I have been reading reviews for the movie The Expendables and it certainly seems to me that the marketing department either got this one wrong or was feeling exceptionally dishonest when they prepared the advertising campaign for this one.
Let me be clear that this is not a review for this movie. I have not seen The Expendables and probably won't be seeing it any time soon. That isn't a statement against the movie; just a statement against theaters. I dislike crowds and so I have to really want to see a movie before I will brave the masses to see something on the big screen. I will probably see this movie (and it does look like I will probably enjoy it), but I will wait until I can watch it at home and not have to put up with the pushing and shoving and noise and mess of going to the theater. While I do think I will enjoy it, I don't think I will enjoy it that much.
So why am I complaining about a movie I haven't seen but expect to enjoy? Because it really irks me when the marketing department tells me that I am going to see a movie that is not the movie on the screen. I walked out of Antonio Banderas' Desperado for that very reason (I was promised a cool action movie and got a cheesy comedy that just happened to also have some action instead).
The Expendables has been billed as a ... tribute might be the right word ... tribute to 80s action movies, complete with bringing together, for the first time ever, three of the biggest 80s action icons in one movie.
The first problem with that premise is that one of the three is not an 80s action icon. Bruce Willis is an action icon. There is no doubt about that. However, he was not such an icon yet in the 80s. In the 80s, Willis was a romantic comedy icon ("Moonlighting", anyone?). He had one stand-out action movie in the 80s (Die Hard which, to be honest and fair, was one of the nest action movies from the 80s) but the bulk of his action credit, and his status as an action icon, didn't come until the 90s.
It is a somewhat trivial complaint, I agree, but a legitimate complaint just the same. Would it still be cool to see Willis, Stallone, and Schwarzenegger together in an action movie, despite their being action icons from different decades? Absolutely! That, however, leads us to the second problem with this movie's premise.
Willis, Stallone, and Schwarzenegger aren't really in an action movie together. They all three appear in the same action movie and they even have a scene where they all three appear together, but that's as far as it goes. Their scene together is not an action scene; it is a talking scene. Three of the biggest names in movie action are finally brought together in one scene and they ... talk. Someone seriously missed an opportunity here.
The movie that is supposed to represent the glory of 80s action movies and star three of the biggest action stars ever, doesn't. It has, essentially, cameo appearances from two of them, and boring cameos at that. The bulk of the movie stars modern action stars or wrestlers who haven't even made it up to "action star" yet, and that is not what the marketing department promised.
None of this means that The Expendables will be a bad movie. I have already said that I expect to enjoy it. I like Jason Statham and Jet Li and, from what I've read, they appear to have prominent roles. I do think, however, that there will be quite a bit of disappointment with this movie and it will probably be disappointment that the movie doesn't deserve. It won't be disappointment with the movie itself, but disappointment that the movie was not what was promised by the marketing department.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Universal Bill of Rights
I repost this one every few years in the (so far vain) hope that we will begin to move in the right direction and I will not feel the need to repost again in a few years. So far, no such luck, so I continue to try.
The Universal Bill of Rights
1. Every person has the right to be the sole authority over his or her own life unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
2. Every person has the right to defend himself or herself against force from any other person. Every person has the right to prepare for this defense unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
3. Every person has the right to be secure in his or her own possessions and to be the sole authority over those possessions unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another. At no time and for no reason shall this right be violated without provable cause, due process, and just compensation.
4. Every person has the right to speak, write, or print anything or to express themselves in any other manner unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
5. Every person has the right to be secure in his or her own belief and all the practices of that belief unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
6. Every person has the right to freely associate or not associate with any other person or persons and to use any legally owned property for this purpose unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
7. Every person has the right to equal protection under the law, where he or she is judged only by facts relevant to the present situation and no distinction is made for non-relevant facts, opinions, or beliefs.
8. Every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial where innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven. Every such person has the right to full and fair representation where all relevant evidence is reviewed and only relevant evidence is considered. All such people have the right to abstain from self-incrimination.
9. Every parent, because they are responsible for their children, has the right to limit the rights of those children toward the process of teaching responsibility for those rights. Every person has the right to expect parents to be responsible for their children. Every child has the right to expect their parents to provide protection, support, and education. Every child also has the right to expect their parents to only limit the child's rights in direct proportion to the child's understanding of and ability to be responsible for those rights.
10. Every person has the right to expect their government to perform those limited functions required of government to the best of its ability and using only such means as are actually required to perform these functions. Every person has the right to expect their government to make no attempt to perform extra functions which would limit the freedom of the people. The people have the right to demand or force the removal of any government which violates this right.
The Universal Bill of Non-Rights
11. Any person unwilling or unable to afford any other person or persons any of the preceding rights shall have his or her rights curtailed in direct proportion.
12. No government has a right to govern but does so only by the will of the people. No government has the right to perform any functions which would limit the freedom of the people and which the people can do without governmental interference.
13. No agency, business, or any other collective group has any rights or privileges as a group. All such groups are made up of people and it is these people who possess rights and privileges.
14. No person has the right to anything that was not earned, freely given, or acquired through legal contract.
15. No person has the right to succeed. No person has the right to wealth. No person has the right to expect anything more than to try. Everything beyond trying shall be seen as a bonus and not a right.
The Universal Bill of Rights
1. Every person has the right to be the sole authority over his or her own life unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
2. Every person has the right to defend himself or herself against force from any other person. Every person has the right to prepare for this defense unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
3. Every person has the right to be secure in his or her own possessions and to be the sole authority over those possessions unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another. At no time and for no reason shall this right be violated without provable cause, due process, and just compensation.
4. Every person has the right to speak, write, or print anything or to express themselves in any other manner unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
5. Every person has the right to be secure in his or her own belief and all the practices of that belief unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
6. Every person has the right to freely associate or not associate with any other person or persons and to use any legally owned property for this purpose unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
7. Every person has the right to equal protection under the law, where he or she is judged only by facts relevant to the present situation and no distinction is made for non-relevant facts, opinions, or beliefs.
8. Every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial where innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven. Every such person has the right to full and fair representation where all relevant evidence is reviewed and only relevant evidence is considered. All such people have the right to abstain from self-incrimination.
9. Every parent, because they are responsible for their children, has the right to limit the rights of those children toward the process of teaching responsibility for those rights. Every person has the right to expect parents to be responsible for their children. Every child has the right to expect their parents to provide protection, support, and education. Every child also has the right to expect their parents to only limit the child's rights in direct proportion to the child's understanding of and ability to be responsible for those rights.
10. Every person has the right to expect their government to perform those limited functions required of government to the best of its ability and using only such means as are actually required to perform these functions. Every person has the right to expect their government to make no attempt to perform extra functions which would limit the freedom of the people. The people have the right to demand or force the removal of any government which violates this right.
The Universal Bill of Non-Rights
11. Any person unwilling or unable to afford any other person or persons any of the preceding rights shall have his or her rights curtailed in direct proportion.
12. No government has a right to govern but does so only by the will of the people. No government has the right to perform any functions which would limit the freedom of the people and which the people can do without governmental interference.
13. No agency, business, or any other collective group has any rights or privileges as a group. All such groups are made up of people and it is these people who possess rights and privileges.
14. No person has the right to anything that was not earned, freely given, or acquired through legal contract.
15. No person has the right to succeed. No person has the right to wealth. No person has the right to expect anything more than to try. Everything beyond trying shall be seen as a bonus and not a right.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Getting Rights Right
While I am getting back up to speed here, I will sometimes go back through my files and republish older writings which seem oddly relevant now. Annoyingly, I apparently failed to put a date on this one, but I know for a fact it was before 2003 and probably after 2000. Not too bad a window, I suppose. At any rate, it was written somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 years ago and I have changed nothing in it (though I may have corrected some punctuation last night - I was half asleep, so don't quote me on that).
Getting Rights Right
Do People Have a Right to Services?
Here lately, I’ve lost track of how often I hear people talking about rights. Every time I turn around, someone is screaming about his right to this or her right to that. Frankly, it’s gotten to the point where I cringe every time I hear it, which is pretty sad considering how ardent a supporter of rights I am. My apprehension with this, however, is understandable when considered in the proper light. It is virtually impossible to defend rights to the fullest when people can’t even agree on how to define them.
One of the most visible examples of this in the current public discussion is the so-called Single Payer Health Plan. This plan, under various modified forms and differing names, is basically modeled after the socialized medical systems that can be found in such countries as Canada and England (though it is interesting to note that both of these countries have actually been moving or considering moving away from this system and toward more privatization in recent years). The central point of any such plan is tax-subsidized medical services that allow all people to have at least basic access without payment rendered at the time of service or due at a later date. I won’t just say “without payment” because, unless one doesn’t pay taxes, the service has actually been paid for, only before the fact. In this way, it is similar to an insurance plan, though usually without a deductible or co-pay. The only significant differences are that the payments are controlled by the government through taxes and that no one is allowed to opt out, neither the patient choosing to not use this form of insurance nor the doctor choosing to not accept this form of payment.
Also central is the justification for the control issue that is necessary for the plan: everyone has a right to medical services.
This is difficult to argue against without sounding like an ogre. Whenever we see someone who is sick or in pain, most of us want that person to have the necessary help. We don’t tend to think past that point. With Step One right in front of us, we often don’t think we have time to worry about Step Two and we’ll just deal with that when we get there. While wanting to fix the immediate problem is a natural human desire, refusing to look past the immediate problem frequently gets us into more trouble than it’s worth.
What if the solution we demand in Step One creates a problem in Step Two? In this case, we haven’t really solved anything; we’ve only postponed the problem. Postponing the problem is exactly what we’re doing when we confuse the issue and assign the value of “this is a right” where it does not belong.
In the example of Single Payer Health Plans, if everyone has a right to medical services, someone MUST provide those services. In Step One the patient has received service, but in Step Two the provider has been forced to render service, regardless of personal choice. Can it really be a right if it forces the violation of another person's rights? A carpenter has a right to not build a house. A farmer has a right to not grow crops. Does a doctor not have the equivalent right to not provide medical services? Why can I force a doctor to operate on me when I can’t force a farmer to feed me? Has the very act of graduating from medical school somehow changed the doctor’s rights and, if so, why aren’t students warned of this before they enroll?
While some may argue that it is issues of health or “quality of life” that alter this situation, I believe that my choice of counter examples demonstrates at least the inequality of this philosophy. Surely we all agree that food and shelter are equally health and quality of life issues. Yet even when we do step into these areas, we do not insist that every provider must play within the same government mandated game. We interfere only on a case-by-case basis where we actually deem it necessary and leave everyone else to play their own game. Why the insistence that health care be given its own all-encompassing set of rules?
Furthermore, if health care is a right, what happens when no one can provide it? If we can force doctors to render service, can we not also force eligible students to enter medical school so that we maintain the necessary amount of providers? If those who believe that health care is a right cannot embrace the logic of this idea, perhaps there is a flaw in their understanding of rights. Why is it appropriate to force one class of people but not appropriate to force another class toward the same purpose? It is an inconsistency that cannot be answered.
The reason for this is a faulty definition of rights. When properly defined, one right cannot cancel out another. I have the right to write this essay and you have the right to not read it. My right to write cannot force you to read and your right to not read cannot force me to not write. That’s the way it works, or at least that’s the way it should work.
By this definition, the only way I have a right to medical care is if I can provide it to myself. A right to health care otherwise would cancel out the provider’s right to free association and remove his right to govern his own labor. In any other situation, we would quite rightly call this slavery.
No one has the right to inflict slavery on another person, regardless of the situation. While it would certainly be nice to help people have access to medical services, we should be careful to not falsely define this generosity as a right. Courtesy isn’t a right, no matter how much better it might make the world.
If one wishes to defend rights, start by defining them correctly and consistently. If one wishes to promote access to health care, start by remembering that there are people with real rights on both sides of the issue. Both of these can be done at the same time, but they cannot be done as the same thing. Doing so is actually a promotion of slavery, and slaves don’t have rights.
Besides, who would you rather have cutting you open: the provider by choice or the provider by force?
Getting Rights Right
Do People Have a Right to Services?
Here lately, I’ve lost track of how often I hear people talking about rights. Every time I turn around, someone is screaming about his right to this or her right to that. Frankly, it’s gotten to the point where I cringe every time I hear it, which is pretty sad considering how ardent a supporter of rights I am. My apprehension with this, however, is understandable when considered in the proper light. It is virtually impossible to defend rights to the fullest when people can’t even agree on how to define them.
One of the most visible examples of this in the current public discussion is the so-called Single Payer Health Plan. This plan, under various modified forms and differing names, is basically modeled after the socialized medical systems that can be found in such countries as Canada and England (though it is interesting to note that both of these countries have actually been moving or considering moving away from this system and toward more privatization in recent years). The central point of any such plan is tax-subsidized medical services that allow all people to have at least basic access without payment rendered at the time of service or due at a later date. I won’t just say “without payment” because, unless one doesn’t pay taxes, the service has actually been paid for, only before the fact. In this way, it is similar to an insurance plan, though usually without a deductible or co-pay. The only significant differences are that the payments are controlled by the government through taxes and that no one is allowed to opt out, neither the patient choosing to not use this form of insurance nor the doctor choosing to not accept this form of payment.
Also central is the justification for the control issue that is necessary for the plan: everyone has a right to medical services.
This is difficult to argue against without sounding like an ogre. Whenever we see someone who is sick or in pain, most of us want that person to have the necessary help. We don’t tend to think past that point. With Step One right in front of us, we often don’t think we have time to worry about Step Two and we’ll just deal with that when we get there. While wanting to fix the immediate problem is a natural human desire, refusing to look past the immediate problem frequently gets us into more trouble than it’s worth.
What if the solution we demand in Step One creates a problem in Step Two? In this case, we haven’t really solved anything; we’ve only postponed the problem. Postponing the problem is exactly what we’re doing when we confuse the issue and assign the value of “this is a right” where it does not belong.
In the example of Single Payer Health Plans, if everyone has a right to medical services, someone MUST provide those services. In Step One the patient has received service, but in Step Two the provider has been forced to render service, regardless of personal choice. Can it really be a right if it forces the violation of another person's rights? A carpenter has a right to not build a house. A farmer has a right to not grow crops. Does a doctor not have the equivalent right to not provide medical services? Why can I force a doctor to operate on me when I can’t force a farmer to feed me? Has the very act of graduating from medical school somehow changed the doctor’s rights and, if so, why aren’t students warned of this before they enroll?
While some may argue that it is issues of health or “quality of life” that alter this situation, I believe that my choice of counter examples demonstrates at least the inequality of this philosophy. Surely we all agree that food and shelter are equally health and quality of life issues. Yet even when we do step into these areas, we do not insist that every provider must play within the same government mandated game. We interfere only on a case-by-case basis where we actually deem it necessary and leave everyone else to play their own game. Why the insistence that health care be given its own all-encompassing set of rules?
Furthermore, if health care is a right, what happens when no one can provide it? If we can force doctors to render service, can we not also force eligible students to enter medical school so that we maintain the necessary amount of providers? If those who believe that health care is a right cannot embrace the logic of this idea, perhaps there is a flaw in their understanding of rights. Why is it appropriate to force one class of people but not appropriate to force another class toward the same purpose? It is an inconsistency that cannot be answered.
The reason for this is a faulty definition of rights. When properly defined, one right cannot cancel out another. I have the right to write this essay and you have the right to not read it. My right to write cannot force you to read and your right to not read cannot force me to not write. That’s the way it works, or at least that’s the way it should work.
By this definition, the only way I have a right to medical care is if I can provide it to myself. A right to health care otherwise would cancel out the provider’s right to free association and remove his right to govern his own labor. In any other situation, we would quite rightly call this slavery.
No one has the right to inflict slavery on another person, regardless of the situation. While it would certainly be nice to help people have access to medical services, we should be careful to not falsely define this generosity as a right. Courtesy isn’t a right, no matter how much better it might make the world.
If one wishes to defend rights, start by defining them correctly and consistently. If one wishes to promote access to health care, start by remembering that there are people with real rights on both sides of the issue. Both of these can be done at the same time, but they cannot be done as the same thing. Doing so is actually a promotion of slavery, and slaves don’t have rights.
Besides, who would you rather have cutting you open: the provider by choice or the provider by force?
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Basic Principles
Politically speaking, I run my life by two basic principles, which can be expressed by the acronyms TANSTAAFL and MYODB.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
and
Mind Your Own Damn Business
Those may seem like simple rules, but they cover a wide range of behavior and circumstances. Odds are that any new law proposed, any stump speech, any referendum - in short, anything that comes from or pertains to government - can be measured by at least one of these rules (being able to be measured by both is actually quite common) and, if a decision cannot be made based solely on that measurement, such a measurement will at least provide a better understanding, rendering the decision-making process much simpler.
TANSTAAFL
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing is free. This cannot be stated more simply or more accurately. If some Talking Head is promising freebies, look at the other hand. Look up the sleeve. Look under the rabbit. Look anywhere and everywhere except where said Talking Head is directing your attention. The only thing you are really being offered is a Bait-and-Switch. There is a cost and if you can't see it, that just means it is more securely hidden than most.
The most common example of this Bait-and-Switch tactic is where the freebie really is free to you (financially speaking, at least - there are still too many other strings to count), but only because someone else is being forced to pick up the tab. You may think this is a great deal, right up until the time the cards are shuffled and it becomes your turn to pay the bill. It always works that way. Agreeing that someone has the authority to force someone else to buy something for you is the exact same thing as agreeing that someone has the authority to force you to buy something for someone else. There is no getting around this truth and your turn to pay will come around.
Any time someone starts talking about freebies, that is the time to start suspecting the worst. That person is either too stupid to know the real costs or is intentionally lying to you. Does either answer really describe someone you want to be in charge of anything?
MYODB
Mind your own damn business. I cannot express clearly enough how disgusted I am that society as a whole has forgotten this rule even exists. There was a time when this was among the most basic and common education for children. That time was not even that long ago. Although it was already fading from popularity then, it was including in my upbringing, and I have not yet hit forty. Little more than a blink, in cultural terms.
Granted, even when this rule was commonly taught, most people did not live by it. This is one of the great hypocrisies ignored by those who want a return to "the good old days". There were no good old days. They have never existed. There were things that were done better then and there are things that are done better now. For the most part, the trade-off has been almost exactly even, with a net gain of zero.
Are you trying to get a law passed over something that has nothing to do with you and cannot impact your life? Shut up and mind your own damn business. Are you trying to force people to live your way when their way isn't affecting anything more than your precious sensitivities? Shut up and mind your own damn business. Are you offended because someone else took his or her life in a different direction than you took yours? Shut up and mind your own damn business.
Let me be absolutely clear. There is nothing in this rule that precludes civil discussion when we disagree, but there is a world of difference between civil discussion and legal action. You have every right to try to change someone's mind. You have no right to try to force that change when it is none of your damn business.
Whenever someone is proposing a law that you know does not pertain to him and you know does not pertain to you, stop and ask yourself: "What's the point?" Is there really a problem here that needs to be addressed or is there some unpopular group that someone wants to smash? Remember the corollary rule from TANSTAAFL: If you agree that someone has the authority to smash Unpopular Group X then you also agree that someone has the authority to smash Unpopular Group Y. Guess what. You are in Unpopular Group Y. I don't care who you are, I can promise you that there is something important to you that falls into an unpopular minority. Do you really want someone to have the authority to smash unpopular groups just because they are unpopular?
The backside of both of these rules boils down to people's tendency to forget that there is a backside to everything. Whatever you approve of in one direction will eventually be used against you in another direction. I have always said that the best way to protect my rights is to protect all rights. If I don't hand over that hammer, it can't be used against me.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in attempting to sum up the philosophy of Voltaire, said "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." (This quotation is commonly misattributed to Voltaire himself because of how Hall worded the paragraph in her book The Friends of Voltaire, where it first appeared.) While this quote deals specifically with speech, the basic principle is almost universal. Defend all that is not outright indefensible, or have no defense yourself.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
and
Mind Your Own Damn Business
Those may seem like simple rules, but they cover a wide range of behavior and circumstances. Odds are that any new law proposed, any stump speech, any referendum - in short, anything that comes from or pertains to government - can be measured by at least one of these rules (being able to be measured by both is actually quite common) and, if a decision cannot be made based solely on that measurement, such a measurement will at least provide a better understanding, rendering the decision-making process much simpler.
TANSTAAFL
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing is free. This cannot be stated more simply or more accurately. If some Talking Head is promising freebies, look at the other hand. Look up the sleeve. Look under the rabbit. Look anywhere and everywhere except where said Talking Head is directing your attention. The only thing you are really being offered is a Bait-and-Switch. There is a cost and if you can't see it, that just means it is more securely hidden than most.
The most common example of this Bait-and-Switch tactic is where the freebie really is free to you (financially speaking, at least - there are still too many other strings to count), but only because someone else is being forced to pick up the tab. You may think this is a great deal, right up until the time the cards are shuffled and it becomes your turn to pay the bill. It always works that way. Agreeing that someone has the authority to force someone else to buy something for you is the exact same thing as agreeing that someone has the authority to force you to buy something for someone else. There is no getting around this truth and your turn to pay will come around.
Any time someone starts talking about freebies, that is the time to start suspecting the worst. That person is either too stupid to know the real costs or is intentionally lying to you. Does either answer really describe someone you want to be in charge of anything?
MYODB
Mind your own damn business. I cannot express clearly enough how disgusted I am that society as a whole has forgotten this rule even exists. There was a time when this was among the most basic and common education for children. That time was not even that long ago. Although it was already fading from popularity then, it was including in my upbringing, and I have not yet hit forty. Little more than a blink, in cultural terms.
Granted, even when this rule was commonly taught, most people did not live by it. This is one of the great hypocrisies ignored by those who want a return to "the good old days". There were no good old days. They have never existed. There were things that were done better then and there are things that are done better now. For the most part, the trade-off has been almost exactly even, with a net gain of zero.
Are you trying to get a law passed over something that has nothing to do with you and cannot impact your life? Shut up and mind your own damn business. Are you trying to force people to live your way when their way isn't affecting anything more than your precious sensitivities? Shut up and mind your own damn business. Are you offended because someone else took his or her life in a different direction than you took yours? Shut up and mind your own damn business.
Let me be absolutely clear. There is nothing in this rule that precludes civil discussion when we disagree, but there is a world of difference between civil discussion and legal action. You have every right to try to change someone's mind. You have no right to try to force that change when it is none of your damn business.
Whenever someone is proposing a law that you know does not pertain to him and you know does not pertain to you, stop and ask yourself: "What's the point?" Is there really a problem here that needs to be addressed or is there some unpopular group that someone wants to smash? Remember the corollary rule from TANSTAAFL: If you agree that someone has the authority to smash Unpopular Group X then you also agree that someone has the authority to smash Unpopular Group Y. Guess what. You are in Unpopular Group Y. I don't care who you are, I can promise you that there is something important to you that falls into an unpopular minority. Do you really want someone to have the authority to smash unpopular groups just because they are unpopular?
The backside of both of these rules boils down to people's tendency to forget that there is a backside to everything. Whatever you approve of in one direction will eventually be used against you in another direction. I have always said that the best way to protect my rights is to protect all rights. If I don't hand over that hammer, it can't be used against me.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in attempting to sum up the philosophy of Voltaire, said "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." (This quotation is commonly misattributed to Voltaire himself because of how Hall worded the paragraph in her book The Friends of Voltaire, where it first appeared.) While this quote deals specifically with speech, the basic principle is almost universal. Defend all that is not outright indefensible, or have no defense yourself.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Wonder Woman Who Isn't
And now for something on a lighter tone.
DC Comics has decided to give Wonder Woman a makeover. More specifically, they have completely redesigned her costume so that it no longer even resembles the traditional Wonder Woman costume. According to Wonder Woman writer J. Michael Straczynski, the new look is an answer to the question, "how does she fight in that thing without all her parts falling out?" Frankly, while I usually admire Straczynski's writing, anyone who actually believes that question deserves an answer needs to rethink writing for comic books. Comic book costumes, whether male or female, have never been about realism. They are about achieving a certain look and the only look this new costume achieves is, "I'm going to the mall and hopefully I'll be met there by someone with better fashion taste."
If you couldn't tell, I think the new costume stinks. It doesn't stink because it removes the traditional red, white, and blue. While modern comics writers' continued attempts to remove Americanism from their products is annoying and offensive, the American look on a character who is not supposed to be American never made a great deal of sense. It doesn't stink because they put Wonder Woman in pants, though the idea of an Amazon warrior princess wearing spandex pants makes about as much sense as putting Batman in dayglow pink. It stinks because it is a bad design that doesn't even pay homage to the icon of Wonder Woman. And it looks suspiciously like they just copied one of the old Donna Troy costumes and added some "updates".
Wonder Woman does not belong in black pants and a leather jacket any more than does Superman (Anyone remember that lame costume design for Superboy?). It is a ridiculous clash with the character. Wonder Woman is an Amazon warrior princess who now looks like a teenager's fashion nightmare.
That jacket? "She can close it up to pass unnoticed...open it for the freedom to fight..." Really? A major superhero is just going to close up a jacket to "pass unnoticed"? Closing up the jacket is going to "hide" the striking woman who stands well over 6' tall and is wearing shining bracelets-gloves-things and a glowing lasso? Somehow I don't think so. Besides, I'm looking at your drawing and there is no way she is closing that jacket. Let's just say it wouldn't stretch that far.
The pants? An Amazon Warrior princess in pants? Really? That makes sense to you? Okay, so the old granny panties didn't make much sense either. Then how about we update her look to a Greek-styled armored skirt? That gives freedom of movement and can be sufficiently long enough to keep the squeamish from whining. Also, you might want to take note of the fact that the color black does not belong anywhere near anything worn by Wonder Woman. She is not Catwoman or Batgirl.
The top is fine. It's still red, still has the "W". I am amused by the fact that it is also still low-cut enough that I have to wonder how it answers the "parts falling out" question.
DC does this occasionally. They change an iconic character's look, trying to "update" it and make it fresh, and it always fails. Every time they end up reverting to the iconic look to prevent an army of fans from storming their offices. They've done it with Batman, Superman, Superboy, Flash, and who knows who else. You would think they'd learn eventually.
In short, this is not Wonder Woman. This new design would only barely fly in an Elseworlds or what-if type story, but it becomes official in the mainstream Wonder Woman comics today. Anyone taking bets on how long it lasts?
Let's see if I can attach a few pictures for comparison.
This new thing they're calling Wonder Woman.
DC Comics has decided to give Wonder Woman a makeover. More specifically, they have completely redesigned her costume so that it no longer even resembles the traditional Wonder Woman costume. According to Wonder Woman writer J. Michael Straczynski, the new look is an answer to the question, "how does she fight in that thing without all her parts falling out?" Frankly, while I usually admire Straczynski's writing, anyone who actually believes that question deserves an answer needs to rethink writing for comic books. Comic book costumes, whether male or female, have never been about realism. They are about achieving a certain look and the only look this new costume achieves is, "I'm going to the mall and hopefully I'll be met there by someone with better fashion taste."
If you couldn't tell, I think the new costume stinks. It doesn't stink because it removes the traditional red, white, and blue. While modern comics writers' continued attempts to remove Americanism from their products is annoying and offensive, the American look on a character who is not supposed to be American never made a great deal of sense. It doesn't stink because they put Wonder Woman in pants, though the idea of an Amazon warrior princess wearing spandex pants makes about as much sense as putting Batman in dayglow pink. It stinks because it is a bad design that doesn't even pay homage to the icon of Wonder Woman. And it looks suspiciously like they just copied one of the old Donna Troy costumes and added some "updates".
Wonder Woman does not belong in black pants and a leather jacket any more than does Superman (Anyone remember that lame costume design for Superboy?). It is a ridiculous clash with the character. Wonder Woman is an Amazon warrior princess who now looks like a teenager's fashion nightmare.
That jacket? "She can close it up to pass unnoticed...open it for the freedom to fight..." Really? A major superhero is just going to close up a jacket to "pass unnoticed"? Closing up the jacket is going to "hide" the striking woman who stands well over 6' tall and is wearing shining bracelets-gloves-things and a glowing lasso? Somehow I don't think so. Besides, I'm looking at your drawing and there is no way she is closing that jacket. Let's just say it wouldn't stretch that far.
The pants? An Amazon Warrior princess in pants? Really? That makes sense to you? Okay, so the old granny panties didn't make much sense either. Then how about we update her look to a Greek-styled armored skirt? That gives freedom of movement and can be sufficiently long enough to keep the squeamish from whining. Also, you might want to take note of the fact that the color black does not belong anywhere near anything worn by Wonder Woman. She is not Catwoman or Batgirl.
The top is fine. It's still red, still has the "W". I am amused by the fact that it is also still low-cut enough that I have to wonder how it answers the "parts falling out" question.
DC does this occasionally. They change an iconic character's look, trying to "update" it and make it fresh, and it always fails. Every time they end up reverting to the iconic look to prevent an army of fans from storming their offices. They've done it with Batman, Superman, Superboy, Flash, and who knows who else. You would think they'd learn eventually.
In short, this is not Wonder Woman. This new design would only barely fly in an Elseworlds or what-if type story, but it becomes official in the mainstream Wonder Woman comics today. Anyone taking bets on how long it lasts?
Let's see if I can attach a few pictures for comparison.
This new thing they're calling Wonder Woman.
I don't care for the muddy colors in this one, but the physical design is nearly perfect and would address their supposed issues.
Classic Wonder Woman, as done by the untouchable Alex Ross.
I won't even go into the stupid redesign of Wonder Woman's origin since no one will pay attention to it anyway. Wonder Woman is an Amazon warrior princess from the island of Themyscira, no matter what the geniuses currently in charge try to claim.
Copyright note: The images in this article are used for reporting and comparison purposes only. These images do not belong to me and I make no claim to them. Wonder Woman and all associated imagery belongs to DC Comics.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Busybodies Are At It Again
While SB 1070 has claimed the lion's share of the attention lately, it was far from the only law scheduled to go into effect in Arizona today. One of those new laws is the so-called sexting law, which makes it a class 2 misdemeanor for minors to send or possess sexually explicit text messages to or from another minor. The law appears to be aimed primarily at teens, those being the main culprits according to most surveys on the subject. I still think a class 2 misdemeanor is overreacting, but it certainly beats the asinine alternative of charging these teens under child porn laws for taking pictures of themselves. Stop and think about the illogic of that for a moment.
That is not really what I want to discuss today, though. I realize that I am in the minority here and there is no indication that American public opinion will change in my lifetime. We will continue to treat post-adolescents as though they were 8-years-old and then we will continue to wonder why they have no idea how to act like adults when the time comes. Then, of course, we will continue to wring our hands and claim that we do not know why this is, because we are too busy "protecting the children" to pay any attention to reality.
Skip it. No one will pay attention anyway.
What really caught my attention here was a talk with Chris Segrin, University of Arizona department head of communication and psychology professor. Segrin has apparently done studies on the subject and he is clever enough to notice that the previous situation (using child porn laws against sexting teens) didn't make sense. Now he wants to do studies on sexting at the college level.
“If college students were doing this, it would be much more difficult to catch them.”
Catch them? Catch them for what? Are we saying that a university department head is not aware of the fact that college students are not minors? Sure, there is the occasional 16 or 17-year-old who is ahead of the curve, but their numbers are so small as to relatively not count. College students are legal adults. When it comes to sexting, there is nothing to "catch them" about. It is none of your business.
There is no argument that sexting is not the most brilliant activity in the world, but then, most of a teen's activities are not the most brilliant activities in the world. If you haven't noticed that then you probably don't spend much time around teens.
This kind of ties in with a report I read the other day claiming that colleges don't do enough to keep students from drinking? The reason? They don't nag college towns into cutting down the number of places one can acquire alcohol or requiring stricter standards for those who sell alcohol. Really? Those are a college's areas of responsibility? Silly me, I thought colleges were for higher education.
Somewhere along the way someone got the hair-brained idea that our colleges were supposed to be something more like 19th century finishing schools. According to this line of thinking, colleges are supposed to be brainwashing ... excuse me, I mean teaching young adults about everything from acceptable social norms to how to make the perfect protest sign. Meanwhile, education (you know, the kind parents are actually paying for, that comes in curriculum and textbooks) standards are dropping like rocks and the value of a college deploma is slipping closer and closer to worthless.
Maybe of these so-called professors spent a little less time micromanaging things that are none of their business and a little more time teaching the subjects they are being paid to teach, we might find that some of these "problems" fixed themselves. You'd be amazed by what people can do when they actually learn.
That is not really what I want to discuss today, though. I realize that I am in the minority here and there is no indication that American public opinion will change in my lifetime. We will continue to treat post-adolescents as though they were 8-years-old and then we will continue to wonder why they have no idea how to act like adults when the time comes. Then, of course, we will continue to wring our hands and claim that we do not know why this is, because we are too busy "protecting the children" to pay any attention to reality.
Skip it. No one will pay attention anyway.
What really caught my attention here was a talk with Chris Segrin, University of Arizona department head of communication and psychology professor. Segrin has apparently done studies on the subject and he is clever enough to notice that the previous situation (using child porn laws against sexting teens) didn't make sense. Now he wants to do studies on sexting at the college level.
“If college students were doing this, it would be much more difficult to catch them.”
Catch them? Catch them for what? Are we saying that a university department head is not aware of the fact that college students are not minors? Sure, there is the occasional 16 or 17-year-old who is ahead of the curve, but their numbers are so small as to relatively not count. College students are legal adults. When it comes to sexting, there is nothing to "catch them" about. It is none of your business.
There is no argument that sexting is not the most brilliant activity in the world, but then, most of a teen's activities are not the most brilliant activities in the world. If you haven't noticed that then you probably don't spend much time around teens.
This kind of ties in with a report I read the other day claiming that colleges don't do enough to keep students from drinking? The reason? They don't nag college towns into cutting down the number of places one can acquire alcohol or requiring stricter standards for those who sell alcohol. Really? Those are a college's areas of responsibility? Silly me, I thought colleges were for higher education.
Somewhere along the way someone got the hair-brained idea that our colleges were supposed to be something more like 19th century finishing schools. According to this line of thinking, colleges are supposed to be brainwashing ... excuse me, I mean teaching young adults about everything from acceptable social norms to how to make the perfect protest sign. Meanwhile, education (you know, the kind parents are actually paying for, that comes in curriculum and textbooks) standards are dropping like rocks and the value of a college deploma is slipping closer and closer to worthless.
Maybe of these so-called professors spent a little less time micromanaging things that are none of their business and a little more time teaching the subjects they are being paid to teach, we might find that some of these "problems" fixed themselves. You'd be amazed by what people can do when they actually learn.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
A Letter To The New York Times
I realize that I have been quiet lately, but I will be trying to change that. Let's start by taking on one of the biggest newspapers in the country, shall we? I sent the following letter to the New York Times today. Shall we see how they respond?
I am curious as to whether or not your newspaper continues to employ a legal department or are people like Paul Krugman allowed to write libelous statements in your editorials and get away with it simply because it is called an opinion piece?
In the article titled "Who Cooked the Planet?" dated July 25, 2010, Krugman writes the following paragraph:
"You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media."
This is a blatant lie and I have a very difficult time believing that Mr. Krugman does not know that it is a lie. It has been argued that the importance of the emails was overstated; it has been argued that the emails did not mean what people claimed or thought that they meant; it has been argued that the emails did not invalidate the science. It has not been argued, let alone charged or proved, that the scandal was a fraud.
An accusation of fraud is an accusation of a crime and for a newspaper to print that someone has been proven to have committed a crime knowing that no such crime has been proven is libel. Ask your legal department, if you still have one.
I fully realize that Mr. Krugman believes that he is above the common man and thus able to say anything he pleases with impunity, but this is not legally true. He is bound by the same legal standards as all the rest of us and you, as a prominent newspaper, are even more bound.
I am sure that you will prepare a correction for this before any lawyers become interested, though I am equally sure that you will bury that correction so that no one ever sees it, except by accident. You should be aware, of course, that bloggers will be quite interested in such a gaff in such a major newspaper.
I am curious as to whether or not your newspaper continues to employ a legal department or are people like Paul Krugman allowed to write libelous statements in your editorials and get away with it simply because it is called an opinion piece?
In the article titled "Who Cooked the Planet?" dated July 25, 2010, Krugman writes the following paragraph:
"You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media."
This is a blatant lie and I have a very difficult time believing that Mr. Krugman does not know that it is a lie. It has been argued that the importance of the emails was overstated; it has been argued that the emails did not mean what people claimed or thought that they meant; it has been argued that the emails did not invalidate the science. It has not been argued, let alone charged or proved, that the scandal was a fraud.
An accusation of fraud is an accusation of a crime and for a newspaper to print that someone has been proven to have committed a crime knowing that no such crime has been proven is libel. Ask your legal department, if you still have one.
I fully realize that Mr. Krugman believes that he is above the common man and thus able to say anything he pleases with impunity, but this is not legally true. He is bound by the same legal standards as all the rest of us and you, as a prominent newspaper, are even more bound.
I am sure that you will prepare a correction for this before any lawyers become interested, though I am equally sure that you will bury that correction so that no one ever sees it, except by accident. You should be aware, of course, that bloggers will be quite interested in such a gaff in such a major newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)