Robert Downey Jr. ambushed over politics: Reporters want Iron Man to be a liberal activist

Robert Downey Jr Channel 4 InterviewI said in 2013 that one of the reasons conservatives defended Robert Downey Jr. was because liberals attacked the man. Perhaps the best example was the 2011 hit piece from Jeffrey Wells’ Hollywood Elsewhere (now flushed down the Memory Hole), in which an anonymous source said the actor’s values “are pure Republican values.” That came after an interview in The New York Times that drove liberals batty, but before the actor attended a fundraiser for President Obama. Apparently Robert Downey Jr’s ideological blasphemy is still stuck in the media’s craw because he was just ambushed during an interview with British reporter Krishnan Guru-Murthy.

The Huffington Post reported Wednesday on the interview, which ended with Marvel Studio’s Iron Man walking out:

Krishnan Guru-Murthy: I’d really like to ask you about a quote you gave to The New York Times. I don’t want to pry so if you don’t want to talk about it that’s fine, but what you said to The New York Times was — it was about, it was after your incarceration and you said that you can’t go from a $2,000 a night hotel suite to a penitentiary and understand it and come out a liberal. I just wondered what you meant by that.”

Robert Downey Jr.: The funny thing is — and I appreciate your point of view — things you said 5-7 years ago or things you said in an interview that made sense to you at the time — I could pick that apart for two hours and I’d be no closer to the truth than I’d be giving you some half-assed answer right now. I couldn’t even really tell you what a liberal is, so therein lies the answer to your question.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy: The statement sort of stands by itself, doesn’t it? Does that mean that you’re not a liberal? Or that you came out of a prison not being liberal?

Robert Downey Jr.: Are we promoting a movie? To me the thing is that it’s — I’m certainly not going to backpedal on anything I’ve said, but I wouldn’t say I’m a Republican or a liberal or a Democrat. I think when I was talking to the person who was doing the interview that day and that just happened to be my opinion. That’s the nice thing, you can have opinions and they change and flow.”

Robert Downey Jr. is in a horrible position. A guy who has been to prison probably realizes that hard-core criminals will never adopt the peace-love-dope worldview of liberal beat poetry readings and bongo-circles. Perhaps he’s a fiscal conservative who is socially liberal. Maybe he was against the war in Iraq but he understands that leaving radical Islamic head choppers the their own devices is a bad idea.

How does the man define himself politically, especially when he has to work with hard-core liberal activists like Joss Whedon and Mark Ruffalo? The best thing to do to keep the peace on set is probably to just stay silent and stick to playing Tony Stark really well — but that is not good enough for the media.

Robert Downey Jr. will always have to be on guard against a media ambush because he refuses to use his Twitter feed to lecture people on climate change. He doesn’t get into abortion politics. He doesn’t harangue people about minimum wage laws or demonize Republican politicians. This is unacceptable to pundits who want celebrities to push liberal politics on as many people as possible while they’re in the limelight.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy RDJ interviewThe vast majority of Americans do not want Hollywood stars to lecture them on public policy. They appreciate that Robert Downey Jr. keeps his politics close to the vest. They are glad that he walked out on Krishnan Guru-Murthy and wish more actors would follow his example.

The moral of the story is this: The creative team behind “Avengers: Age of Ultron” could learn a thing or two from Robert Downey Jr. If Marvel’s talent wants independent, libertarian, and conservative fans to continue flocking to Marvel Studio movies, then they should knock it off with the political activism.

Advertisements

Joss Whedon, Mark Ruffalo lecture fans on climate change, yet silent on ‘Age of Ultron’ carbon footprint

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” is said to have a budget of roughly $250 million. The Marvel movie required shooting in 25 locations, including countries like Bangladesh, South Africa, Italy, South Korea and England. With all the cast and crew and sets involved, it had to leave a hefty carbon footprint. And yet, somehow, director Joss Whedon and Mark Ruffalo (aka: The Hulk) thought it would be a good idea to lecture the rest of us on climate change this Earth Day.

Joss Whedon Climate ChangeIf Joss Whedon really cared about climate change as his self-congratulatory tweets suggest, then he would renounce the kind of big budget movies (and carbon footprints) Marvel Studios leaves all over the globe. He won’t do that though, because he really, really likes the millions of dollars Marvel puts into his bank account.

Mark Ruffalo is no different.

Mark Ruffalo Climate Change Earth DayYes, we can do something — like not act in a movie with a carbon footprint that 99.9 percent of moviegoers could not duplicate in 10,000 lifetimes.

The weird thing about hastags like #ClimateChangeIsReal is that there is basically no one who denies that climate changes. It’s always changed. In fact, yours truly blogged on climate change after my visit to Virginia Living Museum in Newport News, Virginia in 2013.

Here is what one of the educational notes next to the museum’s riverbank fossils said:

“Since the end of the dinosaur age, eastern Virginia has been covered by ocean water many times. Beneath these seas, layers upon layers of shells, bones and teeth from abundant ocean life accumulated to form fossil-bearing sediments. Coastal river bluffs now display these ancient sediment layers, in particular, a 3.5-to-5 million-year-old fossil-rich band called Yorktown Formation,” (Virginia Living Museum).

It is safe to say that the climate has changed quite a bit over the course of 5 million years — so much so that the great state of Virginia has been underwater multiple times.

Douglas Ernst geologyThe reason why Hollywood actors and directors engage in meaningless Twitter rhetoric like “#ClimateChangeIsReal” is because any time they’re forced to debate substantive questions they look “dumber than weather.”

Here are some real questions for your favorite “Avengers: Age of Ultron” environmental activist stars:

  1. How much does man have an effect on climate in relation to things like that giant ball of exploding gas called the sun?
  2. If man is responsible for significant changes to the earth’s ever-changing climate, what are the proposed political solutions to the problem?
  3. Will the political solutions put forth by Hollywood actors and directors result in losses to freedom and liberty?
  4. Will the political solutions put forth by men like Mark Ruffalo actually have any tangible effect?

Those are questions Messrs. Whedon and Ruffalo aren’t comfortable answering, which is why they opt instead for tweets that result in fawning praise by their Twitter followers.

The next time these guys essentially try to shame you because you like nice long showers or vehicles that don’t run on batteries, ask them how it feels to be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe juggernaut and its Galactus-sized carbon footprint. My guess is that that they’ll run away faster than Quicksilver.

Marvel’s ‘All-New,’ All-Derivative Avengers lumps minorities together, calls them ‘Different’

All Different AvengersIn Marvel’s quest to prove how supercrazydiverse (one word) it is, its ‘All-New, All-Different Avengers’ actually has a cringe-inducing vibe. The company is lumping all of its new minority heroes — already derivatives of the classics — onto one team and calling them ‘All-Different.’

After the announcement, Comic Book Resources asked Marvel Comics Editor-in-Chief Axel Alonso about its obsession with diversity for the sake of diversity:

Albert Ching: Axel, looking at the recently revealed lineup of the “All-New, All-Different Avengers,” you see the female Thor, Sam Wilson as Captain America, Miles Morales, Kamala Khan — it feels like a reflection of the changes and greater diversity that Marvel has seen in the past few years. Was that a motivating factor — or the motivating factor — in putting this lineup together?

Axel Alonso: Waitaminute, is that Miles Morales? Or is that someone else? Someone new? Someone from Spider-Verse? Or maybe it’s Peter? Or maybe it’s someone he recently Googled? [Laughs]

Anyway — that roster! When [editor] Tom Brevoort laid out the cast for the new team, it just felt right — especially the inclusion of Ms. Marvel, Sam Wilson, and the new Thor. It felt like Next Level $#!#.

Got that? Marvel is taking diversity to the next level, baby. Tom “take your medicine” Brevoort has decided that fans are so sick with anti-diversity fever that the only way to cure them is to go Voltron-level diversity and then have Mark don’t-buy-my-comics Waid write the adventures.

Mark Waid F off tweetThe line-up for the ‘All-Different Avengers’ is as follows:

  • She-Thor (derivative)
  • Spider-Man (Miles Morales, derivative)
  • Ms. Marvel (derivative)
  • Captain America (Sam Wilson is filling in for Steve Rogers)
  • Nova
  • Vision
  • Iron Man

Strangely enough, Mr. Alonso hints that it might not be Tony Stark beneath the mask. Perhaps I shouldn’t have joked that Marvel will one day totally lose it and go with Toni Stark, The Invincible Iron Woman.

Alonso: Yeah! You’ve got a healthy mix of characters — a core nucleus of veterans that have proven they can kick ass: Cap, Thor, Iron Man — but is it really Tony inside that armor…? Then you’ve got some newer, younger characters that are still proving themselves: Ms. Marvel and Nova. And then you’ve got some wild cards: the Vision and whoever it is in those black Spider-Man tights. The diversity of the cast is going to allow for very different perspectives on the Avengers-scale problems they’re going to face.

Although Marvel’s ham-handed and self-congratulatory diversity spiels are embarrassing, perhaps the most laughable aspect of this ‘All Different’ cast is how the rules have changed. Teenagers like Miles Morales and Kamala Khan apparently get the equivalent of a ‘Monopoly’ “Advance to Go — Collect $200” card.

MonopolySomeone can correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Peter Parker have to put in years of time proving himself before he even became a reserve member? Was the bar lowered for becoming an Avenger? If so, then that’s embarrassing.

Here is the bottom line: All of the heroes mentioned above are just that — heroes —but there is a difference between doing the hard work of building up a character’s reputation and prestige over time, and trying to convince fans that just because a character is a minority that he or she deserves a spot on the world’s most elite team.

Falcon? Sure. No problem. Kamala Khan? Give me a break. Miles Morales? Sure — when he matures like Peter Parker before him.

At some point in time, Marvel ceased to be the “House of Ideas” and morphed into the “House of Race and Gender Politics.” The company is still capable of churning out good stories on occasion, but more often than not it just embarrasses itself with transparent attempts to insert “Next Level $#!#” into its books when all that is called for his good storytelling.

Hat Tip: Colossus of Rhodey

G. Willow Wilson’s A-Force: Will Marvel put ‘the boundaries of diversity’ before good writing?

Marvel A ForceMarvel’s upcoming Secret Wars will bring about the end of The Avengers and start of an all-female group known as A-Force.

Marvel confirmed Feb. 6:

Marvel Comics is excited to announce the new group of Earth’s Mightiest Heroes taking over an all-new era with Marvel Comics’ A-FORCE co-written by G. Willow Wilson and Marguerite K. Bennett with artwork by Jorge Molina .

This May, beginning in Marvel’s Secret Wars, the Avengers are no more! …

“She-Hulk, Dazzler, Medusa, Nico Minoru and other fan favorites, will take charge,” says series co-writer G. Willow Wilson. “We’ve purposefully assembled a team composed of different characters from disparate parts of the Marvel U, with very different power sets, identities and ideologies.”

Given that the current crop of Marvel editors and writers tend to prioritize political correctness over sound storytelling, one has to wonder if A-Force will actually be a creative juggernaut or a forgettable mess loved only by feminists for what it aimed to do instead of what it actually accomplished. Series editor Daniel Ketch hints at the answer, and it is not good.

The Huffington Post reported Feb. 6:

“Marvel has always celebrated the diversity of its family of characters and creators,” series editor Daniel Ketch said. “This new series will unite Marvel’s mightiest heroines with the exceptionally creative minds of writers G. Willow Wilson and Marguerite Bennett to craft a story full of epic battles, personal triumphs, and heart-stopping peril … and an all-new character who will push the boundaries of diversity in comic books even further.”

If a character just so happens to break new ground, then that’s great. It is a completely different situation when the creative origin of a character is “How do I push the boundaries of diversity?” The probability that the project will turn into politically correct psychobabble increases exponentially with the latter scenario because a writer will usually compromise his or her character’s integrity at the alter of “diversity” before allowing said hero to enter uncomfortable places.

Regardless, Ms. Wilson assured fans on Friday that she wasn’t going to “create yet another amazon.”

G Willow Wilson TwitterMarvel fans who rolled their eyes at She-Thor hope Ms. Wilson and Mr. Ketch are telling the truth. If they are, then perhaps A-Force will be a comic worth reading. If they are not, then it will be another embarrassing stain on a company that employs men like Tom take-your-devil-dealing-OMD-“medicine”-and-shut-up Brevoort.

Exit question: Marvel’s Daniel Ketch says the company celebrates the “diversity … of its creators.” Really? How many openly conservative writers are employed at Marvel? Can he name one? Where is the Captain America book penned by a writer who shares Nicholas Irving’s worldview? Has there been one since September 11, 2001? I don’t believe so.

Marvel’s ideological diversity seems to include a very small spectrum of political thought, which begins and ends with people like Dan go to “Christ-Land” Slott.

Update: If you’re one of the people bashing me over at Bell of Lost Souls, then … thanks for reading! I find it strange that you have such animated opinions of me that you’re willing to share with your friends, but not in the comments section here…but to each his own. It is telling, however.

And for the record, my avatar isn’t Tyler Durden from “Fight Club”; it’s Mickey O’Neil from “Snatch.” It fits with my “bareknuckled commentary” tagline. Your insults aren’t as funny when you can’t even get those straight.

Related: Ms. Marvel Vol. 1: Like Kamala Khan, intriguing book doesn’t know whether to go big or go small

‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ trailer begs the question: How can Joss Whedon not direct ‘Avengers 3’?

Ultron no strings on meBy now the entire world has seen the teaser trailer for Marvel’s Avengers: Age of Ultron. There really is only one word to describe it: awesome. The first movie made over $1.5 billion worldwide. It seems fair to say that $2 billion this time around is a distinct possibility. However, if director Joss Whedon delivers the goods — and all signs point to ‘yes’ — then it begs the question: How can he walk away from a climatic Avengers 3?

Over the past few weeks it’s been rumored that Marvel wants Joe and Anthony Russo to sign on for the 3rd and 4th Avengers movies, but it feels as though everything is building to Avengers 3. Only Marvel knows if that is the case, but I can’t help but feel as though walking away before completing an Avengers trilogy would be a bizarre move on Mr. Whedon’s part.

Directing a movie on as big of a scale as The Avengers must be physically and mentally exhausting. The time away from family and the pressure it puts on the director must be unbearable. However, if Mr. Whedon has set the stage for the superhero movie of all superhero movies to be Avengers 3, then passing on the job would be like the quarterback who leads his team down the field at the end of the big game, only to walk off the field on the opponent’s 20-yard line.

Regardless, for those who were too dazzled by the visuals of the teaser trailer to pay attention to the narration, it appears as though Whedon is going Empire Strikes Back-dark with this installment.

Ultron: “I’m going to show you something beautiful — everyone … screaming for mercy. You want to protect the world, but you don’t want it to change. You’re all puppets tangled in strings. String. But now I’m free. There are no strings on me.”

Then there is this exchange between Tony Stark and Natasha Romanoff:

Tony Stark: “It’s the end. The end of the path I started us on.”

Natasha Romanoff: “Nothing last forever.”

Meanwhile, an eerie rendition of “I’ve Got No Strings” from Disney’s Pinocchio plays in the background. (The merger between Marvel and Disney continues to pay off in interesting ways.)

Avengers Age of Ultron teaserIt’s hard to see how Marvel can continue to keep this momentum going. The Black Widow is right: “Nothing lasts forever.” Eventually, Marvel will create a movie that implodes under its own weight. Eventually, all waves crash against the shore. Regardless, when that happens it will be hard not acknowledge that it was one wild ride.

Marvel turns Thor into She-Thor, fails at Jedi mind trick to convince fans otherwise

Thor Marvel She-Thor

The brilliant minds at Marvel Comics — the guys who thought it was a stroke of genius to turn Doctor “I just tried to kill six billion people” Octopus into Spider-Man for over a year — are back again, and this time they’re turning Thor into a woman. Only they’re insisting that they’re not creating a “She-Thor.”

The politically correct company once known for great comic books writes:

Who is she? Where did she come from and what is her connection to Asgard and the Marvel Universe?

“The inscription on Thor’s hammer reads ‘Whosoever holds this hammer, if HE be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.’ Well it’s time to update that inscription,” says Marvel editor Wil Moss. “The new Thor continues Marvel’s proud tradition of strong female characters like Captain Marvel, Storm, Black Widow and more. And this new Thor isn’t a temporary female substitute – she’s now the one and only Thor, and she is worthy!”

Series writer Jason Aaron emphasizes, “This is not She-Thor. This is not Lady Thor. This is not Thorita. This is THOR. This is the THOR of the Marvel Universe. But it’s unlike any Thor we’ve ever seen before.”

These are not the Thors you’re looking Thor.

Sad. Pathetic. The most hilarious part are the fans saying, “But you haven’t read it yet!” — as if Marvel’s attempt to shoehorn politically correct mush down readers’ throats isn’t enough to warrant any kind of negative feedback.

Just as many fans would not have minded having Doctor Octopus swinging around New York City with spider-powers — provided Peter Parker wasn’t killed to make it happen — many fans are not opposed to a Norse goddess flying around earth — provided that the Thor they’ve always known and loved isn’t unnecessarily tinkered with to make that happen.

What’s next on Marvel’s list? Perhaps Bruce Banner has always been transgender. Maybe Reed Richards has always felt like a woman and he should start using his powers to mold his body in ways that better represent his (her?) true self. Where does it end? For the sake of “diversity” Marvel can come up with any hair-brained idea and then demonize its own fans who say, “Wow, that’s really dumb.”

If Marvel wants more strong female characters, then it should hire writers who can invent them. No one cares about that. Fans do care, however, when writers take a character who is a man and arbitrarily fill his role with a woman.

The problem Marvel has is that it wants diversity for the sake of diversity, but it’s not willing to do the hard work it takes to bring memorable characters into existence. It takes some serious brain power to come up with a break-out superhero that will capture the hearts and minds of generations of readers. There must be many misses with new characters before there is a hit. Marvel’s solution in this case: just make Thor a woman. Either it’s a temporary stunt or it is a real attempt at injecting a new strong female character into the Marvel Universe by using a cheap short cut. And if it is a stunt, why should Marvel get to hoist itself upon the moral pedestal of Gender Righteousness to begin with?

The odds of this idea working out as the new status quo are probably not very good, since Marvel is trying to head off the “She-Thor” label before it begins. Unfortunately, “She-Thor” is already here.

I’m looking forward to Marvel’s next attempt at creating a more gender-diverse field of superheros — Tony Stark will become “Toni” Stark because there aren’t enough female CEOs in the Marvel Universe.

 

 

Liberal Joss Whedon fans: Blinded by his ‘beautiful’ agenda, they walk face first into reality’s fist

The next Captain America movie is revving up, and it looks like it’s going to be a bit of a “political thriller.” Good. I’m glad. In fact, I’m ecstatic. However, as all conservatives know, any time there is a political thriller put together by Hollywood the probability that our worldview will suffer a few sucker punches by the writers and directors is high.

As I was reading up on the next Captain America installment, I ran across “Floyd’s” comment, who came out and said the obvious. As is often the case on online forums where conservatives are the minority, the drones were quick to pull out their stingers.

Superherohype Joss Whedon

And that is where I came in. Behold, a fascinating (but rare) exchange between yours truly and your run-of-the-mill liberal movie nerd. Long ago I basically stopped commenting on websites because all the time and energy going into arguing with tools online could have been spent blogging on a platform that would a.) actually allow me to organize my thoughts into a way that would reach a broader audience, b.) have much more lasting power as it pertains to SEO, and c.) not be subjected to the whims of liberal moderators. For example, I was banned for six months for tactfully destroying the editorial decisions made by the writers of  Spider-Man while on the Marvel boards. The moderator told others on the board I posted something inappropriate, which was interesting since I was at work at the time of the alleged infraction and had not posted anything all day. How convenient.

Regardless, the following exchange is telling. Please keep in mind that I’ve covered Joss Whedon’s liberalism once or twice … so I might know a thing or two about the guy.

Douglas: Actually, Whedon admits they filmed a strange health care/welfare scene in ‘The Avengers,’ but took it out of the final cut because it altered the pacing of the movie. Notice that he didn’t say because it was a weird health care speech in the middle of an Avengers flick …

T. Van: Incorrect. During a New York Times interview, Whedon referenced a scene in which Rogers was with Peggy Carter, and the character lamented how he essentially thought things in our culture were changing for the worse. Whedon then cited the losses of community and health care (something which has been documented over the last two decades) as examples he personally thought were consistent with the core idea behind the speech given by Rogers.

Whedon did not describe the speech as “strange” nor focused on health care… exposing a certain fallacy at the root of your last statement. He actually stated that it was “beautiful.” However, certain online bloggers with low levels of journalistic integrity took it upon themselves to manipulate the meaning of Whedon’s words. The type of bloggers that claim to be hit with “sucker punches” when they’re shadow boxing.

Douglas: Looks like I hit a nerve, “T Van.” Try and paper over the obvious all you want, everyone knows Whedon is a hard core liberal. I’m sure you saw his Romney/Zombie YouTube video… I’m also glad that because Whedon said his speech was “beautiful” then … it must be true.

Funny that since World War II the government’s involvement in health care has expanded exponentially. Maybe Whedon didn’t pay attention in history class. Oh well. He’s still got fans like you forking over bucks and making him a millionaire countless times over. Odd that he doesn’t consider himself “greedy” … but guys like Mitt Romney were. Typical Hollywood hypocrite.

T. Van: Seriously … if you had to make your living as a lawyer, you’d starve to death. After sequaciously presenting false evidence (e.g. your “Whedon admits they filmed a strange health care/welfare scene in The Avengers” comment) you’ve now gone off on unrelated tangents. These have ranged from the alleged greed of Governor Romney to the “exponentially” increased role of government in health care. I’m surprised that you haven’t yet tried to tie your health care obsession to the fate of Agent Coulson.

How about this; “my bad. Whedon didn’t say that. I was wrong.”

Douglas: I can’t help it if you’re incapable of extrapolating context from a simple point. If Whedon put the health care line in the script why would he then call it “strange” or “weird”? He wouldn’t. It was obviously an opinion I affixed to the decision because it IS strange and weird.

I’d also be willing to bet that Disney thought so too, and whispered in his ear to take it out.

Now go run along and play with your friend T. Money. Maybe you can start by going to YouTube and searching “Whedon on Romney.” And you’ll see you were totally right; my Romney comment was completely out of left field…

T. Van: You’re not extrapolating, you’re fabricating (e.g. simply making things up). As a helpful hint, do know that it’s pretty obvious.

I tell you what; go find proof that Joss Whedon “admitted” to having “filmed” a “health care scene” for the Avengers, and make your way back here. Believe it or not, that was actually the first claim you made in this discussion. Granted, anyone can see that you’re trying to change the subject because you know your initial statement was incorrect— so I suspect you won’t even try. After all, it’s much easier for you to criticize Hollywood celebrities, misdirect attention to political parody videos and continue to suck.

Douglas: [Ask and ye shall receive.] Joss Whedon: “One of the best scenes that I wrote was the beautiful and poignant scene between Steve and Peggy [Carter] that takes place in the present. And I was the one who was like, ‘Guys, we need to lose this.’ It was killing the rhythm of the thing. And we did have a lot of Cap, because he really was the in for me. I really do feel a sense of loss about what’s happening in our culture, loss of the idea of community, loss of health care and welfare and all sorts of things. I was spending a lot of time having him say it, and then I cut that,” (emphasis added).

Note: “I was spending A LOT of time having HIM say it.” (IT being the loss of community, health care and welfare CAP was talking about.) Who is Whedon saying “Guys, we need to lose this” to? Himself? Or the cast, as they’re doing takes and filming and trying to edit it in and it’s just not working? I think we know the answer. Who “sucks” now, “T. Van”?

Case closed. Fitting, given your lawyer crack earlier. There is no need for Cap to spend “a lot of time” talking about “the loss … of health care and welfare” unless Whedon had a weird agenda. But since his agenda is “beautiful” (to he and you, apparently), you can’t see it.

Now I’ll leave you to go back and work on your reading comprehension skills, “T. Van.” Feel free to come back with yet another personal attack, since you mistake that tactic for actual wit. Next time you accuse someone of “manipulating” a story, you might take into consideration the possibility that the actual quote in question will show up during the exchange.

Thanks for the blogging material.

Cheers,

Doug

This is why I suggest conservatives who feel as though they have something to say simply start their own blogs and devote the bulk of their time to doing that. Google and other search engines will become your friend over time. Google generally doesn’t give a crap about the comments sections of websites. Is it really worth it to bicker with anonymous guys who puff out their chest and let the insults fly behind the safety and security an internet forum provides?

“T. Van” is so blind that he can’t even see that while he was accusing me of manipulating the facts, the actual text shows that it was he who was muddying the water.

Facts:

  • Whedon is openly liberal and doesn’t shy away from injecting himself into the national discourse as it pertains to public policy.
  • He is concerned with the “loss” of “health care and welfare.”
  • He “was spending a lot of time” having CAP talk about those things.
  • He told the “guys” (i.e., cast, crew) that his “beautiful” speech was throwing off the pacing of ‘The Avengers’ (i.e., they were trying to make it work on set and it was like trying to put a square peg into a round hole), so he cut it. You would only know if the scene was throwing off the pacing if you had already filmed and were trying to splice it all together after the fact.

In the liberal mind, accurately pointing out the reality of what Whedon was attempting to do is “manipulating” and “sucking.” Somehow, a guy who makes anti-Romney YouTube videos that are seen by millions of people right before an election isn’t germane to a debate about whether or not movie directors inject their personal politics into finished projects. Pointing out that Joss Whedon’s conclusions are based on a false history is “misdirection.”

How is this for misdirection — or not, since it’s completely relevant to the debate:

Captain America was frozen after World War II, before Medicaid and Medicare even existed. Social Security morphed into something entirely new and different than the “Social Security” that FDR signed into existence (i.e, much more expansive).

To sum it all up, I suppose guys like me, who continuously harp on the nation’s $17 trillion debt problem (and growing), are “continuing to suck.” And if you go by House and Senate Democrats, pointing out the actual debt is “manipulating” reality, since they argue that we don’t have a spending problem — we have “a paying for problem.”

It seems like T. Van is setting himself up to be a Democrat Senator from Maryland. Bravo.

The real story behind ‘The Hawkeye Initiative’: Liberals bashing liberals

Hawkeye Initiative

Not familiar with The Hawkeye Initiative? You should be, especially if you’re into comics. It’s a somewhat-amusing attempt by artists to replace “strong female character poses” with Hawkeye.

We’ve seen a lot of clever responses to the spine-twisting, butt-baring poses so many female comic book characters are subjected to, but the Hawkeye Initiative is particularly fun. Their mission: to take those particularly awful poses and replace the female characters with Hawkeye.

Why Hawkeye? It seems it all began when artist Blue decided to switch the poses and positions of Hawkeye and the Black Widow on one of their comic book covers. …

Then Blue and Noelle Stevenson (also known as Gingerhaze and creator of the fabulous webcomic Nimona threw a challenge out to Tumblr: fix those “Strong Female Character” poses by replacing them with Hawkeye doing the same thing.

The problem with I09’s Lauren Davis’ take on The Hawkeye Initiative is that it misses the story behind the story. Who are all these artists and writers and editors in the comic industry? What kind of sexist jerks would try and hide their objectification of women behind false attempts to portray a “strong female character”? Given that there’s a “war on women,” any rational human being would conclude that the perps are all very white, very Republican men. Right? Wrong.

Matt Fraction  — liberal. Joe Quesada — liberal. Grant Morrison  — liberal.  Rick Veitch — 9/11 Conspiracy theory kook liberal. Geoff Johns — liberal. Dan Slott — liberal. Sara Pichelli — liberal. Brian Michael Bendis — liberal. Alex Ross — liberal. Mark Waid — liberal. And for many, many more you can visit the Four Color Media Monitor.

Is it possible that some of the allegedly-sexist poses these women are put in are in fact rather innocuous — but that critics are merely projecting their own sexual biases onto the images? I think so. Scrolling through the Tumblr account, anyone who has read Spider-Man knows that as a quick and agile  character, many of his contortions would be interpreted as “sexist” if a woman was drawn the same way. Women have different bodies than men, an inconvenient truth that the gender police don’t want to acknowledge.

Hawkeye Initiative

One of the biggest tells of The Hawkeye Initiative is that it doesn’t even require submissions to be from people who are actually fans of the work they’re criticizing. What if the image in question includes the Marvel equivalent of Ke$ha? What then? I guess it doesn’t matter, since all that counts to the self-righteous know-it-all are her intentions. “My statement about female empowerment matters more than my practical knowledge of the characters, their histories and their motivations.”

It may also be a shock to The Hawkeye Initiative crowd, but women are able to possess power, intelligence and sexuality at the same time. While even I get annoyed at the artist who is obviously obsessed with the porn-star-with-disturbingly-large-breast-implants look, I also don’t mind seeing  a female character whose strength and amazing figure are highlighted. (Apparently, the creators of The Hawkeye Initiative have never been to a bodybuilding competition, where men and women contort themselves in interesting ways to show off as many of their best assets in one pose to audience members and the judges.)

Regardless, the next time your friend talks to you about the “war on women,” go to your stash of comics created by liberal writers and artists. Show them a good butt-shot, and then ask them if they’d still buy the product if it was a known Republican who was devising such demeaning poses.

Update: If you’re coming here from Reddit, just a heads up: I’d comment in the thread, but my first tactful rebuttal was deleted because that’s how liberal Reddit goon moderators roll. We can’t have the conservative guy actually defending himself, can we?

Joss Whedon, hypocritical millionaire, attacks Romney

Joss Whedon likes to rant about corporations — unless they’re associated with Marvel and paying him millions of dollars, in which case he keeps his yap shut and pockets enough to keep him safely part of the “one percent” for the rest of his life. How many poor people had to shell out a large chunk of their paycheck to take the kids to see ‘The Avengers,” and how much of that cash is lining Whedon’s pockets? Don’t ask — he’s busy demonizing Mitt Romney.

It wasn’t long ago writer-director Joss Whedon, fresh off the $1.5 billion-plus grossing Avengers movie, went on a memorable anti-corporate rant for the ages.

“We are watching capitalism destroy itself right now,” he told the [Comic-Con 2012] audience. …

Whedon was raised on the Upper Westside neighborhood of Manhattan in the 1970s, an area associated with left-leaning intellectuals. He said he was raised by people who thought socialism was a ”beautiful concept.” …

We have people trying to create structures and preserve the structures that will help the middle and working class, and people calling them socialists,” Whedon said. “It’s not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal […] it’s some people with some sense of dignity and people who have gone off the reservation.”

Only months ago, you either agreed with the Scooge-McDuck-swimming-in-cash Whedon, or you were “off the reservation.” If you looked at $16 trillion dollars of national debt and considered the current “structure” unsustainable, you were “off the reservation.” If you looked at yearly deficits over $1 trillion dollars and what was going on in Greece and Spain and Italy and most of Europe and wanted to change course, you were “off the reservation.”

Now, just a week before the 2012 election, Whedon is back — and this time the witty, “dignified” director (who wears button up shirts with nothing underneath so you can see his “dignified” waxed chest) is using humor to attack former Gov. Mitt Romney.

You see, if Mitt Romney is elected president it will bring about the Zomney Apocalypse:

“Romney is ready to make the deep rollbacks in health care, education, social services, reproductive rights that will guarantee poverty, unemployment, overpopulation, disease, rioting: all crucial elements in creating a nightmare zombie wasteland. But it’s his commitment to ungoverned corporate privilege that will nosedive this economy into true insolvency and chaos, the kind of chaos you can’t buy back. Money is only so much paper to the undead. The 1% will no longer be the very rich — it will be the very fast. [Mitt Romney isn’t] afraid to face a ravening, grasping horde of subhumans, because that’s how he sees poor people already.”

Joss Whedon looks at our current national debt — $16 trillion and counting — and he doesn’t think we’re insolvent right this very second. No, it’s only after Mitt Romney is elected that we will be on the road to insolvency. Joss might be a good movie director, but he’s really lousy at math, perhaps because he has more money than he knows what do with. He could always give most of it to the government or poor people if he wanted … but he chooses not to.

The dirty little secret that Joss Whedon doesn’t want you to know about is that we’re already broke. We’re very, very broke. We are insolvent right now, and doing nothing will bring about chaos that “money can’t buy back.”

When is the last time you heard Joss Whedon talk about Greece, its debt, its riots, and the “chaos” that was brought about by the kind of “structures” that millionaire liberal movie directors crave for? Answer: Never.

While serious people try and figure out a way to uphold the promises the government made to current retirees, while changing the system to ensure its existence for future generations, Hollywood film directors spend their time trying to convince their fans that Republicans see poor people as “sub-humans.” The fact is, the United States makes social mobility easier than anywhere else in the world. I’m sure we can even point to a few of Whedon’s Hollywood friends as examples of  how one can go from rags-to-riches and from riches-to-rags, but that’s material for another day.

Poor people are definitely not “sub-humans,” but government programs that surreptitiously convince individuals to abdicate important life decisions have the potential to rob them of their humanity. The end result of the kind of programs Whedon seemingly advocates for creates, for example, Obamaphone Lady. Joss Whedon doesn’t want you to acknowledge the insidious changes to the human spirit that government dependence creates, because he wants you focused on the shortcomings of corporations.

So ask yourself: Would the world be better off without Marvel? Would the world have been better off without the WB Network, which aired Whedon’s television series Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer? It seems as though Joss Whedon likes when money exchanges hands — particularly his hands — but doesn’t like it that other people are perfectly free to spend their capital as they see fit.

If anyone is acting like a mindless zombie these days, it’s Joss Whedon.

Related: The Avengers: Marvel’s finest hour
Related: Joss Whedon: Now that I poop $100 bills, let’s embrace socialism

Samuel L. Jackson to Robert Downey Jr. circa 2008: I hope you die in a hurricane

Samuel L. Jackson has a habit of proving that just because someone has a lot of money, it doesn’t mean that they’re happy. In fact, it seems as though there’s a positive correlation between the money that lines Jackson’s pockets and how angry he gets in public. With the success of The Avengers, he’s now wishing that Hurricane Isaac had slammed into the Republican National Convention.

Apparently, “God’s plan” would have made sense to Jackson if a hurricane smashed into Tampa Bay and washed a whole slew of dead and bloated GOP bodies out to sea. It tells you a lot about the man’s psyche that he would publish such a thing, and even more about the kind of followers he attracts (apparently wishing watery death and destruction upon political opponents is a ‘favorite’ among 247 of Jackson’s followers).

Here’s one for you, Sam: Maybe God’s plan was to show the world that people like you exist. Perhaps He wanted to remind us that sad, angry and bitter men who lash out with profanity-laced tirades when they disagree with someone are out there. Maybe God’s plan was to show us how immature, intellectually lazy Hollywood stars react to the political process, so that the rest of us might find a way to have a more reasonable discourse. Just a thought.

And speaking of things to think about, perhaps we should return to the question of Robert Downey Jr.’s politics. People have been confused about where Downey falls on the political spectrum, due primarily to comments he once made to the New York Times (i.e., he learned lessons in prison that are incompatible with liberalism), his attendance at the 2008 GOP convention, and his 2012 political donation to the Obama campaign. As I said in May:

When Hollywood liberals start attacking the man, it sends up red flags to the world that they have him on notice: Shut up and keep quiet, “re-educate” yourself, or the character assassination will continue. Now that Downey has given up cold, hard cash to Obama, is he still a materialist? Probably not, since once liberals “evolve” their past is forgotten about.

The Avengers is an ensemble cast — and we’ll assume that all of them are Democrats. After having witnessed the kind of vitriol that “Avengers” like Samuel L. Jackson fling at conservative Americans, is it that far fetched to wonder if Downey — again, who attended the 2008 GOP convention — might have made a calculated decision to shuffle on over into the Democrat’s tent? What if Marvel’s Tony Stark was down in Tampa right now? Would Samuel L. Jackson still have tweeted the same thing? If so, it would have made some of the interactions on the set of The Avengers 2 rather awkward.

With that said, take a moment to imagine the reaction if a Hollywood star of Jackson’s caliber — a white one — had sent out a similar tweet about the Democratic National Convention. What do you think the job prospects for that actor would be over the next few years? What kind of scripts (if any) would show up on their doorstep? Unlike questions that pertain to “God’s plan,” we don’t need Divine Intervention to figure that one out.

I don’t know what God’s plan is for you, Mr. Jackson, but I know that I don’t go around wishing you would die. I’ll say a little prayer for you tonight, simply because deep down I think you’re probably not really that mean of a guy. You’re probably just stupid.

Cheers,

Doug

Downey went from attending the 2008 GOP convention to donating to President Obama. If his move was politically calculated, would you blame him? Samuel L. Jackson looks at the 2008 version of Downey and wishes that he gets swept out to sea by a hurricane.