A thread for debate: "Resolved: Frank Miller is an eagle."

[Arrogantcur]

I am aware that to certain parties' eyes, if I say something bad about Frank Miller I am an "ant." So I won't start this post with my own opinions, but rather with those of somebody whom can certainly not be considered insignificant or unworthy to criticize Mr. Miller...

GRANT MORRISON: And while we're on that subject...Batman vs. Al Qaeda! It might as well be Bin Laden vs. King Kong! Or how about the sinister Al Qaeda mastermind up against a hungry Hannibal Lecter! For all the good it's likely to do. Cheering on a fictional character as he beats up fictionalized terrorists seems like a decadent indulgence when real terrorists are killing real people in the real world. I'd be so much more impressed if Frank Miller gave up all this graphic novel nonsense, joined the Army and, with a howl of undying hate, rushed headlong onto the front lines with the young soldiers who are actually risking life and limb 'vs' Al Qaeda.

Let me start with the good. I read Miller's "Man Without Fear" graphic novel and liked it, even though it requires more suspension of disbelief than other DD stories; in it, Murdock doesn't seem to have a radar sense. (The idea of a man without sight but with a new sense replacing his sight along with heightened senses being an effective crimefighter is much more plausible than the idea of a man without sight and with heightened senses being an effective crimefighter.) I haven't read "Born Again" but I know it is an extremely significant story and has earned praise, which I'm sure it deserves. I know he's the guy behind Sin City and 300, both of which were made into films that were well-received.

Yes, Frank Miller has quite a resume. But these days when I think about Frank Miller, I don't think "eagle." I think "hawk." If quotes like the following are any indication, the "hawk" label fits:

FRANK MILLER: Let's finally talk about the enemy. Somebody--for some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against, uh, and the sixth-century barbarism they actually represent. These people saw peoples' heads off. They enslave women, they genetically mutilate their daughters. Um, they, they, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. Um, I'm speaking into a microphone that never could've been a product of their culture. And I'm living in a city where 3,000 of my neighbors were killed by, uh, thieves of airplanes they never could've built.

As soon as Miller starts talking about the microphone he's speaking into, it becomes clear that he is not only referring to terrorists, but an entire culture. He gets stuff wrong, too, because while female circumcision (http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/circumcision/female/) is a horrible thing it is NOT a Muslim thing or even a Middle Eastern thing. (Click on that hyperlink to see.)

As for the stuff he doesn't get wrong:

-Yes, sometimes people's heads are cut off, and sometimes its because they broke laws that shouldn't have been in place to begin with (laws against homosexuality, for instance). But the U.S. justice system isn't all that great either. It's better, yes. It's still not very good. People are executed, and the fact that it's done by methods other than decapitation doesn't leave them any less dead. People are imprisoned for being on the wrong side in the "war on drugs." Conditions in prisons do constitute "cruel and unusual punishment." Etc.

-Countries like Saudi Arabia are far behind the rest of the world when it comes to women's rights. That statement is true, but it's been less than a hundred years since women nationwide were allowed to vote, in every state. Again, it's better. Again, it's still not very good.

Here is my point. You can talk about all the things wrong with a culture as a justification for going to war against it, as Miller does here. But if those are indeed valid reasons for war against a people, for viewing a people as "the enemy" and not worrying too much about how many of them die, then an equally lengthy list of valid reasons could have been written up about the United States (and indeed, about my home country of Canada as well). It wouldn't surprise me if Bin Laden and/or al-Zawahiri wrote up just such a list as justification for their attacks.

We are talking about human beings here. They didn't choose where they would be born. Plus, being born in a certan part of the world does not make you evil.

And yet, Miller still believed in the invasion of Iraq:

Frank Miller: People say why did we attack Iraq for instance. Well, we’re taking on an idea. Nobody questions why after Pearl Harbor we attacked Nazi Germany. It’s because we were taking on a form of global fascism. We’re doing the same thing now.

Neil Conan: They did declare war on us.

Miller: Yeah, what I mean is…pfft…so did Iraq (chuckling).

The post 9/11 Frank Miller seems to be proof that sometimes suffering personal tragedy can turn you into a worse person. He is, as Morrison says, filled with hatred.

Most New Yorkers in 2004 voted for Kerry, because they did not believe in Bush's war. Frank Miller probably voted Bush, because he admits to not only believing in Bush's war but to believing other things that he shouldn't (Iraq declared war on the U.S.? Really? Even in Desert Storm they declared war on Kuwait, which is different).

So with these political opinions, with this uglified picture of what a Muslim is or what a resident of the Middle East is burned into his brain, Frank Miller is at work on "Holy Terror, Batman!" wherein Batman fights Al-Qaeda. I do not expect a flattering portrayal of Arabs here, nor even a sympathetic one. What I anticipate is a book full of anti-Arab propaganda, a book which shows just how evil Miller thinks their culture is, a book with a jingoistic message.

Maybe I am mistaken. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised and the story will not be anything like that.

I doubt it, though. And that's why I do not believe Frank Miller to be anything resembling an eagle.

I'll be blunt: those quotes of his make it much more tempting for me to liken him to a creature a whole lot less airborne and a whole lot more slimy. One which can be killed with salt.

[Linkara]

Ignoring the political aspects of a few things that Frank Miller and I agree on (well, in the sense that I still support the invasion of Iraq, but not for the bullshit reasons he's spewing), I knew Holy Terror was a bad idea from the start.

Hell, is there anyone who truly still follows Frank Miller's work because they think it's the height of genius? EVERYTHING he does is over the top machismo, sexist, racist bullcrap. Hell, I always love to promote this detailed analysis of Frank Miller's mind based on his work: http://arionhunter.livejournal.com/73602.html

The man's an awful writer and I don't understand what the hell happened to him. It's not just 9/11, since he was having the same writing issues since even a little bit before Sin City. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, he's a useless bloody looney.

[Arrogantcur]

Thanks for the link, Linkara. (Tell me the truth, did you choose your username just so people would say stuff like that? :tongue: )

I read the entry and here are some of the things I thought while reading certain parts:

"gay white racists Nazis."

The hell??? I haven't read "Martha Washington" in which these people apparently appear, but...."gay white racist Nazis?" Really? Truly?

Damn. Parody or not, that's...I haven't the words. Doesn't strike me as a funny idea. It does strike me as potentially quite offensive.

Sparta is freedom, Sparta is glory and life. Sparta is the Greek embodiment of this democratic ideal. Sparta is The Nation. Persia is weird, inhuman; their Nation is illegitimate, as it is dedicated not to ideas but a man who himself embodies decadent deviance.

Interesting. So we're talking white hats and black here, good versus evil, no humanizing the enemy because...they're the enemy, I guess? And enemies are always inhuman, not worthy of sympathy of mercy?

Martha is only female and black to allow Miller to touch on issues of race and gender (Mainly to decry social programs like affirmative action and welfare).

Well, that's just lovely.


Ignoring the political aspects of a few things that Frank Miller and I agree on (well, in the sense that I still support the invasion of Iraq, but not for the bullshit reasons he's spewing), I knew Holy Terror was a bad idea from the start.

If you don't mind my asking, why?

[Jake V]

He's like an eagle that once flew proudly, but at some point got old or something hit him in the head and he hasn't been flying right ever since.

And that's a pretty easy observation to make from down here with the ants.

[Flâneur]

Frank Miller is a bird of prey undergoing a series of poke-evolutions. A few more level ups and he will become the vulture.

[Arrogantcur]

Frank Miller is a bird of prey undergoing a series of poke-evolutions. A few more level ups and he will become the vulture.

Heh. :evilsmile:

[Lester C.]

Here is the real problem. Most comic book writers and internet fans are very liberal and there is nothing wrong with that as I’m very liberal myself. But Batman on the other hand is a Neo Con’s we dream. We have this multibillion dollar capitalist that goes around and tortures people to prevent acts of terror permeating Gotham City. Batman even releases the majority of the people he’s tortured and is shocked when they go back to crime. Metaphorically you can look at Batman as an analogy for Bush and his war on terror if you think about it. Other than Frank Castle I am hard-pressed to think of a bigger hawk than Batman.

[Linkara]

Thanks for the link, Linkara. (Tell me the truth, did you choose your username just so people would say stuff like that? :tongue: )

Nah, though most people think I'm going for a Legend of Zelda thing. :tongue:

If you don't mind my asking, why?
Well, as long as it doesn't start ANOTHER political thread (every political thread ends up depressing the hell out of me)... More or less, I don't like dictatorships and I don't like oppression. I believe that military power can be used to end such dictatorships, especially when diplomacy fails (and based on research I had done, especially in regards to the United Nations' own dealings with Saddam Hussein, diplomacy was just a tool to buy more time). Do I think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Of course he did - he was EXECUTED for using them in his own country. Did I think he had nukes? Eh, probably not, but one would be naive to think he wasn't trying to get them. Has the war gone as well as I had hoped? Well, yes and no. The fact is that we did win Iraq... we just have had a real shitty time with the aftermath. After all, our soldiers are trained to go and destroy the enemy, which they did. They're not trained to rebuild nations.

As for the good Mr. Miller's excuses, while I'm not sure if he was trying to describe the policies of nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and every other freaking country that follows Sharia law or something similar that's as horrendous (we live in the 21st century and we still have issues with rights in the United States, of all places), his rhetoric was over-the-top and I have little doubt that in his mind, if it's an arab that isn't a victim that needs to be rescued (i.e. the damsels in distress), they're just another terrorist.

Frank Miller is a bird of prey undergoing a series of poke-evolutions. A few more level ups and he will become the vulture.
I thought the Poké-evolutions were supposed to make you BETTER? :tongue:

[Tobias March]

Here is the real problem. Most comic book writers and internet fans are very liberal and there is nothing wrong with that as I’m very liberal myself. But Batman on the other hand is a Neo Con’s we dream. We have this multibillion dollar capitalist that goes around and tortures people to prevent acts of terror permeating Gotham City. Batman even releases the majority of the people he’s tortured and is shocked when they go back to crime. Metaphorically you can look at Batman as an analogy for Bush and his war on terror if you think about it. Other than Frank Castle I am hard-pressed to think of a bigger hawk than Batman.

So you're saying liberals can't write characters with different political beliefs?

I mean Frank Miller can't write for crap - but Willingham has rightwing views and is quite the wordsmith.

[Flâneur]

I thought the Poké-evolutions were supposed to make you BETTER? :tongue:
Miller is Poké-evolving in his own way. You're just bitter with envy that you'll never be a vulture like him, miss ANT ANT ANT!

[Lester C.]

So you're saying liberals can't write characters with different political beliefs?

I mean Frank Miller can't write for crap - but Willingham has rightwing views and is quite the wordsmith.

No. What I'm saying is that liberals are complaining about Batman being a radical conservative when he's a radical conservative.

For reasons not pertinent to this thread, I have never and will never support Willingham.

[Flâneur]

No. What I'm saying is that liberals are complaining about Batman being a radical conservative when he's a radical conservative.

For reasons not pertinent to this thread, I have never and will never support Willingham.

What thread would it be pertinent to outline these reasons in?

[Lester C.]

What thread would it be pertinent to outline these reasons in?

None of them really. I have an ax to grind against him, and to do so when he isn't here to defend himself isn't right.

[Tobias March]

No. What I'm saying is that liberals are complaining about Batman being a radical conservative when he's a radical conservative.

For reasons not pertinent to this thread, I have never and will never support Willingham.

I don't think Holy Terror Batman can be justified with reference to conservatism, radical or otherwise. It's absurd.

[Lester C.]

I don't think Holy Terror Batman can be justified with reference to conservatism, radical or otherwise. It's absurd.

I was taking about Batman in general. I could never get into Frank Miller beyond the stuff he did in the 80s and some to the Martha Washington stuff in did in the 90s.

[Tobias March]

I was taking about Batman in general. I could never get into Frank Miller beyond the stuff he did in the 80s and some to the Martha Washington stuff in did in the 90s.

See most superheroes, ideologically speaking, are political radicals. They hide their identities. Mete out their own form of 'justice'. Resent government interference.

Batman is not the exception in those terms.

[Lester C.]

See most superheroes, ideologically speaking, are political radicals. They hide their identities. Mete out their own form of 'justice'. Resent government interference.

Batman is not the exception in those terms.

Batman is different. He uses physical and psychological torture to safeguard his city. Now in a comic book setting its very, very cool. In the real world not so much.

[Tobias March]

Batman is different. He uses physical and psychological torture to safeguard his city. Now in a comic book setting its very, very cool. In the real world not so much.

Ever hear of the Spectre? He's got the power of the Lord!

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/354/adv431p3.gif

Then there are out and out fascists like Judge Dredd or the Comedian. These are extreme examples.

Batman is many things to many people. Sometimes he is the technological wizard, sometimes the demonic seeming street vigilante who seeks to strike terror into street criminals. Sometimes, like in Rock of Ages, he's the consummate businessmen who defeats rivals like Lex Luthor in the boardroom.

One perspective on him is Jack Bauer in a costume. Certainly some see him in those terms (Rorschach could be seen as a comment on that). Then there's the objectivist Mr. A or the Question. There are many politically extreme superheroes. Even Green Arrow, the token liberal, is suspect by that reading.

Remember in Watchmen, the comparison to the KKK? It's quite astute.

[Santanico]

The hell??? I haven't read "Martha Washington" in which these people apparently appear, but...."gay white racist Nazis?" Really? Truly?

Damn. Parody or not, that's...I haven't the words. Doesn't strike me as a funny idea. It does strike me as potentially quite offensive.

Oh, Miller just hates him some queens. Not Hawt Lesbians (Family Values), you understand, or even gay guys who are so absurdly macho that insecure straight men can just about bring themselves to forgive them for liking cock (Hell and Back). No, I mean queens - swishy, sparkly, femmy, make-up-wearin', jewellery-flashin' paragons of fabulousness. In almost everything he's done (but especially since he, y'know, lost his mind), men like this are held up as prime examples of How The World Has Lost Its Way. (And actual transgender people - DKR, Hell and Back again - are portrayed as even more pathetic/monstrous than this.)

See, Miller has been very vocal in interviews about how awful he thinks it is that our society has become "feminized" (because what could be worse than following the example of stupid weak sissy women?! I mean, ugh!) and that there aren't any Real Men out there any more. To a guy like this, I guess nothing symbolizes the crumbling of society more succinctly than a man who wears eyeshadow.

[Tobias March]

Oh, Miller just hates him some queens. Not Hawt Lesbians (Family Values), you understand, or even gay guys who are so absurdly macho that insecure straight men can just about bring themselves to forgive them for liking cock (Hell and Back). No, I mean queens - swishy, sparkly, femmy, make-up-wearin', jewellery-flashin' paragons of fabulousness. In almost everything he's done (but especially since he, y'know, lost his mind), men like this are held up as prime examples of How The World Has Lost Its Way. (And actual transgender people - DKR, Hell and Back again - are portrayed as even more pathetic/monstrous than this.)

See, Miller has been very vocal in interviews about how awful he thinks it is that our society has become "feminized" (because what could be worse than following the example of stupid weak sissy women?! I mean, ugh!) and that there aren't any Real Men out there any more. To a guy like this, I guess nothing symbolizes the crumbling of society more succinctly than a man who wears eyeshadow.


What if Frank Miller wrote Spider-Man?

http://jaypinkerton.com/spiderman/15.jpg

[AllisterH]

I've always considered superheroes to be an inherently libertarian (leaning towards the conservative side).

The idea that a person can dress up and act as a law enforcer to me seems that "No, the government can not do anything for you" which I've always saw as an CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN idea.

Hell, didn't Obama get elected on the ibelief that, yes, government can be a force for good (I'm wondering how marvel with its liberal writers are going to get around this...)

You know, I wonder if one could argue that comicbooks have actually helped create a generation of people that distrust government and thus are suspicious of taxes et al...

[Arrogantcur]

Well, as long as it doesn't start ANOTHER political thread (every political thread ends up depressing the hell out of me)... More or less, I don't like dictatorships and I don't like oppression. I believe that military power can be used to end such dictatorships, especially when diplomacy fails (and based on research I had done, especially in regards to the United Nations' own dealings with Saddam Hussein, diplomacy was just a tool to buy more time). Do I think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Of course he did - he was EXECUTED for using them in his own country. Did I think he had nukes? Eh, probably not, but one would be naive to think he wasn't trying to get them. Has the war gone as well as I had hoped? Well, yes and no. The fact is that we did win Iraq... we just have had a real shitty time with the aftermath. After all, our soldiers are trained to go and destroy the enemy, which they did. They're not trained to rebuild nations.

Before the actual invasion I asked myself which I considered worse: allowing a dictator to oppress people, or taking an action that would not only remove that dictator but almost certainly kill many of the very people that an invasion would supposedly be saving. I concluded that with so many innocents in the line of fire, fewer people would suffer if Saddam had been left in power than would suffer as the result of an invasion. I also didn't like the idea that the blood of any Iraqis who died during that invasion would be on America's hands--not Hussein's. Remember that I'm a dual citizen and that I grew up believing the idea that America was the good guys. For all my criticism of U.S. policy, I was really proud of America when I was younger. I didn't want a nation I'd been proud of to have the blood of innocent people on its hands, because then I could no longer be proud of it. If you're thinking that I was ignoring Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the fact that there was plenty of blood from innocent Japanese on America's hands, then you'd be right. I'm not happy about that at all. Still, that didn't happen in my lifetime and it wasn't a war started by the U.S. Iraq was different, contrary to what Miller claims.

None of them really. I have an ax to grind against him, and to do so when he isn't here to defend himself isn't right.

I can't see why it's not right. Chuck Norris isn't here to defend himself. George W. Bush isn't here to defend himself. Sarah Palin isn't here to defend herself. On and on and on.

If somebody does something wrong, I find it perfectly acceptable to talk about how awful their actions are, and how awful a person they are.

The idea that a person can dress up and act as a law enforcer to me seems that "No, the government can not do anything for you" which I've always saw as an CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN idea.

It may have started out that way. However, according to Gail most people in the industry right now aren't conservative at all. Look at the stories, interviews, blog posts, etc. and you'll see what I mean. As a result, many of the characters they're currently writing aren't really conservative either.

[Arrogantcur]

Oh, Miller just hates him some queens. Not Hawt Lesbians (Family Values), you understand, or even gay guys who are so absurdly macho that insecure straight men can just about bring themselves to forgive them for liking cock (Hell and Back). No, I mean queens - swishy, sparkly, femmy, make-up-wearin', jewellery-flashin' paragons of fabulousness. In almost everything he's done (but especially since he, y'know, lost his mind), men like this are held up as prime examples of How The World Has Lost Its Way. (And actual transgender people - DKR, Hell and Back again - are portrayed as even more pathetic/monstrous than this.)

See, Miller has been very vocal in interviews about how awful he thinks it is that our society has become "feminized" (because what could be worse than following the example of stupid weak sissy women?! I mean, ugh!) and that there aren't any Real Men out there any more. To a guy like this, I guess nothing symbolizes the crumbling of society more succinctly than a man who wears eyeshadow.

Oy.

I don't care how many stories somebody's written and I don't care how good those stories were; if they're enough of a jerk, they don't deserve respect. They deserve the exact opposite. I damn well will condescend to such a person if I feel like it, and I do think he deserves a comeuppance.

[Linkara]

Before the actual invasion I asked myself which I considered worse: allowing a dictator to oppress people, or taking an action that would not only remove that dictator but almost certainly kill many of the very people that an invasion would supposedly be saving. I concluded that with so many innocents in the line of fire, fewer people would suffer if Saddam had been left in power than would suffer as the result of an invasion. I also didn't like the idea that the blood of any Iraqis who died during that invasion would be on America's hands--not Hussein's. Remember that I'm a dual citizen and that I grew up believing the idea that America was the good guys. For all my criticism of U.S. policy, I was really proud of America when I was younger. I didn't want a nation I'd been proud of to have the blood of innocent people on its hands, because then I could no longer be proud of it. If you're thinking that I was ignoring Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the fact that there was plenty of blood from innocent Japanese on America's hands, then you'd be right. I'm not happy about that at all. Still, that didn't happen in my lifetime and it wasn't a war started by the U.S. Iraq was different, contrary to what Miller claims.

Which is of course a legitimate position and opinion to hold and I respectfully disagree on a few points. Hey, kids! See how it's possible to disagree without yelling at each other? :redface: :tongue: :biggrin: But yeah, not going to take it any further since no likee the politics.

It may have started out that way. However, according to Gail most people in the industry right now aren't conservative at all. Look at the stories, interviews, blog posts, etc. and you'll see what I mean. As a result, many of the characters they're currently writing aren't really conservative either.

Which is why DCU: Decisions was such a horrible idea. You'll notice that a lot of characters don't necessarily act conservative OR liberal - they just do their jobs of fighting evil. Hell, I'm a conservative, and as much as I love Power Girl, I don't buy for a second that she's one, too, just because of her more aggressive stances.

[Corrina]

If somebody does something wrong, I find it perfectly acceptable to talk about how awful their actions are, and how awful a person they are.




In general...

If one tends to stick to one subject all the time, it can make someone seem obsessive. I mean, I want George W. Bush to stand trial for crimes against humanity (and stupidity but they don't seem to have a prison sentence for that). But after while, the obsession can do me more harm than good.

Like Joe & his threads. He does tend to stick to one subject.

As for Batman, I always saw him as more of a libertarian. Doesn't trust the government one bit. He doesn't always trust people either but I don't think paranoia is a political party. <g> But the question on his political stance is whether he thinks the government is inherently not helpful or if it's just corrupt and needs to be cleaned up. If the answer is the former, he's definitely a libertarian--no government or as little as possible.

If it's the latter, if he thinks government can do some good, it gets more complicated. Because Republicans are generally for *less* government unless it's related to crime and law enforcement, and then they're for me government oversight.

Democrats are generally for more government but instead of being a punisher, they see crime as a social issue.

Given what Bruce Wayne has sunk his money into, I'd say he's probably more of a believer in social reform, which would probably put him into the Democratic camp.

But, mostly, I think Batman is our mother.

See this:

http://www.sequentialtart.com/article.php?id=1241

[PatrickG]

Batman is legally deputized.

He doesn't torture. He doesn't kill.

He's sane, chivalrous, takes care of widows and orphans, he uses fear and surgically and tactically creates a minimum of damage, is never ruled by his rage but masters it. He is the consumate humanist and the pinnacle of human compassion, reason and achievement.

I blame any contrary portrayal of Batman on Dr. Hurt's brainwashing, Mageddon and Earth-31's Monitor going rogue and mucking with reality.

[AllisterH]

Given what Bruce Wayne has sunk his money into, I'd say he's probably more of a believer in social reform, which would probably put him into the Democratic camp.

]

I know Bruce Wayne has put money into charities and scholarships, but I thought he spent most of his time and money on BATMAN thus the punishment side of the equation (Republican).

[Arrogantcur]

If one tends to stick to one subject all the time, it can make someone seem obsessive. I mean, I want George W. Bush to stand trial for crimes against humanity (and stupidity but they don't seem to have a prison sentence for that). But after while, the obsession can do me more harm than good.

Well, when he was Governor of Texas Dubya took the position that stupidity was no excuse, and thus mentally retarded people were executed in his state. It'd be kind of funny if he were brought up on charges, and were able to plead stupidity. I.e. "Everything bad that happened during my time in office was just innocent screwups and not intentional wrongdoing on my part at all, I swear!" Then somebody could say "Irrelevant! Stupidity is no excuse!" and he would be S.O.L.

(I wish my fantasies were more fun...)

Anyway, I'm afraid there are some things I do kind of obsess over. I could get into the possible reasons, as I have been seeing a psychologist for the past several months, but that's a post for another time.

Hey, kids! See how it's possible to disagree without yelling at each other? :redface: :tongue: :biggrin:

Yup. At least we agree that Miller's reasons for being in favour of it were wrong, and that's something.

I know Bruce Wayne has put money into charities and scholarships, but I thought he spent most of his time and money on BATMAN thus the punishment side of the equation (Republican).

How often has he killed, though? Republicans seem to be for the death penalty (with some exceptions, of course).

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Batman is legally deputized.

He doesn't torture. He doesn't kill.

He's sane, chivalrous, takes care of widows and orphans, he uses fear and surgically and tactically creates a minimum of damage, is never ruled by his rage but masters it. He is the consumate humanist and the pinnacle of human compassion, reason and achievement.

I blame any contrary portrayal of Batman on Dr. Hurt's brainwashing, Mageddon and Earth-31's Monitor going rogue and mucking with reality.

Thing is, regarding Batman: Year One, for instance--Batman was essentially Zorro, dealing with entrenched corruption, and standing up for the people. More Che Guevara than Mussolini, I'd say--and when I've beaten the living crap out of muggers (twice out of five muggings), I didn't feel the least bit confused about my politics. I was an individual defending myself, as I've defended others weaker than myself in other situations. That's not fascism--it's self-preservation and common human decency--being a morally responsible human being who hates injustice. It's like calling the ACLU a fascist organization.

Neither do I agree with characterizations of Martha Washington as some exposition on 'welfare state' crap--the worst he went with that was having Cabrini Green as a 'Pogrom' in the future--in a corporatocracy? If Native Americans are the most heroic organization in the comic, and the big war in South America is between competing fast food chains--I'd say he was more liberal back then. Miller was moderate, at worst, before--he only went 'Nazi' well after this stuff--"300" seems the first real indication that he was losing his fucking mind--I could imagine him, drenched in sweat, sitting in a darkened room, the only light shining through the blinds from the window on himself and the wall, listening to Rush Limbaugh on Halcyon..

[NickThompson]

How often has he killed, though? Republicans seem to be for the death penalty (with some exceptions, of course).
Is Batman anti death penalty, or just anti himself killing? Can't think of any time he has said anything about that, but my Bat-reading isn't deep.

[Adam C]

I've always considered superheroes to be an inherently libertarian (leaning towards the conservative side).

The idea that a person can dress up and act as a law enforcer to me seems that "No, the government can not do anything for you" which I've always saw as an CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN idea.

Actually it's more anarchistic (which splits into both right and left tendencies) than anything else since it ignores the authority of the government in favouring of taking the law (or social order) into your own hands. The problem with using 'Conservative' here is that it may generally favour smaller government, but still favours existing government law enforcement structures.

[Arrogantcur]

Actually it's more anarchistic (which splits into both right and left tendencies) than anything else since it ignores the authority of the government in favouring of taking the law (or social order) into your own hands. The problem with using 'Conservative' here is that it may generally favour smaller government, but still favours existing government law enforcement structures.

You know, something just struck me.

Even back in the Golden Age when these heroes were first created, it was all about the Strong helping the Weak.

That doesn't exactly mesh real well with conservative ideas of self-reliance and looking out for #1 without worrying about the little guy.

[brocca]

Dear friends,

one of the main themes of superhero comics is taking the law into your own hands.

What I never liked about Watchmen is that Alan Moore perverts this idea--Frank Miller on the other hand never did.

Greetings--

[Arrogantcur]

Dear friends,

one of the main themes of superhero comics is taking the law into your own hands.

What I never liked about Watchmen is that Alan Moore perverts this idea--Frank Miller on the other hand never did.

Greetings--

Taking the law into your own hands is not such a good idea if...well, if there's nobody watching the Watchmen.

Human beings are fallible. Even a big boy scout like Peter Parker can do things he regrets, things he normally considers unethical, when he's pushed close to or past his breaking point. Other superheroes, who haven't got Parker's scruples, can do even worse when they reach theirs. Realistically, a system of checks and balances for superhumans or metahumans is not a bad idea. There are bad cops, and there are mostly good cops who sometimes do bad things, which is why we've got Internal Affairs. I'm glad we've got Internal Affairs.

My position on the SHRA in the Marvel Universe, btw, is that the basic idea of superheroes having to answer to somebody instead of doing whatever they feel like is a good idea. The specifics of the law and how it was enforced--like imprisoning people in the Negative Zone and forcing compliance through nanotechnology--are not so good in my view.

[Tobias March]

Dear friends,

one of the main themes of superhero comics is taking the law into your own hands.

What I never liked about Watchmen is that Alan Moore perverts this idea--Frank Miller on the other hand never did.

Greetings--

I never find satire in the pornography section :frown:

[buttler]

I used to think about this a lot in the post-Dark Knight Returns atmosphere in which the Punisher could suddenly be depicted as some kind of hero instead of just a dangerous psychotic.

There's a way in which (whatever the intentions of the writers) the superhero world had always lent itself to an unspoken right-wing worldview. There were good guys and bad guys. The bad guys would always be bad and rehabilitation was a joke. They'd always escape, put on the same stupid costume and commit the same crimes, or worse. Under those conditions, the only way to really stop them would be to kill them, so the Punisher's philosophy made a sick sort of sense.

That's why I liked Giffen and DeMattheis's Justice League run. I don't know much about their personal politics, but they portrayed heroes and villains as people like everyone else, with the same issues and neuroses and potential to change. Sure, it was played for humor, but it was a welcome antidote to the same ol' moral manicheanism in which the bad guys were always subhuman scum.

[Arrogantcur]

There's a way in which (whatever the intentions of the writers) the superhero world had always lent itself to an unspoken right-wing worldview. There were good guys and bad guys. The bad guys would always be bad and rehabilitation was a joke. They'd always escape, put on the same stupid costume and commit the same crimes, or worse. Under those conditions, the only way to really stop them would be to kill them, so the Punisher's philosophy made a sick sort of sense.

That reminded me of some of the X-Men villains during the Claremont run, and I honestly don't know what to think of them.

On the one hand you had people like Donald Pierce, the Shadow King, Mr. Sinister...really evil, really cruel, no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

On the other hand, you had people like the Mystique's Brotherhood/Freedom Force, Magneto, and the Juggernaut, all of whom did show a good side at one time or another. (Juggernaut thought he'd accidentally killed Dazzler once and he felt terrible about it.)

I guess for CC, there were some people who really were pure evil and others who were capable of changing for the better.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

You know, something just struck me.

Even back in the Golden Age when these heroes were first created, it was all about the Strong helping the Weak.

That doesn't exactly mesh real well with conservative ideas of self-reliance and looking out for #1 without worrying about the little guy.

Red Jack and I have had this discussion before. I pointed out very egalitarian dialogue from Atoman, a character I'm using, from 1945. Ken Crossen, who wrote it, wasn't expressing the selfish bullshit you hear from the right--but the idea that all people, regardless of origin or race, or sex should have liberty and freedom from oppression. NOT a right-wing concept.

In fact, the first Atoman story featured a villain who was the head of a corporation, trying to steal atomic secrets from academia!

Who created superheroes in those halcyon days? Leftist Jews--the children of immigrants, along with a few Leftist Gentiles, like Crossen. Superman turned the 'Ubermensch' on it's ear--and only the dull-witted would regard him as some Nationalist symbol--he's the ultimate immigrant, and 99% of the stories in comics coming out before the 'Red Scare' were adamantly anti-tyranny, anti-fascist and almost never showed minorities in a bad light (with--unfortunately--the exception of the Japanese--but their government had mass-murdered a bunch of people in Hawaii).

Green Lama issue 5 in '44 was about racism in the military--worthy of Denny O'Neil or Steve Gerber 25-30 years later.

[AllisterH]

I used to think about this a lot in the post-Dark Knight Returns atmosphere in which the Punisher could suddenly be depicted as some kind of hero instead of just a dangerous psychotic.

There's a way in which (whatever the intentions of the writers) the superhero world had always lent itself to an unspoken right-wing worldview. There were good guys and bad guys. The bad guys would always be bad and rehabilitation was a joke. They'd always escape, put on the same stupid costume and commit the same crimes, or worse. Under those conditions, the only way to really stop them would be to kill them, so the Punisher's philosophy made a sick sort of sense.

That's why I liked Giffen and DeMattheis's Justice League run. I don't know much about their personal politics, but they portrayed heroes and villains as people like everyone else, with the same issues and neuroses and potential to change. Sure, it was played for humor, but it was a welcome antidote to the same ol' moral manicheanism in which the bad guys were always subhuman scum.

The joker is the prime example of the problem IMO. Here's a "street level" criminal with a bodycount that simply is shocking, yet because the Batman franchie has become the Joker and Batman franchise, the joker can't be effectively dealth with....

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I always thought of him more as an a-hole.

[Arrogantcur]

I always thought of him more as an a-hole.

Miller or the Joker?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Miller or the Joker?

Both, but at least the Joker has style.

[Arrogantcur]

Both, but at least the Joker has style.

LOL, fair enough. :tongue:

Red Jack and I have had this discussion before. I pointed out very egalitarian dialogue from Atoman, a character I'm using, from 1945. Ken Crossen, who wrote it, wasn't expressing the selfish bullshit you hear from the right--but the idea that all people, regardless of origin or race, or sex should have liberty and freedom from oppression. NOT a right-wing concept.

In fact, the first Atoman story featured a villain who was the head of a corporation, trying to steal atomic secrets from academia!

Who created superheroes in those halcyon days? Leftist Jews--the children of immigrants, along with a few Leftist Gentiles, like Crossen. Superman turned the 'Ubermensch' on it's ear--and only the dull-witted would regard him as some Nationalist symbol--he's the ultimate immigrant, and 99% of the stories in comics coming out before the 'Red Scare' were adamantly anti-tyranny, anti-fascist and almost never showed minorities in a bad light (with--unfortunately--the exception of the Japanese--but their government had mass-murdered a bunch of people in Hawaii).

Green Lama issue 5 in '44 was about racism in the military--worthy of Denny O'Neil or Steve Gerber 25-30 years later.

I was thinking about this a little more.

Before I go on I apologize to any reasonable Republicans on here if this seems like too much of a caricature.

Anyway, here's what I was thinking about what kind of message a non-liberal might want to send regarding superheroes. It could be an Objectivist, or a Libertarian, or whatever; anybody who doesn't believe in handouts and wants people to stand on their own two feet. They might say "Look at Batman! He's a normal person who worked to better himself, and now he's so fearsome that he never has to worry about criminals! Look at Iron Man! He went to school and worked hard and learned how to make a suit of armor which makes him unstoppable. Look at Captain America! He's trained hard and made himself into the perfect soldier. This proves that anybody can become as strong as a superhero if they just apply themselves, so everybody should quit whining and crying for help from superheroes and try to become superheroes themselves! It's easy!" :rolleyes:

[Linkara]

Before I go on I apologize to any reasonable Republicans on here if this seems like too much of a caricature.

Anyway, here's what I was thinking about what kind of message a non-liberal might want to send regarding superheroes. It could be an Objectivist, or a Libertarian, or whatever; anybody who doesn't believe in handouts and wants people to stand on their own two feet. They might say "Look at Batman! He's a normal person who worked to better himself, and now he's so fearsome that he never has to worry about criminals! Look at Iron Man! He went to school and worked hard and learned how to make a suit of armor which makes him unstoppable. Look at Captain America! He's trained hard and made himself into the perfect soldier. This proves that anybody can become as strong as a superhero if they just apply themselves, so everybody should quit whining and crying for help from superheroes and try to become superheroes themselves! It's easy!" :rolleyes:
As a Conservative who does believe in heroic ideals, I can say that I'd never say, "It's easy," but that we should still strive for it. ^_~ And Captain America doesn't count - supersoldier formula.

[Arrogantcur]

As a Conservative who does believe in heroic ideals, I can say that I'd never say, "It's easy," but that we should still strive for it. ^_~ And Captain America doesn't count - supersoldier formula.

Noted.

As for Cap, the serum gave him his muscles, but he still needed to learn how to use them. He worked this out in "Streets of Poison" after questioning whether he owed his existence as Captain America to a possible ancestor of steroids. One of the things he pointed out was that the serum had been replicated, other people had been enhanced with strength levels equal to or greater than his, and that by itself didn't make them into another Captain America. (He didn't mention USAgent by name, but Walker's the closest thing and he's still just a pale reflection of the original.)

[Libaax]

I dont care about Frank Miller the man. He looks like a looney that sounds like poster picture for far right people.


Frank Miller the writer/artist was a great creator at his best. Sin City atleast art are masterpieces. Until 300 comic he was still strong to me.

When i heard about Holy Terror i gave up hope on FM. Before i thought someday he might create another great comic.

[Arrogantcur]

When i heard about Holy Terror i gave up hope on FM. Before i thought someday he might create another great comic.

Slightly off-topic: even if I really liked Frank Miller the person, I'd still think it best to scrap Holy Terror. The reason I feel that way is because the subject matter just isn't as relevant today as it was 8 years ago, or 6 years ago, or even 4 years ago. Al Qaeda has been (relatively) quiet.

[Linkara]

Slightly off-topic: even if I really liked Frank Miller the person, I'd still think it best to scrap Holy Terror. The reason I feel that way is because the subject matter just isn't as relevant today as it was 8 years ago, or 6 years ago, or even 4 years ago. Al Qaeda has been (relatively) quiet.

He's been developing the thing for like three years now, right?

And even then, while I love seeing those old propaganda comics with Captain America fighting Hitler (that's where I hear the inspiration for the book came from), I think it works better as a pin-up than as a whole book.

[Arrogantcur]

He's been developing the thing for like three years now, right?

And even then, while I love seeing those old propaganda comics with Captain America fighting Hitler (that's where I hear the inspiration for the book came from), I think it works better as a pin-up than as a whole book.

I always wondered why Cap only punched Hitler. I mean, this is Hitler here. Kill him, capture him, but do something more than just knocking him out! :confused:

[Tommy]

Let's finally talk about the enemy. Somebody--for some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against, uh, and the sixth-century barbarism they actually represent.

Hmmm, fact checking seems to not be his strong suit. Islam did not even exist in the sixth-century. It began in the seventh-century. But beyond that point, Islam emerged in a troubled, war-like tribal society, and it created rules for war (sort of the Geneva conventions of the day) and social programs for the impoverished. While Islam certainly has had its atrocities (and what religious hasn't) it is far from representing the culture it replaced.

Um, they, they, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us.

Really Frank Miller? Because they seem to get married, raise children, attend religious services, shop, build houses and cities...

And is the wildly hyperbolic claim of "not behaving like we do" justification for anything?

Um, I'm speaking into a microphone that never could've been a product of their culture. And I'm living in a city where 3,000 of my neighbors were killed by, uh, thieves of airplanes they never could've built.

Apparently the culture that invented Algebra is incapable of knowing anything about math and science. After all it isn't like the great centers of learning throughout the middle ages all occurred in the Arab/Islamic world.

[Arrogantcur]

Hmmm, fact checking seems to not be his strong suit. Islam did not even exist in the sixth-century. It began in the seventh-century. But beyond that point, Islam emerged in a troubled, war-like tribal society, and it created rules for war (sort of the Geneva conventions of the day) and social programs for the impoverished. While Islam certainly has had its atrocities (and what religious hasn't) it is far from representing the culture it replaced.



Really Frank Miller? Because they seem to get married, raise children, attend religious services, shop, build houses and cities...

And is the wildly hyperbolic claim of "not behaving like we do" justification for anything?



Apparently the culture that invented Algebra is incapable of knowing anything about math and science. After all it isn't like the great centers of learning throughout the middle ages all occurred in the Arab/Islamic world.

*applauds enthusiastically*

[brocca]

Dear friends, dear Americans,

what's wrong with you?

Have you suddenly become humanists?

Is Frank Miller the only sensible man left in your wonderful country?

No wonder everything's going down the drain,

greetings--

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Dear friends, dear Americans,

what's wrong with you?

Have you suddenly become humanists?

Is Frank Miller the only sensible man left in your wonderful country?

No wonder everything's going down the drain,

greetings--

The country is going down the drain because of people in power ignoring our inalienable rights, and paying attention only to their own--the kind of person Frank supports without question--who are about as anti-humanist as you can get.

This country was founded on humanism.

And HEMP. HUGE amounts of hemp.

Either address specifics, pass around whatever the hell it is you're smoking, or get out of the way.

That's the way we roll in America.

If you're on whatever Frank's on, I recommend changing your prescription.

If you emerged from the womb like this, give my sad regards to your mother.

[brocca]

Dear JamesRitcheyIII,

what makes you think anybody is interested in your inalienable rights? That's not the way of the world.

And what makes you think you have rights at all?

They were disposed of long ago.

You have the right to crap is all,

greetings--

[Tommy]

I can't quite decide if this is brilliant ironic satire or not.

Dear JamesRitcheyIII,

what makes you think anybody is interested in your inalienable rights?

The following people...

• George Read • Caesar Rodney • Thomas McKean • George Clymer • Benjamin Franklin • Robert Morris • John Morton • Benjamin Rush • George Ross • James Smith • James Wilson • George Taylor • John Adams • Samuel Adams • John Hancock • Robert Treat Paine • Elbridge Gerry • Josiah Bartlett • William Whipple • Matthew Thornton • Stephen Hopkins • William Ellery • Lewis Morris • Philip Livingston • Francis Lewis • William Floyd • Button Gwinnett • Lyman Hall • George Walton • Richard Henry Lee • Francis Lightfoot Lee • Carter Braxton • Benjamin Harrison • Thomas Jefferson • George Wythe • Thomas Nelson, Jr. • William Hooper • John Penn • Joseph Hewes • Edward Rutledge • Arthur Middleton • Thomas Lynch, Jr. • Thomas Heyward, Jr. • Abraham Clark • John Hart • Francis Hopkinson • Richard Stockton • John Witherspoon • Samuel Huntington • Roger Sherman • William Williams • Oliver Wolcott • Charles Carroll • Samuel Chase • Thomas Stone • William Paca

Also, oddly enough, you are, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time out to talk about it.

That's not the way of the world.

Yeah, it is. See the Geneva Conventions.Also the Hague Conventions.

And what makes you think you have rights at all?

It's explicitly stated in virtually all governments, as well as quite a few international treaties.

They were disposed of long ago.

I'd like to see specifics.

You have the right to crap is all,

greetings--

So, brilliant, ironic, satire, or the rantings of a small mind?

[Chris Hansbrough]

Dear Yabsers

Suddeny I'm missing ShauN a lot. y'know with his politeness rather than douchey patronizing iditically insipid elitism.

Respectfully to everyone but douchenozzle,
Chris.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Well; Cap had a serum that enhanced him mentally and physically.

Both Tony and Bruce are supra-geniuses in addtion to being supra-rich.

Kind of an elitist thing really, heck Cap is the one here to have been a normal person pre-hero stage and it took an artificial enhancement to get him there.

So in a sense it does kind of say that "normal" people can't become part of the elite w/out being "elevated" to a higher status.

But enhancements aside its Cap's morality and belief's that made him into who he is ultimately.



LOL, fair enough. :tongue:



I was thinking about this a little more.

Before I go on I apologize to any reasonable Republicans on here if this seems like too much of a caricature.

Anyway, here's what I was thinking about what kind of message a non-liberal might want to send regarding superheroes. It could be an Objectivist, or a Libertarian, or whatever; anybody who doesn't believe in handouts and wants people to stand on their own two feet. They might say "Look at Batman! He's a normal person who worked to better himself, and now he's so fearsome that he never has to worry about criminals! Look at Iron Man! He went to school and worked hard and learned how to make a suit of armor which makes him unstoppable. Look at Captain America! He's trained hard and made himself into the perfect soldier. This proves that anybody can become as strong as a superhero if they just apply themselves, so everybody should quit whining and crying for help from superheroes and try to become superheroes themselves! It's easy!" :rolleyes:

[brocca]

I can't quite decide if this is brilliant ironic satire or not.
Yeah, it is. See the Geneva Conventions.Also the Hague Conventions.
It's explicitly stated in virtually all governments, as well as quite a few international treaties.
I'd like to see specifics.


Dear Tommy,

in humanities darkest hour machines were invented--in today's world you as a man are judged by your functionality to the system like an automaton.

Don't function--then you do not exist, that's sad but true.

Try to implement your Geneva or whatever convention in any conventional or unconventional war before every bomb of the latest technological standard is disposed of on your head.

Declarations of so-called human rights are hardly worth the paper they're written on and only serve to mollify you and make it easier to manipulate you,

greetings--

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Though wouldn't it be the opposite?

I mean they are trying to manipulate you into going to war and serving as their canon fodder, so wouldn't just buying what they say and doing what they want fall more into the line of what the guys making the bombs and machines want you to do?

Isn't that the ultimate goals of their manipulation?


Dear Tommy,

in humanities darkest hour machines were invented--in today's world you as a man are judged by your functionality to the system like an automaton.

Don't function--then you do not exist, that's sad but true.

Try to implement your Geneva or whatever convention in any conventional or unconventional war before every bomb of the latest technological standard is disposed of on your head.

Declarations of so-called human rights are hardly worth the paper they're written on and only serve to mollify you and make it easier to manipulate you,

greetings--

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Yeah, Tommy. What and who you said. I'd add the ACLU, Amnesty International, MLK, even Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower, and all who spoke, fought and died in defense NOT of Der Homeland--stupid, old nationalism, but for the sovereign rights of the individual within it, and those who seek to spread freedom not with a gun, but by reason, communication--and heart. To quote Iggy Pop, I live in a world 'where every stinking bum should wear a crown.'. I developed my political beliefs from reading every kind of book about the subject--and it doesn't fucking matter if anyone else recognizes my rights--they're already mine, yours, and not just the country's--every person on Earth. When those rights are trespassed against, people of conscience speak against it, and occasionally, surmount those instances.

Whether brocca is a holocaust denier ready for the Fouth Reich to set the world in order, or a Devil's Advocate/Internet Solipsist with the I.Q., empathy, and education of a turnip, it's moot--he's heckling ideas with vague generalities worthy of Rush Limbaugh's biggest fan.

With the bottleneck of information distribution in this country, and the 'status quo' being more right-wing-to-moderate than ever before as a result, it's a miracle we're not still in the grips o those closet nazis we just ousted from office.

Another thing--I feel betrayed by Miller's simplistic, 'us vs. them' horseshit--besides simply sucking ass creatively since the early 'nineties. It's why I'm making so many drug references--he's either unmedicated with some severe paranoia, or has the wrong Scrips.

Bastard was one of my biggest influences when I was learning to do what I do, and it's beyond disheartening that he makes Steve Ditko look like a fucking Communist, now.

[Tommy]

Dear Tommy,

in humanities darkest hour machines were invented--

I'm not sure that I would consider 250,000 years ago (or earlier) as humanity's darkest hour.

in today's world you as a man are judged by your functionality to the system like an automaton.

Oh noes! Not the system! There isn't a singular system on this planet. That's gross over simplification.

Don't function--then you do not exist, that's sad but true.

Oh snap! That's just empirically wrong. Billions and billions of dollars a year are spent on those people.

Try to implement your Geneva or whatever convention in any conventional or unconventional war before every bomb of the latest technological standard is disposed of on your head.

You mean like every war since WWII?

Declarations of so-called human rights are hardly worth the paper they're written on and only serve to mollify you and make it easier to manipulate you,

greetings--

Do people not actually take history classes anymore? There are these things, they are called "trials." That they happen is a historical fact.

[Village Idiot]

Before I go on I apologize to any reasonable Republicans

I don't know,,,are there any reasonable members of the Just Vote No Party?

[brocca]

Though wouldn't it be the opposite?

I mean they are trying to manipulate you into going to war and serving as their canon fodder, so wouldn't just buying what they say and doing what they want fall more into the line of what the guys making the bombs and machines want you to do?

Isn't that the ultimate goals of their manipulation?

Yes, indeed!

Yet the question of the nutrient factor of human rights remains--how many people in your direct vicinity hunger while you bed yourself on righteous behavior?

Oh, yes, Tommy; I surrender before your historical erudition.

Greetings--

[brocca]

P.S.--

you cannot deny Frank Miller's talent to cause ruckus even when he's not around in person...

[Arrogantcur]

I'm sorry brocca, I don't speak troll.

Dear Yabsers

Suddeny I'm missing ShauN a lot. y'know with his politeness rather than douchey patronizing iditically insipid elitism.

Respectfully to everyone but douchenozzle,
Chris.

Yeah, this guy is like the anti-ShaunN.

I don't know,,,are there any reasonable members of the Just Vote No Party?

Ethan has his good days from what I've seen...Linkara doesn't seem all that bad either...and Arlen Specter seems okay (although if he's done something awful lately or voted awfully lately I'm all ears and my opinion might change; I haven't been keeping track of U.S. politics as closely since the election).

It's sad that I can only think of three examples, though.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Yes, indeed!

Yet the question of the nutrient factor of human rights remains--how many people in your direct vicinity hunger while you bed yourself on righteous behavior?

Oh, yes, Tommy; I surrender before your historical erudition.

Greetings--

Whose fault is that? Leftists, who want equal opportunity and freedom for all people, who fight the righteous fight, or the 'Bootstrap' douchebags who Frank and his ilk support--because they're too chickenshit to walk out of his/their front doors, for fear of an eminent terrorist attack? The ones who have no problems letting children in this country go hungry? I've fed the poor--what have you ever done?

Freedom isn't just the right to walk around with a fucking gun--it's also the right to not let your children starve, and to have the opportunity to have a better life. Freedom isn't just for White 21 year old men--who are not threatened in your country or mine, no matter how loudly the whining bitches emulating the playbooks of George Wallace and Josef Goebbels tell you they are.

"You can have Liberty, or Safety--but never expect to have them both at once."--Robert Heinlein

Give Me Liberty (sic).

p.s. Bedding yourself is still illegal in some parts of the country.

[beetlebum]

ng gun--it's also the right to not let your children starve, and to have the opportunity to have a better life. Freedom isn't just for White 21 year old men--who are not threatened in your country or mine, no matter how loudly the whining bitches emulating the playbooks of George Wallace and Josef Goebbels tell you they are.


One of the best posts I have read in quite some time.

As for Brocca; this guy comes across as someone who's taking the piss.

I find it hard to believe that he actually believes most of the stupid nonsense that he deliberately spews out.

[Arrogantcur]

One of the best posts I have read in quite some time.

As for Brocca; this guy comes across as someone who's taking the piss.

I find it hard to believe that he actually believes most of the stupid nonsense that he deliberately spews out.

Yeah, I wondered whether he might just be baiting for the fun of it as well.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

P.S.--

you cannot deny Frank Miller's talent to cause ruckus even when he's not around in person...

You must have missed my earlier response--Frank, 'eighties/early 'nineties is likely one of my five biggest influences--I seriously studied his work--but--Frank, now? I'll deny it all over the place--he needs to get off whatever the hell he's on, and I've known people on the scrip Halcyon who behave like this--reality goes completely distorted.

Have you even seen DK2?

The Spirit? Like John Byrne, he's made the full turn to self-parody. It's like watch Jon Milius direct the 'Left Behind' series, or somethin'--his art and his politics both went to shit on the same curve.

[brocca]

Whose fault is that?

"You can have Liberty, or Safety--but never expect to have them both at once."--Robert Heinlein


Dear JamesRileyIII,

I wouldn't want to point fingers on the leftists or rightwingers whose fault it is that things are not going quite like they should.

Robert Heinlein knew that the only thing to be had from technological progress was perfection--you cannot build a society on that like it is done today or people are bound to suffer.

Heinlein didn't even go as far as to say we have neither safety or liberty. I'm afraid that's exactly the case today,

greetings--

[pariah-1972]

I am aware that to certain parties' eyes, if I say something bad about Frank Miller I am an "ant." So I won't start this post with my own opinions, but rather with those of somebody whom can certainly not be considered insignificant or unworthy to criticize Mr. Miller...



Let me start with the good. I read Miller's "Man Without Fear" graphic novel and liked it, even though it requires more suspension of disbelief than other DD stories; in it, Murdock doesn't seem to have a radar sense. (The idea of a man without sight but with a new sense replacing his sight along with heightened senses being an effective crimefighter is much more plausible than the idea of a man without sight and with heightened senses being an effective crimefighter.) I haven't read "Born Again" but I know it is an extremely significant story and has earned praise, which I'm sure it deserves. I know he's the guy behind Sin City and 300, both of which were made into films that were well-received.

Yes, Frank Miller has quite a resume. But these days when I think about Frank Miller, I don't think "eagle." I think "hawk." If quotes like the following are any indication, the "hawk" label fits:



As soon as Miller starts talking about the microphone he's speaking into, it becomes clear that he is not only referring to terrorists, but an entire culture. He gets stuff wrong, too, because while female circumcision (http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/circumcision/female/) is a horrible thing it is NOT a Muslim thing or even a Middle Eastern thing. (Click on that hyperlink to see.)

As for the stuff he doesn't get wrong:

-Yes, sometimes people's heads are cut off, and sometimes its because they broke laws that shouldn't have been in place to begin with (laws against homosexuality, for instance). But the U.S. justice system isn't all that great either. It's better, yes. It's still not very good. People are executed, and the fact that it's done by methods other than decapitation doesn't leave them any less dead. People are imprisoned for being on the wrong side in the "war on drugs." Conditions in prisons do constitute "cruel and unusual punishment." Etc.

-Countries like Saudi Arabia are far behind the rest of the world when it comes to women's rights. That statement is true, but it's been less than a hundred years since women nationwide were allowed to vote, in every state. Again, it's better. Again, it's still not very good.

Here is my point. You can talk about all the things wrong with a culture as a justification for going to war against it, as Miller does here. But if those are indeed valid reasons for war against a people, for viewing a people as "the enemy" and not worrying too much about how many of them die, then an equally lengthy list of valid reasons could have been written up about the United States (and indeed, about my home country of Canada as well). It wouldn't surprise me if Bin Laden and/or al-Zawahiri wrote up just such a list as justification for their attacks.

We are talking about human beings here. They didn't choose where they would be born. Plus, being born in a certan part of the world does not make you evil.

And yet, Miller still believed in the invasion of Iraq:



The post 9/11 Frank Miller seems to be proof that sometimes suffering personal tragedy can turn you into a worse person. He is, as Morrison says, filled with hatred.

Most New Yorkers in 2004 voted for Kerry, because they did not believe in Bush's war. Frank Miller probably voted Bush, because he admits to not only believing in Bush's war but to believing other things that he shouldn't (Iraq declared war on the U.S.? Really? Even in Desert Storm they declared war on Kuwait, which is different).

So with these political opinions, with this uglified picture of what a Muslim is or what a resident of the Middle East is burned into his brain, Frank Miller is at work on "Holy Terror, Batman!" wherein Batman fights Al-Qaeda. I do not expect a flattering portrayal of Arabs here, nor even a sympathetic one. What I anticipate is a book full of anti-Arab propaganda, a book which shows just how evil Miller thinks their culture is, a book with a jingoistic message.

Maybe I am mistaken. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised and the story will not be anything like that.

I doubt it, though. And that's why I do not believe Frank Miller to be anything resembling an eagle.

I'll be blunt: those quotes of his make it much more tempting for me to liken him to a creature a whole lot less airborne and a whole lot more slimy. One which can be killed with salt.He did say it was going to be propaganda and i'm not a fan of Frank Miller at all bought the only thing i've liked of his was his 70s and 90s Daredevil stuff.
Anyways i don't think that book is coming out considering how irrelevant Frank has made himself increasingly and the way in Iraq has settled down so there's no need for DC to publish something like this when the political timing is not right.

[Arrogantcur]

He did say it was going to be propaganda and i'm not a fan of Frank Miller at all bought the only thing i've liked of his was his 70s and 90s Daredevil stuff.
Anyways i don't think that book is coming out considering how irrelevant Frank has made himself increasingly and the way in Iraq has settled down so there's no need for DC to publish something like this when the political timing is not right.

Yeah, but there's a difference between that and anti-Arab or anti-Muslim propaganda.

If you compare it to the Captain America/Hitler scene which apparently inspired him, that was anti-Nazi propaganda. Since the Nazis were at war with the U.S. at the time, I don't think that was bad.

If Miller or anybody else wrote anti-terrorist propaganda, that would also not be bad.

But my worry is that, if this thing does see print (and I hope you're right that it will not), we're going to be treated to a view of Middle Eastern culture or Islam according to Frank Miller, when in reality neither all Muslims nor all residents of the Middle East are the monsters Miller seems to believe they are. THAT would be bad.

[pariah-1972]

Yeah, but there's a difference between that and anti-Arab or anti-Muslim propaganda.

If you compare it to the Captain America/Hitler scene which apparently inspired him, that was anti-Nazi propaganda. Since the Nazis were at war with the U.S. at the time, I don't think that was bad.

If Miller or anybody else wrote anti-terrorist propaganda, that would also not be bad.

But my worry is that, if this thing does see print (and I hope you're right that it will not), we're going to be treated to a view of Middle Eastern culture or Islam according to Frank Miller, when in reality neither all Muslims nor all residents of the Middle East are the monsters Miller seems to believe they are. THAT would be bad.Well if that would happen it would just confirm all the thoughts i've had about him in the first place.


And i don't think DC would release something that was clearly anti-arab or clearly considered racist.

[brocca]

Dear Arrogantcur,

thank you for this wonderful thread!

But be assured, in the real world nobody is taking comic books seriously be it Frank Miller's or by whoever.

That can only happen in a comic book forum like this,

greetings--

[beetlebum]

Well if that would happen it would just confirm all the thoughts i've had about him in the first place.


And i don't think DC would release something that was clearly anti-arab or clearly considered racist.

I completely agree.

Though I don't think the concern is whether or not the book is racist, but how it portrays Islam and its adherents, which - if we were to go by Frank's statements - there's a good chance it won't be in the most flattering light.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Dear Arrogantcur,

thank you for this wonderful thread!

But be assured, in the real world nobody is taking comic books seriously be it Frank Miller's or by whoever.

That can only happen in a comic book forum like this,

greetings--

To answer your previous post--no freedom and no safety is anarchy, or totalitarianism, depending on your point of view. Denying that we live somewhere in between these two extremes is a denial of reality, AND hope, and are the rantings of a weak, lazy mind.

Like someone who would choose to attempt condescension in a subforum containing likely the highest concentration of smart, talented, educated people in all of comics fandom. One with a disproportionately large percentage of future innovators in the comics field. You're choosing to insult without having the facts. We get the joke--you're not even in the fifty percentile of 'smarts' 'round here. The whole 'poke a geek' pastime isn't going to really work--that's what we do to others, on other forums. :D

[brocca]

Dear JamesRitcheyIII,

it's very encouraging for me to see there are still decent Americans like you who carry their heart on their sleeves.

You're a man after my heart, I would go to war with you in Afghanistan any time, just call,

greetings--