For example, DC had Infinite Crisis where a villian creates a phony war
in order to change things around to a new universal order. Much like the
way the mainstream media is playing the Iraq War. Also, the current
issue of 52 has some non-USA heroes banding together against USA imperial
designs. Again, the same view that the mainstream media is showing
concerning some countries' concerns about the USA and it's New World
Order philosophy.
At Marvel, they are having a Civll War concerning superhero registration.
Again, like the mainstream media's view about illegal immigrant
registration.
I understand that everyone has a bias. I just wish that the two big
comic book companies would try another slant every so often. Not as
heavy handed as talk radio or Fox News; but, something different once in
awhile.
Keith
>All:
> Why the liberal slant in some of the stories from these two comic media
> giants?
It isn't a liberal slant. It's an anti-government slant. And an
anti-government bias is inherent in any story about how someone with
amazing abilities chooses to on that basis to impose his own
individual ideas of right and wrong, without being answerable to
anyone else.
>
> For example, DC had Infinite Crisis where a villian creates a phony war
> in order to change things around to a new universal order.
What are you talking about?
Much like the
> way the mainstream media is playing the Iraq War. Also, the current
> issue of 52 has some non-USA heroes banding together against USA imperial
> designs. Again, the same view that the mainstream media is showing
> concerning some countries' concerns about the USA and it's New World
> Order philosophy.
>
> At Marvel, they are having a Civll War concerning superhero registration.
> Again, like the mainstream media's view about illegal immigrant
> registration.
What are you talking about? There is no "illegal immigrant
registration plan".
Alex Luthor pretending to be Lex Luthor, gathering up all the villains
to unite against the heroes (using the argument "Well, they brainwashed
a few of us!" as a smokescreen to cover up his own plans of universal
realignment) and then - when those core plans fell apart - just sicced
the villains on all the heroes in the big messy warin IC#7.
--
Sean
Is liberal now the codeword for literate and well thought out?
>
> For example, DC had Infinite Crisis where a villian creates a phony war
> in order to change things around to a new universal order. Much like the
> way the mainstream media is playing the Iraq War. Also, the current
Are you referring to Rann-Thanagar war? How is that anything at all
like Iraq?
> issue of 52 has some non-USA heroes banding together against USA imperial
> designs. Again, the same view that the mainstream media is showing
> concerning some countries' concerns about the USA and it's New World
> Order philosophy.
You are deeply confused. Bush the elder had the 'New World Order'.
Bush the younger has 'If you ain't with us you're agin us'
>
> At Marvel, they are having a Civll War concerning superhero registration.
> Again, like the mainstream media's view about illegal immigrant
> registration.
What illegal immigrant registration are you referring to? The Civil
war is about registering US Citizens. My question is which arm does the
tattoo go on.
>
> I understand that everyone has a bias. I just wish that the two big
> comic book companies would try another slant every so often. Not as
> heavy handed as talk radio or Fox News; but, something different once in
> awhile.
So, you would like comics with a Nazi slant?
>
> Keith
Don't know about DC, but considering the main writer of Civil War, Mark
Millar, harbors a pathological hatred of America that infects all his
works, it's no wonder that Civil War has a leftist slant.
Actually it's very telling that you think these things are an attack on
Bush and the current government. It's like that documentary on Bush
from a few years back. If you liked him you thought the film was a
great promotional tool because it showed him as a likable funny guy.
If you didn't like him you also thought the film was great attack
because it showed him as a doofus. It's a Rorshach test in art. In
this case, you're looking at the ink blot and seeing attacks, which
says a lot about how you really feel.
Me, I look at both of them and see a mass of bankrupt imaginations, bad
writing and non-existent editing.
WTF have you been smoking? Anyone that had any sense knew that Moore
was twisting the facts to suit his liberal agenda.
Creative and artistic types also generally lean to the liberal.
Maybe it's in fact a reaction *against* talk radio and Fox News that
you mention.
Or maybe they're making these metaphorical points because they're
right. But that's for history to decide and the political usenet
groups to argue, not us. :-)
Did Michael Moore make a documentary about Bush? No. He made a movie
about 9/11. You stop smoking and realize there's been more then one
documentary made about the government in the last six years. It was
called Journeys With George by Alexandra Pelosi. Sigh.
Why do you think there is a liberal slant to these stories? I sure
don't see it, but then, I don't look for this sort of thing in my comic
books.
> Also, the current
> issue of 52 has some non-USA heroes banding together against USA imperial
> designs. Again, the same view that the mainstream media is showing
> concerning some countries' concerns about the USA and it's New World
> Order philosophy.
Why do you think the Green Lantern Corps, acting on behalf of the Corps
and not the US Government, are protecting the United State's imperial
designs? Who says the US has imperial designs? One person's imperial
design is another's screwed-up foreign policy.
Why do you mention liberal slant and mainstream media as if they're
interchangeable terms?
>
> At Marvel, they are having a Civll War concerning superhero registration.
> Again, like the mainstream media's view about illegal immigrant
> registration.
What is the mainsteram media's view about illegal immigrant
registration, if such a thing existed? What I've seen from numerous
news outlets is each side presenting their point of view. I've also
seen academics and statesmen discuss this very complex issue.
What, if anything, does Civil War have to do with real-world
complexities?
>
> I understand that everyone has a bias. I just wish that the two big
> comic book companies would try another slant every so often. Not as
> heavy handed as talk radio or Fox News; but, something different once in
> awhile.
Why use the hot-button word bias? Why not say point of view? Are you
looking for a more conservative comic book story? I look to my comic
books for escapist entertainment. I want to read about people who have
bigger problems than me. You say you want something different once in
while, Kieth. Different from what? A comic book story is pretty
straight forward... good versus evil, good triumphs over evil, the good
guys are happy until evil comes back... said evil is usually lurking in
the secondary plot or backstory.
I can hardly imagine anything more conservative than "Truth, Justice
and the American Way."
Have fun,
Tom
Al Qaida harbors a pathological hatred of America and they're far on
the right wing end of the political spectrum.
Hal.
I don't wear no Stetson
But I'm willing to bet, son
That I'm as big a Texan as you are
- Robert Earl Keen, "Amarillo Highway"
Then why is the left more sympathetic to their demands in regards to
American internal and foreign policy? And last time I looked the
establishment of a world government was on the to-do list for the left.
I've heard this comment numerous times from conservatives, but I have
never heard any of them give an example. I'm used to that from
politicians and pundits, so I'm hoping you can give me an example.
Personally, I don't see anyone in the media or on the left being
sympathetic to Al Qaida. I have heard the likes of Tony Blankley and
Ann Coulter say disagreeing with the President is unpatriotic. I don't
think for a second that this is sympathizing with Al Qaida. Moreover, I
find this particularly amusing as these and most other conservatives
and all Republicans take great pride in being a member of 'The Party of
Lincoln.' Ironically, Lincoln said (and I'm paraphrasing) it is a sin
to be silent when it is your duty to protest.
Go figure.
Back to the OP... I don't see a political POV in any comics from DC and
Marvel. Unless, of course, one views law and order as a political
slant.
Have fun,
Tom
>
>Hal Shipman wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2006 19:41:13 -0700, "Peter Mason" <tanke...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Keith Lee wrote:
>> >> I understand that everyone has a bias. I just wish that the two big
>> >> comic book companies would try another slant every so often. Not as
>> >> heavy handed as talk radio or Fox News; but, something different once in
>> >> awhile.
>> >
>> >Don't know about DC, but considering the main writer of Civil War, Mark
>> >Millar, harbors a pathological hatred of America that infects all his
>> >works, it's no wonder that Civil War has a leftist slant.
>>
>> Al Qaida harbors a pathological hatred of America and they're far on
>> the right wing end of the political spectrum.
>
>Then why is the left more sympathetic to their demands in regards to
>American internal and foreign policy?
Dunno, but supposed sympathied from the left doesn't make Al Qaida any
less right wing.
>And last time I looked the
>establishment of a world government was on the to-do list for the left.
Unless I missed a memo, that wasn't on my political to-do list.
But, if I'm following you, you seem to be saying that "establishment
of a world government" is an Al Qaida goal. Last I heard, their goal
was to get the US/West out of the Middle East.
Again, the point was that those who hate America can either be on the
political right or left. Al Qaida is on the right, Cuba and Venuzeula
are on the left. Timothy McVeigh was on the right.
Frankly, small, less intrusive government is generally supposed to be
a conservative principle. That's what Civil War seems to be about.
For what it's worth.
Hal.
Full Disclosure: Politically, I lean left, but in regards to Civil
War, I have to lean with Stark's camp on this one. I never could buy
the hand-wave that anti-mutant sentiment was discrimination analogous
to racism or homophobia. Powers can be super-dangerous, even if
you're not a vigalante. Training and registration are perfectly
appropriate if you can nuke a city (or even just kill a random person
on the street) with a stray thought. Like handgun training. Which I
think should be required for a license, also.
>Full Disclosure: Politically, I lean left, but in regards to Civil
>War, I have to lean with Stark's camp on this one. I never could buy
>the hand-wave that anti-mutant sentiment was discrimination analogous
>to racism or homophobia. Powers can be super-dangerous, even if
>you're not a vigalante. Training and registration are perfectly
>appropriate if you can nuke a city (or even just kill a random person
>on the street) with a stray thought.
But then they aren't just arresting people with dangerous superpowers.
They are also arresting people with nothing more than a costume and a
thirst for justice and presumably people with totally nonlethal
powers.
It's pretty simple.
Artistic/creative types tend to be liberal
--
Perhaps the greatest evil of the American people is apathy!
But who cares?
> Keith Lee wrote:
>
>> All:
>> Why the liberal slant in some of the stories from these two comic
>> media
>> giants?
>
> Is liberal now the codeword for literate and well thought out?
He cites IC and and CW, and you say "literate and well thought out"???
Please.
We're not talking Watchmen here.
We're not even talking CoIE!
Hell, saying "literate and well thought out" with DC or Marvel
in general is a serious stretch.
> Hal Shipman wrote:
>
>>Al Qaida harbors a pathological hatred of America and they're far on
>>the right wing end of the political spectrum.
>
> Then why is the left more sympathetic to their demands in regards to
> American internal and foreign policy?
The left is always more "sympathetic".
By definition. ;)
> Peter Mason wrote:
>
>>And last time I looked the
>>establishment of a world government was on the to-do list for the left.
>
> I've heard this comment numerous times from conservatives, but I have
> never heard any of them give an example.
The EU, the UN, Kyoto, and so on...
> Back to the OP... I don't see a political POV in any comics from DC and
> Marvel. Unless, of course, one views law and order as a political
> slant.
I'd say a philosophical slant does creep in.
Especially in CW.
But it's not quite a political or partisan slant.
Just short of that.
>
> Frankly, small, less intrusive government is generally supposed to be
> a conservative principle.
Yeah, I miss those days.
Neither Bush has acted as though that's the party line...
> That's what Civil War seems to be about.
> For what it's worth.
On one side. ;)
Though you could easily say it's about individual liberties vs.
social needs.
Conservatives today will downplay the former in favor of the latter.
But so do liberals. ;(
>
> A comic book story is pretty
> straight forward... good versus evil, good triumphs over evil, the good
> guys are happy until evil comes back... said evil is usually lurking in
> the secondary plot or backstory.
So far this is _not_ the case with CW.
And even IC tweaked that formula a _little_.
> I can hardly imagine anything more conservative than "Truth, Justice
> and the American Way."
Neither the liberals or conservatives can really claim either of
the first two.
The third is open to interpretation...
Though are mainstream comics today really promoting _any_ of
those three?
You're talking out of your hat. It was the conservatives that started EU
as a free-trade union a long time ago. And the various governments of
the EU comes from all over the political map.
It was the labour party lead UK that supported Bush when he started the
Iraq invasion.
The UN has all sorts of politicians participating, including the US and
Russia. One problem they've got is that the US haven't paid the
"membership fees" in full. This organisation is dedicated to peace and
various aid programs.
The Kyoto agreements are an effort to stop the climate from growing
worse. Of course, the Oil and Coal companies are against this, and they
have a lot to say in US politics (regardless of party). Not surprising
that the US is disregarding the efforts. Expect more hurricanes in the
years to come.
These and other similar conventions is based on cooperation, not conquest.
And you left out the one coalition that's biggest group of states: The USA.
Pudde.
PS: I'm NOT a member of any of these organisations. (Of course, my
country is a part of the UN and participates in other global efforts.)
PS2: I don't see the current storylines as political propaganda, the
inferences you draw are faulty. The theme of "Villains VS heroes" is
ages old, the "Mutant registration" likewise.
>
>Hal Shipman wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2006 19:41:13 -0700, "Peter Mason" <tanke...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Keith Lee wrote:
>> >> I understand that everyone has a bias. I just wish that the two big
>> >> comic book companies would try another slant every so often. Not as
>> >> heavy handed as talk radio or Fox News; but, something different once in
>> >> awhile.
>> >
>> >Don't know about DC, but considering the main writer of Civil War, Mark
>> >Millar, harbors a pathological hatred of America that infects all his
>> >works, it's no wonder that Civil War has a leftist slant.
>>
>> Al Qaida harbors a pathological hatred of America and they're far on
>> the right wing end of the political spectrum.
>
>Then why is the left more sympathetic to their demands in regards to
>American internal and foreign policy?
Al Quaida has no demands concerning American internal policy. If it
did, they would be things that the American left would mostly have
very little sympathy for.
And last time I looked the
>establishment of a world government was on the to-do list for the left.
However Al Quaida would certainly be opposed to the establishment of
any such thing.
> And last time I looked the
> establishment of a world government was on the to-do list for the left.
>
Moron - if anything, Millar's politics are anarchic (if not anarchist).
Idiotic right-wing loonies always do this - a is left-wing, all left-wingers
want b, thus a wants b. Anarchists are left-wing and oppose all government.
Figure that out.
D.
<snip>
> Why use the hot-button word bias? Why not say point of view? Are you
> looking for a more conservative comic book story? I look to my comic
> books for escapist entertainment. I want to read about people who have
> bigger problems than me. You say you want something different once in
> while, Kieth. Different from what? A comic book story is pretty
> straight forward... good versus evil, good triumphs over evil, the good
> guys are happy until evil comes back... said evil is usually lurking in
> the secondary plot or backstory.
Not everyone confuses "comic book" for a genre instead of it being a medium
to tell stories as rich, deep and sophisticated as any other medium. Said
limited point of view of what comics are and can be tends to be an American
bias.
> I can hardly imagine anything more conservative than "Truth, Justice
> and the American Way."
>
> Have fun,
> Tom
Liberals are against truth and justice and America?
-- Ken from Chicago
I hope not! That would make people such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann
Coulter right! ;-) Law and order politicians tend to be conservstive,
that's all I meant.
Have fun,
Tom
Over and above the things you mention, I'd also bring up Poison Ivy's
recent appearance in Detective, wherein Bruce Wayne expresses a certain
sympathy with her cause (some sort of anti-business, eco-whasis) , if
not her methods, as opposed to the (much more appropriate for Bruce
Wayne) Capitalism as moral, just, and the product of the fair exercise
of reason. Over at Marvel, the African Justice League scolds the
Squadron Supreme with some Marxist nonsense about the US not being able
to afford a peaceful and prosperous Africa.
As for the whys of it, I have no firm ideas, but I think its got
something to do with the pervasive influence of Marxism and similar
pseudoscience in literary circles, among liberal arts majors, etc.
YIKES! Sounds like a trip down memory lane to the days of HUAC,
Blacklisting and Joe McCarthy.
I'll excuse myself, thanks.
Have fun,
Tom
And yet he seems to like Ultimate Captain America and Thor equally.
*shrug*
--
"Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither
Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
> Ophidian wrote:
>
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Mason wrote:
>>>
>> >>And last time I looked the
>>
>>>> establishment of a world government was on the to-do list for the left.
>>>
>>> I've heard this comment numerous times from conservatives, but I have
>>> never heard any of them give an example.
>>
>> The EU, the UN, Kyoto, and so on...
>
> You're talking out of your hat. It was the conservatives that started EU
> as a free-trade union a long time ago.
Look at how it's being used.
And wonder about why conservative Britain is the one balking the most.
> The UN has all sorts of politicians participating, including the US and
> Russia. One problem they've got is that the US haven't paid the
> "membership fees" in full.
When the US was liberal we supported the UN far more politically
than now that we're conservative again.
> This organisation is dedicated to peace and
> various aid programs.
More precisely the aid are the ones that work.
Attempts to increase world peace stall rather easily.
(Because of conservative governments. <g>)
> The Kyoto agreements are an effort to stop the climate from growing
> worse. Of course, the Oil and Coal companies are against this, and they
> have a lot to say in US politics (regardless of party). Not surprising
> that the US is disregarding the efforts. Expect more hurricanes in the
> years to come.
It's a hoax.
> These and other similar conventions is based on cooperation, not conquest.
So was the founding of the US.
It still represnts a more central "governing".
> And you left out the one coalition that's biggest group of states: The USA.
We still have states?
> PS2: I don't see the current storylines as political propaganda, the
> inferences you draw are faulty. The theme of "Villains VS heroes" is
> ages old, the "Mutant registration" likewise.
Heroes vs. heroes is also old.
It's how that or "registration" is depicted that shows slant.
Liberals are against law and order?
-- Ken from Chicago
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>> "Tom" <drs...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1150689663.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
>>> > I can hardly imagine anything more conservative than
>>> > "Truth, Justice and the American Way."
>>> Liberals are against truth and justice and America?
>> I hope not! That would make people such as Bill O'Reilly
>> and Ann Coulter right! ;-) Law and order politicians tend
>> to be conservstive, that's all I meant.
> Liberals are against law and order?
Speaking as a liberal, we're not *against* it as such, but
when we hear someone going *on* about it we tend to think
"Ooh, right-wing agenda here".
Generalising hugely, we tend to use words such as "justice"
rather than "law" and "peace" rather than "order". It doesn't
mean we're against law and order, any more than they're
against peace and justice. It just illustrates the very
different methods we think will bring it about.
Or something like that, anyway.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
Oy! You're making me work too hard at this, Ken. I know liberals aren't
against law and order... I'm sure many watch it every week! ;-)
Republicans and conservatives tend to use law and order as a platform
plank in their campaigns far more than liberals and Democrats.
OK, I'm ready for your next curve ball! ;-)
Have fun,
Tom
That's the HCUA to you, pal. Your version makes it seem like it was
the house that was...well, I tell you, perhaps there was witness
badgering, self-promotion, and relatively innocent people were gone
after, but keep in mind there really was a USSR and there still is a
PRC, not to mention their various sattelites, they were unprecedented
in the degree of slavery, poverty, and death which came out of them,
and they really had inflitrated or were supporting the various US
leftist groups. There's nothing "unamerican" about seeing what a
hostile foreign power is up to.
> Blacklisting
The whole blacklisting thing is overstated. To start with, it was
never an official government policy, not to mention there were
anti-communist blacklists as well, as Morrie Ryskind could tell you.
>
> I'll excuse myself, thanks.
really, I think the US would like a peaceful and prosperous Africa
just fine, and capitalism is all about voluntary agreements between
competent parties. You know, and private property.
On the other hand, Anne Coulter is totally batshit. I found the
chapter in her book, Godless, on evolution and why its a big lie just
jaw-droppingly embarassing. Of course, she's not so much about an
honest search for knowledge as she is putting on a good show for
like-minded individuals, but is the idea those scientists might be on
to something really so troubling to them Jebus peeple?
Isn't that part of the problem, at least how the US perceives it? It had Col. Muhammar
Gadafi as the chair for Human Rights Commission in 03. whhhaaah?
> The UN has all sorts of politicians participating, including the US and
> Russia. One problem they've got is that the US haven't paid the
> "membership fees" in full. This organisation is dedicated to peace and
> various aid programs.
I don't think that the ineffectiveness of the UN has been because of the money issue, or
that the majority of it's troops are US.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
It's the drive and push for more money and armed forces to the United Nations. That and
the speeches of folks like then running for prez John Kerry saying that he would be guided
on court matters from the European example, or how much other folks on the left say how
great Europe is in governance and social order and justice. I'm not knocking our friends
across the pond, just that I hear folks prefer a mini-Europe in the US _right now_.
Liberals seem to like law and order when it comes to enforcing laws against
discrimination, pollution, consumer safety and protecting civil rights.
-- Ken from Chicago
It's just bemusing to see each side fight so often over arbitrary items. One
side is upset at the waving of Mexican flags the other at Confederate flags.
One side argues against the mere presence of guns while the other says it's
only the use that is dangerous but when it comes to drugs they switch
arguments. One side wants to restrict the First Amendment while the other
holds it sacrosanct but again switch arguments when it comes to the Second
Amendment. One side argues for gay marriage (or civil unions) but is stymied
when it comes to polygamy. One side argues to just say no but is stymied
when it comes to tobacco. And so on and so on and so on.
-- Bemused Ken from Chicago
Actually, it's either. HUAC is more commonly used because it can sound
like a word. HCUA sounds like a hiccup.
>Your version makes it seem like it was
> the house that was...well, I tell you, perhaps there was witness
> badgering, self-promotion, and relatively innocent people were gone
> after, but keep in mind there really was a USSR and there still is a
> PRC, not to mention their various sattelites, they were unprecedented
> in the degree of slavery, poverty, and death which came out of them,
> and they really had inflitrated or were supporting the various US
> leftist groups. There's nothing "unamerican" about seeing what a
> hostile foreign power is up to.
Unless, of course, the investigation violates our rights.
>
> > Blacklisting
>
> The whole blacklisting thing is overstated. To start with, it was
> never an official government policy, not to mention there were
> anti-communist blacklists as well, as Morrie Ryskind could tell you.
>
> >
Says you. Blacklisting wasn't a government policy, it was a paranoid
business policy. Dozens, hundreds of people were prevented from working
because they dared seek out information, or worse, have a friend who
did. I'll grant you there were active foriegn operative here seducing
people to the Communist cause, but blacklisting was in noway
overstated.
> > I'll excuse myself, thanks.
>
> really, I think the US would like a peaceful and prosperous Africa
> just fine, and capitalism is all about voluntary agreements between
> competent parties. You know, and private property.
I'm sure the US would like a peaceful and prosperous Africa especially
if they copous amounts of oil.
>
> On the other hand, Anne Coulter is totally batshit. I found the
> chapter in her book, Godless, on evolution and why its a big lie just
> jaw-droppingly embarassing. Of course, she's not so much about an
> honest search for knowledge as she is putting on a good show for
> like-minded individuals, but is the idea those scientists might be on
> to something really so troubling to them Jebus peeple?
Agreed. She's a waste of skin.
Have fun,
Tom
I'm right there with you my friend. There are 3.79856 sides to every
story! ;-)
I'm not nearly as 'active' on a national level as I was. I used to
write letters, make phone calls, get others to do the same and when I
was in college... hoo boy! Now, when necessary, I act on local issues
of importance to me.
We have two idiot senators, well, actually, one idiot and one drunk,
here in Missouri and my congressman is a total wack job. I wouldn't
trust any of them if they told me rain was wet. I just don't believe
anymore that one person makes a difference. Sure, I still vote, but
asking my drunk senator to rethink an opinion is a waste of time. When
a national issue does bug me enough to speak out,I'm inclined to write
senators or congressmen from another state.
Have fun,
Tom
>
>I'm not nearly as 'active' on a national level as I was. I used to
>write letters, make phone calls, get others to do the same and when I
>was in college... hoo boy! Now, when necessary, I act on local issues
>of importance to me.
>
>We have two idiot senators, well, actually, one idiot and one drunk,
>here in Missouri and my congressman is a total wack job. I wouldn't
>trust any of them if they told me rain was wet. I just don't believe
>anymore that one person makes a difference. Sure, I still vote, but
>asking my drunk senator to rethink an opinion is a waste of time. When
>a national issue does bug me enough to speak out,I'm inclined to write
>senators or congressmen from another state.
>
Unfortunately, I'd be surprised if an out-of-state congressman or
senator ever responded to a communication from a non-constituent with
anything more than a "thank you, but..." For better or for worse, the
U.S. legislature is based on actual, rather than virtual, representation.
You sound like a real political veteran and I admire that. I still think
there are effective ways to let our representatives have an earful, though.
Advice for anyone: Having worked in both the executive branch and for a
senator, I'd strongly recommend not using e-mail. Along with mass-mailed
postcards, e-mail gets lost in the shuffle. After 9-11, you can't really
send letters to Congress through land mail anymore; if you can, though,
send a well thought out, cogent fax. The three or four faxes that a
senator receives each month each means far more than the hundreds of
emails sent.
K.
Martin
>
> On the other hand, Anne Coulter is totally batshit. I found the
> chapter in her book, Godless, on evolution and why its a big lie just
> jaw-droppingly embarassing. Of course, she's not so much about an
> honest search for knowledge as she is putting on a good show for
> like-minded individuals, but is the idea those scientists might be on
> to something really so troubling to them Jebus peeple?
Only biblical literalists and similar-minded folks who are addicted to
the fear that science is inherently at odds with religion, and the
rabble-rousers and demagogues who instigate them.
I believe there is no conflict between "mechanism" of how life came
to be (the science) versus the "purpose" of life (the religion).
The so-called conflict is a fabrication, a symbolic hold-over from the
days of the Scopes "Monkey" trial.
Best, DAO
Boy, here's a can of worms, uh...
Science is inherently at odds with religion, even if many people
manage to compartmentalize those areas of their life well, and fine for
them, mostly.
> I believe there is no conflict between "mechanism" of how life came
> to be (the science) versus the "purpose" of life (the religion).
The interesting thing about natural selection is that its a blind,
algorithmic process. If you want to believe in a Supreme Being of
initial conditions, a prime mover as it were, something like Deism,
well, fine, but its difficult to discover if such being cares about you
more than sharks, e.coli, or monarch butterflies, or indeed much of
anything that happens here on earth versus things that happen someplace
far, far away from here.
> The so-called conflict is a fabrication, a symbolic hold-over from the
> days of the Scopes "Monkey" trial.
Many people manage to believe that, anyway.
That's pretty much it! ;-)
>
> You sound like a real political veteran and I admire that. I still think
> there are effective ways to let our representatives have an earful, though.
Thanks, Kevin. That's a nice compliment. Unfortunately, unless my
congressman hears it from God, it wasn't said.
>
> Advice for anyone: Having worked in both the executive branch and for a
> senator, I'd strongly recommend not using e-mail. Along with mass-mailed
> postcards, e-mail gets lost in the shuffle. After 9-11, you can't really
> send letters to Congress through land mail anymore; if you can, though,
> send a well thought out, cogent fax. The three or four faxes that a
> senator receives each month each means far more than the hundreds of
> emails sent.
>
> K.
You, too, sound like an old 'pol.' I like your insights on making an
impression on elected officials. The fax is a great idea.
Having fun,
Tom
> Science is inherently at odds with religion, even if many people
>manage to compartmentalize those areas of their life well, and fine for
>them, mostly.
Of course, you're wrong. The overwhelming majority of people have no
problem whatsoever having both science and religion in their lives.
The real problem isn't that science is at odds with religion, it's
that religion is at odds with reality.
Actually, I'd be careful who you're calling names. I'd say you're
confusing him with Grant Morrison, who probably is much more in the
anarchist mode. Millar admits his parents were communist, and leans
socialist. Now, I won't claim to completely portray his views, but
it's certainly a realistic evaluation of his views.
Chris C.
But I'm not sure it's relevant to this. After all, a left wing
government would be just as inclined to go around registering
superpeople and trying to regulate their actions.
> But I'm not sure it's relevant to this. After all, a left
> wing government would be just as inclined to go around
> registering superpeople and trying to regulate their
> actions.
This is a point. There's a website I've visited which shows
politics as a two dimensional map, rather than a line.
http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/index.php
Left and Right for your economic views, and a "social scale"
going from Authoritarian to Libertarian. I'm quite far left
and libertarian. (Although it's possible the site is biased,
since I see myself as closer to the centre on both axes than
they do.)
So (to belabour the point) an authoritatian would see
registration as a good thing, whether he or she was left-
authoritarian or right-authoritarian.
I agree. The difference is really not so much =what= they do but =why=
they do it. In the end, does it matter? Note that the classic "Left -
middle - right" structure has sometimes been replaced with one that's
more of a horseshoe shape that has the left and right much closer to one
another.
To better understand politics, you have to realize there's more than just
liberal and conservative, but also fiscal and social:
--Fiscal liberals want an "even playing field", political correctness in
education, employment, housing and financing, a "security net" for the down
and out.
--Social liberals want government to but out of their personal lives when it
comes to orientation, religion, speech, drugs, etc.
--Fiscal conservatives want a laissez faire government, minimal government
and minimal taxes, let the buyer betware, let the market decide.
--Social conservaties want an activist government to promote moral
correctness. They coincided with the fiscal conservatives back when the Dems
had control over the Congress so they wanted limited FEDERAL government to
limit the social liberal agenda as they saw it. Now that the conservatives
control Congress, they are for MORE federal government.
Once you understand the four major political movements in the country, then
you can see why there are occassional splits and strange alliances across
the aisle. Social liberals and fiscal conservatives allying to shrink
federal government. Social conservatives and fiscal liberals allying to
support civil rights because they believe it's the morally and politcally
correct position for the government to take.
-- Ken from Chicago
> > > YIKES! Sounds like a trip down memory lane to the days of HUAC,
> >
> > That's the HCUA to you, pal.
>
> Actually, it's either. HUAC is more commonly used because it can sound
> like a word.
I think it's got at least something to do with red sympathizers like
to call it the House Unamerican Activites Commitee. You know what they
say, history's written by the losers.
> >Your version makes it seem like it was
> > the house that was...well, I tell you, perhaps there was witness
> > badgering, self-promotion, and relatively innocent people were gone
> > after, but keep in mind there really was a USSR and there still is a
> > PRC, not to mention their various sattelites, they were unprecedented
> > in the degree of slavery, poverty, and death which came out of them,
> > and they really had inflitrated or were supporting the various US
> > leftist groups. There's nothing "unamerican" about seeing what a
> > hostile foreign power is up to.
>
> Unless, of course, the investigation violates our rights.
Sure, okay.
> > > Blacklisting
> >
> > The whole blacklisting thing is overstated. To start with, it was
> > never an official government policy, not to mention there were
> > anti-communist blacklists as well, as Morrie Ryskind could tell you.
> >
> > >
>
> Says you.
::squares cap:: Sez me!
> Blacklisting wasn't a government policy, it was a paranoid
> business policy.
Businesses are free to hire and fire who they like, at least in a
capitalist country. I won't tell you the blacklists didn't hurt
anyone's career, but they mainly hurt the careers of hacks churning out
simple-minded red friendly polemics, and, well...good.
> Dozens, hundreds of people were prevented from working
> because they dared seek out information, or worse, have a friend who
> did.
Again, i won't say being a red was a smart career move in those days,
but, eh...Zero Mostel and Damon Runyan did okay for themselves anyway.
You know why? Because they had something of value to offer the public
over and above political correctness.
>I'll grant you there were active foriegn operative here seducing
> people to the Communist cause, but blacklisting was in noway
> overstated.
Yes, well, I disagree. As an analogy, well...if you were looking to
get into writing or acting or directing, and you were well known as a
white supremacist or anti-semite or who knows what awful thing, you'd
better be capable of really really really packing 'em in.
> > > I'll excuse myself, thanks.
> >
> > really, I think the US would like a peaceful and prosperous Africa
> > just fine, and capitalism is all about voluntary agreements between
> > competent parties. You know, and private property.
>
> I'm sure the US would like a peaceful and prosperous Africa especially
> if they copous amounts of oil.
Interestingly, there's a strong inverse correlation between peace and
prosperity, on the one hand, and having a lot of oil on the other.
Still, we'd probably get along just fine with any given African nation
that wasn't constantly requiring military intervention and
international aid, and in fact actually produced or consumed something
of value, making us all richer in the process.
But you wouldn't get any of that in a mainstream novel or movie or TV
show.
>
> Yes, well, I disagree. As an analogy, well...if you were looking to
> get into writing or acting or directing, and you were well known as a
> white supremacist or anti-semite or who knows what awful thing, you'd
> better be capable of really really really packing 'em in.
Perhaps. In those days, if you were named as a red, you didn't work.
Period. It didn't matter if you were a party member or just brushed up
against one on a crowded sidewalk... if The Comittee named you, you
were red. Today, if you're a white supremacist, racist, or generally
vile person in the arts or politics, chances are you'll be able to
churn out at least one best seller or profitable movie.
> Interestingly, there's a strong inverse correlation between peace and
> prosperity, on the one hand, and having a lot of oil on the other.
> Still, we'd probably get along just fine with any given African nation
> that wasn't constantly requiring military intervention and
> international aid, and in fact actually produced or consumed something
> of value, making us all richer in the process.
>
> But you wouldn't get any of that in a mainstream novel or movie or TV
> show.
Well stated.
Having fun,
Tom
GUilty conscience? I didn't interpret it that way at all.