DC and Marvel Use Letters to The Editor to Control Content, Liberal Editors Loathe Conservative Bloggers.

DC Comics has returned their Letters to the Editor page. Like Joe Quesada when he turned Marvel's Letter's to the Editor page into a scripted joke only Kim Jong Il would be proud of, I'm inclined to believe they're doing it because it's the one vehicle for information that allows them total control in the age of Facebook, Twitter, and Blogs (Glorious Blogs)!

Agence France-Presse thinks I, as a conservative comic book nerd, am going to take their bait on the French Muslim Batman ally, Nightrunner. They write:

Batman has battled many enemies but now has to face the anger of rightwing US bloggers furious that the comic book caped crusader has recruited a Muslim to run his crime-fighting franchise in Paris…

The hero he picks in France is called Nightrunner, the alter ego of a 22-year-old from Clichy-sous-Bois, a tough Paris suburb where urban unrest sparked riots in immigrant districts across France in 2005.

Bilal Asselah, a Frenchman of Algerian origin, was caught up in that unrest and at one point he and his friend got beaten up by police who mistook them for rioters.

“Furious”?  Umm…no.  While I would normally revel in the chance to grab the hook you’re dangling into conservative waters, intellectually pull you into the deep, chew you up, and then spit you out as chum for another blogger…I’ll pass today, AFP. Instead, there’s a different angle I’d like to take, which is DC’s decision to reinstate their Letters to the Editor section:

Posting comments via Facebook or Twitter seems faster than a speeding bullet, but DC Comics is going back to its Silver and Bronze Age ways, returning readers’ letters to the pages of its comic books…

Letters pages were once common in comic books and gave far-flung readers the chance to weigh in on stories, heroes, villains and make requests about what should happen next. Those pages gradually disappeared not only in DC’s comics, but those of other companies, too, as the Internet, e-mail and the rise of Facebook and Twitter all but rendered them obsolete.

David Hyde, DC Comics’ vice president of publicity, quietly announced the change on Monday, in DC’s own blog, The Source. Reaction was positive with one reader remarking that “as a fan of DC Comics since boyhood (more years than I care to remember), one of the things I looked most forward to was the letter page, so very excited.”

Someone needs to ask this anonymous reader what he thinks of Nightrunner, or Wonder World Consensus Woman, or Superman: Earth One. Then they need to ask him whether or not he thinks DC’s Letters to the Editor page would ever print his point of view if it differed in an intelligent way with the powers that be in their corporate offices. My guess is, they wouldn’t.

Robert Gibbs recently tried to make the claim that the White House was somehow more transparent due to Twitter.  This is a blatantly misleading statement, as it confuses information with the vehicle that provides it! Some DC readers might think the company is doing a great thing, but I’m inclined to believe one reason they’re doing it is because in the age of Facebook and Twitter it’s the one area where they have total control over the feedback readers see.

Don’t believe me? Anyone who read Marvel’s One More Day, in which liberal Joe Quesada destroyed Spider-Man for tens of thousands of fans by allowing the character to make a deal with the Devil, knows what I’m talking about.*  In the wake of One More Day they’ve filled their Letters to the Editor page with reviews from readers who are giddy over the direction of the book.  As I said my nerd-tastic response at the time, (jump in at 3:20 if you’re not an uber-nerd) it was as if the editors of Marvel went to the Kim Jong Il School of Journalism.  Reading the page was often hilarious, as it was 180 degrees from reality: readers left the book in droves.

If the editors at Marvel and DC can get you looking at their hand picked (and perhaps hand-written?) responses to controversial story lines or creative missteps instead of online—where “right wing bloggers” give you a heads up that stories like Marvel’s Fear Itself might be more liberal claptrap—they’ll be happy.  New technology has destroyed liberalism’s ability to silence the conservative point of view, whether it’s on the radio, television, or in print.  Conservatism, honestly articulated, is always a winner.  They hate that.  And they really don’t like to have the spotlight (or was that the Bat Signal?) shown on them.  But if we don’t want to keep shelling out money for tales that tell us our worldview is beneath theirs, we need to redouble our efforts.

I’ll see you in DC’s Letters to the Editor page, dear reader…and if I don’t, I’ll see you here!

*I’m sorry, my fan boy friends, but for all intents and purposes Mephisto is the Devil.

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

54 comments

  1. Isn’t it odd that Marvel/DC are pushing their liberal ideological content that only 20-25% of the population agrees with?

    Hope they don’t plan on making money anytime soon.

  2. I believe that in some point in your social conditioning you started to confuse comic books with political ads…comics are entertainment. There is no crazed conspiracy to try to expand Medicare via a plot where Batman battles the Court of Owls. Enjoy the stories…and the letters…or go read something else.

    1. Apparently you haven’t read the countless interviews with comic book artists and writers who openly discuss inserting their politics into their work.

      Regardless, this post was primarily about editors using the ‘letters to the editor’ section to control the narrative (which comes in handy during unpopular decisions, as happened with Amazing Spider-Man’s ‘One More Day’, for example). And yes, “Fear Itself” was a bunch of liberal clap trap, just as “Civil War” was before it. I can go on, and on and on.

      You don’t think “entertainment” is often infused with ideology? I believe at “some point in your social conditioning” it was established that you’re clueless. Sorry anonymous boy, I’ll keep reading comics and blogging whether you like it or.

  3. So you only want comics that appeal to your twisted conservative agenda, huh? Maybe instead of reading comics, you should stick with your ideology-based fairy tales, like the bible.

    1. Poor anonymous guy, whose email (in telling fashion) is listed as “trollboy**********.com”… You go around the internet from your basement in Vermont trolling people.

      Yes, I do read the Bible and, unlike you, I don’t spend my free time trolling. What a coincidence. If you have something constructive to say, then say it. If not, go to a blog that caters to your kind of behavior.

    2. You gotta love the anonymous liberal idiots who come to blogs so they can post hit-and-run attacks. I’m sure Mommy and Daddy are so proud of him being a troll instead of finding constructive ways to spend his free time.

    3. Anonymous boy also said he was going to “report” me to WordPress because his full email showed up for a few hours. I took it down and told him I was interested in seeing how WordPress editors react to a guy whose email address is “trollboy” — particularly since I’ve been blogging regularly for years now. I have never heard from WordPress. Translation: “Don’t call yourself ‘trollboy,’ troll someone, and then complain when you’re treated as a troll.”

    4. Yes. This IS a serious question and is necessary since this is what my proposed comic is largely about. Think of the fact that How the Grinch Stole Christmas was about how The Grinch stole every one’s stuff in a great descriptive manner and apply that to the story of a young man conquering the world and you’ll understand why I asked the question I asked.

    5. Just got in and it’s 1:00 a.m. It’s going to take me a bit to craft a decent answer. I’ll replace this one … hopefully tomorrow night. Not sure when I’ll get in from work.

    6. It’s alright Doug. Take your time. I know first hand how difficult the idea and writing process is.

  4. Alright Doug, you were in the military. Given your knowledge of the State of the world, how would a smart man go about conquering it piece by piece?

    1. Do I get royalties if your book does well? 😉

      I can not stress enough that good writers tend to be avid readers. Read. Read. Read. In this instance, I’d suggest looking at history. Who are some people who could arguably be said to have “conquered” the world or transformed in in ways that have stood the test of time?

      1. Jesus
      2. Ghandi
      3. George Washington
      4. Stalin
      5. Mao
      6. Hitler

      I would think “The Art of War,” by Sun Tzu would be essential reading for you.

      In all seriousness, thanks for the question. It got me thinking and … it inspired a pretty cool idea for a book. It’s not often that I wake up in the middle of the night with a story ready to go, but it happened last night. My book-writing time is limited at the moment, but when it frees up (it looks like late 2014 at this point) this might go to the top of the list.

      If you’re looking at the list of names I gave you and saying: “What the heck? These are all very different men,” then you’re right. How you define “conquer” will determine how your character should go about his task.

    2. Well, my character, Alexander Khan (who is both a descendent of Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great) is more of your One World Order, alliance maker/breaker, line up against the wall and fire kind of World Conqueror. He thinks that it’s his destiny to be the first human being to truly unite the world and to complete his ancestor’s vision of global conquest. He’s sort of what you would get if Tony Stark went bad. IE, he’s pretty much Lex Luthor, except he is a misplaced ideologue that thinks he’s helping the world. And about 19 or so (subject to change). Though he still does have a suit of powered armor (gold and black) and a massive tech and weapons development firm like those two.

    3. “Do I get royalties if your book does well?”

      In the fantasies I generally like to indulge myself in, I picture myself giving generously to ALL who have helped me make the series’ I have in my mind because lord know, the gubmint ain’t gonna do it and if Capitalists don’t give willingly give to others, then the Socialists will have more of an incentive to force charity. In those fantasies, I also picture annual trips to the best hotel in Walt Disney World Resort, Oahu, and etc with a bunch of friends (old and new), their family, and my family. Also a dancing monkey, potty trained monkey for my son in said fantasy.

      The only problem with said fantasies is that I’m dirt broke and haven’t made a book yet to even get a trickle of money pouring in yet. 😛

  5. Okay, so while I am, politically speaking, a liberal, I agree with you on the matter of this utterly Orwellian tactic by both Marvel and DC. It’s utterly disgraceful, and no-one fond of Freedom of Speech, no matter what end of the political spectrum they reside on, can enjoy this.

    However, I would point out that the political bias goes both ways – Ditko’s work was decidedly objectivist, the pro registration side of Civil War was neo-fascist, and I’m puzzled as to how ‘Fear Itself’ (while not stellar literature) was highly liberal, let alone OMD (which is less political, more Joe Quesada being a whiny little child). Could you explain?

    1. As it pertains to “Fear Itself,” I questioned whether it would be a bunch of claptrap — not necessarily that it was. My reasoning can be found here: Marvel’s Fear Itself: More Liberal Claptrap This April?

      Matt Fraction was using words and phrases on cable news at the time that were meant to slime the tea party movement. Commentators described their rallies as “mobs” and said they were “hysterical” racistbigothomophobes (one word). Couple that with the politics of his his Twitter feed and I think it makes sense that guys like me would be suspicious of what was coming down the pike.

      With that said, the claptrap I wondered about did turn up shortly thereafter: Marvel’s Fear Itself: You’re Safer in Iran than New York City

      As it pertains to Civil War, the writers are on record as saying it was some sort of weird Bush allegory on the Patriot Act. So even though there was a “pro-registration” side, it was written in a way that took the real world national security policies of George W. Bush to task. Question: When will Marvel take Obama to task for embracing Bush’s policy on drones and pumping it full of streroids? When will Obama be taken to task for NSA spying? When will Marvel address Obama’s “Terror Tuesday Kill List” — otherwise known as “The Disposition Matrix”? You can’t make this stuff up… Imagine what Dan Slott’s twitter feed would look like if Bush had a “Terror Tuesday Kill List”…

      I think the best way to explain the liberalism that has hurt Spider-Man over the years would be share with you the following piece: Dan Slott’s moral relativism killed Spider-Man: One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter The same geniuses who think that Doc Ock (after almost murdering six billion people in an extinction-level event) can credibly become a hero months later are also the same people who believe Peter Parker could make a deal with the devil (for all intents and purposes) without it fundamentally changing what the character stands for.

      Conservatives believe that good and evil exist. There is right and wrong. There are universal truths that can be known to us. You will be hard pressed to find any conservative (of note) who will make the case that notions of good and evil are all relative.

      See Mark Steyn’s analysis of muti-culturalism for a better idea of what I’m taking about. He articulates all of this incredibly well.

    2. Okay, so I see your point here – I’m a Brit, so I’m looking at American politics from the outside, and don’t always pick these things up. But even I didn’t miss the Civil War beaning over head with morals.

      The trouble with Civil War was you had several writers from different ends of the political spectrum all putting down their own interpretation – some cast the Pro-Reg as evil, some cast the Anti-Reg as mindlessly intransigent.

      I think the trouble was, like A vs X, that neither side was willing to sit down and talk. Both sides went to the extreme ends of opinion, and didn’t consider the alternative – for instance, a middle ground would have been mandated powers training, or mandated training full stop if you were going to be a hero. But not being forcibly drafted, as we saw in some issues.

      And there’s always Moira MacTaggert’s warning on Mutant Registration: “Today registration, tomorrow, death camps.”

      It’s a very, very fine line to tread.

      My views on the Tea Party… well, I think that a lot are afraid of the rapidly changing makeup of the US, socially and politically (white Americans on course to be in the minority, American power on the decline, the American economy only slowly sparking back to life, the majority of Americans, however slim, wanting gun control…) or ignorant (parroting old beliefs with no thought as to how they affect other people). I stress the ‘think’ part, because I’m a Brit, like I said. I’m looking from the outside in. Two of my three main beefs with the Tea Party is a) that they seem unwilling to find a middle ground, b) they tend to hold social conservative opinions that mean that they tend to be anti-abortion (59%) and anti gay marriage (64%).

      The first I see as not being positively harmful – abortion has been a fact of life since long before Christ. It’s not a choice between abortion and no abortion, it’s a choice between safe abortion and unsafe abortion – and meddling in individual rights. After all, how can you have rights if you don’t have the right to control your own body?

      The second I see as a total non-issue. Some men want to marry men, some women want to marry women. I honestly could not care less.

      Obama… the way I see him is as a domestic policy President forced to become a foreign policy President in a world in greater flux than since the collapse of the Soviet Union, to confront ever evolving threats that have little or no precedent, while dealing with a minority (the Tea Party – here comes issue number three) determined to hamstring the democratic process and enforce the will of a minority on the whole of America, only believing that their views matter.

      They oppose Obamacare, whining about the cost to taxpayers, when, shock horror, the US Defence Budget is far and away the largest on the planet. It seems to me that, at least since Reagan, the American Right (or at least, the noisy parts) have been more concerned with killing people than healing them.

      On the moral relativism… I think Slott is insane. Truly insane. However, I’m sure that you can recognise that he is hardly representative of social liberalism. Do not tar us all with the brush of his idiocy. Every liberal I know is horrified by the premise. And that’s completely leaving aside SpOck’s fascistic tactics (Big Brother is watching you…).

      Trouble is, there’s very little difference between the Gestapo and the Stasi. The only difference is their bosses.

    3. The trouble with Civil War was you had several writers from different ends of the political spectrum all putting down their own interpretation – some cast the Pro-Reg as evil, some cast the Anti-Reg as mindlessly intransigent.

      I’ll have to push back on you on that one. Can you name one openly conservative writer who worked on Civil War? During that storyline the anti-registration side was clearly the “good” guys and the “bad” guys were all pro-registration. When the anti-registration side was attacked, it was all using straw man arguments. They were treated with kid gloves while Tony Stark and Co. were turned into lunatics.

      After all, how can you have rights if you don’t have the right to control your own body?

      Without turning this into a thread on abortion, I would say that the counter-argument is that at some point your are dealing with two lives. If the person in the womb has a right to life, then someone else does not have a right to extinguish it without their own being in danger. Do you believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion up to the very second the baby’s head is visible to the doctor on the delivery table? If not, then you acknowledge that at some point there is a “life” that does not have a right to be taken. From there it’s all about deciding at which point life begins.

      Obama… the way I see him is as a domestic policy President forced to become a foreign policy President in a world in greater flux than since the collapse of the Soviet Union, to confront ever evolving threats that have little or no precedent, while dealing with a minority (the Tea Party – here comes issue number three) determined to hamstring the democratic process and enforce the will of a minority on the whole of America, only believing that their views matter.

      Obama had the House and Senate for the first two years of his presidency. Since then, he’s controlled the U.S. Senate. The fact of the matter is that U.S. presidents all have to deal with political opposition, and his fans act as if this is something new and unprecedented.

      They oppose Obamacare, whining about the cost to taxpayers, when, shock horror, the US Defence Budget is far and away the largest on the planet. It seems to me that, at least since Reagan, the American Right (or at least, the noisy parts) have been more concerned with killing people than healing them.

      The world doesn’t mind the U.S. defense budget when we’re responding to hurricanes and natural disasters around the globe. Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc., often complain about U.S. forces still being in their neck of the woods, and then when someone seriously suggests we leave they suddenly have a change of heart. Telling. Regardless, U.S. defense spending is nothing compared to the unfunded mandates promised to the American people via Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. The main driver of U.S. debt is in entitlements — not defense. We are more broke ($17 trillion officially) than any nation in the history of the planet. And yet, we’re supposed to add more entitlement obligations to the debt we already can’t pay? This will end badly. You can only outrun basic math for so long. See Greece for a sneak preview…

      On the moral relativism… I think Slott is insane. Truly insane. However, I’m sure that you can recognise that he is hardly representative of social liberalism. Do not tar us all with the brush of his idiocy. Every liberal I know is horrified by the premise.

      I don’t think most people who lean politically left are moral relativists. However, what I am saying to you is that the vast majority of people who believe “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” can be found on the left.

    4. So, Libertarian? You do know that the Tea Party are made up by A LOT of Libertarian or Libertarian leaning dudes, right…even if they do pick OBVIOUS plants whose platforms are about as Libertarian as, well, not.

    5. “The first I see as not being positively harmful – abortion has been a fact of life since long before Christ.”

      Yeah, so were a lot of things. There’s nothing really new under the sun, so what’s your point?

      “It’s not a choice between abortion and no abortion, it’s a choice between safe abortion and unsafe abortion – and meddling in individual rights. After all, how can you have rights if you don’t have the right to control your own body?”

      Question: can you have any rights if you don’t have the right to live and be born?

      I find it funny that some people would rather kill their child in womb than give him or her up for adoption because of a perceived notion of that being more cruel…when I know a nice dude whose an orphan, is more well to do when it comes to social circles than me, and actually showed a film at a film festival because that’s the kind of school me and him go to.

  6. “My views on the Tea Party… well, I think that a lot are afraid of the rapidly changing makeup of the US, socially and politically (white Americans on course to be in the minority, American power on the decline, the American economy only slowly sparking back to life, the majority of Americans, however slim, wanting gun control…)”

    1. To dispel the myth that the tea-party is comprised of a bunch of white racists who won’t let anyone else who isn’t white in, I’m Puerto-Rican and, looking at your profile picture, have more delicious caramel colored skin than you do.

    2. “the majority of Americans, however slim, wanting gun control…” Is that statistic still floating around. I thought that was debunked a long time ago along with the idea that gun-control reduces violence (exhibit A: Chicago has among the strictest gun control laws in the nation yet was named the murder capital of the world not so long ago).

    3. “or ignorant (parroting old beliefs with no thought as to how they affect other people).”

    I’ll Doug handle this one.

    1. 3. “or ignorant (parroting old beliefs with no thought as to how they affect other people).”

      I’ll Doug handle this one.

      Yes, I do parrot “old beliefs” — namely the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and an understanding of basic economics as articulated by some pretty smart Austrian dudes. Guilty as charged. “Old beliefs” that work are better than old beliefs —repackaged by slick politicians as something new — that don’t work (e.g., planned economies).

    2. “1. To dispel the myth that the tea-party is comprised of a bunch of white racists who won’t let anyone else who isn’t white in, I’m Puerto-Rican and, looking at your profile picture, have more delicious caramel colored skin than you do.”

      Almost certainly. Some of my classmates theorised that I was a vampire – the dark clothing, sharp tongue, formal language and a distinct preference for later hours probably didn’t help.

      ‘2. “the majority of Americans, however slim, wanting gun control…” Is that statistic still floating around. I thought that was debunked a long time ago along with the idea that gun-control reduces violence (exhibit A: Chicago has among the strictest gun control laws in the nation yet was named the murder capital of the world not so long ago).’

      Tight gun controls in one city/state are rather pointless if you hop over to another nearby jurisdiction that is more flexible. Compare Britain (whose gun control laws tightened substantially after the Dunblaine massacre) to Chicago.

  7. I’m saying that it’s not going away.

    Question: when do you define life as beginning?

    I find it amusing that some people think perceive a woman as just a carrier for a baby to pop out of rather than a person with their own thoughts and feelings – they might not want the baby, they might not be able to provide for it, the pregnancy might be dangerous to the mother, it could be a product of incest, it might have been conceived through rape, the child may not be able to live outside the womb, the child may be dead in the womb or the child may have such a debilitating disability that, frankly, the kindest thing to do would be to deliver them unto God’s hands (please – do not interpret this as incitement to infanticide or propagation of eugenics. It is not intended as such. Once the baby is out of the womb, it’s a whole new ball game. Once it can feel pain, likewise, I’m talking however, about the equivalent of potentially being born with locked in syndrome).

    And I am only scratching the surface of potential reasons. I’m not a woman, much less one who has faced the prospect of abortion. I don’t know. But I do know that a woman’s body mean’s a woman’s choice, and limiting that choice is nothing but cruel.

    If you believe life to begin at conception, does Jesus not say that he suffers the little children to come unto him? I think that He, in his kindness and mercy, would be more than willing to give the child a second chance with parents who were able to have them.

    Speaking of the suffer the little children part, I find it very interesting that the Right Wing tends to kick up an unholy fuss over abortion and the right to life, but then doesn’t give a damn about the kids born until they become old enough to vote/join the army/be held up as an example of degenerate youth.

    1. Speaking of the suffer the little children part, I find it very interesting that the Right Wing tends to kick up an unholy fuss over abortion and the right to life, but then doesn’t give a damn about the kids born until they become old enough to vote/join the army/be held up as an example of degenerate youth.

      This is a personal attack wrapped in an appeal to emotion sprinkled with red herring sauce. Call me when you want to talk specifics.

    2. My apologies. That was a little spicy, wasn’t it? I can only say that I tend to get a little passionate on the issue,

      Very well. I was referring to the comparison between policy focus on ending abortion vs helping those in the demographics that are mostly likely to need abortion – lower income minorities. There is a significant gap.

    3. “And I am only scratching the surface of potential reasons. I’m not a woman, much less one who has faced the prospect of abortion. I don’t know. But I do know that a woman’s body mean’s a woman’s choice, and limiting that choice is nothing but cruel.”

      Saying that a baby doesn’t deserve the chance at life either because of how its was conceived or simply because the mother doesn’t want it (the grand majority of times despite how sickeningly pro-abortion advocates use the plights of rape victims, a much smaller minority, to advance their cause) is the greater cruelty.

      Hey Rhodri, do it’s cruel that doctors suggest to expectant mothers to abort their children JUST because they say they’ll have a defect like down syndrome or Autism or Aspergers (like myself)?

      For that matter, if homosexuality did have some inherent genetic truth to it (despite currently having no absolute genetic basis), do you think it would be cruel for mothers to decide to terminate their child because the doctor says they’d be born a rainbow brigade member? For that matter, do you think there’d be some sort of civil war among the pro-abort activists and pro-rainbow brigade members because of the sudden decline in rainbow-brigade demographics?

    4. I would also suggest a close examination of China’s one-child policy. Interesting how females have such a higher incidence of “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,” or how they are aborted at a much higher rate than males. For the record, I believe China is in the process of changing its rules on the one-child policy, but you get my point.

    5. I think we differ in our definitions of when life begins – I consider it to begin when the baby can think and feel pain. After that, my view is that abortion is only ever justified in the case of danger to the mother. You consider it to start at conception, I’m guessing.

      Rape victims are an example. Nothing more. And there are far more rape victims than you think – only a tiny fraction of rape cases are successfully prosecuted, and that’s only of those which are actually reported. However, I notice that you do dodge the issue – would you expect a woman to carry her rapists child to term?

      There is a difference between defects like Autism and Aspergers and the sort I am referring to. All those you refer to are functional by themselves. Of course, this rather begs the question of where one draws the line. That, I have no answer to.

      There’s no isolated cause for homosexuality known as yet – I suspect that it lies in epigenetics, or even in some as yet undiscovered factor – but I note your point. You fear the eugenics implications.

      There’s no easy answer. But I maintain that a woman has the right to choose.

    6. “I would also suggest a close examination of China’s one-child policy. Interesting how females have such a higher incidence of “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,” or how they are aborted at a much higher rate than males. For the record, I believe China is in the process of changing its rules on the one-child policy, but you get my point.”

      Every technology has the potential to be misused. Even the innocent mirror has been used as a weapon.

  8. My apologies. That was a little spicy, wasn’t it? I can only say that I tend to get a little passionate on the issue,

    Very well. I was referring to the comparison between policy focus on ending abortion vs helping those in the demographics that are mostly likely to need abortion – lower income minorities. There is a significant gap.

    1. I would argue that everyone wants to help the poor, but they differ on the means by which that happens. In the U.S., the primary means chosen by the left has been to turn on the money hose and give people cash. 99+ weeks of unemployment with extension, after extension after extension. What kind of person can’t find a job in 99 weeks? We have second and third generation kids born into poverty who have only known food stamps as a means to exist. It’s sad… Also, the definition of “the poor” always changes. There are plenty of able-bodied adults in the U.S. who get paid to essentially play XBox all day.

      It’s the whole “give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day; teach a man how to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime” debate.

      As Barry Goldwater so eloquently put it in The Conscious of a Conservative:

      Consider the consequences to the recipient of welfarism. For one thing, he mortgages himself to the federal government. In return for benefits — which, in the majority of cases, he pays for — he concedes to the government the ultimate in political power — the power to grant or withhold from him the necessities of life as the government sees fit. Even more important, however, is the effect on him — the elimination of any feeling of responsibility for his own welfare and that of his family and neighbors. A man may not immediately, or ever, comprehend the harm thus done to his character. Indeed, this is one of the great evils of Welfarism — that it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it. …

      [We] can shatter the collectivists’ designs on individual freedom if we will impress upon the men who conduct our affairs this one truth: that the material and spiritual sides of man are intertwined; that it is impossible for the State to assume responsibility for one without intruding on the essential nature of the other; that if we take from a man the personal responsibility for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free.

  9. “I’ll have to push back on you on that one. Can you name one openly conservative writer who worked on Civil War? During that storyline the anti-registration side was clearly the “good” guys and the “bad” guys were all pro-registration. When the anti-registration side was attacked, it was all using straw man arguments. They were treated with kid gloves while Tony Stark and Co. were turned into lunatics.”

    Mark Miller? The guy who wrote the spine of the series? I suspect the pro Anti-Reg writers were largely operating as part of a backlash against Miller and y’know, they did have Captain America heading up their side, with Spidey joining him,

    “Obama had the House and Senate for the first two years of his presidency. Since then, he’s controlled the U.S. Senate. The fact of the matter is that U.S. presidents all have to deal with political opposition, and his fans act as if this is something new and unprecedented.”

    It isn’t. Having a minority trying to destroy a democratically legislated law by any means possible, however…

    “The world doesn’t mind the U.S. defense budget when we’re responding to hurricanes and natural disasters around the globe. Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc., often complain about U.S. forces still being in their neck of the woods, and then when someone seriously suggests we leave they suddenly have a change of heart. Telling. Regardless, U.S. defense spending is nothing compared to the unfunded mandates promised to the American people via Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. The main driver of U.S. debt is in entitlements — not defense. We are more broke ($17 trillion officially) than any nation in the history of the planet. And yet, we’re supposed to add more entitlement obligations to the debt we already can’t pay? This will end badly. You can only outrun basic math for so long. See Greece for a sneak preview…”

    Can you back that up with figures? I’m curious.

    A healthier populace is a happier populace, a happier populace is a more productive populace and a more productive populace. That’s a truth that goes back all the way. Think of it as investing in humanity.

    1. Mark Miller? The guy who wrote the spine of the series?

      Mark Millar is not conservative. If so, that’s news to me.

      It isn’t. Having a minority trying to destroy a democratically legislated law by any means possible, however…

      Google “Obamacare exceptions” and see how many stories come up. President Obama is the one who signed a law into existence, but now acts like a king, picking and choosing which parts of it get to be implemented and when. Both sides have used “poison pills” in omnibus legislation, as well as parliamentary procedures to get what they want.

      Can you back that up with figures? I’m curious.

      See the entitlement chart below. The numbers come from the Office of Management and Budget. Those aren’t my numbers — those are the federal government’s own numbers.

      Bill Maher: Crazy, Stupid Political Hack

      Here is the original chart.

      Here is further reading on U.S. debt: The Jenga Economy: Brought to you by the federal government

      National debt mysteriously frozen; Feds use accounting that would land you in prison

    2. ‘Mark Millar is not conservative. If so, that’s news to me.’

      I’m pretty sure that he is.

      ‘Google “Obamacare exceptions” and see how many stories come up. President Obama is the one who signed a law into existence, but now acts like a king, picking and choosing which parts of it get to be implemented and when. Both sides have used “poison pills” in omnibus legislation, as well as parliamentary procedures to get what they want.’

      It’s a big law. Implementing it is going to take time.

      I’m pretty sure that the Democrats, for all their faults, have never quite literally held the country to ransom.

      If you’ll forgive me, your analysis is a little suspect since you bring a certain bias to it. That said, I have yet to meet someone totally impartial.

      I’m not an economist, and can therefore only guess that the borrowing has a certain momentum to it and it takes a while to slow down.

      However, on the Healthcare thing, I may point out that it has been noted by Bloomberg that the US healthcare system is the most expensive and least efficient as compared to similar countries, so that could be a large part of the American healthcare problem.

    3. I’m pretty sure that he is [conservative].

      I’m 100% sure that you are wrong.

      “I’d obviously vote for Obama, just as I’d have picked Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, or Carter over any of their Republican opponents. But I worry about the messianic hope America has invested in [Obama]. He’s a good orator and I agree with him on most things, but he’s still just a guy from Chicago. Let’s not go overboard.” — Mark Millar

      That is not a quote that can be attributed to any U.S. conservative. Ever.

      I’m pretty sure that the Democrats, for all their faults, have never quite literally held the country to ransom.

      Again, you’re lack of specificity hurts your credibility. Once you define “holding the country ransom” then we can have a real conversation. Any parliamentary procedures Republicans have engaged in during recent years, the Democrats have done the same. The U.S. has had government shutdowns under Democrats and Republicans.

      I’m not that interested in getting into a health care debate in this thread. I feel like I’m playing Whack-A-Mole as it is already.

      Related: Michael Moore Talks Obamacare, Ignores Jowl Replacement Surgery

    4. Okay, so I have clearly missed out a lot of Millar – I took the Ultimates as straight up, not satire, for instance.

      Okay. How does threatening to not allow the country to pay its bills, leading to immediate fiscal collapse, sound?

      Neither am I, since it’s pretty clear that neither of us is going to give in and I really cannot be bothered to start searching up some of the facts and figures I’ve used in other debates on the subject.

    5. Okay. How does threatening to not allow the country to pay its bills, leading to immediate fiscal collapse, sound?

      The U.S. already can’t pay its bills. That’s why we’re $17 trillion in debt. Regardless, a temporary shutdown would not mean that the U.S. can’t “pay” its bills (defined as: paying our creditors just enough to keep them lending to us). It would force the U.S. government to prioritize its payments until the political stalemate was resolved. It would have forced politicians to make hard choices regarding long-term debt, and that’s about it. Any time a politician tells you the world is going to end unless you do what they say, there’s a high probability that they’re lying.

    6. It did still put thousands upon thousands out of work, while congressmen were still paid six figure salaries. British MP’s, save Ministers, only get five figure salaries and are fighting an offered pay rise (admittedly, largely out of self preservation). Maybe you’d cut the deficit if you slashed their salaries.

      Also, the fact remains – the Tea Party and associates did not like Obamacare. They failed to repeal it nearly four dozen times. They failed to get it struck down by the Supreme Court. So they tried to blackmail the elected President of the United States, recently re-elected in an election largely fought over that issue.

    7. If you think cutting Congressional salaries would put a dent in the deficit, then you’re sorely mistaken. We only have 535 members of Congress. Let’s pretend that each one made $1 million per year. That would be $535 million. For the past several years the deficit has been roughly 1 trillion dollars. It’s hard to wrap our minds around just how huge that is…but if you look into the difference you’ll see just how much long-term trouble the U.S. is in. Again, the debt is at $17 trillion and counting.

      In regards to Obamacare, again the tea party used parliamentary procedures to make their opposition known. Tea party members of the House and Senate who were elected to Congress have a responsibility to represent their constituents. If they were elected to push back against Obamacare — and they were — then they were doing their job. We have three co-equal branches of government. The Executive Branch is not more powerful than the other two. That might annoy the president, but oh well. I think our founders knew what they were doing.

      And just so you know, I disagreed with the tactic that the tea party used in this case. However, just because I disagreed with the tactic it doesn’t mean that I would categorize it as “blackmail.” See: Conservatives attack allies on defunding Obamacare, wonder why minorities shun GOP

    8. I was being facetious.

      Everyone knew about their opposition. And I wasn’t simply referring to the Executive – they were preventing it even coming to the floor even after enough moderates had drifted over to the Democratic side of the floor. They were basically throwing the toys out of the pram in a display of ‘if we can’t have it, no one can’.

      I would.

      Now, can we please get back to agreeing on the disaster that is Superior?

    9. Again, I’m sorry if you don’t like parliamentary rules that have been in existence for generations…but that’s the way it is. Again, government shutdowns have happened under Republican and Democratic presidents. They will continue to occur. The side in power always likes to label the minority as “blackmailers” or whatnot. Zzzzz. Americans voted for divided government in 2012. If they don’t like what the tea party did, then the next election cycle will take care of it. If they’re unhappy with Obamacare, then the Democrats will get their butts handed to them and possibly lose control of the Senate.

      Time for me to get to a Christmas party, but I’m always willing to discuss SSM.

    10. I don’t like them being abused.

      That’s true enough. Roll on 2014.

      Enjoy.

      Currently I’m having one of those ‘sick to the stomach’ ,moments about it and repressing homicidal impulses towards Dan Slott, while occasionally lobbing the odd acerbic comment onto his twitter (we argue occasionally. He tends to delete them when I win, which is usually. He also stopped trying to sic his buddies on me when I reacted with glee at the suggestion).

    11. As it pertains to Dan Slott, we have a lot in common: Dan Slott, absent a superior argument, now sics Twitter followers on critics

      Be careful with the jokes about death threats, though…especially since the guy apparently received a few. I don’t want him accusing me of advocating such a thing. He does read my blog from time to time and mines the comment section for ways to distract people from the issue. He even bizarrely referenced a blog post I wrote on the Trayvon Martin legal case over at Comic Vine.

    12. Yes, we do. Like I said, he considered that with me… and either felt I wasn’t worth it (considering how touchy he is, unlikely) or decided that he’d be giving me exactly what I wanted, which isn’t quite true. Exactly what I want would be a chance to face him on a comments section like this with no blasted 140 character limit. Shooting down his mooks would be fun, though.

      I don’t actually threaten him with death, and if he pounced on the homicidal impulses line, I’d mock him mercilessly.

      Slott’s a shit slinger, pure and simple. I try to avoid making it personal in an argument simply because ad hominem is a logically weak argument.

    13. Feel free to share a link to any good exchanges that haven’t been deleted.

      Slott likes Twitter because the format lends itself to name calling and it allows his fans to gang up on people. He has a history of trolling blogs that are critical of his work, but he’s always taken shots at me from afar. After having interacted with you today I would like to see the two of you go head to head. Have you commented over at comic vine?

      I stay away from there because when I do comment he side tracks the discussion… but I would come back if you guys went at it. If he got political we could point out how the badness of SSM unites all political stripes.

    14. ‘Feel free to share a link to any good exchanges that haven’t been deleted.’

      I’m not very good with Twitter, but I’ve taken a scroll through. Funny thing – my tweets remain on my ‘Me’ page, but neither his replies nor our conversations appear on his Twitter fact. In fact, I can’t see many negative comments on his recently…

      No. I should start, I think. I’d like to have another crack at him where he couldn’t hide the evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s