She's a wonder, Wonder Woman

The sixth issue of the new run of Wonder Woman has come out. Some are enjoying it.

But for some, there are a lot of things to quibble about.

Things that have happen. Wonder Woman has been around a while, in the world of men. She has acted as a diplomat, a hero, a warrior, food service, romantic, been struck blind, and she's even died for what she believed (She got better, became a god, then gave it up to come back.).

Recently, someone was bringing doom to the world, and was mind controlling Superman into a WMD of epic proportion. She knew she couldn't/wouldn't kill Superman, the only way to stop him. So she did what had to be done, she killed the man manipulating Superman and causing all the havoc (A man you'd already murdered an old favorite of many, Blue Beetle.). Quick and nasty. But it stopped and freed Superman. For that she was shunned by her friends. And all the Infinite Crisis stuff came about. BLAH. BLAH. BLAH. Didn't read a lot of this, so my intel in limited. Suffice to say, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman make nice. Superman and Wonder Woman lose their powers. She goes underground, makes a secret ID (God, we're back here. Wait until she starts spinning to get into costume.) and joins an organization, which happens to be hunting her. See, she went on trial for murder. Things didn't go well. So there we are.

ONE YEAR LATER. And one issue of her book scrapped, thanks to shoddy work from a SUPERSTAR brought in.

So we get into the mean now of the new book, Issue 6.

Things we have Wonder Woman in a white tight jump suit. If you look at her comic history, she had a period of being depowered where she went all Emma Peel, of the British Avengers TV show. She had trendy outfits, a boutique she owned, and she didn't like feminist. Plus she went from one bad relationship to the next...it was great.

So for the second time in 5 years, writers are trolling the 70's for the same idea for this book. Good job people.

So how is Diana doing?

The Limits of Meta-Fiction

What did surprise me-- and excite my interest-- was the announcement that novelist Jodi Picoult was going to be writing it. She's a very popular writer and, from what little I've read, very good with complex issues of identity and morality. She's lauded for her convincing female characters, and so I thought I'd give it a try.

...

There's no deep morality here, no real character work. The plot is pedestrian and not in a fun way. What we have instead is meta-fiction:

Meta-Fiction is fiction that is about itself: fiction that is aware of the devices of fiction, fiction that explores the relationship between authors, works, and their audience, fiction that comments on itself and its genre.

It's one of-- if not the-- hallmark of Post-Modernism. Some people will tell you that post-modernism is a mark of maturity or intelligence. What post-modernism usually means is that the author has no idea how to tell an actual story about actual characters, so instead they write about themselves writing.

I don't hate meta-fiction, or even post-modernism-- I'm just wary of it as an end in and of itself. As a means, though-- as an ingredient and a storytelling device, it can add depth and context.

...

But in the case of Wonder Woman number 6, Picoult's story is not deepened by her meta approach, because there's really nothing there beyond the meta. Instead of a story, we have an argument: that Wonder Woman is just as cool as her male cohorts.

But the logic at play here-- that Wonder Woman is cool because she saves the world-- fails to see the fundamental flaw in Wonder Woman, one which Your Friend and Mine, The Amazing Alan Kistler has pointed out in his excellent profile-in-progress: Wonder Woman has no core identity: she's gone from bondage-chick to spy to goddess; she's all over the map. Or, at least, her core is not one that's conducive to good storytelling.

As my wife pointed out to me this afternoon (hi Mary!), Batman is a character who is defined by his origin. His parents are murdered before his eyes; he is motivated by grief and rage to fight crime. Superman is the last surviving son of an advanced race and is given a strong moral upbringing by kindly farm folk; he is Good and Inspiring. Spider-Man's Uncle Ben is murdered, a death that Spider-Man could prevent; the twin themes of responsibility and maturity have defined Spider-Man.

Wonder Woman is sent by Amazons to engender peace and justice. It's such a hazy origin, and it tells us nothing about her personality. In the case of the Big Three (Spidey, Supes, and Bats), their origin stories speak volumes about who they are.

The reason why Wonder Woman doesn't sell as well as the others-- the reason why she's not as "cool"-- is because she lacks a real viable core.

Now, she has had a core in the past-- two of them, in fact. But the first one-- Moulton's original bondage-object philosophizer-- is diametrically opposed to the second:

The problem with this characterization (Wonder Woman as Feminist Icon), which has defined the character for so long, is that it lacks real definition and real conflict. It's a Sidney Poitier characterization: a minority character who is perfect and good and without flaw or equal.

And, y'know, that's fine, to a point: there was a need for that kind of characterization, and it helped overcome years of stereotyping. But it is not a viable, long-term option for serial fiction.

And so, without a real story to tell, Picoult has fallen on a meta-fictional approach: she's trying to validate Wonder Woman in fictional form, which is doomed to failure because the answers for which she is searching are not present.

The best way to show a character is cool is to tell good, interesting stories about that character, which is diametrically opposed to a post-modernist, meta-fictional approach.

You know who should write Wonder Woman? You know which "hot" novelist not only routinely tells good, interesting stories about actual people, but also understands the fundamental differences between men and women? Joyce Carol Oates.

If Joyce Carol Oates wrote Wonder Woman, you can bet your ass this shallow, limiting "feminist symbol" iconography would be replaced by an actual character. That the conflicts would be interesting, that the stories would affect you, that they would hurt you and you would like it.

I have to surprise myself and agree here, for the most part.

I have long liked the Wonder Woman character. But it seems it is a love for the whole concept, more than the writing. It bugged. I focused on the writing and writers. It seemed that every time the writer changed, the character took a big swing and shifted. Unlike Batman, who was rooted, she would radically change. She, and Paradise Island (Themyscira, in the comics, for those TV fans.). It is an island, the Themyscirans get slaughtered, and come back. Blown up, then returned. A floating island and university, then not. They're peaceful, they're violent, they are peaceful...Every writer really seems to get carte blanche with the whole setting and it bugged me.

But this fundamental flaw with the character and approach may be the key issue. She is a clay figure, and each writer gets to just project their thought on her. Superman and Batman are built to resist this.

To be fair I think all 3 characters started out the same, in the 30's and 40's. But the other 2 were built on and refined. Diana, not so lucky.

There is a lot to work with. She is not one of us. She grew up in a utopia. She has a different life philosophy. So her choice to live in this world has consequences, it has a chance to influence her. She has to come to grips with the day to day conflicts in interacting with people. She is a diplomat, but also a warrior and hero. These conflict. So her attempt to bring together her distinct views and duties, and the conflict it will cause with her, her people, and the rest of the world...I think she has been a rich vein of potential.

But as a character, she needs to shed some of the perfection she is imbued with.

Wonder Woman #6

There’s nothing specifically wrong with giving Wonder Woman the “stranger-in-a-strange-land-fresh-from-Paradise-Island” treatment again (“What does it mean to be Wonder Woman? What does it mean to be human?”)… except that this brooding and troubled Diana is rather an abrupt shift from the worldly and contemporary Diana Prince that Heinberg was giving us waaaay back in issues #1-4 (it’s also light-years from the Themysciran ambassador that Greg Rucka was writing back in the dim antiquity of 2005, but I suppose that’s been retconned by now). There’s lots of fish-out-of-water jokes (those Starbucks people and their wacky drink names—all Diana wants is a cuppa coffee!), and meta fun for everyone: agent Prince’s assignment is bodyguarding a reality-show superhero doing an autograph signing at an amusement park, with attendant yuks about merchandising and product placement.

And, for whatever reason, new writers on this character rarely even try. After a couple of false starts, they give us Wonder Woman’s real honest-to-gosh new direction… which turns out to be pretty much the same direction that every new team has taken with this character since the 60’s: Who is Wonder Woman?

This character, as I mentioned above is not an idiot. She has lived a long time in this world. Starbucks jokes? I can't wait for the comic when she is on a commercial flight and asks, "What's the deal with airline peanuts?"

It just makes little sense...did I mention this story takes place over a year since she went undercover? How does this gel with a consistent storyline? It's lazy.

Paperghost:

This panel from Wonder Woman #6. Honestly, who nearly gets shot in the face by a mugger then comes out with "I did a paper on you in my feminist theory class! I said you were an icon of womanhood we could all derive strength from! But I didn't realise you were so.....cool!"

Awesome. That's the stupidest thing I ever heard anyone say that was only seconds earlier having a GUN WAVED IN THEIR FACE. Isn't the whole point this comic has been so badly delayed is because the all singing, all dancing writer who apparently does novels or TV programs or something needed extra time to work on it? So why does it sound like a ten year old wrote it? Supposedly prestigious characters from the DC Universe are having their publishing schedules stretched to breaking point for this?!

Written World:

Yes, every bad review you've read is true. She treats the character like a complete fish out of water even though Diana's been underground pretending to be a regular person for an entire year, and before that had been around for years and gotten her lumps in during Perez and Messner-Loebs runs.

Beyond that, she's being vain and petty and existential and it makes me roll my eyes. Why does Wonder Woman give a flying fuck about being "cool"?

And why is Nemesis suddenly acting like Xander Harris?

It might be the first comparison, the milkshake replacement with a Black Canary milkshake, bothered me and set the tone wrong. Even though Diana didn't display overt jealousy, using the Black Canary replacement (and then driving it home with a mention by Nemesis) implied competition. Diana's from Themiscyra, where women can excel without tearing each other down. It also smacked of the Black Canary replacing Wonder Woman in the post-Crisis JLA recon, which irked me.

And this really bugs me. As silly as some might find the TV Wonder Woman, one point they hammered home was the idea that women didn't need to enter petty competition. It was beneath them. The PI girls fought to be the one to go as Wonder Woman, but when Diana was chosen, everyone was cool, happy, and proud of her. Here, Diana is obsessed with being cool, and number one. When did she get that vain.

Still, even taking that into account, the plot was a stock plot (And the art seemed rushed. Drew Johnson is better than this) and the characters were too far off-base to make up for that. Diana's still supposed to be savvier, Tom's supposed to be more competent. This is a fresh off the boat story for an entrenched character.

...

And, KKGlinka has summed it all up beautifully.

So, the Gods sent you to protect humans. Was the clause about pretending to be one a requirement written in invisible ink? Maybe you need to wear rose-colored glasses to see it?

Subtle, huh? Rose-tinted glasses = self-delusion.

Gawd, excuse me, I had to pry a sledge-hammer out from between my eyes. The Wonder Woman milkshake has been discontinued. Did you hear that? This book is "going in a new direction". No more escapist power fantasy for you girls! No more! A real heroic woman holds down a day job and puts up with annoying coworkers. (Or has a baby and obsesses with being a good mommy except when she seems to completely forget).

Oh, never mind, there goes the realism right out the window. I've worked at a theme park. You know how often roller-coasters suddenly break? Never. They jam. They stop. They hang people upside down. For hours and some of those people puke. The maintenance crew comes and frees them. Management issues them comp tickets after they finish screaming at the PR folks (I was one of them). You know why roller coasters don't break like that? Because manslaughter charges are financially inconvenient so the tracks are inspected every day.

Anyway, the appearing/disappearing thing doesn't bother me much because I watched Lynda Carter faithfully. I consider "Diana Prince" to be a glamour, and magic tricks like turning into WW, and no one noticing you're the same person, are acceptable. But only because of that TV show run run run ching ching ching smile Wonder Woman! Get it? If I weren't coming from that background, I would be all like WTF how can anyone not notice? And how come Batman and Superman are allowed to have special vehicles and Diana can't have her invisible plane? Sure she doesn't need one, but have you ever tried to drive in a large city? Batman shouldn't have a car; he should have a jet pack. It's not about logical need; it's about status.

"Maybe this ie what I was born for. To protect them... not to understand them."

Dear Diana, please see page one when you recounted what the Gods sent you do to. I know it's very hard for you to remember things, being female and all that, but you see to be confusing an Earth2 version of yourself with the Gods. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure GranmaWoman was acting as a mouthpiece for Editorial, so it's not entirely your fault your character is being yanked in opposite directions.

Dear Picoult, please do not cite comic book sales statistics in the middle of a fictional story. The sledgehammer hurts. The preaching and justifying is not very subtle. I don't like it when Pfeifer uses his characters as mouthpieces and I think it's just as clunky here. Your creative fiction professors would have smacked you.

Oh, Diana, you went blind didn't you? See all those billboards with the three rows of numbers on them? They occur every few blocks in many cities, every few miles in less urban areas and sometimes twenty miles apart in rural areas. They are called gas station price signs. I learned how to read them when I was very little. Either that or you are one dumb bint. BTW, we have credit cards in New Hampshire, too.

Oh. My. God. She doesn't know how to insert tab A into slot B and depress the obvious lever? She doesn't understand basic mechanics?! OMG, what a fucking moron. That's the only explanation there because even I know Diana's lived in western human society for quite some time now. Somehow, she managed to only just notice our society is built upon economic and material stock-piling? Ahahahahahaha! That's part of the American Stereotype, it's so well known (along with being fat).

Dear Picoult, you seem to be laboring under the delusion this comic will be read by elementary school children. FYI, the average comic costs $2.99. The average parent will not pay that for such a meager entertainment product. I couldn't pay that until I was well into my teens. Please learn some more about social economics.

The government "hand-wavey" gesture wants to bring WW in for questioning even though the World Court already cleared her. Uh huh. I work for a government agency. We don't do nothin' without orders on paper, in triplicate, carefully refined by several layers of bureaucracy. If it doesn't make sense to the writer, it probably just plain don't make sense. The government often appreciates when third parties take care of internal problems, whether through deliberation or accident. Because "taking care of its own" often requires tedious paperwork that leaves behind a trail. Dear readers, please do not question the logic of this plot device.

I'm gonna assume Diana keeps repeating her identity and job description because she has memory problems and not because Picoult wants us to see how slow in the head she is. Oh, and blond guy? She talks like a lot of people I know. Mostly people who don't want to deal with their problems and dwell in idealist fantasy, but all the same... why is he giving her a speech the experienced Ambassador of Themiscryea probably gave herself?

Ooookkkaaayyyy.... So that's 90's Selina dressed up in a Wonder Woman costume, right? Okay, whew, that was Circe. I also read up about Nemesis and I think he's playing dumb as a way to help Diana. Although, with as stupid as she's being, maybe Picoult considers him a generic dumb blond guy. (Hey, Diana and Selina can compare notes!)

Dear Wonder Woman, I know teenagers smarter and more experienced than you. And I don't mean just the odd one here or there. In fact, I know immigrant teenagers, who barely speak English, smarter and more experienced than you.

Dear Picoult, Diana is not five years old and from a third world country. Please to not be writing so stupid. It makes me think you're ignorant, lazy at background research, or both, and then I crack linguistics jokes which makes everything worse. I gotta say, DC really sucks at "smart women", except for Gail Simone but that's obvious.

Maybe she is written too perfect. She could use some emotional mark. But, darn, she has been a great character, dedicated, opiniionated, and focused on a goal.

She can be a powerful, a role model, and a figure that girls can be in awe of...

She really can be a wonder. Especially, if writers aren't lazy, or treat the character as a joke or a goof for them.

McCain's money

McCain is about to give a Major Speech on Iraq.

Yes. Another Major Speech on Iraq.

As AMERICAblog notes:

John McCain is flailing. He's followed Bush blindly on Iraq -- and his performance over the past week has been astonishingly bad. McCain has lost most, if not all, of his credibility. But, he's got a solution. Just like Bush has done so many times, McCain is going to give a big speech on Iraq. Seriously, that's his solution...

...

How many "major speeches" has Bush given on Iraq? I've lost count, but none of them have done anything to make the situation over there better. And like his buddy George Bush, we know that just because John McCain says something, doesn't make it true.

McCain's "major speech" tactic reeks of desperation.

Just like Bush. So true. He seems to want to be the next Big W.

More to the trth of this look at him campaign for presidents move.

From the New York Times:

Lagging in fund-raising and under fire for his support of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain is overhauling his campaign finance operation and delaying the official announcement of his candidacy, his aides said Tuesday.

They said he would adopt the kind of big-donor fund-raising program pioneered by President Bush and give a speech explaining his support for the administration’s troop buildup in Iraq.

Just like Bush.

Mr. McCain’s aides said that to deal with his fund-raising problems, he would adopt what had been a centerpiece of Mr. Bush’s fund-raising technique, and one that has been embraced by most major presidential candidates: creating an honorary campaign designation to reward the campaign’s top money raisers. Mr. Bush called his Rangers and Pioneers; Mr. McCain will call his the McCain 100’s, for supporters who collect $100,000 for the campaign, and the McCain 200’s, who collect $200,000.

Mr. McCain has been identified throughout his career as an advocate of curbing the influence of money in politics, notably as a co-sponsor of a landmark bill limiting political contributions. He criticized Mr. Bush, when the two were opponents in 2000, as leading overly aggressive fund-raising efforts.

Times change.

“This is a moment that has truly defined what needs to be done with respect to political fund-raising,” said Mr. Loeffler, whom Mr. McCain elevated to run the fund-raising effort at the first signs of trouble three weeks ago. “What it has shown for this team is that this is not a jog. This is a sprint.”

Times change indeed. This moment, running for president, really does redefine what matters in the question of campaign finance. Doesn't it?

An ominous sign

The president's press conference.

Notice how he refuses to look off to this right.

He knows what lies there.

An ominous visage. A dark sight.

A portent he dare not acknowledge.

It is his wraith. His shade. His...Cheney.

And it comes for him.

When the Cheney emerges, doom follows his footfalls.

Woe to those that the Cheney seeks.

Pork-barrel politics

There is some trouble with the bill that is slowly moving forward to fund our forces, and call for an end to the Iraqi campaign.

One that President Bush has pointed to is the pork in the bill.

But what about pork?

To President Bush, they are "pork-barrel projects completely unrelated to the war," items in the House and Senate war-spending bills such as peanut storage facilities and aid to spinach farmers that insult the seriousness of the conflict and exist only to buy votes.

But such spending has been part of Iraq funding bills since the war began, sometimes inserted by the president himself, sometimes added by lawmakers with bipartisan aplomb. A few of the items may have weighed on the votes for spending bills that have now topped half a trillion dollars, but, in almost all cases over the past four years, special-interest funding provisions have been the fruits of congressional opportunism by well-placed senators or House members grabbing what they could for their constituents on the one bill that had to be passed quickly.

This is, sadly, a way of politics and legislation. And it is just now insulting Bush. I wonder why?


The pork. I understand that is "how it works". But I am bugged.

The Iraq War. All these people got voted in and so many of them need a hand out, and one immediately? Now? On this? Is it that you are gutless? Just curious?

I am so disappointed with these people so uncommitted to dealing with and ending this war, in some way.

What do you want to do then?

Flashback

From Daily Kos.

George W. Bush:

"The facts are stark and the facts are real. . . Our men and women in uniform love their country more than their comfort. They have never failed us, and we must not fail them. But the best intentions and the highest morale are undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, and rapidly declining readiness."

". . .these are signs of a military in decline and we must do something about it. The reasons are clear. Lack of equipment and material. Undermaning of units. Overdeployment. Not enough time for family. Soldiers who are on food stamps, and soldiers who are poorly housed. Dick Cheney and I have a simple message today for our men and women in uniform, their parents, their loved ones, their supporters: Help is on the way!"

The date?

August 21, 2000

That was before he restored honor and dignity to the White House, remember?

Potshots at Pelosi

There have been cracks at her clothes, her sex, and an attempt to make something of nothing involving jets and travel.

Now, as Pelosi and other representatives make their way through Syria, talking and learning, she is having more shots made at her.

The president and other conservatives are not happy. Granted the president made a slight note that Republicans went just before for a visit, bu tit was slight. It was slight indeed, enough so that the media, for the most part missed it. NPR is focused on Pelosi giving displeasure to her president. So, shame on them. That is sloppy.

But what more do we know of that earlier trip.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the chief of staff to this Republican Congressman who went to Syria stated unequivocally that this trip was "done in cooperation with the administration." That would be the very same administration that has spent days and days attacking Pelosi for doing the same thing -- attacks that the big news orgs have eagerly spent a great deal of time and resources amplifying.

It's unclear what this GOP chief of staff's description of "cooperation" between these members of Congress and the administration means in practice. It could end up amounting to nothing at all. But it's certainly worthy of follow-up questions, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, a follow up. Or ANY questions on it.


What else is happening on Pelosi's trip?

Haaretz:

Israel's political and military leadership has been preparing in recent weeks for the possibility of a Syrian attack on the Golan Heights that will start as a result of a "miscalculation" on the part of the Syrians, who may assume that Israel intends to attack them.

...

The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.

"We hope the message will be understood," political sources in Israel said yesterday. "The question is whether Assad is looking for an excuse ... so that he can carry out an attack against Israel in the summer, or whether this is a mistaken assessment." [my emphasis throughout]

So Pelosi is there acting to help Israel as well as the US?

The Belgravia Dispatch:

So let me get this straight. Bush remonstrates dastardly Nancy for her passage through Damascus, at the very time the Israelis are reportedly using her to pass a message to Bashar Assad to help avoid a possible conflagration with the Syrians. Soon, Bush will be telling Bibi Netanyahu or Avigdor Lieberman they're wimps, and to hang Crawford tough against the 'Palis' or such. This is all so pitiable, isn't it? How many more months left of this bungling amateurism and fake machismo do we have left? 22, is it? Sigh. I suspect a Kissinger or Baker would have gotten Damascus to make the Iraqi-Syrian border less porous years ago now--probably in one meeting that would have run 6 or so hours. And this without giving up the store on the Hariri investigation...

Deal or No Deal

I find this show interesting, from a number of perspective.

There is the fun of watching people think they are fated to win large sums, pass up large sums for bigger ones, cause they deserve it and have it coming to them. Plus you got the NUMBERS, lucky ones and ones calling out.

If it is as random as promised, it is all meaningless, so it is fun to see the belief systems working.

The other way is when patterns emerge.

Conincidentally, the show I am about to mention just was on again. MAYBE IT WAS FATED TO BE SO!

So they had this one guy on. His Story was that of his parents, wo came to the US with only $750 and a dream. Now the son has a shot at some game show money.

So as the show goes on, what happens? The values drop away, and finally what's left?

$75
$750
$750,000

All multiples of that $750 story. As they approached this point, the host pointed to these numbers still being on the board, and asked if it was meant to be. Sure, his job is to keep the player in or scare them out at certain points, but people are imagining that at home. People do love to believe they are meant for greatness or riches, just because. Destiny! It can make people vulnerable to cons and other risks.

So, what is in the case, after the player takes the deal? $750, the same amount his family came to this country with all those years ago.

FATE!

But really it is odd, and quirky. Trouble is people will read it as the hand of God at work.

I find it funny. But it is not divine. It is statistics, odds, dumb luck.

Or, the show has a way to cheat and set this up. And then the show is controlled and rigged. But I don't see any evidence of that available. So, I take them at their word that it is completely random and out of there hands.

So we are talking about random choices and gamesmanship.

Consider. If he had seen those 3 values and bought into fate, what might have happen? Their is the tiny value, the value equal to his parents story, and the big massive value. Wouldn't fate or God then have given him the big prize? So he should refuse all deals and take the case he picked at the start. And that would have ended the show with him leaving with less than $1,000.

What would fate or God be saying with that?


Numbers, statistics, odds.

Let us not make idols of them, hmm?

Good turns for women in the comics

One Diverse Comic Nation has a look at some of the good uses of women in the superhero books.




This is from the start of the latest issue of the Justice Society of America. It is an old school team, traced back to WWII. It has been in the last several years been a great read. A family team, made up of many old school heroes (original Green Lantern and Flash, Black Cat, Dr. Fate, Thunder, Power Girl, Spectre, and others going back to 50's) and generational heroes (newer Starmen, Stargirl, Tornado, Hourman, and on down the roster). It is a lot of what the new restart of the book is dealing with, the legacy of heroism.

So what does this issue start with? A part of the JSA rushing to the rescue, Power Girl (drawn feminine, but not comic or debasing), Stargirl (she was a newbie and young teen when the book started up again a few years back, but has grown into the title and proven herself a top line hero), Tornado (a newbie with a connection to the JSA's past and looking with eagerness and energy to prove herself and earn her spot on the team), and then Jay Garrick - the first Flash. With the JSA you get a large contingent of diverse and interesting characters. A team consisting of almost all women is not a plot point, it just comes from the team's makeup.

Plus, look at Power Girl. She looks great. She is attractive, but she's also powerful, heroic, and inspiring.

Better yet for fans of her...

She's the new Chairwoman of the Justice Society of America, embraced an promoted by the old timers, Green Lantern, Flash, and Hawkman. Great for her character. It beats the mopey character they turned into in Infinite Crisis, and some of the other uses of her. In JSA, I have a lot of confidence about her and other female heroes will be used.


In the new Spirit book, we have the return of an old character. Satin, a femme fatale/heroine of the original Eisner work is back. And, boy what a difference the years and new writers and artists make.

The cover with the old Satin. Notice her portrayal. Barely clothed, KO'd, helpless, but manly Spirit has got her.


Satin today. [Whistle] What a change! She gets to be tough. Plus, like Power Girl, she is feminine, attractive, but also strong and heroic. And Spirit is falling out of his pants.

It is a good read. It starts with a thought boxes.

The type of work I do require a certain amount of -- grit.

As much as I like to work alone, there are times when you're stuck with a partner.

Like this one here. Cute enough, I suppose, but a real pain.

I can handle people with little to contribute to the task at hand.

What I can't handle is an attitude on top of it.

Like I said, this one is cute enough.

The images as it starts finds Spirit and Satin in the middle of a desert, struggling along. The way the pictures play it seems like the thoughts are the Spirit's, annoyed at the girl he is stuck with. In reality...it is Satin griping about the Spirit, a city boy, who she has to drag through her adventure.

It is a fun play on the old story, and assumptions that one might have in a heroes book.

Then at the end.

Satin, is pulling the injured Spirit from trouble, then runs back, willing to sacrifice herself to save the rest, and stop the baddie. Of course, in the following page she pulls herself from the rubble. All in a days work.

The Spirit is a great read. If you want to read a comic, a fun and adventurous one, try it out. Especially if you like an old hero, the type that wears a small mask and a blue suit, fedora, and gloves to run around town fighting villains.

Check it out. Same with the Justice Society of America.

Mark Halperin's Note

Daily Kos takes a look at ABC News' The Note, and ABC News political director Mark Halperin. Correction, he is now the former director, he's stepped down to a lesser role. Reading Media Matters may clue you into ABC's move.

The simple truth is that with Halperin at the helm, The Note went all-in on the Bush White House. In January 2006, Halperin was so bowled over by President Bush's rhetorical flourish that he announced, "That is the kind of answer and vision that will get a man's approval rating back over 53% any day now." At the same time, The Note has often treated Democrats with open contempt, for instance, labeling former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe a "Cliché-Meister." By falling so madly for Karl Rove, the smartest man in politics ("SMIP") who is "beloved and respected,"Halperin and The Note became perfectly aligned with the Bush White House. It was an all-consuming crush that badly skewed The Note's ability to analyze the day's news events. (Halperin leaves behind a string of pro-Bush howlers that raise serious doubts about his much-hyped ability to expertly analyze American politics. More on those later.) And now that the Bush administration has fallen into complete disrepair, a state that's unlikely to be dramatically altered during the next 20 months, The Note would be wise, during this time of transition, to set a new course.

That wasn't Halperin's only tasteless misstep last fall. He became something of a right-wing folk hero when he paraded around on conservative talk shows announcing that the media did, in fact, suffer from a liberal bias. Halperin, an avowed Rush Limbaugh fan, insisted that reporters are "overwhelmingly liberal," confirmed that they "hate the military," are "blind" to their bias, and should use the closing weeks of the campaign season to "prove" their worth to right-wingers. "The reality of how [liberal bias] affects media coverage is outrageous," Halperin announced. (Of course, Halperin insisted that under his watch, ABC News was mostly innocent of those newsroom bias crimes.)

Man, he really seemed to hope to burn bridges and get a ride on the airship FOX News.

But now the game has changed, and The Note needs, for its own sake, to reflect that change. Obviously, it would be best if The Note, as well as all mainstream news outlets, simply performed the same news-gathering task in the same manner regardless of which party was in power. (Journalists aren't supposed to rise and fall, like K Street lobbyists, depending on which political party's in power.) But Halperin made a public choice, for either political or economic reasons, to publicly align The Note with one party over the other, and now ABC needs to clear up the mess Halperin created.

The media treating leadership by either party the same. What a novel idea!

Bush's Surge

The president said a lot of things today in his news conference. A lot was baloney. A lot was reconfigured wording and phrases, to make him look noble and his opponents traitorous and craven.

I was watching itching to call him out on a number of things.

But instead I find it interesting to look at one of his obfuscations, that I missed. From the AMERICAblog.

Who's surge is it?

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

So...the Joint Chief weren't in support? They didn't come up with it? Or even like it? And it is still Congress trying to plan military strategy over the heads of the generals? Not the White House?

...????

In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The so-called surge strategy is the brainchild of Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who has never been to Iraq. And once again, President Bush dismissed the views of his military advisers. General George Casey and General John Abizaid, the commanders in the field, doubted that additional troops would make any difference in Iraq. They were replaced by surge advocates, including Lieutenant General David Petraeus, now the top commander in Iraq.

So...What does this tell us?

Glenn Beck, says it like it is, in his addled mind.

On AMERICAblog they are looking at the latest hateful garbage out of Glenn Becks mouth.

He is pretty consistent in espousing nasty ideas, and either ignoring their impact or claiming he is a funny funny man. If he isn't attacking ones Americana bonafides, he's ready to attack you another way.

Such as the fact you may, in fact, not be a real woman.

Okay, at what point is CNN going to tell this asshole to knock it off? CNN, you have a bigot as a host. Glenn Beck has attacked Muslims, women, gays, blacks, and now he's yet again going after gays. He just, moments ago, on the air, questioned whether Rosie O'Donnell is really a woman. Actually, he didn't question it at all - he pretty much suggested that she isn't a woman. Rosie is a lesbian and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what he meant - you know, lesbians aren't real women, they're actually men - at least according to CNN.

CNN has hired a bigot as one of their hosts, and they have been informed time and again about the hateful crap this guy is spewing on CNN's dime. It's time the network stopped acting like FOX News. Best Buy, among others, have supported this bigot for too long. Please visit Chris Achorn's blog and help put an end this to ridiculous exercise in hate.

Okay. If it was a one time comment, or genuinely rare, maybe I would be annoyed at the callous way he looks at and only espouses on people different from him. But week after week, this comes out of his mouth. Muslims need to prove they aren't terrorist, to his assurance. He can't have black friends, cause he may say something they just won't get. Lesbians aren't real women. This is a pattern. And CNN, and the sponsors who let their ads go to his show are supporting his ideas, or paying for him to be disturbed on the air 7 days of the week.

Hard to figure which is worse and more crass.

Go to Media Matters for a run down of Glenn Beck's work.

Aftermath with Ware

Since Drudge helped start the attack on Michael Ware, for not buying the presidents and McCain's claims on Iraq, not much has happened.

People just don't buy it. Well, the FOX News viewer most likely have a large percentage who believed it before and were reinforced in their opinions.

The claim? Ware, when McCain gave a press conference in Baghdad, heckled him and through out rude questions.

The reality, from the video. He was quiet and listened, and when he tried to ask a question, they closed the whole thing down and left (fled from hard questions).

CNN, as the one afflicted challenged Drudges claims. And the story didn't stick.


So, how did Drudge make up for his smear?

He erased the page...It now never happen. That is Drudge. He is online, so their are no video tapes, no old newspaper, so he just wipes away his mistakes, like the White House website does.

But it does not remove is guilt and fault here. Nor in the innumerable other times he has taken bad inside information. He puts out bad stories quite often. But he doesn't pay. He still gets quoted. He still gets a high amount of respect, and taken too often at his word.

So when someone quotes Drudge, or Drudge Report, I have doubts, and, at least, ask if they have another source (One which didn't get their data from him.).

So how about the others that trusted Drudge. Or should I say the others that bit into what they thoughts was the kind f juicy story that they wanted to be true.

INSTAPUNDIT:

DISINTERESTED JOURNALISM: John McCain heckled by CNN reporter.

UPDATE: Hard to argue: "Michael Ware's behavior here is flat out unprofessional. If CNN keeps him on staff after this incident, that says something, doesn't it?"

ANOTHER UPDATE: John Tabin: "Heckling at a press conference is very rude, and wouldn't be acceptable even from an opinion journalist (I wouldn't dream of laughing in Nancy Pelosi's face during a press conference). That said, isn't it better when guys like Ware let their biases hang out, rather than embedding them in reports that are ostensibly objective?"

Pretty harsh. And it seems they have an opinion being confirmed. Pretty embarrassing for them. As it is clear they never even checked on this story. LAZY.

MORE: Ware denies the heckling, and he's got video. Looks like Drudge got burned, as, to a lesser degree, did those of us who relied on him.

Well he admits that the story turned...But he also puts fault on the story, on the source who lied to Drudge. Drudge got burned? No. Drudge lied. Or, Drudge just took an unconfirmed story and passed it on. YOU, took an unverified story and passed it on. YOU ARE AT FAULT.

You and Drudge want to play at PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST, but don't want to do the actual work.

SHAME ON YOU, Matt Drudge and Glenn Reynolds.

How about the American Spectator Blog?

Heckling at a press conference is very rude, and wouldn't be acceptable even from an opinion journalist (I wouldn't dream of laughing in Nancy Pelosi's face during a press conference). That said, isn't it better when guys like Ware let their biases hang out, rather than embedding them in reports that are ostensibly objective? I think the custom that prevails at British newspapers, where reporters are unafraid to reveal their opinions, is generally healthier than the inherrently dishonest objective-reporting model. In that sense, I hope Ware starts a trend.

UPDATE: Drudge's report is apparently erroneous.

Erroneous? Isn't that an UNDERSTATEMENT! How about your eagerness to jump on it. You titled your piece Let Your True Colors Shine Through. You accused him. But now it is wrong, moving on. And who is his, John Tabin, next source, in the next post?

Matt Drudge, of course.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

If you are a creationist, or a supporter of science, you have heard the old canard, the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, Darwin's research, etc.

It is an OLD one.

To look at the faces and listen to the words as creationist pull it out of their pockets, you'd think it was either new, or damning to science.

"Oh, no. Thermodynamics? we can't answer that!"

Phooey!

It has been answered. More to the point, the second law of thermodynamics has been explained and reexplained as the scientifically minded sow that the law is being abused by creationist. Neither the first or last bit of science that creationist will try to do harm to in their cause.

Please visit Panda's Thumb, or one of the other evolution boosters to see a full lay out of the why the 2nd law and Evolution are not in conflict.

Evolutionblog looks at the latest role out of this beaut.

The folks over at Uncommon Descent have unveiled a new blogger: mathematician Granville Sewell. He's the latest know-nothing to convert a comically simplistic version of the second law of thermodynamics into an anti-evolution argument.

Of course, this is one of those shark-jumping, litmus-test arguments that tell you immediately you are dealing with a crank. The second law of thermodynamics and modern evolutionary theory are not in conflict. That is a fact, not an opinion. Anyone claiming they are in conflict is confused about at least one of them, and probably both.

I have previously dealt at length with Sewell's arguments. Let's have a look at his latest rantings.

After linking to a blogger from Colombia who endorsed Sewell's view of things, Sewell writes the following:

Every time I write on the topic of the second law of thermodynamics, the comments I see are so discouraging that I fully understand Phil Johnson's frustration, when he wrote me “I long ago gave up the hope of ever getting scientists to talk rationally about the 2nd law instead of their giving the cliched emotional and knee-jerk responses. I skip the words '2nd law' and go straight to 'information'”. People have found so many ways to corrupt the meaning of this law, to divert attention from the fundamental question of probability-primarily through the arguments that “anything can happen in an open system” (easily demolished, in my article) and “the second law only applies to energy” (though it is applied much more generally in most physics textbooks). But the fact is, the rearrangement of atoms into human brains and computers and the Internet does not violate any recognized law of science except the second law, so how can we discuss evolution without mentioning the one scientific law that applies?

The sheer, breathtaking gall of these folks is simply not to be believed. Phillip Johnson was the Berkeley law professor who got the ID movement rolling with his book Darwin on Trial. This book contained very little that was scientifically accurate. The very idea of Johnson lamenting the lack of rationality in the way scientists discuss the second law, or anything else, is just too rich.

Sewell does not link to any critics actually making either of the points he attributes to them. I'd be surprised if any scientifically knowledgeable person has ever suggested either that anything can happen in an open system, or that the second law only applies to energy. It is probably too much to hope that Sewell will engage seriously with criticisms of his argument (doing so, after all, would force him to admit that he is wrong). Nonetheless, let us explain why he is not correct.

...

And that first part really just throws me. The lack of rationality in scientists? That is...WOW!

Look at "I long ago gave up the hope of ever getting scientists to talk rationally about the 2nd law instead of their giving the cliched emotional and knee-jerk responses" and "People have found so many ways to corrupt the meaning of this law".

With the first, it is just like with Johnson. Knee jerk response? You mean...the actually applied and research knowledge versus your own back of the pamphlet argument. Could it be the fact that your argument is faulty and broken is the problem? No? Why am I not surprised?

Second, doesn't that one sound like a scientist talking about a proponent of pseudoscience? Yet it is the pseudoscience lover that is making the claim. Amazing!

Really. These two remind of the cranks who every year send in their treatise on why Einstein's Theory is wrong and they are the first to disprove it. Every year, so many. People, on breaks from work, in their basements, just cranking away. And when they are told they are wrong, bad numbers, misapplied science, etc...It's the CONSPIRACY...the scientists trying to hide the truth...those damned scientists.


Sewell...Egnor...Behe...and all of them...isn't time to call it?

Isn't it time call them...KOOKS!

Just asking.

Egnor is trying to do the math, Rosenhouse grades him.

Dr. Michael Egnor continues his joke on us all.

Jason Rosenhouse, at Evolutionblog feels the need to get involved now.

Two weeks ago I joined the chorus of Science Bloggers bashing Michael Egnor for his posts at the Discovery Institute's blog. I pointed out a fairly straightforward error in one of his posts. At that time I mentioned that I hadn't jumped in earlier because Egnor's arguments revolved around medical practice, which is a subject I know little about. I also wrote this:

I figured I would weigh in when he started parroting those insipid probability arguments creationists find so appealing.

At the time I was being facetious. I didn't think he would really go there. I mean, really, no one with a medical degree could possibly be that foolish? Right?

Wrong.

Now, this essay was posted on April 1. Therefore, some caution seems prudent. Nonetheless it certainly sounds serious, and I will treat is as such. Egnor writes:

I think intelligent design is true because of the science. I believe that some biological complexity -- the genetic code, the cellular nanotechnology, the astonishing integration of organs and systems -- is best understood as the consequence of intelligent agency. Those who claim that randomness can generate biological complexity seem to lack an understanding of the vastness of what statisticians call “combinatorial space.” A grammatically correct, meaningful twenty-word English sentence cannot be generated by chance without an intelligently designed target that captures grammar and meaning. Did randomness generate the human beings who write English sentences? I have not seen any scientific evidence that would even suggest that it could or that it did.

Oh, for heaven's sake.

...

He tried to play the math card. Bad move, now you've ticked of the statisticians and mathematicians, along with the whole of the biological sciences.

I'm reminded of a Games Magazine contest from many years ago asking for examples of Chop Logic. Here's a typical example:

Proof That There is Life After Death.
After a death, there is a mourning.
After the morning comes the night.
Past the knight is the bishop.
Beyond the bishop is the pope.
The pope has serious convictions.
After a serious conviction, you get life. Therefore, there is life after death.

Bill O'Reilly has one note and he always hits it.

Crooks and Liars has video of another tedious rant by Bill O'Reilly into the the face of retired Colonel Ann Wright.

Can anyone argue with a straight face that FOX doesn't engage in pure agenda journalism? Bill knew exactly who Wright was and had the intention of painting her as an America-hating kook the entire time. But when she very reasonably explained that you can't talk about the Iranian situation without talking about how the United States treats it's own captured prisoners, Bill ends up losing it and accusing her — a 29 year Army veteran — of hating America. When did serving your country and demanding it abide by the Geneva Conventions become "hating America"? And when did cutting the mic of an Army veteran and accusing her of "hating America" become loving America?



WRIGHT: "I want to make sure the United States treats people properly.."

O'REILLY: "Sure you do. Sure you do."

WRIGHT: "I surely do. That's what I spent 29 years of my life trying to do."

O'REILLY: "Sorry. No you didn't. You know what happened to you…somewhere along the line you started to dislike your own country…."

WRIGHT: "I served 29 years. How many did you serve? Where did you teach the Geneva Conventions?"

O'REILLY: "Cut her mic."

One single note. You Hate America. A green protester, a dedicated congressperson, or a career army officer. One note. And when it crumbles, he ends the dialogue and declares victory.

The man is a joke.

Facelift

Well, I have changed the site template again. I just really couldn't stand the inefficient use of space. All that annoying blank space on the left...It just was chafing me that the posts were being scrunched. I would have preferred splitting my links between the sides instead, but this is nice.

So, hopefully, things will stay like this for awhile. Nice green background and a touch of purple. Hopefully the paleness of the background, and using black text, will allow us all to more easily and contemplatively read what I want to blather about.


Please feel free to complain.

A chance to learn a little something about comics

For those who don't follow or have an interest in comics, here is a chance to learn a little something.

For a while now, their has been a move to bring in STARS to write books. You have had the likes that are known for their books for long while now, Peter David, Neil Gaiman, etc.

But the stars I am talking of are the SUPERSTARS. You know, those of movie and TV fame. Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Aliens Resurrection), J. Michael Strazinski (Babylon 5), Allan Heinberg (Grey's Anatomy - Yeah, that got so you to take notice!).

It has been a mixed bag. Lots love Whedon's work. Same with Strazinski. And Heinberg...

Wonder Woman was restarted with issue #1 after Infinite Crisis (although the character is not being rebooted from scratch this time). The writer for the relaunched series's first story is Allan Heinberg, best known for his writing on TV's Grey's Anatomy. Within the realm of comics, he's best known for Young Avengers, which is notable both for its high critical acclaim and horrible delays in publication.

Delays. That is the cardinal sin of the comic industry...after the misogyny, of course. But that is the focus here. Delays.

So one has to question DC's thoughts in putting Heinberg on the relaunch of one of their Big Three, especially the one who only has one title (Batman has 4, Superman has 3, and they also have Batman/Superman. Wonder Woman just has her own solo book). And the pessimism proves justified. The publication schedule for his 5-issue storyline:

#1: July 7th
#2: August 23rd (a month and a half)
#3: November 22nd (three months)
#4: February 21st (three months)
#5: ... oops, no number five!

Yes, they're not going to publish Heinberg's issue #5. Because it's so fucking late it's jammed up schedules in the rest of the DCU that depend on the next WW story, because Wonder Woman is kind of important and occasionally shows up in other people's books, you know.

Instead, they're going to shove in a filler issue and then move on to the next writer's story, which will runnin issues #6-10. Then Heinberg's final issue will be printed as issue #11.

Issue 5, now as number 11...The final part of a story, now stalled out...

This is so horribly unprofessional it's unbelievable. This is supposed to be a monthly title. It's not like it was a secret that it was a monthly assignment. But writing comics clearly comes in dead last on this guy's priority list. But we're supposed to be excited because a TV writer (read: a legitimate person!) is willing to write comics! This is only helpful if he actually writes the comics. Do they let writers miss deadlines repeatedly by a factor of three in the TV world? As far as I know, the only place that's actually tolerated is software engineering. And apparently, comic books when the writer is a celebrity (see also Joss Whedon, although he's not quite this bad, and whoever is writing Ultimate Wolverine vs Hulk, which I fortunately don't care about at all because it's been removed from the schedule entirely).

Very, very unprofessional.

But this is not an unknown sin. It was exceptionally bad in the 90's. The mad and comic sick 90's. Companies crashed, or went into bankruptcy as they blew money and lost customers to tardiness. A book is a month, then more, then half a year...people DO FORGET you exist. "Hmm...Ministry of Space, when did I get this, and what happen to the last issue?" (Though to be far they have since printed the last issue of that.)

And it is still bad, see Frank Miller, many crimes in the comic world are his. But so is tardiness, The Dark Knight Strikes Back took forever to finish and get out. And, let the fans face it, the work plot and art were just piss poor. And it seems this is continuing with All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder now. It started in 2005, with Issue 1. We have been promised that Issue 5 this May. Two Years on, over 20 months later, and we are at 5. That is freaking late.

And like the TV stars, Miller is too big to be made to truly suffer for his lack of professionalism and...incompetence. When you've been in the biz for this long and act like this, what do we call it..maybe, callous disregard for ones duty.

There are some great creative and dedicated people in the comic business, and they lose jobs to these guys.

Girls in The GENRE

Now this is not about women in stories, art, and the like.

No it is about the fans.

One phrase I have heard discussed in a few spots, in nothing but negative terms, is "What other comics do you like?”

Now this can be friendly statement, a way to see what you share in common. It can also be a challenge, a friendly one, in which you see who reads more.

But it can also be a way to judge and threaten someone, by trying to suggest a lack of knowledge, commitment, etc.

This last approach is one many women run into, in talking (or mentioning) about or being in a comic environment (comic shops or conventions).

For one woman, it lead to this statement. There’s A Reason I’m Not Dating A Nerd

I later pondered and realized that what pissed me off was the notion that, because I’m female, I need to prove to men that I can join their exclusive club. And once that proof is established, I’m still not really allowed into their clubhouse. In the same way that so many nerds consider jocks to be practically another species, well, women are, too. We are Other. We’re confusing and mystifying. And it doesn’t matter if we like the same things, if we read the same things, if we discuss the same things. ‘Female’ is ‘Other’. But a female who is into those same things is put into yet another classification – as both female and nerd (especially if you’re attractive) you’re now a fetish. You’re someone who can share the joy of videogames and comics and science fiction, so he doesn’t have to alter his interests to impress you – and on top of that, you might have sex with him. You’re not just a girl, you’re a dream girl.

Another, I'm just a (gamer) girl, and that's all that you'll let me be.

Today I was wandering around the internet and stumbled upon this website: The Hot Gamer Chick Gallery. I tried to give the site the benefit of the doubt (mostly because the Changeling information on the main site is so useful) but eventually I just started rolling my eyes and grumbling.

So, I'm making a post to rant at this dude's hypocrisy.I'm just going to go through the lines of text and pick out some choice ones.

Here at The Right to Dream we have dedicated this section of the site to recognizing the Gamer Girl population. Girls who break the sterotypical mold of the "Gamer Girlfriend". Ladies, we salute you!

I just glossed over that sentence at first but thinking about it now, I'm starting to wonder. What exactly is the "gamer girlfriend" stereotype? As far as I knew, it meant that the girl was only interested in gaming because that was what she felt she had to do to get her boyfriend to spend time with her or pay attention to her. Thinking about it further I can't honestly say I've met and/or seen any women like this. Granted, I'm sure they are out there, but the majority of the gamer girls I meet have been interested in gaming for gaming's sake and if they had gamer boyfriends that wasn't the reason the women gamed (just yet another similarity that drew them together as a couple).

...

And, "You cast spells like a girl!"

So, I am an avid fan of fantasy and science fiction. When the "Dragonology", "Wizardology", "Pirateology", etc. books started to pop up I was really pleased. They were fun, they were interactive, and they were magical and cute. Perfect for children and children-who-never-grew up. I bought the "Dragonology" one because dragons have a special place in my heart and I've always wished to be a Dragon Biologist (*sigh*).

This was a while ago, when the Dragonlogy book was the only one around. And I'd been seeing others pop up and kept meaning to buy them. Today I had the chance to peruse the "Wizardology" book and "The Wandmaker's Guidebook".I was initially pleased and amused by the neat things inside the book but then I started noticing something that made my smile vanish: where were the women?

It's not discrimination, it's historical

So there's this thread on roleplayers where a woman is asking for advice about dealing with sexism in the Dungeons and Dragons game she plays. Along with some interesting discussion and good advice about talking to the gamemaster, I noticed variants of a couple of the Great

Excuses for Sexism in Gaming:
1 - It happens to men too
2 - It's appropriate for the setting

Maybe later, if I think my brain is up to the bleeding, I'll go dig up one of the many RPGnet threads about gender issues in a game and find Great Excuses 3 through n. Right now, I'm thinking about #2, where objecting to sexism in any vaguely historical setting is unreasonable because "that's the way it really was." I say vaguely because the connection to history can be very loose. For example, in the above-mentioned discussion, the setting of the game was "inspired by the Roman Empire although with some significant differences," and the poster mentioned that soon the group would be heading into the Underdark--which, unless the Underdark has changed a lot in later editions of D&D, is straight-up fantasy. (She also mentioned that the change would be nice because of the "strong powerful women" in the Underdark, but for this post I've decided to avoid the yawning conversational abyss posed by the evil black matriarchy of elves she's talking about.) So, basically, if your fantasy setting sat on a shelf next to a 7th-grade history textbook at some point in its life, it's historical enough that traditional gender roles "should" be in place.

I can think of at least a couple of ways to respond to this idea to explain why it's a bad excuse. The first would be to ask the guys who aren't getting it how they'd feel about playing in a setting where the default governments were matriarchal, where nations ruled by men were depicted as exotic or evil (I'm skirting that abyss, demmit), where male NPCs most commonly showed up in storylines where they were being kidnapped or raped, where male characters could never aspire to any real political power and at best would be well-regarded for rising above their gender... I could go on, but in my experience this tactic doesn't work, because people will line up like birds on a wire to chorus "no, I wouldn't mind that!" secure in the knowledge that it doesn't matter if they mind it, because it'll never happen.

A second way to respond is growing on me, though--an awareness of how lazy this approach to gamemastering is. The laziness comes in two parts: how people think about the setting and how they think about the plot.

Some of the responses to the above:

This is a subject near and dear to my heart. One of the things we aimed for in Rich Dansky's tenure as line developer for White Wolf's Vampire: The Dark Ages and later with Phil Boulle developing Dark Ages: Vampire was to give full attention to th very wide range of possibilities in medieval society. In particular, for Ashen Knight, a book about vampires and the nobility, we gave space for women as local authorities (and sometimes exercising authority over whole kingdoms), about how a lifestyle of war and crusade for feudal lords inevitably dumped a lot of practical power in the laps of wives and daughters, about societies like Languedoc France of the 12th-14th centuries where women fairly routinely held knighthood and flourished as troubadours, about female war band leaders in heavily fought-over borderlands, and so on. We emphasized that while some situations were unusual, they did happen, and therefore could happen to PCs just as easily to anyone else, with advice on handling unusual-but-not-unprecedent situations for PCs in ways more interesting than everyone else just shutting them down.

Dear Lord the crap we got from fanboys over it. And how very often it came wrapped up in framing paragraphs about how of course they're not sexist or misogynistic at all, it's just that if we allow female PCs to be anything but utter cliches of helplessness, we're pushing political correctness down the players' throats. As it happens, one of my co-authors is a medievalist, and somehow his round-up of readily accessible scholarship (including primary sources) never got very direct responses. The dissenters would just loop back and repeat their original whines again. And again. And again.

Back when I was into Tribe 8, I had several male friends refuse to play because the setting is described as being matriarchal.

This was especially funny as they were the kind of guys who were always arguing that women wanting to play in settings where men are in charge should just get over it.

I loved your summary of how easy it should be to demolish argument #2... if anyone on the other side of the debate was listening. I've pretty much stopped dropping by forums like RPG.net and theRPGsite because I'm tired of reading and responding to the same debates over and over again, and this is one of them. See for example Cheesecake: Love it or hate it? and [RANT] Cheesecake and Character Images, where I get to be called a Victorian prude for suggesting that female characters can be portrayed as strong, attractive and sexy without being porn stars.

A funny cartoon of how female characters are approached and why:

One From Column A, One From Column B-movie

Dawkins Gives Postmodernists What For

On RichardDawkins.net, Richard Dawkins discusses Postmodernism, and why it is hooey.

Postmodernism Disrobed

Richard Dawkins' review of Intellectual Impostures by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. Profile Books 1998, £9.99. Published in U.S.A. by Picador as Fashionable Nonsense.

Published as 'Postmodernism Disrobed', Nature 394, pp 141-143, 9th July 1998 and, in abbreviated form, in A Devil's Chaplain

Republican Noise Machine after Ware - Is there a spanner in the works?

CNN's Michael Ware has been a constant pessimistic voice on Iraq. He has been stationed there for a long while now, going into harms way, getting in deep for stories, and plowing through the BS to get to the reality on the ground. Hence, when McCain started spouting the PR pages at people and claiming things were getting great in Iraq, Ware was more the ready, and plenty shocked. He had no idea where McCain's words came from, but he was clear in every report that they bared little relation to events in Iraq.

He has been an effective, and respected outlet for information. Many conservatives don't like this. Hence we have Matt Drudge.


A little life lesson. When Matt Drudge says or writes ANYTHING, take it with a grain of salt. In fact, take it tear it up and sift through it until you can find his kernel of truth. Look back at his story on Clinton's speech about Martin Luther King. She gave the speech, gave the quote he took. But he completely mischaracterized the rest.


So, we have Matt Drudge. And he has done a bit of a story on McCain's trip to Baghdad, but he made a point of going after Ware. How he heckled and laughed at McCain. How he called out lude questions.

And this has been taken on by others since. Now, is it true?

CNN, seeing as it was they who were being gone after, were dubious.

AMERICAblog:

Last week, CNN's Michael Ware challenged John McCain's unsubstantiated assertion that there were multiple neighborhoods in Baghdad where Americans could take a walk without any security at all. Ware, who is in Baghdad, explained that McCain was flat-out wrong. That, of course, set Ware up for a typical Republican smear campaign from all the right-wingers, comfortably safe here in the U.S. Almost on cue, Republican activist Matt Drudge launched the first salvo, claiming that Ware went crazy at McCain's Baghdad press conference, and that the CNN reporter actually heckled the good Senator.

Only problem? The video of the press conference (link below) shows Ware sitting quietly and politely the entire time. Oops. Maybe in John McCain's mind that's what happened.

Then Ware calls McCain out on the lie that Ware somehow heckled him.

O'BRIEN: Let me ask you a question. There was a report that said you were heckling and you were laughing during the senator's press conference. Is that true?

WARE: Well, let's bear in mind that this is a report that was leaked by an unnamed official, of some kind, to a blog, to somewhere on the internet. No one is going to put their name forward. We certainly haven't heard Senator McCain say anything about it, or any of his staff have come forward to say anything about it.

I did not heckle the senator. Indeed, I didn't say a word. I didn't even ask a question. In fact, when I raised my hand to ask a question the press conference abruptly ended. So, what I would suggest is that anyone who has any queries about whether I heckled, watch the videotape of the press conference -- Soledad.

Raw Story has the video of Ware's response -- and the video of the news conference where Ware supposedly did the heckling of John McCain. You'll note that Ware doesn't even speak during the entire press conference, and when he tries to ask a question, the press conference is immediately called to a close.

Of note, Think Progress also has the video of NBC's Tom Aspell challenging McCain's "safe stroll" through Baghdad noting that with all the protection afforded the Senator, including 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawk helicopters, and 2 Apache attack helicopters, "even Paris Hilton could ride a bicycle in a bikini through Anbar province.” Aspell can probably expect the next right wing attack. But Aspell and Ware have been in a war zone for years now. They're not intimidated by the right wing noise machine. They face death every day. Drudge doesn't really scare them.

Someone in the GOP delegation to Baghdad -- whether it was McCain and his people, or a Bush administration official -- sent the word to attack Ware. If the Republicans put as much time in to running the war as they do to attacking anyone who disagrees with them, we might make some progress. But, it's all one big political game for the Republicans. And when Ware and Aspell and other media based in Iraq tell the facts, they become the enemy to the Republicans.

All of us want the situation in Baghdad to improve. But we want the real story, not spin. That's what the GOP has given us for years. They've lied about the war -- and they'll keep doing it, unless responsible journalists like CNN's Michael Ware keep them honest.

Crooks and Liars has the video of Ware on CNN.

Raw Story has the McCain presser…No heckling there…Once again Drudge is proved to be a fool…

GORANI: And lastly, I've got to ask you about a report there that said that you were heckling and laughing during Senator McCain's news conference in Baghdad. Is there any truth to that?

WARE: No, there is not, Hala. I didn't heckle. Indeed, it's been accused that I asked mocking questions. And as you'll see, I never even asked a question. In fact, I sat there silently.

This has been a political brouhaha that started last week.

Unfortunately, Senator McCain has had one of the strongest Iraq policies that most reflects the realities here on the ground, but last week he made one gaffe. And when corrected on that, it's now brought his entire Iraq policy into question, and he seems to have backed himself into a corner and invested everything on his so-called Baghdad walk yesterday, even though it was enveloped in such a blanket of security

It is just another feeble stab at smearing anyone who contradicts them. They used to be so much better at this.

Newsweek Poll - We really are the Stupid Americans.

Newsweek came out with a poll that is little that bolsters ones hope and optimism about the United States. May not be patriotic to say. It may not be nice. But, COME ON! Faith trumps science with us? How can I respect that?

So, Newsweek's poll looked at Americans and religion, and science.

America's Faith -1 / America's Well Being - 0

Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.

These poll results come just a few months after an international study was conducted to measure which countries were the most accepting on evolutionary biology. Of the 34 countries involved, the United States ranked 33rd. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Yeah, great. Us and Turkey. Wonderful.

And then you have the MSNBC view.

Although one in ten (10 percent) of Americans identify themselves as having "no religion," only six percent said they don’t believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma.

Excuse me...DUUUHHHHHH!!!

May? MAY! Geez.

Still, the poll suggests that the public’s tolerance of this small minority has increased in recent years. Nearly half (47 percent) of the respondents felt the country is more accepting of atheists today that it used to be and slightly more (49 percent) reported personally knowing an atheist. Those numbers are higher among respondents under 30 years old, 62 percent of whom report knowing an atheist (compared to just 43 percent of those 50 and older). Sixty-one percent of the under-30 cohort view society as more accepting of atheists (compared to 40 percent of the Americans 50 and older).

Sure, the country is more accepting...sure. And many people have known...and maybe even petted one of those atheist. Atheist, once rumored to be myths, like the Panda. But, yeah, society is so much more cooler on the whole atheists thing. Especially if atheists keep their mouths shut and don't express any opinion that indicates their lack of faith.

In the poll, 68 percent of respondents said they believed someone could be moral and an atheist, compared to 26 percent who said it was not possible.

Gee, thanks. Can I...

Still, it is unlikely that a political candidate would serve him or herself well by declaring their atheism. Six in ten (62 percent) registered voters say they would not vote for a candidate who is an atheist.

Ah, that's a no. 68% think an atheist CAN BE moral. But most all of them also wouldn't trust one with any real power.


Doesn't that REALLY say it all?

Chocolate Jesus bitter in the mouths of Catholics

It has been all over the news, so you know, Jesus has returned. And he's got HERSHEY stamped on his ass.

And CHUNKY on his woo-haa. Yeah, he the Chocolate Jesus and he's ALL MAN and ALL NATURAL...except for his preservatives...but come on the man's been to heaven and hell, let us cut him some slack.

Of course, one group won't be cutting him any slack, in fact they want to cut him down and deny him.

And the ironic answer is? The Catholics.

Yes, Catholics, through their loud and unstable spokesman Bill Donohue, Catholic League, is P-I-S-S-E-D.

Catholic League head Bill Donohue called it "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever".

Nuns being slaughtered en mass, pretty bad. Chocolate rendition of Jesus, about the same on the holy scale...Right.

Come on, Bill, get over it. Shouldn't Abu Ghraib have been "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever"? How about the injustice of our war in the Iraq? What about the ongoing denial of civil rights to homosexuals? There are a lot of horrors in the world that might prompt a good Christian man to unleash his righteous fury, but a giant chocolate Jesus really isn't one of them.

And on Anderson Cooper 360, he got to mock and threaten the artist of the work.

DONAHUE: Look, you lost. You know what? You put your middle finger at the Catholic Church, and we just broke it, didn't we, pal?

C. CAVALLARO: No. You're wrong. You're wrong.

DONAHUE: Yes, we did. You lost.

C. CAVALLARO: I have a lot of believers.

DONAHUE: We — we won. You're out of a job.

C. CAVALLARO: And I'm a Christian. And there's a lot of people like me, who are opposed to what you're doing, because you made a big…

DONAHUE: Yes? But I got a job, and you don't.

C. CAVALLARO: You made a — "I got a job, and you don't"?

DONAHUE: Yes.

C. CAVALLARO: You're acting like a 5-year-old.

DONAHUE: I got a job, and you don't.

C. CAVALLARO: You're talking — you're acting like a 5-year-old. And I feel sorry for you.

COOPER: All right. We're going to — we're…

DONAHUE: Well, I won on this, and you lost, didn't you?

And, from Digby:

I'm sorry to have to say this because I am generally pretty tolerant of religion and try to be respectful of others' beliefs. But until the Catholic Church steps up and says that this screaming nutcase Bill Donohue and his band of freaks don't speak for them, I'm going to have to assume that the Catholic Church agrees with his lunatic ravings. This is getting completely ridiculous...

As long as he continues to get to play leader of the Catholic League, and the League gets to be the Catholic rep on camera, and the Bishops and Cardinals are in hiding, he is the leader. He's the American Pope, dictater of religious law and morality, and infallible. Unless Catholics, and the Church, want to stand up and say something...Nope.

Here is what Donohue actually wrote on his website, via feministe:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue outlined his game plan today:

“The Roger Smith Hotel is located in the heart of New York City, and it boasts on its website that its Lab Gallery ‘is a high traffic, fast paced’ venue. Indeed it is: the gallery is located on street level, easily accessible to the public. But it is sure bet that in the years to come there will be little in the way of high traffic coming from the Christian community.

“As I’ve said many times before, Lent is the season for non-believers to sow seeds of doubt about Jesus. What’s scheduled to go on at the Roger Smith Hotel, however, is of a different genre: this is hate speech. And choosing Holy Week—the display opens on Palm Sunday and ends on Holy Saturday—makes it a direct in-your-face assault on Christians.

Hate speech? Chocolate figures are HATE! Man, what are we teaching kids with those choc bunnies, the HORROR!

“All those involved are lucky that angry Christians don’t react the way extremist Muslims do when they’re offended—otherwise they may have more than their heads cut off. James Knowles, President and CEO of the Roger Smith Hotel (interestingly, he also calls himself Artist-in-Residence), should be especially grateful. And if he tries to spin this as reverential, then he should substitute Muhammad for Jesus and display him during Ramadan.“

I am contacting hundreds of organizations about this assault. Our allied list contains scores of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu organizations, as well as secular groups, that share our concerns about religious hate speech and the degradation of our culture. The only thing that those who operate the Roger Smith Hotel understand is when they get hit in the pocket book. So that’s exactly where we’ll hit them. The boycott is on.”

How Christian! You're lucky we aren't Muslim, or we'd kill ya. So that is the only thing holding him back. Remember the bible, all those verses where Jesus had to held back by the disciples from handing out some whoop ass, and then he'd say, "Thou ist lucky my Dad's here." He was pretty butch and mean (Which he could actually be in the book...but still that isn't there claim.).

The hotel and the gallery were overrun Thursday with angry phone calls and e-mails about the exhibit. Semler said the calls included death threats over the work of artist Cosimo Cavallaro, who was described as disappointed by the decision to cancel the display.

``In this situation, the hotel couldn't continue to be supportive because of a fear for their own safety,'' Semler said.

Death threats...safety concerns. And, remember, they are not like Muslims. Not when bombs are put in medical clinics, snipers are shooting doctors, or when the try and force their ways into law. Completely different.

Since the Vatican itself is a veritable sausage fest, and its most renowned artist, Michaelangelo, sculpted the most famous nude Biblical figure in history, it simply cannot logically be the nudity that's the problem for the Catholic League. (Lord knows, the Catholic League is nothing if not logical.)

So it must be the medium. The fact that it is sculpted in chocolate is so offensive to Donohue's thugs that they are issuing death threats to those who display such alleged blasphemy. I don't exactly understand why that would be. Chocolate is no more meaningful than clay or bronze or marble. It doesn't carry any scatalogical meaning nor is it thought of as derisive in any way. Perhaps the Catholic League could distribute its list of approved artist materials so that they won't run afoul of the rules and cause themselves to be threatened with death and boycott or accused of hate speech.

It's really too bad the artist didn't think to do it in cartoon form because the entire right wing would be in a frenzy defending his right to free speech. Indeed, he would have become a martyr for all of western civilization. Unapproved sculpting materials, on the other hand, are so far out that death threats are entirely appropriate.

Why is it that I have such a problem understanding the alleged principles the religious conservatives lives by? And why am I so unimpressed with the leaders of a great religion who allow people to act like cretins in their name and yet cover up much more serious crimes against actual human beings?

Blog Against Theocracy Blogswarm

This Easter weekend...

Blog Against Theocracy Blogswarm.

From Blue Gal:

There are no real guidelines to this. Here are some tips that might help, but really, I'm not into herding cats so this is your own thang.

The idea is to post at least once from Friday to Sunday Easter Weekend, April 6-8.

The post will be against theocracy, in favor of our Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. But there are a LOT of issues tied to this, as is pointed out in the First Freedom First website:

No religious discrimination.
PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)
Reproductive health decisions made by individuals, not religious "majorities"
Democracy not Theocracy
Academic Integrity (like, a rock is as old as it is, not as old as the Bible says)
Sound Science (good bye so-called "intelligent" design)
Respect for ALL families (based on love, not sexual orientation. Hellooooo.)
And finally,
The right to worship, OR NOT.

From Mock, Paper, Scissors:

I want to stress that this is not an anti-religion activity — I personally do not care if you worship a rock, a picture of Elvis or some other dead guy, or nothing at all in a church, mosque, temple or at the local bar — this is about keeping the Government and all Religions separate, and never shall the twain meet.

So please, Please, PLEASE join me Easter Weekend. And remember, if Jebus sees his shadow, we have 6 more weeks of winter.

(You’d be disappointed if I didn’t snark just a little in a post this long, right?)

UPDATE 1: The Neural Gourmet (and you have to love that name!) has some further instructions, including some Technorati tips that will help pull this swarm off.

UPDATE 2: Blue Gal has put together a spot on the web to act as a clearing house, Blog Against Theocracy. There are some instructions there, too, about how to participate.
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 31st, 2007

Here is some support for the event from a Baptist Minister.

For Jesus the Kingdom of God is "not of this world." Theocrats are distorting the teachings of Jesus to promote their own fantasies for a temporal utopia.

So if you are inclined, get involved and blog, or comment on one of the number of blogs that will be active during Easter. I plan to be travelling a bit towards the end of the week , but hopefully I will be able to be active.

Student loan hijinks, the joke may be on you.

AMERICAblog has a troubling look at the outsourcing of financial advising, ie student loan support, to loan providers. Something to note for all parents, and students.

Good grief. At a minimum, students and their families ought to know who they are speaking with when phoning what they believe is a university help desk. Anyone who is unable to see the gross conflict of interest with this relationship better think again.

The telephone number looks like any other university extension. And when students call with questions about financial aid, the recorded voice at the other end says, "Thank you for calling Texas Tech University's student financial center."

But what is remarkable about the center is not so much that it is actually located hundreds of miles away from Texas Tech's Lubbock campus. It is that the people giving advice are not university employees at all -- instead they work for Nelnet, a company that made more than $68 million last year off of student loans.

Nelnet's role staffing the help line -- which is not disclosed to callers -- is a window into the often hidden relationships between loan companies and the colleges that students rely on for advice about how to finance their schooling. Nelnet is one of several lenders that the university recommends to its students, though it is not among its 10 largest lenders.

...

It is worth being aware of potential incestuous business partnerships, and prepping your kids to be wise about the possibility.

Crier on Bush

Catherine Crier had a wonderful piece on her show on Court TV. Catherine Crier Live.



She looked at President Bush's abuse of his power. Crooks and Liars has the video.

Crier Wire:

Crier: In the last six years this President has assumed more power than any President in history…

Crier: How about the other matters in the King's court…Former WH counsel Harriet Miers would now be a Supreme Court justice. Michael Brown would still be head of FEMA because as you know he did a " heckofajob." Donald RUmsfeld would still be Secretary of Defense because of his marvelous handling of the Iraq war. And former gay prostittute Jeff Gannon, a mysterious member of the WH press corp. might now be sitting in Helen Thomas's seat….

She is really a genuinely interesting person to watch and listen to discuss matters.

A man, a plan, a McCain

McCain is determined to be proved right.

After last weeks claim that all was well in Baghdad, he has gone in. What a guy. So manly and gung ho.

So did he, like he claimed others do, go out for a coffee, go unarmored and unescorted...

Not exactly.

McCain, in armor, with 100 armed soliders around him, 3 blackhawk helicopters and 2 apache helicopters flying above bravely went out. Did I save brave? I mean bold, strong, and coolly...in a completely safe city, of course.

Now 6 soldiers near Baghdad were not as lucky...I mean safe.

And after he left?

[I]t didn't take the insurgents long to send their reply. Less then 30 minutes after McCain wrapped up, a barrage of half a dozen mortars peppered the boundaries of the Green Zone, where the senators held their press conference.

Way to make a point senator. You really are on the Straight Talk Express...wait April Fools is over! I was sarcastic there.