriad awards, including Academy Awards.
Angie Hartley pretty much nails it:
In 1977, Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to raping then 13-year-old Samantha Geimer inside the home of Jack Nicholson. Before his sentencing, he fled the country and has not returned to this day.
Geimer, who is releasing a memoir in September about the attack, has expressed forgiveness of Polanski. In 2003, when her attacker was nominated for an Academy Award, she wrote in the L.A. Times:
I believe that Mr. Polanski and his film should be honored according to the quality of the work. What he does for a living and how good he is at it have nothing to do with me or what he did to me. I don't think it would be fair to take past events into consideration. I think that the academy members should vote for the movies they feel deserve it. Not for people they feel are popular.
If people including Samantha Geimer can look past the wrongs of Roman Polanski, why can't we also ignore the crazy bantering of Orson Scott Card? For gay rights activists, the crime Orson Scott Card committed isn't really a legal offense, but the wound is very fresh. It's wise to do whatever they can to bring attention to their cause, but it might be a bit of a stretch to reject a film with so many well-intentioned contributors for just one crazy, old sci-fi writer. Still, for a group like Geeks OUT, it means a lot to have so many science-fiction fans standing against something they might otherwise hold sacred.
I'm sure Hartley knows that the issue is a fundamental difference between "progressives" and classical liberals (modern conservatives). The former want to eradicate the latter, not just debate/argue with it. To the former, there are certain issues which, if violated, are much worse than actual crimes like Polanski's. Orson Scott Card's "violation" is one such example: Being an outspoken advocate against the gay agenda. But anally raping a minor? Yeah, it may have been rape, "but it wasn't 'rape-rape,'" in the words of Whoopi Goldberg. Hell, we see this with our current administration and, of course, the mainstream media, too. Boss Obama and company tiptoe around [accurate] terminology like "War on Terror," "Radical Islamists" and the like, but there's never any vacillation when it comes to using harsh language against domestic political and cultural opponents. Never. (Here's a recent example. Here's another.)
To be sure, I abhor Card's past screeds against gays and find his recommendations quite dangerous if there were actually any way to implement them. And, I've no problem with any group or individual who wishes to nix seeing Ender's Game because of this. Or, any group or individual who wishes to boycott anything out of some strong conviction. But DON'T pretend that you modern "progressives" and Hollywood types occupy some moral high ground. Because you don't. Not at all. Even on iota. You make excuses for people like Roman Polanski, praise him, and bestow awards upon him. He RAPED a 13 year-old girl!
I'll never forget the one Academy Awards show (it was 1999 -- I just checked) when the Academy [remarkably] gave Elia Kazan a Lifetime Achievement Award. Why do I say "remarkably?" Because in one non-hypocritical moment, Hollywood bestowed an honor on a guy who was/is a cultural enemy. Kazan had named names back in the day -- Communists in Hollywood during the so-called "Red Scare" of the early 1950s. During the 1999 presentation, many of those in attendance remained seated and silently mouthed opposition. Among those I remember were Nick Nolte and Ed Harris. (One who bucked the trend and even gave a standing O to Kazan was Warren Beatty.) Yep. Those two, and many others, perfectly exemplified the above mentioned "political/cultural" hatred of [fellow American] enemies to a tee. They were still livid at what Kazan did half a century prior, and to which Kazan had stated was "only the more tolerable of two alternatives that were either way painful and wrong." But that doesn't matter to "progressives" in the poli-culture wars.
Always keep this post in the back of your mind the next time a Hollywood type/modern "progressive" lectures us all about some "moral" issue.
Just read this sadly hilarious Patterico thread all the way through to the end for, as noted, a perfect example.
UPDATE: It gets even better.
Furious D takes it to contemporary comics creators for going out of their way to accommodate the demands for "diversity" in their pages:
It seems these days that there isn't a genre character that people aren't calling for a change of gender, race, and sexual orientation, in the name of "fairness." Folks are also fond of saying that anyone who disagrees with that idea is a racist sexist homophobe who is totally and completely unfair.
While some of the opposition to these seemingly weekly brainstorms can be called racist, sexist, and homophobic, those noxious trolls, who are in the minority, are being used as a cudgel to stop any serious critical discussion of the issue.
Chief among the undiscussed is: Just how fair would this be?
Indeed, you may have heard how Amazing Spider-Man star Andrew Garfield recently asked: "Why couldn't Spidey be gay?" Umm, let's see ... because he's not?? As Furious asks, how fair would that be -- just to satisfy the radical diversophiles?
Furious says "it's a form of tokenism." And, not surprisingly, you'll rarely see people who demand such changes agree to changes in their own characters. They also fail to realize that their tokenist views mean that already established minority characters are somehow "not good enough to make it." Changing a well-established character is only good for a short-term bounce "... because the most such changes generate are some brief flurries of media hype, but not much when it comes to increasing the audience," Furious writes.
100% correct. He also alludes to the fact that doing this sort of thing is just to make diversophiles feel good about themselves (this surely isn't surprising) -- not so much because they're doing something "good" for culture and society, but because the "racist, sexist, and homophobic ... noxious trolls, who are in the minority, are being used as a cudgel to stop any serious critical discussion of the issue." We've already seen this sort of thing regarding news that the role of Johnny Storm may be played by a black actor in the upcoming Fantastic Four movie reboot.
At least creator Gail Simone, whose politics I feel are noxious, has been busy doing just what Furious recommends -- that is, creating new characters that are diverse (well, at least "diverse" as the diversophiles demand them). Her The Movement is a good example.
(Thanks for Nate W. for the tip on this!)
Or something. It must be, if these "researchers" are to be in any way taken seriously:
Parents who read their kids stories about happy, human-like animals like "Franklin the Turtle" or "Arthur" at bedtime are exposing their kids to racism, materialism, homophobia and patriarchal norms, according to a paper presented at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
Most animals portrayed in children’s books, songs and on clothing send a bad message, according to academics Nora Timmerman and Julia Ostertag: That animals only exist for human use, that humans are better than animals, that animals don’t have their own stories to tell, that it’s fine to “demean” them by cooing over their cuteness. Perhaps worst of all, they say, animals are anthropomorphized to reinforce “socially dominant norms” like nuclear families and gender stereotypes.
Saying "academics" like these clowns "have too much time on their hands" is like saying house flies like excrement. And I'm sure their "theories" have good company.
“Moral responsibility is the essence of humanity. It is what sets Homo sapiens apart from other animals. Assigning moral responsibility to whites while denying it to nonwhites is therefore a way of dehumanizing the latter. Multiculturalism turns out to be a disguised form of white supremacy.”
Indeed. The examples are too numerous to mention, but recently there's MSNBC's Martin Bashir who thinks we can't say "IRS" anymore because that'd be calling Boss Obama the "N" word, and the commenter "Proud Progressive" at JoshuaPundit who says there's nothing linking the scandal to Obama -- it's just that the GOP can't "stand the idea of a black man kicking the Republican's butts and being in the White House." In other words, like Taranto said, Bashir and PP are denying moral responsibility to a non-white: Barack Obama (I know, I know, he's half white, but "progressives" always ignore that).
Who's "racist," again?
Via Ace: We've already seen the lengths to which this clownish administration will go to snoop on people; now a US attorney suggests that anti-Muslim comments on social media might be a federal crime:
[US attorney Bill] Killian referred to a Facebook posting made by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”
Killian said he and Moore had discussed the issue.
“If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?” he said. “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”
Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.
Except that, aside from incredibly bad taste (which isn't a crime), what [Muslim] civil rights were violated in that case? Is this yet another instance of Boss Obama's promise to "fundamentally transform" America -- here being an example of how the First Amendment will be curtailed further by an expansion of "hate speech" statutes? Hell, we've already seen what happened to that sap who made the YouTube vid which Boss O., Hillary, Susan Rice and others blamed for Benghazi: He was arrested ... and is still in the clink.
I read that former prez Bill Clinton has endorsed a comic written by long-time US representative -- and noted civil rights activist -- John Lewis titled March. The book "focuses on his (Lewis's) youth in rural Alabama and the start of the Nashville Student Movement." Unfortunately, Lewis was one of those who claimed members of the Tea Party shouted racial epithets during the 2010 Obamacare vote ... epithets that were never proven, despite innumerable recording devices at the scene (press, individual cell phones, etc.) and a $10K award for such proof by the now-deceased Andrew Breitbart. Nevertheless, Lewis, of all people, deserves some slack about that given his history.
The little-known TV network The Hub will be featuring a cartoon titled "SheZow" starring a tranvestite superhero. No sh**. Newsbusters' Randy Hall explains:
The 26-episode Australian-Canadian animated series begins with the death of the boy's Aunt Agne, who was the previous SheZow. The ring was meant for Guy's twin sister, Kelly, but her brother decided to put it on himself as a joke.
Once on his finger, the ring won't come off, and since it was intended to be worn by a female, Guy must wear a large wig, a purple skirt and cape, pink gloves and white go-go boots to gain access to the many powers it bestows, including tremendous strength, speed, flight and his strongest ability, a sonic scream. (Yeah, no gender stereotypes here.)
Whenever trouble arises, the boy says the magic words “You go, girl!” to become the cross-dressing superhero and returns to his secret identity by shouting “She-yeah!”
He/she also has a "beautility belt" which includes items such as "laser lipstick" and "vanishing cream." Uh ... right.
I still say that it would have been better to have Shezow be a girl because there aren't enough female superheroes, but does it promote transgender? I don't think so. Barely promotes drag queens at best, but I'm only judging by one episode.
Here's the opening of the 'toon, FWIW.
Comics guy Erik Larsen, a big lefty who believes the GOP "stole" the 2000 and 2004 elections (but thus far, no word from him on how the IRS shenanigans may have aided Boss Obama in stealing 2012's), apparently is not a big fan of comics legend John Byrne. A while back, the duo had a bit of a feud regarding artwork, which Byrne turned into a topic at his website. A couple days ago, Larsen tweeted the following about Byrne:
@tombrevoort but the big difference is that you would like him to work on Marvel books. I have no interest in him working on mine.— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) May 30, 2013
So Larsen doesn't want Byrne working on his books. Oooooh, golly. But here's the thing: Larsen is nowhere near Byrne when it comes to comicbook talent. In a discussion of comicbook greats, Byrne should certainly occupy some air time if you're at all serious about the topic. The "Dark Phoenix" saga. "Days of Future Past." The re-imagining of DC's Superman. Memorable run on the Fantastic Four. Larsen, on the other hand? He'd probably raise a few "Who??" He did average artwork on Spider-Man. Created a character called the Savage Dragon. Whoopee-freakin'-do.
Perhaps the bloated, overhyped entity that is Image Comics has done "wonders" for Larsen's ego.
A Spanish teacher in the Bronx claims she was axed because she -- wait for it -- used the word "negro" in class:
A Bronx teacher says her language lesson was lost in translation when she was fired for calling a student “Negro” — though she claims she was simply using the Spanish word for the color “black” at the time, according to a new lawsuit.
The non-tenured junior high instructor, Petrona Smith, 65, was booted from the bilingual PS 211 in March 2012 after a seventh-grader reported the alleged insult.
Smith, who is black and a native of the West Indies, has been unemployed since her ouster.
“They haven’t even accounted for how absurd it is for someone who’s black to be using a racial slur to a student,” said Shaun Reid, Smith’s attorney. “Talk about context! There’s a lot of things wrong here.”
The instructor took a hiatus from teaching special education in 2005 to learn Spanish in South America, because she was passionate about learning the language in a cultural context, Reid said.
She denied calling the student a “Negro,” and explained to investigators that she was teaching a lesson about how to say different colors in Spanish and said the word “negro,” which is Spanish for the color black. She told her students that it was not a derogatory term and that the Spanish word for a black person was “moreno.”
That last paragraph is what I more or less am referring to in the title. Some time ago when I taught the subject, I too was covering the colors in Spanish, and in my case a student -- an African-American for what it's worth whose last name happened to be Black -- asked me if his last name would then translate to "Negro." (And by the way -- the Spanish word is pronounced "nay-gro," not "nee-gro.") I responded that technically that was accurate, but that proper names don't necessarily translate.
To my surprise, the next day I had a voice-mail from a parent of a different kid from that class, concerned about me using the word "negro." When I spoke with her, she said her child said I called the boy who asked about his last name "negro." Despite my [perfectly logical and common sense] explanation, the mom sounded quite skeptical. Nevertheless, though I awaited an eventual follow-up from an administrator (because of my belief that my explanation to the parent "wasn't sufficient"), it never came. I was so certain it would, too, that I typed up an almost two-page report of the whole deal just in case.
Though the teacher in this story was accused of calling a student "negro" (again, she denies it), this would in no way be considered offensive in any Latin American country. But while it obviously makes sense to convey this fact to American students, a teacher with just a bit of common sense has to recognize the history of that word in our own country, and be sensitive -- and cautious -- about the lesson approach.
Avi over at FCMM points to an article which -- surprise! -- excoriates American "bigotry, nativism and xenophobia" for the creation of Iron Man arch-villain the Mandarin. Avi does what he does best -- dissecting the unspoken hypocrisy and one-sidedness of the article -- and I largely agree with him. He notes that, by far, the US is hardly alone when it comes to offensive and stereotypical portrayals of [foreign] characters. This isn't to excuse what has transpired before in this country; however, it needs to be noted that 1) The US has largely excised such characterizations from its entertainment outlets, and 2) Marvel was actually at the forefront of combating prejudice and bigotry in the comics field. Article author Andrew A. Smith fails to note the irony, too:
Speaking of Marvel, that publisher introduced the Yellow Claw in the 1950s, but also — perhaps indicating changing times — heroic Asian-American FBI agent Jimmy Woo. And Marvel gave us the Mandarin. A Chinese mastermind with long fingernails and longer mustache, he was just another Fu Manchu clone for years.
In the 1950s Marvel intro'd an Asian-American FBI agent ... yeah. Not only was that "indicating changing times" (not "perhaps"), it was actually very forward-thinking. And Marvel did a lot more in the following decade, too, in the realm of [racial/ethnic] inclusion.
Marvel has tried updating him (Mandarin) now and again to excise the racism element (and make him more relevant), but because that’s the character’s core, it never really works.
I beg to differ. Mandy has never been my favorite Iron Man baddie, but his constant "updates" through the years have certainly moved away -- excised -- the "racism element." That is, unless you believe (like Smith seems to do) that simply because he is Asian -- and a villain -- that that in itself is racist.
Smith wants Mandy "retired" as a villain, and on that I agree. But I think that's Marvel has pretty much done all it can with the guy.
I haven't yet seen Iron Man 3 (I know, can you believe it??), but from what I've read from hardcore IM fans, the Mandarin characterization is pretty pathetic.
RELATED: Some of the Mandarin's stand-out moments in Iron Man history:
In Mandy's first-ever appearance (Tales of Suspense #50), we see Stark -- in the heat of battle! -- calculate how to deflect one of Mandy's karate chops ... using his "built-in slide- rule calculator!" Also note the classic insult: "Who's laughing now, Sunny Jim?"
One thing I've always pondered: Why in the world is there a big "M" on Mandarin's chest? Ya'd think there'd be his name in Chinese characters, right?
Iron Man #100 was the climax of yet another IM-Mandy scuffle, and it's one of the better ones by far. Mandy's plot involved political subterfuge, nuclear weapons, the giant robot Ultimo, and an incredible all-out action 100th issue (with great art by the late George Tuska):
One of the sillier Mandarin moments came in the late #50s of IM's book when Mandy attempted to ... take over the union that organized Stark Industries' workers?? (His stage name was ... Gene Khan.) Not too big a goal for a wannabe world dictator, huh?
In John Byrne's "Dragon Seed" saga, the origin of Mandy (and Iron Man, to a degree) was retconned. It involved original IM bad-guy Wong Chu and the very Chinese myth about dragons:
In the [lame] 1994 Iron Man cartoon, apparently Marvel wanted to move way away from the Chinese origin, so they gave Mandy ... green skin:
Possibly even sillier than the #50s Gene Khan schtick was when Mandy assumed the role of some businessman and wanted to ... make a movie where he (as Mandarin) battled Iron Man. Cool new battle armor for the villain, but c'mahn:
Then there was the WAY overly drawn-out cross-over title tale where Mandy attempted to stop all of the world's technology (from functioning) and turn the planet into a battle of the feudal warlords. Could have been done in two issues but took a lot more than that to conclude. Lame Tom Morgan artwork doesn't help either:
Finally, one of the BEST Iron Man issues comes in the form of one #69 -- my first-ever comicbook and an incredible all-out slugfest between 'ol Shellhead and Mandy. Yes, Iron Man has his infamous nose in this issue, but penciller George Tuska is at his best here. George is always great when it comes to action sequences, and oh man does he not disappoint here! Take a gander at some the panels.
OK, again, here's what I don't get: Comics creators take to social media to decry gun violence, the NRA, Republicans and conservatives in general, yet -- while deflecting/ignoring queries about their own business -- we see defenses of actions such as this:
A Nebraska public library has rejected a request to either remove Alan Moore and Brian Bolland’s Batman: The Killing Joke from shelves or move the 1988 DC Comics one-shot out of the young-adult area.
“I don’t find it worthy of being removed from the shelf,” the Columbus Telegram quotes Columbus Public Library board member Carol Keller as saying at last week’s meeting.
A patron had objected to the comic, saying it was “very adult” and “advocates rape and violence.” However, in a 3-0 vote (two members were absent), the board disagreed, contending that many prose books and comics depict violence, and that the patron’s interpretation of rape was “misconstrued.”
While I certainly agree that a public library should not remove [just about] any book, including The Killing Joke, I certainly believe that this patron's concern over it being in the "young adult" section could be justified. If you've read the book you'd have to at least consider it, even if you do not agree. While the book actually doesn't "promote" violence, it is quite violent, especially the point-blank range shooting of Barbara Gordon (Commissioner Gordon's daughter and former Batgirl):
An outlet like CBR's Robot 6, which goes out of its way to promote politically correct stories (like this one, also from today) would be hard-pressed to complain about the removal of, say, an graphic novel that promoted traditional marriage because it was "homophobic," let alone report on it at all. And again, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre when comicbook types took to social media and screamed about guns and violence, why can't we be just a little more vigilant about violence in terms of age appropriateness?
Matthew Balan at Newsbusters notes how the New York Times refused to use the term "baby" or "infant' in its coverage of the Kermit Gosnell verdict, instead always using the term "fetuses" to describe even the delivered er, um, "individuals" whom he later executed.
What a [sad] laugh.
Even sadder -- but totally predictable -- is our own Wilmington News Journal following suit:
In the five weeks of trial testimony, jurors heard the requisite proof in details of shoddy and careless medical practices in a Philadelphia lab that drew mostly poor and minority young girls and women to Gosnell’s evening and nighttime services. Gosnell’s final solution was to cut spinal cords or snap necks of fetuses at such signs of life, workers said.
Police found 47 fetuses at the clinic, which staffers described as traditionally dirty and below the sanity standards of a legitimately-run medical facility.
To be fair, the WNJ does use other terminology -- for what some of the witnesses in the trial said: "The co-workers gave credible testimonies of babies moving limbs, bodies curled in a fetal position and hearing baby whimpers after completed abortions."
One may wonder how a "fetus" could utter a "baby" whimper, or how a "fetus" could move its limbs after an abortion. Only our ever-politically correct News Journal could answer that. Or maybe not.
The writer of the "Hey! I'm hip!" The Movement, Gail Simone, sets up her own straw man to "make a point":
One of the meanest things going on politically is the demonization of single moms.— GailSimone (@GailSimone) May 12, 2013
A parent takes responsibility for their child under tough circumstances, and that makes them bad? Poop on that.— GailSimone (@GailSimone) May 12, 2013
But here's what worries me as to what Simone is intimating: That it's not OK to criticize woman who knowingly chooses to have children (out of wedlock) ... whose life situation is far from optimal. For every dopey situation we see on Maury, how many more thousands of like situations are out there in the world? Are we really supposed to say to these people "Aww, don't worry -- it's OK! We'll take care of you, no problem"? Are such folk really not due for a "WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING??"?
Alas, such is the PC environment we currently all inhabit, and Simone is one of the greatest purveyors of the philosophy. It's also a side effect of the ever-expanding definition of "choice," and the ever-expanding no-consequences society.
Hispanic janitors have filed suit -- claiming discrimination -- because they don't speak the primary lingo of the country:
[Bertha] Ribota said she was injured at work because she couldn’t read a warning sign that was in English.
“If I could speak English I wouldn’t have the problems that exist,” said Ribota.
So, the remedy isn't to freakin' learn the language of your current home; no, it's to SUE to make others cater to YOU.
Unfortunately, based on past law, the campus is likely to lose since that's the way we roll in the Age of Obama. (But to be fair, this sort of legal nonsense existed before him ... it's just has his executive blessing now).
That is, the Firemen from Fahrenheit 451. Oh, wait -- these profs must be members:
These are San Jose State University Meteorology Dept. Profs Bridger and Clements burning a book because, y'know, they disagree with it. Un-freakin'-real. University professors. Can we call them Nazis? One of the best-ever TV shows did:
TRAPPER: Frank! What are you doing?
FRANK BURNS: Burning books.
HAWKEYE: Oh. Any special reason, Dr. Hitler?
FRANK BURNS: One of the greatest living Americans is coming and I'm not going to let him see some of the trash that's read around here.
Here's Amazon's page about the book.
So say the rumors. Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle and Friday Night Lights) is in the running. To which comics guy Ron Marz makes yet another interesting Tweet:
All those movies with a black guy playing Nick Fury were box-office disasters, and no fun to watch, right? #Torched— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) May 2, 2013
Well duh, Ron. Maybe that's because the African-American Nick Fury was already well established in comics continuity before the latest crop of Marvel films came out (that featured the character). Marvel's popular Ultimate Universe is where the Samuel L. Jackson-based character began -- over a decade ago at the turn of the milennium.
On the other hand, where has there been a black Human Torch/Johnny Storm in comics? I haven't bought a new book in some time, but I keep up with what is going on regularly. I don't recall ever seeing an African-American Torch. Spinoff's article author Steve Sunu indicates same. Such a deviation certainly doesn't mean the reboot FF film won't be successful; however, it could be problematic if there's a decent amount of concentration on the team's origin. Maybe one way around that is to make Sue and Johnny half-siblings, or one adopted. That sounds easy enough. And a new FF film, however altered, certainly can't be much worse than the original two!
That all said, why the change in the first place? Is this just another example of needless political correctness for the sake of ... political correctness?
UPDATE: The ultra-PC creator Gail Simone chimes in with her "coherent" thoughts:
I swear to god, I am NOT going to listen to a bunch more dumb outrage about a black actor being cast in a superhero movie. GOOD. #FuryRules— GailSimone (@GailSimone) May 3, 2013
Why the hash-tag "FuryRules"? Is there really a pissed off fan base out there regarding Samuel L. Jackson being cast as Nick Fury? If so, where? As I noted, at least this Fury actually has a basis in the comics. A black Johnny Storm does not. I really wonder what Simone's reaction would be if, in the upcoming Captain America sequel, a white guy was cast as the Falcon. Or, what if a movie studio took one of her characters ... and completely altered him/her?
I've opined in the past already that I could care less if African-American actors are cast as characters that were originally portrayed as white (or something else) in the original comics -- because most of the most popular characters in the biz were created when blacks were still considered second-class citizens. We've seen Heimdall portrayed by a black actor in Thor; Jamie Foxx is slated to play Electro in the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man 2. And big deal. But, again, the Fantastic Four is a bit different. It's a major property of one of the Big Two comics companies with a rich (and immense) continuity history. It'd almost be akin to putting out a film with a black guy playing Superman ... just for the sake of having a black guy playing Superman. In other words, it really makes no sense.
But whoever said political correctness ever made sense?
The Wilmington News Journal amazes me sometimes. We already know it's ridiculously politically correct, yet I sometimes wonder if it really thinks its readership is completely devoid of any sort of moral judgment, and that it will accept what it prints purely at face value.
Case in point: Yesterday's article about the Cannon family of Harrington. The title reads "Single mom, family march forward in face of adversity," and knowing the WNJ as I do, I was pretty skeptical right away. Not because I do not want a family with tough odds not to overcome adversity, but because I pondered how much of that adversity was, well, self-inflicted. It isn't until page two that we find out (my emphasis):
The children’s father, James Cannon, is 80. [Mrs.] Cannon just turned 32. They separated two years ago and were divorced at the end of last year. He lives about a half-hour away in Seaford.
Despite the hardships, Jayla is inspired by her mother. Though Cannon gave birth to Jayla “one or two weeks after graduating” high school, she went on to Delaware Technical Community College to become a certified medical assistant and worked until her illness got too bad.
So let's do the math: Mrs. Cannon presumably was 18 years old upon graduating high school, possibly still 17. This means Mr. Cannon was 66 years old at that time. Earlier in the article, Mrs. Cannon says she "is trying to give her children a better life than she had growing up," but one wonders how having five children before age 30 with someone almost 50 years your senior accomplishes that. Of course, the News Journal reports all this completely uncritically. We are to make no judgments -- just read and let the sympathy roll.
Mrs. Cannon has only been solo with her kids for going on two years, as noted. The article mentions she and her kids get by on $1,000 month. There is, however, no mention of why Mr. Cannon is not contributing to his family. If he did, don't you think it would be noted? And why is there no inquiry by the authors of why Mr. Cannon isn't paying child support?
If Mrs. Cannon really wants better lives for her children, I'd start with not making the two decisions she made while a senior in high school.
The University of the Connecticut unveiled a new school logo the other day -- a pic of a head of a Husky (dog) -- which then led to a "self-described feminist student" by the name of Carolyn Luby to protest. Why? ('Ya ready??) Because the image "will intimidate women and empower rape culture." She wrote,
“What terrifies me about the admiration of such traits is that I know what it feels like to have a real life Husky look straight through you and to feel powerless, and to wonder if even the administration cannot ‘mess with them.’ And I know I am not alone.”
Luby then went on to finish a paper for her class "Having No Life 101."
In the arena of the absolutely absurd today (to hopefully take your mind away from Boston a bit), San Francisco will be "the first city in the country to launch citywide police station 'safe zones' for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, staffed with police liaisons trained to serve that community."
Here's a pic from part of the "big" announcement:
Yep, that's a member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence who, in the name of "combating intolerance," demonstrates intolerance ... towards the Catholic community. Maybe they should change their name to "Sisters of Escaped Irony."
(h/t to Moonbattery)
Via Ace: PBS's Gwen Ifill Tweeted the other day:
Disturbing that it's OK for TV to ID a Boston bombing suspect only as "a dark-skinned individual."— gwen ifill (@pbsgwen) April 17, 2013
Apparently it isn't disturbing when the suspect is a white guy, though. And, after all, we certainly don't want the public to have any information that may assist in ID'ing criminals, right?
That would be "the advocacy group" Gender Justice. Here's why:
Jill Gaulding, a cofounder of the advocacy group Gender Justice, claims that the University of Iowa is engaged in “pink shaming” and “cognitive bias” by making its football team’s opponents dress and undress in a locker room that is painted . . . pink:
“Most people understand the pink locker room as a taunt against the other team, calling them a bunch of ladies/girls/sissies/pansies/etc.,” according to an information sheet Gaulding and Gender Justice law partner Lisa Stratton distributed to the workshop attendees.
Gaulding’s handout quoted a passage from [former Iowa football coach Hayden] Fry’s autobiography where he said pink was a “passive” color and might put opponents in a passive mood. “Also, pink is often found in girls’ bedrooms, and because of that some consider it a sissy color,” according to a quote Gaulding said she took from Fry’s book.
Gaulding believes -- wait for it! -- that U.I. could face a lawsuit for ... gender discrimination(!!) based on Title IX and Title VII rules.
Now, y'know what's funny? Various comics sites are lauding what "has helped create much needed diversity with today’s issue." And who really cares about that? "Progressive"-oriented comicbook news sites, that's who. And "progressive" comicbook creators (like Simone). Why is this funny? Because ironically, while such creators get on their high horses and chide average joe bloggers like myself and Doug Ernst for, in our spare time, offering commentary on these creators' politics -- because, they say, all we want is blog traffic -- this is precisely what they're doing (desiring increased sales) in cases like these!!
So let's see -- average guy makes no money for blogging on comics' politics? Disgruntled traffic-seeking conservative idiot fanboy. Comicbook writer who devises cheap gimmick(s) to help drive sales? Innovative and forward-thinking creator.
Yet another example of outrageous PC insanity, this time from Phoenix, AZ:
To diversify the lifeguard force, Phoenix will spend thousands of dollars to recruit minorities even if they’re not strong swimmers, according to an official quoted in a news report. Blacks, Latinos and Asians who may not necessarily qualify can still get hired, says the city official who adds that “we will work with you in your swimming abilities.”
There’s a good reason the city is hiring lifeguards that can’t swim. Public pools are largely used by Latino and African-American kids, but most of the lifeguards are white and this creates a huge problem. “The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don’t like that,” says a Phoenix official quoted in the story. She added that “the kids don’t relate; there’s language issues.”
First, imagine a white city official saying that "the kids don't relate" and "we don't like that" with regards to, say, a basketball camp where most of the instructors were black and the clientele white. Second, consider what this idiot city official's response would be to a lawsuit as a result of a child drowning ... because the lifeguard didn't know what the f*** he was doing.
Maybe he/she will get lucky and the suing attorney will be a minority. Y'know, the lawyer will "understand" why the city hired on the basis of diversity and all. Cheeyeah, good luck with that.
Well, despite the air of mystery created by Kevin Feige, the EW TV spot pretty much spoils The Mandarin’s nationality. At the beginning of the footage, The Mandarin announces, “My fellow Americans. My soldiers will destroy your country.” So, by addressing his “fellow Americans,” it looks like The Mandarin is claiming to be a homegrown American terrorist.
As the title says, "Oh, brother." It's bad enough that the film will have a different version aired in China, and that the Red Dawn remake had to be redone to make to baddies North Koreans instead of Chinese. I'm not saying (and there's no indication) that Mandy's ID was altered to assuage our Chinese overlords; however, the "disgruntled/vengeance-seeking 'one of our own'" bit is exceedingly boring already. Not to mention that Iron Man was refreshingly pro-American while being anti-war at the same time.
This revelation has the potential to be a huge disaster.
They have a book called "Clueless at the Top," which is not an autobiography but a meditation "on outdated hierarchies in American culture," whatever that means.
Two items came to my attention these past few days the exemplify the Catch-22 diversophiles and the denizens of political correctness put themselves in. First, from the Big Apple:
“I'm Muslim and I believe 110 percent in Sharia law.”
“You know what happens in Islamic countries? You know what happens to the gay people, correct? They're beheaded,” the caller said. “I'm going to fight as hard as I can with all my Muslim brothers and sisters to make Sharia law in the United States.”
“So people should be beheaded for being gay? Come on, this is America,” host Maria Milito complained.
“I'm not anti-Muslim,” Milito asserted.
“You're anti-Muslim if you are saying that about my religion.”
You see? You are an Islamophobe if you oppose the beheading of homosexuals ... merely for being homosexuals. What is a "progressive" devotee to PC to do??
Next, a couple of "progressive" twins are featured in the Washington Post to argue that mass shootings are a white (male) cultural problem ... and they don't want to talk about it:
Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that African Americans be “held accountable.” Then, if an atrocity such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings took place and African American male leaders held a news conference to offer solutions, their credibility would be questionable. The public would tell these leaders that they need to focus on problems in their own culture and communities.
But when the criminals and leaders are white men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.
There is so much that is plainly ridiculous about this I don't believe I could fit it all in one post. Just read the article and guffaw. And keep in mind the byline of the authors' own website:
Harriet and Charlotte are consultants, authors, and college faculty who have researched, written, and spoken about issues related to social and political change for more than two decades.
Ah yes -- "social and political change." Enough said.
Ace, as you might expect, has a field day:
That first paragraph is very nearly self-refuting. A couple of Newtowns worth of people, almost exclusively African American people, die on the streets of gun control-loving Chicago every month, yet the media flood the authors suggest would happen simply hasn't. I wonder why that is ... ?
He then points out this chart and says "Looks to me like (a) the black homicide rate dwarfs the white homicide rate and (b) the gap is greatest where gun control is most strict." And this is probably the best comment regarding Ace's commentary.
MSNBC's Chris Hayes Plans Rigid Guest Quotas: 'We Already Have Too Many White Men.'
To which there's an easy solution: Hayes, who's white, could quit ... and then demand his replacement be a minority (or woman). Problem solved.
But for some reason, "progressives" like Hayes never seem to consider that angle. Gee, how come? Same goes for the many other MSM "progressive" white male talking heads, not to mention "progressive" white male Hollywood stars.
I'm serious. Check out the following panels of Uncanny Avengers #5:
In a word (two, actually), "Aw, C'MAHN!"
As the article notes, Marvel typically has used the term "mutie" as the derogatory derivative of "mutant" ... sort of like how "homo" is the nasty version of "homosexual." But using "homosexual" isn't viewed as negative, or "divisive" as Havoc (Alex Summers) says in the panels. It's the actual technical term for those who are attracted to the same sex. Just like "mutant" is the actual technical term for a genetic aberration of a standard human.
Further, consider what Havoc says: "We are defined by our choices, not the makeup of our genes." But ... the latter is precisely what homosexuals themselves claim. It is those who oppose the "gay agenda" (whatever that is, precisely) who frequently claim that being gay is a choice. And they're pilloried for it.
So, writer Rick Remender has tied himself into a ridiculous PC knot. We're told (in the real world) that gays are defined by their genetics, but (in the Marvel Universe) mutants -- who've typically been utilized as allegories for oppressed minorities like homosexuals -- should not be. Because it's "divisive." If Remender is trying to make a statement here, he's failed miserably. He just comes off as some sort of anointed, annoying (and confused) social commentator. A commenter to the article reminds us how Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of "color blindness" has been utterly corrupted by the denizens of political correctness. Now, believing in this vision -- not acknowledging someone's skin color -- is viewed as "racist." It's truly (and sadly) remarkable.
Keep in mind, too, that Marvel's own term for mutants is "Homo superior," or, "Homo sapiens superior." The word "superior" already indicates a divisive aspect -- that members of this sub-species of humanity are "better" than the average joe. And doesn't the PC crowd consider any sort of claim of "superiority" to another person or group ... anathema?
UPDATE: Tom Spurgeon opines:
Marvel's use of X-Men related imagery and concepts as potentially valuable tools in getting at nuances of racism, classism, sexism and homophobia has a generated a couple of posts on other sites -- here and here -- and likely a lot of well-meaning, agitated comments threads of the potentially high-traffic variety. The only thing that pops into my head when I hear about stuff like that is that these are really broad metaphors at best, and a first-class ticket to the Land Of Stupid at worst.
I vote the latter.
Elsewhere, from the first link in Spurgeon's quote, which misses the actual point:
The idea that ‘mutant’ is an ‘m-word’ is comprehensively wrong. The idea that equality is reached via erasing differences is wrong. And the message this scene puts across is that minorities – for, of course, mutancy in the Marvel Universe is used as a metaphor for the struggles of persecuted minorities round the world, be they of a different sexual orientation, gender, race, religion – should want to become invisible and fit into their surroundings. It’s a message that minorities should feel ashamed of who they are, and seek to become, quote “normalised”.
Aside from ignoring the idiocy that "mutant" should be a pejorative, this writer, Steve Morris, seems to be of the crowd I mentioned in my post -- that of the MLK "revisionists" who see color-blindness as a societal negative. Be sure to read the comment thread there as the convo is pretty good from both sides of the issue.
Tim Graham at Newsbusters highlights the "progressive" penchant for tolerance, empathy and understanding ... except for when they disagree with you. In this case it's the WaPo's "humor" writer Gene Weingarten who "jokes" about St. Peter shooting the NRA's Wayne LaPierre in the crotch area:
I shall write some verse for my tomorrow's chat
About the Antichrist, a fetid presence in the air --
I speak of Lucifer, Old Scratch, the Stygian bat,
That dastard, truth's assassin: Wayne LaPierre.
Twenty children dead, and also adults six
Slain by yet another madman a-hole with a gun
Too easily obtain'd; Wayn'd solve it with a fix--
More arms for a-holes! That's the ticket, son.
In Wayne's World, no problem lacks a cure:
Violence begets violence, so he'll say
Arm yourself some more, to feel secure
Against the guy who we armed yesterday,
Others in the public eye are filth and slime
(O'Reilly milks our hate and offers bitter brew on tap)
But Wayne's misdeeds will more withstand the test of time --
Standing as he does before us, unashamed and full of crap.
A toast then, to our friend Wayne LaPierre
For whom gun deaths have been a lucky totem
Methinks St. Peter will espy him, standing there
And smile, and aim a 30-30 at his scrotum.
Nice. I wonder if this brilliant "humorist" ever saw fit to write a "funny" poem about another controversial topic that has to do with human lives (and the elimination thereof) -- something like, y'know, abortion. If so, maybe it went something like this:
Millions of babies killed for convenience
"Hands of my body" scream the liberal pundits
Concerned more about criminals and capital punishment
"Celebrates death!" they say to our amusement
Maybe St. Peter will have harsh words for Blackmun
Smiting him down with an illegal handgun.
Gee, can I have a job now as a "humorist?" Unlikely. Hypocritical lunkheads like Weingarten will dub my screed "sexist" and "patriarchal" and then blacklist me as "one of them."
If this were George H.W. Bush ("supermarket scanner moment" -- proven completely false despite the MSM disseminating it) or Mitt Romney (deli order machine at "Wawas"), the WaPo would be relentless or their supposed cluelessness; who finds the paper clueless given this snippet today:
What really caught my attention, though, were the photographs that showed what some SNAP recipients bought with their government-funded debit cards: CheetosPuffs, a one-ounce handful of which contains 10 grams of fat; a box containing two dozen 12-ounce cans of Fanta Orange soda, each of which contains 44 grams of sugar; a carton of six-ounce Capri Sun drink pouches, each of which contains 16 grams of sugar.
In short, this immense nutrition program pays for a lot of stuff that is the opposite of nutritious.
Indeed. As any average joe who's ever been to the supermarket could attest.
It's not unlike children who arrive to school and promptly head to the cafeteria for their government-funded "free" breakfast ... all the while checking their iPhones, as tunes blare through their iPods into their Beats headphones.
But be sure not to say anything about it, though. You'll be "insensitive," "callous," "unsympathetic," "mean-spirited," etc. etc. etc.
Philly's Mayor Michael Nutter has asked for an investigation(!!) into this Philadelphia Magazine article. An investigation. And, most frighteningly, he "also asked it (the city's Human Relations Commission) to consider whether the article was the "reckless equivalent of 'shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.' "
In other words, he wants to see if criminal charges can be brought against the magazine, and the article's author.
These small-minded leftists keep, as I titled my previous post, making the "offensive" article's point. Perfectly.
Hans has some good stuff this time out. Check it:
We live in a culture where harsh but truthful criticism, or exposure of wrongdoing, is viewed by some as "bullying," especially when it affects someone's inflated "self-esteem."
-- DePaul University has punished a student for publicizing the names of fellow students who admitted vandalizing his organization's pro-life display," classifying his speech as "bullying." The display had been approved by the university, and the 13 students who wrecked it confessed.
-- When historian Michael Bellesiles's academic fraud was exposed by fellow historians, resulting in his forced resignation, a leading "anti-bullying" expert, who shared Bellesiles' progressive political views, got him a new job at her university, claiming that he "was the victim of a "mobbing" or group "bullying" campaign by his fellow historians, who were distinguished people from across the political spectrum.
-- The Minister of Education in Ontario, the most populous Canadian province, has sought to define pro-life advocacy in religious schools as gender-based bullying. Self-styled crusaders against "workplace bullying" want to impose broad definitions of bullying at the expense of free speech and use existing overly broad school bullying rules as models for laws against workplace bullying that would hold employers and co-workers liable for compensatory and punitive damages for speech and expressive conduct deemed to be bullying -- something that disturbs groups such as the Chamber of Commerce.
There's plenty more at the link above. Also check out Hans' More Calls for Censorship to Prevent “Bullying.”
Avi discovers that a "progressive" comics writer whom I actually admire felt the need to back up a colleague, despite said colleague being hypocritical ... and childish. Yep, Kurt Busiek tweeted, in apparent response to the conversation between Ron Marz, myself and Doug Ernst,
Our lesson for today seems to be that expressing conservative opinions is free speech but expressing liberal opinions is bad.
To say this is a ridiculous response does a disservice to the term "ridiculous." Not to mention, it's not even logical -- "free speech" and "bad" have nothing to do with one another. And, it's hypocritical in that it's been Orson Scott Card's speech that has been deemed "bad" among the liberal comics guys, enough to want him dismissed from writing for DC.
Look, I am, and always will be, a big fan of Busiek's comics work. Although a "progressive," he rarely, if ever, pushes an agenda in his stories. And when he is political, he's pretty fair about seeing both sides. (Consider his volume 3 Avengers work beginning in the late 1990s and the controversy surrounding the addition of Triathlon to Earth's Mightiest, as an example.) But in social media, like here, he can be just plain silly. Why is it OK for Marz to scream "STFU" on Twitter about gun rights, but not OK for me to tongue-in-cheekly write "Shut up and write" in a blog post comment? Not to mention, as we've pointed out here many times, when a conservative theme may be utilized in a comics story, it's "controversial."
So ... Kurt -- it seems that lesson is "that expressing conservative opinions is bad but expressing liberal opinions is perfectly A-OK."
As creator Mark Waid was fond of saying recently (regarding the Orson Scott Card matter), free speech doesn't come without consequences. Indeed it does not. Which is a point I relayed to Busiek a long time ago in an e-mail conversation. Kurt's response was that he didn't like so-called "economic boycotts;" he preferred to battle words with words -- for example, precisely what I, Avi Green, Doug Ernst, Carl and others have been doing. Of course, when Kurt and I had that past convo, social media was virtually non-existent, and blogs were in their infancy. But now that regular joes like me have [a lot more of a] voice, he doesn't like it much, it seems.
Nevertheless, let's get back to focusing on the actual matter at hand: Again, Waid's point about free speech and consequences is 100% correct. Waid (and many others) exercised these "consequences" with Card because of his [controversial] views on homosexuals and gay marriage. The hypocrisy part comes in in that why, if Card can be shoved aside for his views, cannot Waid, Marz, Busiek, or whoever else be ostracized for theirs? Many people demanded Card be axed by DC for his views. (Waid says it's about Card's actions because he sits on the board of the National Organization for Marriage; I already argued that there is little substantive difference between this "action" and someone in a lofty position like Waid using social media or whatever to espouse his opinions.) I, and every other person I know on the other side of the aisle, would never demand a liberal creator be fired for his opinions (or "actions" like Card's ... unless it was criminal, of course). We'd merely not support such a creator with our wallets.
Which, again, is the point I made to Busiek that long time ago ... and most recently to Marz. If you want to spout off on personal political views on social media, then don't be surprised if you piss a lot of people off. And Kurt's desire for "battling words with words" apparently was either phony or short-lived, for he blocked me on Twitter for reasons I presume have something to do with opining about his personal politics in the past, as have Waid and conspiratorial nut-case Erik Larsen.
Some "battle," eh? At least Marz has kept an open Twitter feed, and others like Dan Slott are at least very honest about why they'll share political opinions regardless of any economic consequences. Even ultra-liberal Mark Millar said Card shouldn't be dismissed because, basically, who says Busiek, Waid or whoever won't be next for their opinions?
If this man worked for me he would be fired immediately:
Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of Pacific forces, warns that climate change is top threat - Nation - The Boston Globe: "America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change."
In addition, I would call a press conference and lambaste the man for such stupidity.
I am simply gobsmacked that anyone in his position would give such an answer. A regime run by a family crime syndicate that has nuclear weapons is a lesser threat than a 1 cm ocean rise over the next hundred years.
The Air Force chaplain who created the PowerPoint showing how to properly handle a Koran has ... been awarded the Bronze Star.
The. Bronze. Star.
From the comments section:
"Being able to do it using a Windows 8 computer must be deserving of the Air Force Cross."
"My dad was awarded the Bronze Star for landing an aircraft in enemy territory and rescuing some downed airmen in Vietnam. Of course, this was before the hazardous duty that is working with anything Microsoft makes."
"Wow, I knew Microsoft software was dangerous, but I had no idea ..."
After Card's artist on the story (Chris Sprouse) bolted due to the [predictable] media uproar over Card's "homophobia, sorry, gay marriage opposition'” (real cute there, author Graeme McMillan) DC has announced that the Superman story by Card will be put on hold:
As a result, the Orson Scott Card story (co-written with Aaron Johnston, Card’s writing partner on Marvel’s Ender’s Game comics) will not appear in either the digital or print editions of Adventures of Superman, the upcoming anthology series launching later this year; instead, it will be replaced by a story by respected creators Jeff Parker and Chris Samnee, with the print edition featuring the Parker/Samnee collaboration in addition to work by Justin Jordan and Riley Rossmo, as well as Jeff Lemire. Because of this last-minute substitution, the first print issue of Adventures of Superman will be made returnable to comic stores that have already ordered it.
The news has inspired speculation about whether or not this could mean that DC will quietly kill off the controversial Card story entirely, with some suggesting that the story remaining un-illustrated gives the publisher an “out” to avoid any potential breach-of-contract legal response.
So there we have it. As I Tweeted to the "witty" Mark Waid (who posted plenty of Tweets in favor of this occurrence), maybe next time it will be him ... for something controversial HE may say. Or do. Or anyone of these guys ... who actually put personal political views in their stories (and there's plenty more), unlike Card.
Jeffrey Meyer has more at Newsbusters.
Robert Huber writes what he must have known would be a provocative article in Philadelphia Magazine. His thesis is essentially that white people are afraid to speak up on matters of race (in and around Philly). Daniel Denvir at Philly City Paper chides Huber in a childish "nyah nyah" fashion, because, you know, Caucasians have absolutely nothing to complain about (regarding race).
Let's cut the bullcrap already. It is entirely possible to feel muzzled in "honest" racial discussions while at the same time recognizing the historical wrongs perpetrated against African-Americans, as well as the advantages whites have enjoyed since the country's founding. The [easily predictable] reaction to this article proves how correct we've been in the past when we've called programs such as "Courageous Conversations" and "Difficult Dialogues" frauds -- frauds because, like Huber, if you're white and you want to be "courageous," you'd better be prepared to endure a lot of criticism, not to mention the typical accusations of ... RACISM! Such programs are usually skewed from the start; "Courageous Conversations," for example, at the onset states that student home life, socio-economic status, and parental situation are "off limits."
How "courageous" is that?
Huber may be wrong, or he may be right. Or somewhere in between. But the [liberal] visceral reaction proves much of his point: Honest, frank discussions about race are still a long way off (apologies to Eric Holder notwithstanding).
Soccer player Lauren Silberman tried out an NFL combine as a kicker yesterday ... and -- surprise!! -- she failed miserably:
Her first kickoff attempt, from the 35-yard line, went 19 yards. Her second went just 13, and she soon was accompanied to the trainer's table.
"I just couldn't do it today," Silberman said. "I know I can do a lot more."
Silberman had one more kickoff and five field goal attempts remaining, and later lobbied NFL officials to let her try to complete the workout. After a long conversation, it was decided she would not continue because of [a leg] injury.
Yeah, it was the "injury." Silberman later said, "The distance wasn't there but hopefully the scouts will notice my technique. It's not always length."
"Distance wasn't there ..."?? Yeah, I can see some NFL coaches now: "OK, the damn kickoff only went 25 yards, but holy crap -- did you see that technique??" And maybe Silberman could create a new specialty position -- that of Really Short Distance Field Goal Kicker.
The NFL promoted Silberman's tryout, and she appeared on a few television programs leading up to the event.
And there is still a milestone to be had. While Silberman started the tryout, she did not complete it. "I might be the first woman trying out for the NFL," Silberman said. "But I certainly hope I'm not the last."
I'm sure the NFL promoted her "tryout." 'Ya gotta be politically correct these days, after all, right? No matter how ludicrous it is.
UPDATE: Here's a video of her "good technique." Try not to laugh. I dare 'ya:
After reading through this article about stereotypes, I got to thinking (again) about this superb article by Comics Alliance's David Brothers. Interestingly, David addresses the matter of writer Reginald Hudlin's Black Panther from an "angry black man" perspective (and its critics), while two and a half years ago I did so from an "It's just comics!" viewpoint (while also mostly supporting Brothers' points). But here's a point that struck me from David's article:
People suspecting creators of writing while black is much, much more common than you might expect, and it's never pretty. Dwayne McDuffie got it bad, particularly when he was working on Justice League of America for DC Comics.
It comes from the thing I mentioned earlier, when people look at books featuring black characters or black creators working on black characters as a "black book." That sets up certain expectations, for better or for worse.
But ... whose fault is that, primarily? I Tweeted my response to David about these thoughts (without reply, which is perfectly fine, of course), but let's face it: It is the progressive political ideology which primarly permeates Comic Alliance's site (and most comic creators, too). It is "progressives" who are racial bean counters in education and employment, and (especially in the former) expect African-Americans (and other minorities) to "represent their race." And then these same "progressives" wonder why folks expect black people to ... represent black people? And are offended by it? Gimme a break!
Just look at what happens to African-Americans who dare to journey away from the confines of the Democratic Party. (Or worse: join the GOP.) Martin Luther King Jr. talked about looking beyond skin tone; now, "progressive" pundits opine that colorblindness is "an adolescent view of race relations." The examples are endless.
So, if you're looking at someone to blame, David, for the perceived stereotype that black creators have to "write black," it ain't conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, or even people with anachronistic racial views. It's the "progressives" who have inculcated our contemporary culture with the opinion that is not only "good," but necessary, to have "proper proportions" of individuals from different racial groups to "embody" said groups.
Yet another "progressive" comics writer has come out (no pun intended) against DC's hiring of anti-gay marriage Superman scribe Orson Scott Card. Here's what Mark Waid says in the comments section of a recent Comics Alliance article:
... we're not talking about a writer's beliefs, we're talking about his actions. I'd never advocate a writer losing a gig based on his personal or political beliefs. We're not discussing that. We're discussing someone who is a high-profile activist for what many, MANY people would consider a hate group spewing hate speech, and I fail to understand how that behavior should be condoned or rewarded. It cuts both ways -- I'm a vocal liberal, and if I likewise became a spokesperson for an activist group that could fairly be accused of attacking or bullying a minority group and my publisher felt my affiliations would reflect poorly on them, they'd have every right to let me go. Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom of consequence.
I've said it before here and there, so I'll say it again for Mr. Waid: What substantive difference is there between Card serving on a board of a group like the National Organization for Marriage (his so-called "actions") and/or his writing about topics like gay marriage, and you opining on matters political/cultural via myriad social media outlets? You are a high-profile writer just as Card is. His avenues of expressing his opinion(s) are not significantly different from yours. Thus, DC, Marvel or whomever should have the right to dismiss you from their payroll based on controversial things you may say online or elsewhere, right?
Are the many comments made by your colleagues (and perhaps yourself) regarding, say, the NRA "hateful" and "bullying," Mr. Waid? Why or why not? How is wanting to deny an actual written constitutional right to Americans any different from wanting to prevent gays from getting married? Most Americans believe people should be allowed to own a gun, and about half the public believes that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Sorry, Mr. Waid, but you want your cake and eat it too.
You ought to take a page from your buddy Mark Millar, Mr. Waid. He said on Twitter basically what I did above. That is, who's to say you won't be the next target of an outcry based on what you believe ... and advocate?
Some of Waid's Tweets relevant to this can be found here.
We've written about Canada's nutty "human rights commissions;" here's yet another example of the type of insanity they foster:
Earls’ “Albino Rhino” is officially extinct.
Earls Restaurants will take beer sold under the 25-year-old brand off the menu after a Vancouver woman with albinism filed a BC Human Rights Tribunal complaint against the chain in 2012. The same craft beer will still be sold, but just as “Rhino.”
Ikponwosa (I.K.) Ero, representing a group with the genetic condition that causes a lack of pigmentation in skin, hair and eyes and often blindness, accused the popular restaurant of discrimination based on physical disability and colour.
Yeah, never mind that the beer was named after an actual animal. And exactly how did the chain "discriminate" by selling this brew? Peter Ash, CEO of an albino advocacy organization, said “It would be like saying, let’s put in some Alzheimer appetizers, Down syndrome daiquiris or cerebral palsy cocktails." Uh, yeah, right.
I like this from the comments section: "Green Giant brand should be wary of offending tall individuals, and Sunny-D of those who might be depressed."
And so it goes.
The Atlantic reports on a teacher satisfaction survey done by the MetLife Foundation. It's titled "Teacher Job Satisfaction Hits 25-Year Low." Unfortunately, it asks the wrong questions and/or glosses over one of the main culprits for this: student behavior. Consider the article:
Only 39 percent of teachers described themselves as very satisfied with their jobs on the latest survey. That's a 23-percentage point plummet since 2008, and a drop of five percentage points just over the past year. Factors contributing to lower job satisfaction included working in schools where the budgets, opportunities for professional development, and time for collaboration with colleagues have all been sent to the chopping block.
Stress levels are also up, with half of all teachers describing themselves as under great stress several days per week, compared with a third of teachers in 1985.
No mention of deteriorating student behavior and increased student disrespect, cited by teachers as their number one difficulty. Why is that? Is it because it is just too politically incorrect to say ... let alone write about? Consider:
So what's the solution? The way to get more effective teachers into higher-poverty schools "is making those schools places good teachers want to go and stay," [the Education Trust's Sarah] Almy told me. "Some of the reasons why teachers are dissatisfied (on the survey) relate to opportunities for leadership and collaboration -- things we know are really important, and things that high-poverty and low-performing schools can and should be addressing."
Really? The way to retain good teachers in high-poverty schools is to provide "opportunities for leadership and collaboration?" Are you kidding me?? This is why this survey is laughable. Even substantial monetary incentives alone aren't sufficient to keep [good] teachers in (or attract good teachers to) high-needs schools, which are bastions of discipline problems. And as the Center for Teaching Quality notes,
The Massachusetts experience illustrates Richard Ingersoll's analysis of national teacher survey data. He found that teachers who leave because of job dissatisfaction do so not only because of low salaries, but also as a result of poor support from school administrators, lack of student motivation, little teacher influence over decision-making, and student discipline problems.
The MetLife survey does touch upon a current hot topic -- student testing and correlated teacher accountability -- and indeed in Delaware this is a continued concern among educators. No doubt that the increased workload associated with the additional record-keeping, [many useless "data"] meetings, and test administration have played a role in teacher dissatisfaction ... especially since the manner in which the state hauled out its testing and accountability scheme was prodigiously head-scratching. If "professionals" like those at the state education department did the job they did with DPAS II, one can only imagine how the upcoming Common Core State Standards will be utilized. My guess is that The Atlantic's story is only the beginning.
Robot 6 reports that a openly gay author, David Gerrold (who indeed has an impressive resumé), has asked "DC Comics for balance — and a job."
“I see that you have hired a writer for Superman who has written strongly of his opposition to equal rights for LGBT people. And I see that there is an online petition protesting that move,” he wrote on Facebook. “Perhaps you could balance that decision by hiring an openly gay writer to draft a Superman story for a future issue.”
Which is just plain dumb. Is Card injecting his politics into his story? There's no indication of that, not to mention there's been none in his past stories that I'm familiar with. If you don't like Card's views and politics, don't buy his stuff. But this is pure politically correct bullsh** -- a quota, if you will. If "progressives" like Gerrold were so concerned about balance, what about political balance in comics stories? We've documented myriad instances of outright leftist politicking within the pages of contemporary comics, so why not "equal time" for conservative views, hmm??
Ah, but y'see, just like on American campuses, "diversity" only applies to skin color and sexual orientation. Diversity of viewpoint for "progressives" is 100% completely anathema ... as it always has been.
It's "funny" that a sizable portion of the populace believe God has a stake in something like the Super Bowl; however, it's legitimate "karma" that anti-gay slurs led to one of the teams (the 49ers, in this case) losing the game:
“We were nervous and worried and scared, at least us Ravens’ fans. We were talking in the studio about, just karma … karma, after one of the 49ers players made a disparaging remark and we all started rooting for the Ravens, and I think everyone knows what I am talking about. Karma is a … you know what,” according to CNN’s Don Lemon, who previously equated Mitt Romney’s support of traditional marriage to George Wallace’s “segregation forever” speech.
To put it much simpler, politically correct "gods" are genuine; traditional ones are for "doofuses."
You can decide for yourself if this is actually a big deal; personally, I'd just like the companies to hire good writers without an agenda of some kind. But what cracks me up about this is we see this same complaint in Hollywood and in network news -- like comics, bastions of "progressivism." So, if skin color diversity is of such import, then why don't those who clamor most about it ... do something about it?? Why doesn't NBC's Brian Williams step aside for a black man? (Or better yet, a black woman?) Why doesn't ABC's Diane Sawyer do same? Ditto for CBS's Scott Pelley?
Why don't the actors of some of Hollywood's hottest TV shows and movies also step aside for more minorities? The cast of The Big Bang Theory can be replaced with all African-Americans. What? "That's silly!" you say?
Maybe now you're catching on ...
Liberal logic: You cannot blame violence on movies unless we're talking about Benghazi because that was totally due to a movie nobody had ever seen.
"Yes," says Mike Florio:
Really? Do people really think that professional sports franchises don't want the very best coaches and general managers available? They want the best players, after all.
And seriously, the Rooney Rule -- which requires NFL teams to interview minority candidates for coaching positions -- is cosmetically applied anyway. Teams in search of coaches usually have a good idea of who they want in advance based on current availability, and to comply with the RR they'll merely grant a "courtesy" interview to a minority interviewee. An expansion of the RR would result in ... what -- more mere "courtesy" interviews?
The only way people like Florio will get what they want is if a mandatory quota -- NFL affirmative action, if you will -- is implemented. And that would go over even worse than this silly Rooney Rule.
It’s fitting that the annual observance of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birth and the inauguration of President Obama for a second term are occurring on the same day.
Four years ago, America’s inauguration of its first black president brought great optimism about a post-racial era. And indeed, the United States has made significant progress toward being the colorblind society King envisioned in his “I Have a Dream” speech 50 years ago from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
But most reasonable people would agree that there are more steps to be taken in ensuring that character, not skin color, is the dominant means by which people are judged.
Say what?? "Dominant means"?? Dr. King actually said (in his famous speech),
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
He did not say "...where they will be judged partly by the color of their skin, but mostly by the content of their character."
This little added "dominant" nugget is just one example of how "progressives" have twisted Dr. King's vision. The editors of the Inquirer are acting exactly like college admissions departments (to name one), who fight tooth and nail to be able to consider race as one factor in admissions. So-called "diversity" directors and consultants tell us now that color-blindness is wrong ... that we must now see race, else how can we fight against racism? And, else, how can the majority view and accept their "white privilege?"
Yeah, I know the logic is beyond twisted. Attempting to derive any sense from such is like trying to decipher a post-modernist poem on feminism.
Bill Thurnau of Elkton, MD rightly mocks the Wilmington News Journal's race emphasis -- but the emphasis only manifests itself for the "right" reasons:
The new Delaware State Police superintendent, Maj. Nate McQueen, is obviously an admirable man, judging by the article, saying he is a veteran state trooper, and U.S. Marine. I applaud his achievements and sincerely hope he continues his service in his new appointment. I am sad, that The News Journal had to point he is a black man.
The unfortunate thing for everyone, is when reading the crime report, race and color are rarely in the description of the perpetrator. It would help the reader if they knew, was it a white, black, Hispanic, or Asian?
Correction, Bill: The paper never prints the race of crime suspects. And long-time readers will be familiar with the reason why. 'Ya gotta like this utter nonsense:
Our policy is not about being politically correct, it's about being accurate. Race is such an unreliable descriptor. What race is Halle Berry or Tiger Woods or Jennifer Lopez? They are extreme examples, but project them onto everyday people and you see the problem.
Or what real information is conveyed in a description that says: She is a 5-foot-6-inch white woman with brown hair? How many women fit that description? Who is that of use to? By the way, that description is of me -- and I haven't committed any crimes.
It is truly amazing how these PC dopes think. Didn't they ask themselves "Or what real information is conveyed in only noting the height of the suspect and what they were wearing"? Because that's about all you read in WNJ crime reports these days. Saying "it's not about being politically correct" is laughable in the extreme. It's precisely what it's about. Including the race of a crime suspect gives the public a lot more info than just an approximate height and weight, and especially what they were wearing. Or has the WNJ forgotten that people, y'know, actually change their clothes?
And if "race is such an unreliable descriptor," then why is it worthy of mention in the report about Mr. McQueen, hmm?
Simply put, the News Journal places political correctness over the public's safety. Period.
The Wall St. Journal pans the new Red Dawn flick as "manipulative," full of "horse-pill jingoism," and "plays readily into classical stereotypes."
Those that depict Asia as a Mordor-like alien netherland where every hand wields a weapon and every weapon points at the throat of the civilized West — and those that treat Asians as an interchangeable, all-same mass. Can’t offend these Asians? Well, let’s just say they’re those Asians instead. A little cosmetic adjustment to flags and uniforms, and we’re off to the races....
Writer Tao Jones' solution? Make Red Dawn about invading aliens. Uh, hello?? Independence Day?? War of the Worlds?? Yeesh.
Look, I'm as incredulous as the next guy when I think of North Korea invading the US (instead of China -- remember, the movie had to change the bad guys away from the Chi-Coms because 1) they were pissed off, and 2) you don't want to piss off a movie market audience of that size!); however, if the premise from what I've read is correct, the Norks use a "new type of weapon" preceding their actual invasion. It's probably something like an EMP device which would shut down any and all electronics over a vast area, depending on the size of the device.
Of course, the United States would retaliate completely, effectively turning North Korea into a smoldering glob of radioactive glass. But that would only be slightly worse than what the Norks live in today! Their regime is irrational and paranoid, and if you read One Second After -- about a hypothetical EMP attack on the US mainland -- you'd know that such an attack could result in over 100 million deaths. Think that'd be worth the Norks' existence -- especially if the honcho "intelligentsia" of that country jaunted off to another locale before they zapped us?
Who knows. But it's a freakin' movie, after all. One can only imagine what Jones would whine about had the movie been about radical Islamists using a similar device, invading a portion of America, and instituting strict Islamic law across the region. Not that the filmmakers would have done that, of course ... they wouldn't want a fatwa issued against them!
guns can help deter crime!
Even British Journalists Are Beginning to Acknowledge that Guns Deter Crime: " The shipping industry used to oppose this, fearing that armed guards would escalate violence. But not a single vessel with guards has been boarded. Usually a warning shot is enough to deter the pirates. Lieut-Commander Sherrif says: “The pirates go to sea to make money, not die in a firefight.” "
One wonders if this same logic might be applied in say, Kilmington or Killadelphia.
Boss Barack Obama has won a second term by a wide electoral margin, but the Left is still crying "racism" every chance they can get. And why not, really? As utterly ludicrous as many -- most -- of the charges are, apparently enough bozos buy 'em ... and then vote on 'em. Whether they're black or white.
The most recent case in point is a former far-left Delaware blogger who wrote on Facebook last evening (no link provided as I am not certain he would appreciate and/or authorize such, especially as I am FB friends with him) that the GOP was showing its "true" racist colors because they apparently only go after the African-Americans in the Boss Obama administration. (He writes that Republicans have "hated" Obama, Eric Holder and Susan Rice "the most.") The most recent of these is the last listed, our UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Rice has gotten heat for going on numerous Sunday talk shows right after the Benghazi attacks in Libya, and parroting the now-debunked line that a silly anti-Islam YouTube video. Boss Obama acted all tough yesterday in defending Rice stating, "Come after me." (Of course, he made little sense in that defense for, if Rice "knew nothing" of Benghazi, then WTF was she doing out there on all those talk shows??)
Then there's Eric Holder. Indeed, I suppose "Fast and Furious" has absolutely nothing to do with how the opposition views him, not to mention his department's views on enforcing civil rights laws.
Heck, I'll even add Van Jones in there for good measure. Indeed, why in the world did he get so much crap? I mean, it's not like he was a well known 9/11 Truther or anything!!
But this is all beside the point. This far-left former DE blogger only has his [very] skewed opinion that the blacks in the administration are "hated" more than others. He has absolutely no proof of this other than some GOP legislators criticizing them. Obama appointed numerous African-Americans to various positions, and if they suck at the job, what are people -- especially the opposition -- supposed to say? "Oh, sorry, you're black. You're doing just wonderfully!!"?? This, I believe, is known as the bigotry of low expectations. Does anyone seriously believe that if this was a GOP administration that the attorney general would not get any heat from a Democratic House about "Fast and Furious"? Does anyone seriously believe that members of a Democratic House would not excoriate a GOP-appointed UN ambassador for going on myriad Sunday talk shows to forward a lie about an attack on a US consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador?? If you do not believe these things wouldn't happen, you're a nut. Period.
Our former far-left DE blogger conveniently forgets administration members like Tim Geithner. The GOP was all over him for not paying his taxes, and most recently about the Libor rate-rigging scandal. Then there's the favorite target of Delaware edu-blogger Kilroy, Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Duncan's tenure as head of Chicago schools has been panned by many, not to mention the whole federal Race to the Top initiative (frequently -- and rightly -- dubbed "No Child Left Behind on steroids") is one huge wasteful boondoggle. Ask any teacher that is signed on to it (like here in DE), conservative or liberal. They'll confirm such.
It's pretty damn unbecoming that a person such as this former blogger who prides himself on being such an intellectual (and he is) so easily falls prey to the specious "racism" canard whenever it's convenient, or when there's some heat being put on a few officials who just happen to be black. On the one hand, it's not surprising that so-called "progressives" feel that African-Americans, whether gov. officials or not, should be held to a different -- i.e. lower standard. They feel this way in other realms of life, after all (employment, education). On the other, if this is the excuse that will continually be utilized, then why not just give their positions to some Caucasians so at least critics can question them and complain about them without the PC police constantly harassing them?
Most of my family lives on Staten Island. Both my parents were born there and so was I. So far, everyone in my family is accounted for and is safe but the damage has been tremendous. At the end of the video they talk about how everyone on SI is either a cop or fireman he's dead right. Most of those same family members are first responders. Cops, firefighters and nurses. The fact that Mayor
Nagin Bloomberg is having the marathon is despicable.
Oh and by the way, let's turn away non-union work crews because being union is more important than actually helping people. (Yes this is in NJ and not SI but this is nearly as bad as the neglect for SI going on right now)
UPDATE: As of around 5:15pm local time, it was announced that the NYC marathon is canceled.
Feminism, I am told, is about giving women choices. It isn't. It's about making sure women make the correct choices. Remember when Hillary Clinton said she wasn't going to "stay home and bake cookies"? I do. My mother, a lifelong democrat was livid. She said that was a slap in the face to her and every other woman that put their children ahead of their career. Here is the latest incarnation of that same line of "thinking"
Remember this ad next time you hear someone say feminism is about giving women choices.
John Young of the Transparent Christina blog commented on my Education Notes post from a few days ago noting that the First State is doing just what Florida was noted implementing in the post -- namely, measuring student progress by race:
So the U.S. Department of Education, through the waiver process, shifted the focus to closing achievement gaps between groups of at-risk students. And so while Handy and other critics are focusing on that end number—and how those numbers differ by race and ethnicity—it's important to look at the number at the beginning, and the resulting rate of growth. Those numbers also differ by race and ethnicity—but because they demand that schools show more growth in learning for the kids farthest behind.
In my example above from Delaware, the rate of growth for white students would be 12 percentage points, while the rate of growth for black students would be 26 points, and special education students would see 35 points of growth.
To me, this is mind-numbing. Not only is SES (socio-economic status) apparently ignored (a black student from a wealthy family would be expected to show more growth than a white student from a destitute background), but again we see so-called "progressives" clamoring to make more palatable the "message": "As the Center on Education Policy's Maria Ferguson told me, the problem is one of 'optics.' In other words, the messaging is problematic."
This is the conundrum "progressives" put themselves into. It's as I noted in my previous post: Remember -- "progressives" want you to consider skin color. That is, for anything with a positive connotation. It's "palatable" in this case to weigh students differently on their [academic] growth because, well, minority students apparently are "starting out behind." It's just head-scratching, then, that these same folks (the "progressives") cannot take into account that the same factors that cause these students to be behind academically are frequently the very same ones that result in disparate discipline stats in schools/districts. But in the latter case, schools/districts hold workshops that inform educators that their own latent, inherent racism is to blame, and our US Dept. of Education is going after districts for their racial "imbalance" of student discipline.
University of Rochester Professor Stephanie Li claims Romney is successful "because he is white."
The Romney’s [sic] shortsightedness on this issue demonstrates their ignorance of one of the central ideas in the field of critical race studies, the unearned privileges accorded to whiteness. In her foundational essay, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Peggy McIntosh likens whiteness to “an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.”
Oh gee! The Romneys are ignorant of Critical Race Theory! What a shame! As if there is something wrong with ignoring a theory that is, for all intents and purposes, post-modernist bullsh**. Whoopee-freakin'-do.
I had to read McIntosh's essay for grad class way back when. The [graduate student] instructor didn't like it much when I questioned it and pointed