Saturday, April 07, 2007

Juan Cole, on the Middle East

Juan Cole, of Informed Comment, and President of the Global Americana Institute, is an avid student of the Middle East situation. If you aren't giving his work a look see, you aren't doing yourself a favor.

Cole has an article in The Nation.
How to Get Out of Iraq
Both houses of Congress have now backed a timeline for withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq in 2008, which George W. Bush has vowed to veto. He gives two major rationales for rejecting withdrawal. At times he has warned that Iraq could become an Al Qaeda stronghold, at others that "a contagion of violence could spill out across the country--and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict." These are bogeymen with which Bush has attempted to frighten the public. Regarding the first, Turkey, Jordan and Iran are not going to put up with an Al Qaeda stronghold on their borders; nor would Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis. Most Sunni Iraqis are relatively secular, and there are only an estimated 1,000 foreign jihadis in Iraq, who would be forced to return home if the Americans left.

Bush's ineptitude has made a regional proxy war a real possibility, so the question is how to avoid it. One Saudi official admitted that if the United States withdrew and Iraq's Sunnis seemed in danger, Riyadh would likely intervene. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has threatened to invade if Iraq's Kurds declare independence. And Iran would surely try to rescue Iraqi Shiites if they seemed on the verge of being massacred.

But Bush is profoundly in error to think that continued US military occupation can forestall further warfare.

...

From Informed Comment:
Israel vs. Bush & the Neoconservatives on Syria?


70 Killed in Iraq
Diplomacy of Iran May be Legacy of British Sailor Hostage Crisis


Bernard Gwertzman's interview of me on the release of Iran's hostages and the Iranian role in Iraq is available at the Council on Foreign Relations web site.

Jim Lobe interviews Gary Sick, Trita Parsi and me on the Iranian capture and release of the British sailors, and what might be the aftermath.

...

Someone should please tell Cheney that his own government captured documents in Iraq that show that Saddam's security forces were a) afraid of al-Qaeda and Zarqawi and b) were trying to capture him once they heard he was in Iraq. The pdf link in my posting on this shows the APB Iraq put out for Zarqawi and the wanted poster.

More:
A returning US naval reservist reveals how bad the situation is in Iraq. Money quotes:
' “If you’re going to walk around over there, I’d strongly suggest investing in Kevlar (body armor),” Christensen said. “There are definitely warmer spots of American compassion, but things are still very ... touchy.”
A spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani denied on Wednesday that the Shiite spiritual leader opposes a new law supported by President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that would reinstate Baathists in high government positions if they cut off any relationship to the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement. Sistani's opposition was reported by visiting politician Ahmad Chalabi, who admittedly has credibility problems.

...

Iraqi officials cannot account for $8 billion during the past 3 years, with much of it embezzled. Some $2 billion disappeared during the prime ministership of US-appointed PM Iyad Allawi.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

The Blogswarm cometh

The time of the Blog Against Theocracy Blogswarm is nigh. [Sorry, forgot the link first time around.]

So a good place to start is with some disappointing work via Anderson Cooper 360. He has done good work in the past. His grilling of Sylvia Browne sycophants was just lovely. Warmed the heart to see a host not just take the psychic fraud being taken at her word, when the word was so easy to overturn.

But this week Cooper's show has been looking at Christianity.

He dropped the ball, as PZ Meyer points out.

But in the false arguments and unanswered questions are things for us to learn about Those That Would Force Religion On The Class, Court, And The Congress. THEOCRACY!

CHARMAINE YOEST, VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL:

Well, you know, mainstream science, throughout history, has been challenged by questions. And that's how we make advances in science, is being open to all different perspectives.
Gosh, it seems so reasonable...wait, is that what she really means? No. We aren't talking about adding a popular science hypothesis, a god theory, or anything of the sort. IT IS FAITH. That simple.

And that's all that we're calling for, is saying that, you know, have we gotten to a place in our culture where science has such an orthodoxy around Darwinian theory that we can't even question it, that we can't even look at some of the gaps in the theory, and ask, how can we do better and how can answer some of these questions?
Orthodoxy? Trying to wrap an established scientific theory in religion? Classic.

Gaps in the theory...sigh. The wounded warrior for science this one is. Many areas of our scientific knowledge has gaps, from neurology to evolution. It doesn't mean we cram every crackpot idea in. And, how can we do better? Put...God in it? BINGO! Is it still science? Nope. But it gives the the likes of the Family Research Council a warm feeling. And isn't that the point of science and research?

And, is it much to ask, what questions you have about evolution that God will help? Would laying them out make you look bad?

That's all we're asking for, is an openness of dialogue and looking at all of the research.
DING! DING! DING! I have to call you on this ma'am. What research? I have yet to see any, especially from your vanguard the Discovery Institute. Look up the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document for more on what they are really up to.

Robert Boston of the AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, point out:

I think that there is a mechanism in science that allows for these views to be aired through peer-review journals. And the intelligent-design advocates...

... have not been able to public any research that indicates...
To which Yoest claims:

That's just not true.
Can you...ACTUALLY back that up?

And when Yoest gets challenged on the Young Earth supporters, Yoest just said:

What we are looking at here is saying, there are legitimate scientific questions on the table.
So, no answer.

And, again, what questions? What have your researchers come up with?

Oh, right...NOTHING!

So, we're really, really seeing an amazing censorship of anything that questions Darwinism. And you see this kind of thing where, immediately, the minute you question Darwinism, people like Rob come up and say, oh, no, you're going to talk about God.
Yeah, they are the victims, sure.

Darwinism...questioning. Why does she so proudly go out and parade her ignorance?

Darwin's work has been torn into for more than a century.

What portions were invalidated against later ideas and newer evidence was jettisoned. Our idea of evolution, has evolved. It is not set in stone.

So what is her point?

They offer no evidence, no science, no rational argument, then whine about not being taken seriously.

PLEASE!

Well, you know, I think our children have more robust intelligence and -- and questioning to be able to cope with looking at all the different theories that are out there. I think it's -- I just have to ask, what is he so scared of?
What theory? You mean the half-arsed talking point based on a moldy old book of fables and allegories?

Is she so shocked that a person with a respect for science and education dislikes the thought of children being lied to by their teachers?

I can't get a word in -- that you're trying to conflate creationism with intelligent design.

The only thing I have talked about is intelligent design.
Simple thing. Creationism...Intelligent Design...from the minds of the same people. After the failures of forcing the bibles back into schools, we got Creation Science, Creationism, and now, Intelligent Design. Just the next link in the chain.

Talk about ID? When has she even mentioned her position or what she supports, beyond pissing on science?

Why are you afraid of the fact that 90 percent of the American people do believe in God?
What does this have to do with science?

Science is not a democracy.

We don't vote and pick how much gravity their will be this year. We don't elect or impeach the laws of motion. Evolution occurs, no matter how much you pray against it.

Sorry.

Say...doesn't this point of your go directly against your claim that this cause of yours has noting to do with Creationism? Not that we didn't know that already.

Well, absolutely. That would -- that would come in, in a history of science, in a philosophy of science.

That's why I'm saying, there's different kinds of classes. So, we're talking about kind of a broad array of things. Your kids need to know what opinions are out there and -- and -- and see what the evidence is, consider the evidence.
The backdoor. Maybe don't have ID in the main class...BUT, have a second class where we say the other class is full of lies.

Many things can be done to improve science. New approaches from the elementary ages could be invaluable. But the push of this idea seems to be to force as much confusion into science, and then kids can just pick and choose.

The closest I would ever allow to a science-based classes is at the start. Use it with a couple of other examples of how good, bad, and kooky ideas fair in the processes of the scientific method. That would be as far as it deserves to ever go. But why even bother to go there? Plenty of kooky conspiracy hypothesises out there to use. Nothing special her. Nothing at all.


Well, I hope people enjoy this weekend. Get around and enjoy the blogswarm.

A lack of sound arguments from a very smart fellow.

From PZ Meyer:
If I see Francis Collins' pious, simpering facade one more time, I'm going to get really pissed off. Can someone please give that man a Templeton Prize and let him retire to the Cascades, where he can stare at waterfalls to his heart's content? CNN has an article on "Why this scientist believes in God", and it's just more vapid crap distilled from his vapid book.

But OK, let's take him at his word. He claims to be presenting reasons to believe … what are they? Do they meet any kind of scientific standard?

I've thrown out most of his essay, and pulled out just those parts that actually address the issue. Not much was left.

...

And that's it. Collins is given space to make an argument for the existence of his god, and this is the best he can do: nostrums, nonsense, noise. He should have been more honest and simply said he believes because he wants to believe, and he has no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to give his belief greater credibility than that of any unlettered church-going yokel.

...


I have tried to give Collins a lot of leeway. He is a brilliant fellow. He has done a lot for humanity's knowledge base through the genome project. But his failings when faith come into play are telling.

He believes in evolution. But it is a work of God. Okay. We can debate, philosophically, how it all started. But it does not end there.

He then proceeds to go on to morality.

Proof of God.

After all, He gave it to us. And it is beyond any other life form. We, alone, are blessed.

Though...we are seeing the early signs of morality in animals quite like our ancestors. That would seem to counter his faith based argument about morality's origins. But why would science give pause to ones faith-based knowledge? Even for a scientist.

It's a shame.

But it is a reminder that brain capacity and/or amount of education do not make one immune to magic thinking.

FOX News, still looking out FOR THE TROOPS

AMERICAblog:
Uh oh. Why do FOX News and Rupert Murdoch hate the war on terror? They just said that their "sister network," Sky News (also owned by Rupert Murdoch), reported that one of the captured British soldiers, before he was captured, said they were there to spy on Iran. Here is Rupert's report.

The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.

Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.

We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.
So Rupert Murdoch just informed the world that the Brits were spies. I'm sure that will be very useful to our enemies. I'm waiting for Dick Cheney and the White House to blast FOX for not supporting the troops. I believe "treason" was the word the Republicans all used when the New York Times reported on Bush's illegal domestic spying.

...

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Lessons in feminism.

Feministing has many good posts that can point to the troubles modern day feminist face.

Favorite feminist-blaming ever


Feminists are supposedly responsible for promiscuity, more women in prison, killing romance, and just about anything else you can think of.

But this is my favorite anti-feminist crap story ever: Warning: feminism is bad for your health.

Their argument is that there's a correlation between gender equality and lower life expectancy. Seriously.
Debunking Media Myths


...

I'm at a panel run by the very cool Caryl Rivers on media myths like the "boy crisis."

Another media narrative they're discussing is the myth that professionally accomplished women make for bad wives, or have bad relationships. Well, shit...I've had my fair share of bad breakups but I'm pretty sure it didn't have much to do with how well I was doing at work.

...
The "empowered" Pussycat Dolls


Because there's nothing like appropriating feminist language to promote bad girl bands.
This is a great video from The Showbiz Show, where comedian Jessica Stein points out the sheer idiocy of the claim groups like the Pussycat Dolls are feminist, and funnier yet, empowering. Hilarious.

Because constitutional equality is so "retro"


There's a new effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Nice.

The amendment, which came three states short of enactment in 1982, has been introduced in five state legislatures since January. Yesterday, House and Senate Democrats reintroduced the measure under a new name -- the Women's Equality Amendment -- and vowed to bring it to a vote in both chambers by the end of the session.

The renewed push to pass the ERA, which passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly in 1972 and was ratified by 35 states before skidding to a halt, highlights liberals' renewed sense of power since November's midterm elections. From Capitol Hill to Arkansas, legislators said they are seizing a political opportunity to enshrine women's rights in the Constitution.
But naturally, some women think equality is just plain silly.

Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly has been making the rounds testifying against the ERA.

In the 1970s, Schlafly and others argued that the ERA would lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms. Today, she warns lawmakers that its passage would compel courts to approve same-sex marriages and deny Social Security benefits for housewives and widows.

"It's very retro. It had 10 years of debate, very passionate debate for 10 years, and it was defeated," Schlafly said in an interview yesterday."
Hows about we make a rule that the amendment would guarantee equality for all women except Phyllis Schlafly? Then everyone wins.

By the way, here's the oh-so-controversial text of the amendment.

...
Nevada judge: Men's attraction to young girls a "natural impulse"


Fucking gross.

When sentencing a man on child pornography charges, Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox said that "these kinds of offenses are problems with impulse control...When I say that, it's my understanding that most men are sexually attracted to young women. When I say young women I don't just mean women that ... you should be attracted to. I mean women from the time they're 1 all the way up until they're 100."

...
Some more.

Feministe:
Drunk women can consent to sex


Red Stapler sends on this article about a recent decision in the UK holding that “where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.”

I’m really of two minds on this one. I think any standard which says that any alcohol consumption makes it impossible for a woman to give meaningful consent is overly broad and paternalistic. But I do think there’s something to be said for an inability to give meaningful consent if you’re intoxicated.

As far as I can tell from the Telegraph article — and I haven’t read the actual decision, but if someone gets ahold of it I would love to — the judge is saying that a woman can be very drunk and give consent, and that it’s only when she’s drunk enough to not be able to give consent that it’s rape. Which sounds reasonable enough, until you consider the practical application of such a flimsy rule. What counts as “drunk enough not to consent”? Too drunk to talk? Too drunk to fight back? The woman in this case apparently feels that she was too drunk to choose to have sex, and yet the judge says that she did choose, and her consent was meaningful.

So who decides whether she was too drunk to consent? In this case, the woman filed a rape charge — obviously she is under the pretty strong impression that she didn’t consent to sex. She was drunk enough to be throwing up, and only remembers coming to and finding Benjamin Bree having sex with her. Again, I’d need to read a transcript of the trial or at least the actual opinion to get the details, but it sounds like Bree’s argument is that she had indeed given positive consent — that is, she didn’t just stay silent, but actually said yes. Given that, it becomes harder (though certainly not impossible) to argue that he should be convicted of rape. (For the record, I do think anyone who has sex with someone who’s so drunk that they’re puking and passing out cannot reasonably believe that they have consent to sex, and are therefore committing sexual assault. But that’s not a particularly popular or common view).

...
SFGate.com:
When A Man Hates A Woman: The ugly side of sex and the Web


Ask any three women who publish online if they're ever been stalked, sexually threatened or threatened with violence on other blogs or in comments. I don't need to bet money to know you'll get a yes from one of those women. Too busy to ask anyone? That's OK, I'll raise my hand for all three.

Imagine being a girl and working really hard to earn the reputation of a respected voice in the world of tech journalism and blogging -- a world populated by disproportionately more men than women -- and to find yourself the target object of a hate-filled Web site. The tone and content of the hate site centers around sexually threatening you, suggesting ways you could be killed and have your corpse defiled, stating that you are a "slut" and that your gender is also in question. Your straight male colleagues don't have this problem.

Then the person running the hate site blogs about every word you say, every time you make a post or publish an article. And targets your friends. And posts the names of your family and Google satellite maps of your family's homes. They deface your Wikipedia page at every opportunity, with sexual slurs, objectifying you at every possible chance. It's enough to make a girl choose not to be a tech journalist.

...
This issue for women has bugged me for a long time. Since way back when a friend of mine got threatening and scary messages from a jerk. He, for some reason, snapped and decided she'd wronged him. So he went out of his way to harass her, popping up at computer labs she was at, and sending her cruel emails. It was malicious, and some of it was tricky, using friends and altered addresses. And the worse part is how slow campus security was to take it even remotely seriously.

And some still want to laugh and shrug this treatment off. Hey, it is part of being online...says some guy who isn't being threatened, and probably never felt that fear. Toughen up. Say that when your friend, sister, or wife is getting the treatment. Say it after you've been made to feel vulnerable.



And please go to Feministing to see the various sexist and misogynistic products out there, it should be under the Products label. They are not to be believed, until you see them.

And why don't you be a sweetheart and get me a coffee to.

Feministing looks at another IWF (Independent Womens Forum) run at feminism and women's independence. Be happy women, you make less. But that's so men can take care of you, darling.

"Paper money is just so...masculine. I prefer my pay in easy-to-count coins!"

Did you know that making less money than men is a good thing? Oh, you like paying the bills and feeding your kids? Well don't fret, Carrie Lukas is here to set you straight!

Lukas, the vice president of the anti-feminist organization the Independent Women's Forum, has a column in today's Washington Post assuring women that the wage gap is "a bargain." No seriously, she swears.

Yes, the Labor Department regularly issues new data comparing the median wage of women who work full time with the median wage of men who work full time, and women's earnings bob at around three-quarters those of men. But this statistic says little about women's compensation and the influence of discrimination on men's and women's earnings. All the relevant factors that affect pay -- occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked -- are ignored. This sound-bite statistic fails to take into account the different roles that work tends to play in men's and women's lives.
Lukas goes on to note how throughout her 10 year career she's "made things other than money a priority." You know, like babies and "good woman" stuff.

I sought out a specialty and employer that seemed best suited to balancing my work and family life. When I had my daughter, I took time off and then opted to stay home full time and telecommute. I'm not making as much money as I could, but I'm compensated by having the best working arrangement I could hope for.
Now, something tells me that Lukas--who has a BA from Princeton and a MA from Harvard, btw--probably isn't struggling. (In fact, I'm on a mission to find out her salary if anyone wants to help a sister out.) But that's not the point. What is the point is that Lukas is full of shit.

She argues that the wage gap exists because women "choose" to make less money by taking time off or working in jobs for "personal fulfillment" over pay. (Because there's nothing fulfilling about making money, I guess.)

But in fact, last year on Equal Pay Day, The Washington Post ran an article debunking nonsense theories like Lukas':

So let's just get this straight right now, says [economist Evelyn] Murphy: That 23-cent differential is not because some women take time off to give birth or raise children. The pay-gap figure measures only women and men who work full time, for a full year. It does not include women who took time off during the year or worked part time.
But don't tell that to Lukas, her oh-so-unimportant paycheck depends on convincing people that sexism is actually good for women.

And if you have any lingering doubts about Lukas' agenda, I'll leave you with these gems from her recently published book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism:

Careers can be baby-deniers.

Research shows that women still tend to prefer men who are breadwinners...who they can consider intellectually superior.

"Baby-deniers." Nuff said.

Biggest Fool

From Crooks and Liars:

Notice something off in the ordering here?

This is too much…Phoenix Fox 10 News runs a poll to see who is "the most foolish American" and the host proclaims—Britney Spears the winner! That wouldn't be surprising except that the real winner of the poll was…..drum roll please……George Bush….
Video on site.

How CNN starts the story.



What is wrong with this picture?

There's Pelosi, in a scarf. TALKING TO TERRORISTS.

Yeah, that is a great way to start a story.


John noted CNN's ridiculous coverage of Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria — while completely ignoring the GOP delegation that also visited — but I just had to share this screenshot.

So here is a mock up, does it seem unfair?

Obama's Good Day


Senator Obama has had a nice news cycle.

He has outclassed the Clinton machine in the donation acquisition process.

ABC News has learned that the $23.5 million Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., raised for his presidential campaign for use in the primaries is more than that raised by the Democratic frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

Of the $26 million Clinton has raised in the first quarter of 2007 for her presidential campaign, approximately $20 million is for use in the primaries and caucuses, sources tell ABC News.


...

Clinton has a distinct money advantage and leads in every national poll, but the fact that rookie Obama has bested a veteran like Clinton in many aspects of fundraising -- he rasied $6.9 million on the Internet, for instance, compared with Clinton's $4.2 million -- has stunned the political world.

...
Obama received donations from more than 100,000 donors, far surpassing any other candidate, including Clinton (50,000), Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., (45,000), former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, (40,000) or former GOP Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (32,000).

And 90-percent of Obama's donors contributed $100 or less, as opposed to the presumbed larger percentage of Clinton donors who contributed the maximum contribution allowed by law, $2,300 per person per voting cycle.

"That means exponential growth is possible for him in a way that is not available to Hillary Clinton right now," explained Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. "(The Clintons) were counting on blowing everybody out this first quarter and sort of, like, slamming the door."
Now, it is a little odd, with Romney's success being brushed off, but the stats behind the numbers Obama accrued, leave little doubt about the excitement behind him and his candidacy.

Comics - Annotation, Recaps, and Mockery

Here are some good retorts to so so, and the oh so..., work from the comic industry. Much of it comes from Chris of Chris's Invincible Super-Blog.

First, a look at Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter. The story comes from the works of Laurell K. Hamilton. They are, as I understand, a popular book series. But, as I have also heard, the books has slipped more and more into eroticism.

The comics didn't want to wait, and look to want to get there pronto.

Chris has annotated Issues 3 through 5 so far.

Issue 3 - This issue's opening line, "My skin crawled with the memory of small furry bodies sliding over me," in addition to being a handy reminder that Anita was in dire peril of being murdered by vermin in the last issue, is also highly reminiscent of erotic fan-fiction concerning Chip and Dale's Rescue Rangers. Considering that this is a story where the main character eventually has to have sex with the undead to gain super-powers, that might actually be a step up.

Issue 4 - In Laurell K. Hamilton's biography in the programs to this year's San Diego ComiCon, Anita Blake is referred to as "the first sexy paranormal comic ever," a piece of news to which the creators of Vampirella, Witchblade, and Tarot: Witch of the Black Rose responded: "Really."

Issue 5 - This issue opens up directly after the events of #4, with the story pausing only long enough for Anita to grab a shower, which apparently has the effect of washing every last bit of pigmentation out of her skin. Except, of course, for her scars, which tend to look like oddly-placed grape juice rorschach tests.

For those that don't feel sated of there newly acquired Anita Blake thirst:
Anita Blake vs. Marvel Dracula: WHO YA GOT?!
That's right: After exhausting research that consisted of both flipping through back issues of and pushing the right button on my scanner, I'm prepared to offer up a definitive five-point comparison of their defining characteristics.

Anita Blake vs. The Batman

One last bit from Chris.
Civil War in 30 Seconds

Yes, for those who are without knowledge of, or wise enough to stir clear of Marvel Comic's debacle. Here is a quick way to get a gist of the true meaning of Christmas...I mean what the heck Civil War was all about.


Spoiler Warning: I'm about to save you twenty-five bucks.

...

And that's why Spider-Man's wearing his black costume.
Suffice to say, WHAT?, is the lesson here.

BeaucoupKevin.com has some REMIXES.

Civil War Issues 1-7. Every page, remixed with new speak and thought bubbles, to properly explain the inanity that was Marvel Comic's Civil War.


























Also check out Ultimate Powers # 2's REMIX. It will explain and show, for those that doubt, that these artist are just getting too lazy in drawing women.

Scarlet Witch diving from a plane into battle with the rest of the Ultimates...or Scarlet Witch in mid orgasm?

OUR economy


Crooks and Liars pulls up some troubling views of state of the U.S. economy.


Many esteemed economists have expressed hope that the resulting declines in home values, which have been inflated by the lack of such guidelines, will not stop too many Americans from cashing out the equity in their homes to keep consumer spending up. In other words, the "new economy" is based on people slowly losing home ownership, not gaining it.

Are people who aren't participating in the same degree with good economic fortunes using debt to finance their lifestyle? While the data does not provide a definitive answer either way, it is a very interesting question from an economic and policy perspective.


Not since the Gilded Age of the late 19th century has America witnessed such a rapid shift in the distribution of economic wealth as it has in the past 30 years.

...

By now, economists and others who do pay attention to the issue are aware that income and wealth inequality in the United States rose steadily during the last three decades of the 20th century. But now that we are several years into the 21st, what do we know about income and wealth distribution today? Has the trend toward inequality continued, or are there signs of a reversal? And what can an understanding of the entire post-World War II era tell us about how to move again toward greater economic equality?

The short answers are: (1) Income distribution is even more unequal that we thought; (2) The newest data suggest the trend toward greater inequality continues, with no signs of a reversal; (3) We all do better when we all do better. During the 30 or so years after World War II the economy boomed and every stratum of society did better — pretty much at the same rate. When the era of shared growth ended, so too did much of the growth: the U.S. economy slowed down and recessions were deeper, more frequent, and harder to overcome.

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?

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

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.