Defenders Saturday

Sub-Mariner #22

For those of you wondering, I don’t know what a “regular” issue of the Sub-Mariner looks like. I was going to make a joke about how often the Sub-Mariner has been cancelled – but it just seemed mean. I will remind those of you who like mutants that, according to Marvel comics, the Sub-Mariner is the first mutant to appear in the Marvel Universe. This little tidbit failed to inspire people to buy the comic book.

Anyway this is the second of a three-issue cross over (of sorts) involving the menace of the undying ones. In a theme of odd headgear, the first panel shows Namor, underwater, wearing a glass helmet. As he goes into surgery he has a flashback to how he stopped being able to breath under water, but four panels in Dr. Strange, not happy with any flashback that doesn’t involve him, interrupts to fill us in on what happened in his own issue of this crossover. Apparently the Undying Ones came to earth a really really long time ago, and they have this weird idol.

After the flashback, Namor (a.k.a The Sub-Marina, a.k.a. Fishy Joe) has the bizarre urge to find this weird idol. He travels to Boston, flies out of the ocean and says, “The City called Boston! Somehow I know I have a mission here . . . one which I must perform at any cost!” Namor is a type A personality – he is very goal oriented. He is drawn to a house of Kenneth Ward. He meets a cute girl who claims to be Kenneth Ward’s niece (named Joella). They seem to be hitting it off when Dr. Strange gives the Sub-Mariner a mystic message. “The Den, Sub-Mariner. You must search the den!” I must note that this story takes place before cell phones were common.

After rushing into the next room, he fights a cat-monster and defeats it in four panels. As the Sub-Mariner humbly puts it, “It is because I am not of the surface-dwelling race, girl! I am one whom they call the Sub-Mariner.” That last line does sort of leave it open to the suggestion that there are other Sub-Mariners out there. He leads Joella out into the yard, where she immediately faints. The Sub-Mariner topples a statue and pulls out the evil idol. It looks kind of like a frog and kind of like a fish without the attractive qualities of either.



Suddenly Dr. Strange (goofy mask and all) shows up and attacks Joella. Joella becomes a cat-monster and gets defeated. Hard to know what the point of that was. Dr. Strange then exposits for another page on what just happened. It turns out only the Sub-Mariner could fight a cat. And another cat gets the statue, turns into a giant monster, and drags Dr. Strange and the Sub-Mariner into another dimension. Sub-Mariner fights the monster while Dr. Strange fights a magic house cat. And loses. But then he uses his magic to put water all over the Sub-Mariner, who starts winning. Then Dr. Strange grabs the idol and says, “The Sub-Mariner needs more than mere strength now! He needs the power of Dr. Strange’s sorcery.”

They start to drive the cat-monster back – and then Dr. Strange sends Namor back through the portal, in order to set up Dr. Strange’s crossover with the Hulk. I mean, because one of them has to stay behind to guard the portal. Namor strides off, grateful for Dr. Strange for dragging him to Boston, getting him involved with the undying ones, and then sacrificing himself to save Namor.

The Kindness of the Sub-Mariner “Stand Aside Female! I have no time to answer!”

The Grammar of Dr. Strange (thinking to himself, during his battle with a cat creature) – “But, even while I’m battling this growing Beast-That-Thinks-Like-A-Man, I must help him [Namor]”

Round the Horn. An Irwin J. McIckleson Production

Salutations, people of the future world with whom I am conversing. This is Irwin J. McIckleson, fictional scion of the past, crusher of the weak and ruler with an iron first. I'm also drinking a delicious cabernet from a friend in Paris, and may, in fact, be a little jovial. I'm sure you can handle it.

First up is the blog . . . You are a Tree which is connected to the blog Gamer's Nook. It has a very attractive design sense and numerous poems by a group of troubadours called Railroad Earth. This one is quite good.

archy has the story of a radio program host named Bill O'Rielly who argues that the Irish and the blacks have had basically the same experience in America. Apparently he believes that the Negroes voluntarily emigrated to the United States, rather than in shackles.

I met a man who had been a slave once. He was a shoeshiner outside of Columbia station. I was arriving very late and he was still open, but just shutting down. I asked for a shoe shine, as I reasoned it would save me time in the morning, and volunteered to pay an additional gratuity if he would shine my shoes. I did not have wherewith to read, so I conversed with the man for a time. He told me of his childhood in South Carolina and of what it was like watching his mother sold to another plantation. He was old enough then that he did not go with her, but stayed in the fields of his master until the union army came though.

I find myself wondering what that old Negro would say if he could meet Bill O'Rielly. Probably, like most of his people, he would smile and keep his own counsel. My time has made it very clear what happens to opinionated Negroes, I'm afraid.

Bark Bark Woof Woof has the comments of a modern day Negro (I understand they are called Blacks now) on the type of comments made by O'Reilly and Bill Bennet. He says that it is unjust to conflate race and criminal intention. I must say you future people must be very stupid in some ways. Don't you realize that the people who have robbed the most are the Plutocratic class, and they are almost all white?

LEFT is RIGHT has further thoughts about the moral character of Blacks. One thing to note is that people who have it bad usually have a pretty good motivation to commit crimes. That's why grinding your workers into the ground is a surprisingly delicate matter. Do it too hard or too fast and they will start stealing from you or destroying your equipment.

The Countess has a story about the Winchester Mystery House; a story with which I have some passing familiarity. I will say I was warned once that the ghosts of those employees I worked to death would come and get me. But that is the great advantage of working your future haunters to death; their ghosts have very little energy. And my life has been relatively ghost-free.

The Fulcrum (and several other sites actually) has a story on an Aero-Transporter named Southwestern that refused service to a woman because she was wearing a shirt with an anti-President Bush message. In my day this would not be a problem because woman would be required to wear proper under and over garments, which do not permit such messages.

Speaking of President Bush, iddybud has a review of a recent speech that blackguard made. Apparently he said little new and continued to argue that killing innocents is bad.

Sooner Thought has information on a spy caught within President Bush's White House. Under his nose, so to speak.

T. Rex's Guide to Life has commentary on President Bush's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, a Harriet Miers. Apparently she may be a mixed curse.

The Podunt Press has information on corruption in the halls of the Senate. Seems like business as usual to me. Of course, the accused (Mr. Tom Delay) is accusing his accusers of partisanship. That's good strategy, even if it turns out not to be the case.

Anyway my task is complete for another week. I wish you all fruitful and enjoyable weekends.

How to Be

Hi All!!! : )

Cheery here. Just finished reading Television Without Pity's latest recap of last weeks episode of the Apprentice. It's quite good, and the author makes what I think is quite a good point.

Chris and Josh are being mean. Yes. Because somebody was mean to them, once, and it made them better, more acceptable, cooler, more successful, more socially able. I'm thinking it was when they were young, because they're quite good at it. And this is where frat boys like this come from: intelligently-applied pack meanness. But not just frat boys: senators, trustees, moguls. Act the fool, get slapped, you stop acting like a tool. You start looking around at other people, realize that acting normal and boring and superficial doesn't mean you have to change your insides, and that you can still think whatever you want, and then you fucking shape up.

And then the beauty part, where you realize the majority of all people are doing the exact same thing, playing the "I'm boring" game, and that the most put-together looking, shallow-seeming, Happy Hour-going, Oahu-vacationing, Express-wearing, hour-a-day exercising, forensic procedural-watching, beautiful mannequin of a person that sits in the cubicle next door? Bites her toenails, or is a Xena freak, or only eats the white part of candy corn and has a two-year-old yellow and orange pile of gross in her top left desk drawer, or named her dog "Glomer," or knows all the words to "Buffalo Stance" and will sing them without provocation after a single minty mojito, or whatever awesome thing, and you are missing out on a great new friend if you believe in the existence of iPod People with no souls, because there is no such damned thing.

It's only the arrogance of dorks like Markus that refuse this -- because they honestly feel they're better than every single person around them is wrong, and that they're actually performing to spec -- that keeps them from humbling themselves for the two seconds necessary to introspect and realize that being a total jackass all day is at odds with their desire to be liked, included, or given the approval they so desperately need. This is why I have no respect or sympathy for Markus, because this kind of dorkiness is narcissistic. If you start thinking everybody else is crazy? Or an asshole, or stupid, or whatever. That's the number one sign that you are crazy. Or an asshole, or willfully blind.

I think this author is right; people really are very interesting when you take the time to get to know them.

I Wish I May, I Wish I Might

PopMatters has an utterly caustic review of the new show Three Wishes, which, along the way, makes some very good points.

About an hour after the first episode was over, I went from being mildly irritated by its manipulations to being flatly pissed off. What does it say about our culture when a middle class family has to choose to between having a home and piecing their daughter's skull back together? After all, before Grant and company breezed through, Abby's parents had foregone their daughter's surgery, because they didn't have the money. How many stories like Abby's won't attract a corporate sponsor and crooning pop star? Sure, we can cry in front of our television sets, but if it's a moral imperative for Grant to give a child a chance as a normal life, doesn't that same imperative apply to us collectively? If these individual cases fill us with a sense that justice must be done, why shouldn't that same luxury be afforded to all poor people without health insurance?

Good question.

Ann Coulter Weighs In

I know you've all been wondering what the inimitable Ms. Coulter thinks about Ms. Miers. Well, according to her latest article, she's mad. First of all Ms. Miers didn't go to an Ivy League School. This means she isn't sharp enough to be on the supreme court. And she doesn't hate liberals enough.

Yep, Ann's mad that Miers doesn't hate liberals enough.

. . . some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.

I think conservatives need to write their congressmen and ask them to ask Ms. Miers how much she hates Liberals. They need to grill her on this key issue. If she's not got the strength of character to really hate liberals, how can she be on the bench. Yep, that's what I think we should see in the hearings; question after question on how much she hates liberals.

But I suppose that could have unintended consequences.

What is a Liberal?

For those of you wondering Rush Limbaugh had a caller on the other day (again from Media Matters) who provided yet another insight into the wily liberal.

I can smell liberals from 10 miles away. I know these people. They are messed up mentally, emotionally because of the fact they have to justify immorality. It's a form of rebellion against God, and so because they're rebelling against God -- that's why they have to justify things like evolution. Because if man came from slime, then they can say they're not accountable to God. So they have to get rid of God. And when you get rid of God -- you elevate abortion, homosexuality, pornography, racism.

For those of you wondering, Liberals have a certain oder about them which comes from regular bathing; makes it easier to recognize.

Oh, and this caller was rewarded by Rush Limbaugh with a free subscription to Rush 24/7. And Vice-President Dick Cheney appeared on the Rush Limbaugh Show on Monday.

Why Miers?

I hate to agree with Grumbly Muffin, but I think she might be right on why President Bush nominated Harriet Miers.

Consider these words from Rush Limbaugh (as captured by Media Matters).

Another American judge, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, has sided with our enemies of Al Qaeda. Pictures of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison must be released, despite government claims they could damage America's image. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that they do not need pretexts for their barbarism. The American Civil Liberties Union sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes as part of an October 2003 lawsuit.

Anything you can to harm and destroy the country, anything you can to be critical of this country, would be permissible on the wacko American Left.

Is there any doubt that Ms. Miers would act very different than Judge Hellerstein? Of course if you trust the Bush Administration to always do the right thing, this might be a good thing. On the other hand if you think that the judiciary has a duty to enforce American Laws, even on the Executive Branch, you might think this is a bad thing.

I think this is a bad thing.

Who Do You Stand With?

Hi all! : )

Just finished reading Joel Mowbray's latest article on the Peace Movement and MoveOn.Org. We all know that the ANSWER is a group that has had a lot of influence over the peace movement. They are well organized and are usually the group that gets the permits to march and protest. ANSWER is connected to a Marxist / Maoist group. Their leader has defended both Saddam Hussein and Slobadon Milosevic (and several other mass murderers, terrorists, and Nazis.

So the question is how can you support a peace movement led by someone like this? It makes us look bad. It makes us look un-American to be standing next to people like this. I'd rather stand next to President Bush than stand next to ANSWER.

Modern Liberalism runs the risk of being marginalized completely if they don't walk away from such organizations as ANSWER. And as a liberal, I'm upset at the idea of being marginalized. Please, you Anti-War protesters, come to your senses!

Anyway I do think this war was a mistake, and I think we need to let our feelings be known about it, but we don't need to do it standing next to the defenders of fascism and barbarism.

Welcome to the Blog-O-Sphere

Hi Everybody!!! : )

Truth Digger, a relatively new blog, makes an interesting argument today. It suggests that Republican anger over Miers may have more to do with their anger over the failures of the Bush Administration than with Miers herself. That makes some sense to me.

Although I don't know if it's as cynical as a direct switch. Rather I think their frustration with Bush fuels their frustration with the Miers nomination.

Personally I think that she might be a good choice; but it's hard to say when you don't know very much about them. Still it's always best to hope for the best in people. : )

The President's Woman

I'm sitting her considering the President's nominee to the Supreme Court and finding I have very little to consider. Oh there's plenty of commentary on Harriet Miers, but we don't really know much about her, which is sort of the problem.

I can understand how some of the people on my side of the fence are upset at the President's decision. But some of their commentary has strayed into the odd. Take this post by Jonah Goldberg over at National Review Online.

Miers may turn out to be a great justice. But she's never been a judge, never written seriously on constitutional issues, never been a litigator on such issues etc etc. But if you want to make the case that none of this matters, that's your perogative. All I ask is that you honestly address the question of whether you would have the same reaction if Hillary Clinton nominated her longtime personal lawyer under similar circumstances.

This is an odd argument because it takes a known LIAR and DICTATOR and compares her with the President, someone I, and I assume Mr. Goldberg, know to be a good man. Queen Hillary if she ever has the opportunity to nominate anybody should be opposed with everything we have because we know what kind of person she is. President Bush, on the other hand, has earned a little forbearance on our part.

The problem with Miers is as Rush pointed out yesterday. The President could have nominated a strong Constitutionalist and shown this nation's Liberals where they stand with this President and with the American people.

There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don't think this is it. There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the court. This is a nominee that we don't know anything about, a nominee purposely chosen in one context, we don't know anything about her. It makes her less of a target but it also does not show a position of strength.

So for that reason it's hard to get excited over Ms. Miers. She may very well turn out to be a great candidate and a great justice, but this was our chance to slam the liberals and we aren't taking it.

Still I'm hesitant to go to far, simply because the President may have a higher priority than slamming the liberals. And that is protecting our country. While Ms. Miers doesn't have a lot of experience in constitutional law, she has been working along President Bush for several years now. She knows that we are at war. And the President evidently believes that she will put the safety of the American people first in her deliberations.

Consider this commentary by Hugh Hewitt.

Consider that none of the Justices, not even the new Chief, has seen the battlefield in the GWOT from the perspective or with the depth of knowledge as has the soon to be Justice Miers. The Counsel to the President has seen it all, and knows what the President knows, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Joint Chiefs and the Attorney General.

I suspect that the President thinks first and foremost about the GWOT each morning, and that this choice for SCOTUS brings to that bench another Article II inclined justice with the sort of experience that no one inside the Court will have.

There is a lot of legal ramifications still to be decided in the War on Terror. For the most part, the SCOTUS has sided with the safety of the American People over the ACLU. But President Bush may want an added measure of security in facing this situation. And if that is the reason for this selection, I'm not sure I can find it in myself to oppose Ms. Miers.

President Bush Nominates Toddler to Supreme Court

President Bush, in a stunning move, withdrew the nomination of Harriet Miers, and nominated 3 year old Sally-Jo Roberson. This surprise move stunned many Democrats who note Ms. Roberson's lack of judicial background. Said Senater Reid, "The Nominee not only has a scant record. She has no record. How are we going to evaluate the fitness of this individual."

Conservative commentator Cal Thomas noted, "What really frusterates Democrats about this nominee is the lack of a record. It's a brilliant piece of political ju-jitsu. Not only will it be difficult for Liberals to find material to use against Sally-Jo, asking her the kinds of invasive and baseless questions they have in the past will be seen as mean-spirited."

In a small Press Conference, Ms. Roberson was asked about her political and judicial beliefs. She characterized President Bush as "a nice man who boughted some lemonade when he came to visit daddy." When asked about Democratic opposition to her nomination, she said "Sticks and stones might brake my bones but names will never hurt me." She also suggested that if she were on the bench she might make the Democrats take a "time-out."

The Political Activist group Move-On.Org issued a statement suggestion that the nominees lack of written decisions underlined the importance of asking her tough questions when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary committee.

The Conservative Heritage Foundation announced that they were replacing the word Foundation with Funk-Nation in an attempt to court the youth of America. They also expressed concern that President Bush had failed to nominate a "solid conservative who has a proven track record of fidelity to the American Constitution."

In other news, this entire story is made up and didn't really happen. Except the bit about Funk-Nation. That hasn't happened yet, but I swear it's going to.

Red Dawn

Craig Titley, screenplay writer for such films as Scooby Doo and Cheaper by the Dozen, has written an article comparing the film slump if 1985 to 2005. His thesis is simple In 1985 and in 2005 Conservative Presidents had been elected to second terms over the howls of a Liberals and Democrats. In 1985 and 2005, the film industry found itself in a slump. In 1985 the film industry made a lot of conservative and pro-American films, and this got them out of the slump. Hollywood should take a hint, and do the same thing again.

It's nice to see him referring to movies such as Death Wish 3 and the Chuck Norris vehicle Commando in his argument.

That said, I think the differences between 1985 and 2005 are worth mentioning as well. Reagan clearly won in a landside; 2004 was a very tight election (despite what Republicans like to say). President Bush has trapped us in an ongoing and increasingly unpopular conflict in Iraq; Reagan widely avoided such wars. So puposefully promoting conservative values to win back their audience may not work as well as Mr. Titley thinks.

That doesn't mean Hollywood won't try it. There was a recent article at the New York Times on Hollywood producing more movies that target conservative audiences. Specifically, the article references "The exorcism of Emily Post" and "Just Like Heaven" as proof of a new Conservativism.

Of course, another way of reading those movies is to suggest that they are hallmarks of a new religiosity in Hollywood. I mean neither of these movies is specifically a political movie.

One of the more offensive things about this argument is the idea that being Pro-America goes hand in hand with being Conservative. Consider George Clooney's bio pic about Edward R. Murrow, "Good Night, and Good Luck." Is it a conservative movie? Well, it has at its center a liberal newscaster who took on Joe McCarthey (and, in fact, the conflict between McCarthey and Murrow seems to be the center of the film). So what's that, like fifteen strikes against it?

But is it a pro-America film? I haven't seen it (it hasn't made it's way here yet), but my guess is yes. It celebrates the American spirit of decency and in the face of bullies and oppression. And isn't that worth celebrating?

A Timeless Argument

Jeff Jacoby explains the argument in favor of teaching Intelligent Design in his latest post. But I'm not sure I understand his argument. Consider the following sentences.

In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't make a religious claim.

A couple of questions.

1). If Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory, why does it need to be taught in Science class?

2). How can you say that Intelligent Design implies a higher intelligence and yet does not make a religious claim?

The rest of the article is devoted to the more mainstream argument that Intelligent Design arguments should be presented in the classroom in the interest of balance. Still he shoots himself in the foot by admitting the religious nature of the argument, kind of negates the rest of it.

New Format, new Quote

Good morning all!!!

We have a new format and new quote and finally we've updated the Quotes page. Hope you are all having a great weekend.