Stuart Moore's A THOUSAND FLOWERS, part 14 - Aftermaths... [Archive]

MattBrady

03-25-2003, 09:38 AM

<center><a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Thousand_Flowers_index.htm"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/flowers_banner.jpg" width="475" height="75" border="0"></a></center>

<center>A THOUSAND FLOWERS</center><center>Comics, Pop Culture, and the World Outside</center><center>Installment 14</center><center>by Stuart Moore</center>

Aftermaths

It’s been a tough week to concentrate. Please bear with me.

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=00003 4" target="_blank"> Last time</a>, we looked at the 1968 “writers’ revolt” at DC -- what they asked for (money and rights), and why they failed. In the early ‘80s, when the direct market opened up, creative people achieved many of the goals they’d failed to get fifteen years earlier. The moral: It’s better to agitate for improved conditions when there’s money and competition in the air.

This week’s question: What do you do after the revolution?

I also mentioned the Creators’ Bill of Rights last time. Written in 1988, it grew out of a general spirit among comics creators that things were slowly improving, that activism and continued pressure were the way to make sure that creators’ rights continued to be respected and to expand to other publishers.

The Bill was an odd meeting point between self-publishers, like Dave Sim and the Turtles creators; guys who’d come up thru the mainstream and were itchy for more control, like Steve Bissette; and talents like Scott McCloud, who’d come up through the more mainstream-alternative companies. Already, the worlds were starting to meld, and individual writers and artists were choosing where they wanted to fit in on the new playing field.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/maximortal.jpg" width="175" height="266" align="right">Some creators struck off on their own, self-publishing or doing more alternative work. Others drifted back toward the major companies, which had started offering better rights deals -- in conjunction with money, an area where they still held the upper hand. Howard Chaykin, for instance, had already shifted most of his efforts to DC, tackling characters like The Shadow and Blackhawk and leaving his own creations behind for the time being. Rick Veitch would soon move in the other direction after his abrupt departure from Swamp Thing, publishing his own Bratpack and The Maximortal in conjunction with Tundra. The conditions were far from ideal -- but at least there was a wider variety of options to choose from.

Against this background, the

**
<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=00003 4" target="_blank"> School teachers, students protest against the war</a>

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030324/ap_wo_en_ge/as_gen_asia_iraq_protests_1" target="_blank"> Australia leader jeered, blood protest in US consul office in New Zealand as protests continue</a>

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030323/ap_on_re_us/war_us_rallies_72" target="_blank"> Tens of Thousands in U.S. Protest War</a>

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030323/bs_nm/energy_halliburton_dc_1" target="_blank"> War Could Be Big Business for Halliburton
</a>

**

Sorry.

Against this background, the original Image artists rose to fame. As the first comics superstars of the ‘90s, their work propelled Marvel to new sales heights. If you thought it was amazing that Dazzler #1 sold more than 400,000 copies in 1980, consider this: In 1992, the average sales of Jim Lee’s X-Men (the newer title) were 967,808. Poor old Uncanny, in contrast, only managed 731,425.

These guys were making more money than their predecessors at Marvel ever had. But they were no fools: They saw the rights deals that had come in elsewhere, and the ease with which you could publish through the direct market. And they figured out how much Marvel was making. They did the math, and they walked.

To creators, the major comics companies generally have four major advantages over everyone else. The first is money -- obviously Marvel has deeper pockets than, say, Eclipse did. The second is stability; when you turn in a job to DC, you can be relatively sure that the check will clear and the company won’t be gone by the time publication time rolls around. The third is visibility. You can publish the most critically-acclaimed indy comic in the world, but a fraction of the number of people who read The Ultimates every month will see it. And the fourth is the characters. Most people in comics, whether they admit it or not, secretly want to do at least one Batman story, or a captain America, or a Justice League.

The Image guys found themselves in a unique position, where -- because of the boom in the market -- none of these advantages applied. They really could do it all themselves. They had the money; they’d been saving it, and the orders they’d get, plus the various movie and toy interest they were getting, would make up for any shortfall. Stability…well, the money looked like it would take care of that, and when you’re in the middle of a revolution, stability’s the last thing you worry about. Visibility was no problem -- these guys were the closest thing we’ve ever had to comics rock stars, and the booming direct market was primed to order huge quantities of their books. And as for characters, they’d already done X-Men, Batman and Spider-Man.

(They also knew, if it all fell apart, they could probably go back and do those characters again. In his famous 1992 Comics Journal interview, Todd McFarlane said, “If Image falls flat on its face, I’m good at groveling. I can go back there and I’ll be doing a monthly Marvel comic book or a DC monthly comic book. I haven’t lost one thing.”)

So as the market boomed, these guys found they could have it all: rights and money. And on their own terms.

It didn’t last, partly because of bad business practices; partly because…

**

You know what the anti-war movement in this country needs? A little sex.

I was out there on Saturday, marching with a pretty diverse group of people. But it’s always the old hippies who get on TV. I respect the old hippies -- they fought the good fight, back in the day. But they don’t really speak to America anymore; they make the whole thing look marginalized. And while I’ve got nothing against the hairy transvestite nuns, they’re not really what most of us are sitting home fantasizing about, either.

Christy Turlington’s very active in anti-smoking causes -- has anyone called and asked if she’s against the war? What about Cindy Crawford or Shalom Harlow? Maybe they’d be flattered and honored to speak at one of these rallies. That’d get on CNN -- they’ve got to be tired of showing blurry videophone footage of tanks rolling across the desert.

Think about it. Wouldn’t you like to see Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze Jr. up there, telling the President to get out of Iraq? Or Kirsten Dunst? Or even that guy from The Shield, looking all tough? Nothing against Nelson Mandela and Susan Sarandon, but it’s time for some new blood.

Some of these celebrities are probably pro-war, but I bet most of them aren’t. And why stop there? Let’s get some hardcore porn actresses marching on the lines. A little girl-girl kissing in high heels down Broadway would beat the hell out of the usual footage of the eight guys who got arrested because they stumbled into a barricade.

I know, I know…

**

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/youngblood.jpg" width="175" height="410" align="left">…partly because some of the concepts weren’t really sustainable; and mostly because the market just declined. Youngblood couldn’t compete in the long run with X-Men, and the various Image founders were forced to choose between staying with their own concepts or going back to the major companies. Some, like Erik Larsen, managed a balancing act between the two -- as have some newer creators like Brian Michael Bendis, whose great work on Ultimate Spider-Man and Daredevil helps drive readers to his own Powers, published through Image.

The balance between money and rights is a tricky one. Hardcore indy creators shout to the rooftops that they’d never sell their talent to corporate exploiters. But a lot of working professionals realize there’s a nice balance to be struck, if you keep your priorities straight and don’t abandon your more personal work.

The Creators’ Bill of Rights promised a

**

<a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/mar03/128026.asp" target="_blank"> Fast start in war leaves Bush facing overconfident U.S.</a>

**

…a revolution. The Image guys followed through on that promise, though not in the way the Bill’s authors intended. But the trouble with revolutions isn’t the military campaign -- it’s the occupation, the maintenance, afterward. And when conditions change around you, it can be tough to

**

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/desstormcard.jpg" width="250" height="176" align="right">It’s pretty “old hippie-ish” to quote Bob Dylan -- it sure ain’t gonna get you on Fox News. But I just stumbled across this bit from Groom’s Still Waiting at the Altar a song full of strange lyrics about the Middle East:

There’s a war between you
What you want, you got to leave it
Tonight you got the power to take it
Tomorrow you won’t have the power to keep it

Comics creators? America?

You figure it out. I’m busy watching the blurry tanks.

**
Stuart Moore’s comics work: Go to <a href="http://www.rocketcomics.net" target="_blank">RocketComics.net</a> , <a href="http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=1958" target="_blank">this at CBR</a> and <a href="http://www.newsarama.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000094" target="_blank">this here, at Newsarama</a> for a look at LONE, launching in summer 2003, with a special 10-page stand-alone preview story in ROCKET COMICS: IGNITE, Dark Horse’s contribution to Free Comic Book Day in May.

Issue #6 of ZENDRA: HEART OF FIRE, the conclusion of my epic science fiction series from Penny-Farthing Press, is out now; more info on the trade paperback of the first ZENDRA series can be found at <a href="http://www.pfpress.com" target="_blank">Penny Farthing's website</a>.

Then visit my message boards at <a href="http://www.joequesada.com" target="_blank">JoeQuesada.com</a> and we’ll continue this discussion there.

See you in 14 days -- and no more damn politics. I promise!

Augie De Blieck Jr.

03-25-2003, 10:19 AM

Well, that was pretty pointless. Started off looking like there might be a point in there somewhere, but once again the usual war nonsense takes over destroys any interest I might have had in the column.

When you resort to quoting Bob Dylan in an effort to draw a parallel somewhere, you know you're in trouble.

-Augie

RDuarte

03-25-2003, 10:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Well, that was pretty pointless. <hr /></blockquote>I would just like to say "Thanks!" to Augie for keeping his PIPELINE column politics-free. I actually e-mailed him and told him as much, but now that the stage has been set, I'll take the chance to do this publicly. THANKS!

I don't want to get the "Don't read it if you don't like it" people on my case. I actually agree with you. I avoid PERMANENT DAMAGE at CBR like the plauge. 1000 Flowers is written as a part of a whole. Each column connects to the next. I am interested in what Stuart has to say about COMICS. I just don't agree with interspersing the column with war rants.

Evan Cantrell

03-25-2003, 10:39 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Augie De Blieck Jr.:
Well, that was pretty pointless.<hr /></blockquote>Thanks Augie! And I completely agree with the previous post. I have enjoyed Staurt's previous columns where he actually had something to say about comics. I really don't care to hear about his personal political beliefs.

Read Pipeline!

Michael

03-25-2003, 10:42 AM

I really hate to say this one fell flat. I certainly don't mind anti-war thought - I enjoyed Stuart's last column, but this strange mix didn't succeed in getting much of any message across other than Stuart's distracted.

Sorry, Stuart. Normally love the column, I agree with the anti-war stance, but this column split itself too severely.

Banana_Oil

03-25-2003, 10:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
No more politics, I promise!<hr /></blockquote>Says the guy who named his column after a Mao quote.

Ed Cunard

03-25-2003, 10:43 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by RDuarte:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr /> Well, that was pretty pointless. <hr /></blockquote>I would just like to say "Thanks!" to Augie for keeping his PIPELINE column politics-free. I actually e-mailed him and told him as much, but now that the stage has been set, I'll take the chance to do this publicly. THANKS!

I don't want to get the "Don't read it if you don't like it" people on my case. I actually agree with you. I avoid PERMANENT DAMAGE at CBR like the plauge. 1000 Flowers is written as a part of a whole. Each column connects to the next. I am interested in what Stuart has to say about COMICS. I just don't agree with interspersing the column with war rants.<hr /></blockquote>I, too, like columns without politics. Although, I also like them with politics. It depends on how you go about doing it. For the more liberal stance, Steven Grant's column rarely says, "I'm right - you're wrong." For those on the conservative side, Slush Factory's overall conservative leaning in no way affects the skill in which a column is produced,nor does it overshadow the medium discussed - comics.

Others on the internet have, and still do, use their columns as a soapbox, more or less, and that's their right to do so.

Hell, I read just about every comics-related column online, no matter how much it focuses on comics and/or politics, because I enjoy the expression of differing opinions. But a little mixture of comics and politics isn't so bad in the grand scheme of things, provided it is still comics we're talking about...

I don't know if anyone comes to comic book columns and boards specifically for the politics. But I'd wager a guess that, right, left, middle of the road or wherever else on the spectrum one may fall, the strong majority of us are united by a common love for the medium.

Rand

03-25-2003, 10:47 AM

Um, to be honest...

I thought the article was OK. It was written, IMO, a bit like a comic. "Ads" (his political opinions/links" in between, thoughtfully seperated with **s so that you could skip it.

As an American, I should be more concerned with politics and so forth, but I'm so tired of real life politics which never make any sense. So I don't pay much attention to it. I disapprove of the war, and while I thought it was a bit annoying to have to jump sections, the article was written in such a way (interesting and informative) that I feel that the value of it shouldn't be detracted by the fact that he put in some other material.

*shrugs* But that's just me.

Danny F

03-25-2003, 10:58 AM

Well, I thought it was good. :¬)

dr.no

03-25-2003, 11:12 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Posted by Michael
I really hate to say this one fell flat. I certainly don't mind anti-war thought - I enjoyed Stuart's last column, but this strange mix didn't succeed in getting much of any message across other than Stuart's distracted.<hr /></blockquote>I agree. This is almost a parody.

Barry

03-25-2003, 11:24 AM

Heh. Clever. Good job Stu.

Nick Borelli

03-25-2003, 11:29 AM

The time I spent reading this could have been spent talking about Michael Moore on the Bendis Message Board...
What a waste.

Michael P

03-25-2003, 11:31 AM

Well, I gotit. Nice work, Stuart.

And Augie, would you have hated the column so much if it had been pro-war?

Disraeli Gears

03-25-2003, 11:32 AM

Wow, did that fall flat.
And, why is quoting Bob Dylan "old-hippie-ish"? Dylan's lyrics are timeless and will forever have relevence outside of the period they were written in.

Nakedmanatee

03-25-2003, 11:34 AM

I thought the point... that you can't escape coverage of the war (like when they interrupted the Oscars, all serious-like to report, uh, nothing) was a good one to make.
Not to mention the whole, "be careful what you wish for" parable, made his already interesting column that much more readable.
Maybe Augie's toothless reviews over at the Pipeline could *use* a little politics (for either side), just to keep people awake.

Dave

Kevin

03-25-2003, 11:44 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Augie De Blieck Jr.:
Well, that was pretty pointless.<hr /></blockquote>I agree. It seems that Stu has a very serious case of Liberal Tourette's Syndrome. Maybe someday he'll actually be able to write an intelligent column about comic books without resorting to feeble interjections of his own political views.

Hey, Stu! Here's some breaking news for ya!

**

<a href="http://www.mcdonalds.com/" target="_blank">Billions and billions hamburgers sold! Protesters march for better Big Macs!</a>

**

What a lovely peacenik article about the war, chum! The part about the Comic Book Creators' Bill of Rights was nice, too!

-Kevin

Nakedmanatee

03-25-2003, 11:56 AM

Aw screw it... that last comment of mine was uncalled for, especially in these times. I apologize, Augie. There's enough cattiness on the internet without me adding to it, needlessly.
I know when someone (like me) makes a cheap shot, it tends to stick in one's memory. Don't let it. Focus on the people who cheered you on.

Dave

IanZL

03-25-2003, 12:00 PM

The article works perfectly fine if you skip the parts that mention the war, except that a totally un-politcally ending was needed, the ending seemed kind of funny. It was an interesting account of history, but I hardly see where the point was? "They didn't follow as the creator bill of rights intended", is that all you were saying? Did I just miss something. Some of you people need to learn to judge something by what it is and not from the political views. The column was okay, yes he has done better, but his views, or his mention of politics (which DO have a place, it is pretty relevant right now) should not affect your judgement of the topic at hand or give you reason to lob insults at anyone.

gOgIver

03-25-2003, 12:00 PM

Maximortal is one of the greatest comics of all time. It would have been nice to see a column devoted to that.

"It's all over now Baby Blue." <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

RDuarte

03-25-2003, 12:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> And Augie, would you have hated the column so much if it had been pro-war?
<hr /></blockquote>YES! While I can't speak for Augie, I know I WOULD NOT enjoy the column with EITHER pro or <blockquote>quote:<hr />anti<hr /></blockquote>war statements interspersed throughout.

Look, I just want to enjoy reading/discussing/debating/talking about COMICS. I live in Austin. I can throw a rock out my window and hit a protester (for AND against the war). If I wanted to debate a war, I would not have logged on to Newsarama. I know it's Stuart's right to say whatever he wants in his own column. It's also my right to think he should leave the war rants as far away from a comics column as possible.

Augie De Blieck Jr.

03-25-2003, 12:06 PM

Michael P -->

Yup, all the same. It would annoy me to see someone writing a column as specifically focused as this one is only to pop out of it at random intervals and destroy whatever point he may have tried to make by commenting randomly on some other event. When I saw that this column was going to talk about the birth of Image Comics, I was interested in reading it. But the author's vehemence in yapping about other stuff completely unrelated to the central thesis -- or comics, altogether -- destroyed the column and made reading it a waste of time. Didn't Stuart say at the beginning that he wanted to write a different kind of column?

On the other hand, it would be nice to find the columnist with the occasional supportive stance for our military and its objectives... I don't deny that, but it would still be out of line.

-Augie

NerveTonic

03-25-2003, 12:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MattBrady:
You know what the anti-war movement in this country needs? A little sex.

I was out there on Saturday, marching with a pretty diverse group of people. But it’s always the old hippies who get on TV. I respect the old hippies -- they fought the good fight, back in the day. But they don’t really speak to America anymore; they make the whole thing look marginalized. And while I’ve got nothing against the hairy transvestite nuns, they’re not really what most of us are sitting home fantasizing about, either.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not a march-y fellow -- neither as a protester nor a soldier -- but I have participated in a handful of protest events in my life. Sex is certainly a component of any successful protest event.

It feels sexy. By declaring your unpopular but heartfelt conviction, you feel publically denuded. Doing so amidst a mob of other political nudists -- various ages, various "types," various degrees of experience -- feels a bit like an orgy or a sex party. With or without drugs, a political protest event creates an altered state.

Does this compromise the ethics of protesting in a mob? "Are they really in it just for the party?"

It's not black and white. It IS a kind of party, but not a frivolous one. A peace march harnesses the rowdy "fun" spirit -- and the hormones -- and applies it to an earnest cause. Some old hippies (or some subset of the "hippies") seemed to think this made the event *more* in earnest, more heartfelt because it enacts more than just a political reflex. It reminds us that the people killing and dying are people, not just soldiers.

So yeah, a peace movement should be a little sexy.

Otherwise, a peace march is just a long line of dour, crotchety moralists "tsk tsk"-ing their way towards spiritual superiority -- usually brooking no dissent amongst themselves -- rarely pausing to check just how much they agree with the mob. You want nuns? There's yer nuns!

As for comics, what about Atlas/Seabord? What about the movement among freelancers to unionize, I believe led by Neal Adams?

This whole analysis of creators' unrest has shown very little context outside comics, which seems fannish and shortsighted. What opportunities for making money were available to creators outside the monthly comics? What opportunities outside the monthlies were available to the companies for making money? How did the conditions of screenwriters et als. influence these dissatisfied comics creators?

Chad Anderson

03-25-2003, 12:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Augie De Blieck Jr.:
On the other hand, it would be nice to find the columnist with the occasional supportive stance for our military and its objectives... I don't deny that, but it would still be out of line. <hr /></blockquote>Then head on over to <a href="http://www.ghmonline.com" target="_blank">www.ghmonline.com</a> and read "The Haven." I find his columns to be pretty jingoistic at times, but I recognize that you may have the same negative reaction to Stuart's columns when they veer into talking about the war from a slightly ( <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) more liberal perspective. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

As for supporting the military, I have no idea what Stuart's views are on this, but as I'm sure you know, an anti-war stance doesn't automatically mean a lack of support for the military (Tony Isabella explains this quite well — I thought — at <a href="http://www.perpetualcomics.com/column.asp?colid=312)," target="_blank">http://www.perpetualcomics.com/column.asp?colid=312),</a> just as my lack of support for President Bush doesn't mean I'm not a big USA supporter.

Finally, as for war talk being out of line in a comics column, I don't think that's necessarily so. I respect your feeling that it's out of place, and I see your point, but I also respect Stuart's feeling that he can't write about comics as if nothing's going on in the larger world. I think both decisions are equally valid, the readers know what you've each decided, and we can make our reading choices accordingly.

Stuart Moore

03-25-2003, 12:44 PM

Augie: All I can say is...you missed the point. It may not be the most profound point in the world, and I may not have spelled it all out right on the page. But it's there.

On a side-note, you say:

"it would be nice to find the columnist with the occasional supportive stance for our military and its objectives"

I have no complaints with the military throughout this process. They've done what they can, as efficiently and, it seems so far, humanely as possible. And it's worth remembering that the Pentagon opposed this war, until they were told to get in line (which soldiers do, when they're told -- it's the job).

My beef is with the orders the military has been given, which are unrealistic, bullying, immoral, and will lead to increased terror and hatred all over the world. They'll also lead to the deaths of both Iraqi people and American soldiers -- most of whom are of from poor families -- in support of making the rich of this country richer and more secure.

Best,

Stuart

Augie De Blieck Jr.

03-25-2003, 12:56 PM

Stuart -->

If this all about the oil, then why does the war continue? We've got control of all the oil fields already. Maybe, perhaps, there's something more to it all?

Besides, Iraq has control of a measly 3% of the world's oil supply. Surely, if this were some overzealous attempt by "the rich" to "get richer," we'd be bombing someone with more oil. I don't know the numbers, but I'd imagine that would be someone like Saudi Arabia.

Chad -->

Yes, I visit The Haven, but even that goes a bit too far for even my tastes.

And I think a lot more people are anti-military than would care to admit it right now. I also find it hard to say you can support the troops when you don't believe a word of anything they're doing. That's like saying you support the Miss America contestants, but are disgusted by the piggish male nature of the event. The contestants are the event. The troops are the mission.

I'll skip Tony Isabella's column, thanks. I gave up on that one years ago. When I want to read political commentary, I'll go to other websites. When I want to read comic book commentary, I'll go to another columnist who might actually talk about comics once in a while.

-Augie

SpaceDog

03-25-2003, 01:00 PM

Michael Moore or Stuart Moore, I'm glad someone is saying what I'm thinking. I'll be amongst those who cheer, and counfounded by those who boo.

Great column. It was a bit disjointed, but I can see the parallels you are drawing here.

I'd like to see you do another out-and-out political column, like your one about New York.

Dave G.

03-25-2003, 01:09 PM

Yeah, the protests need sex, but they also need more cohesion. Was I the only one who caught the c-span broadcasts of the protests in Washington and each new speaker trotted out a new angle on how horrible the government is on race, sex, and class, without usually tying it back to the war, falling instead into liberal speical interests?

Like there was a protest on campus, the entire "books not bombs" thing. Go to the organization's website (sorry, don't have a link) and turns out they're against not only the war, but the army in general and ROTC programs. I don't like the war, but I'm not against EVERY national defense program.

It's sad when the anti-war movement has as much special interests then the pro-war movement.

Oh, and on the column, very cool style, very new media. The creator's rights angle needed more of a conculsion, or lead in to the next column.

Stuart Moore

03-25-2003, 01:09 PM

I'm not sure who originally posted the comment about oil, but...I don't think that's what it's all about either. I think it's largely about breaking the back of the Middle East and establishing a permanent U.S. presence there; and partly about fat, fat reconstruction contracts that Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, is bidding on and may already have been awarded, without Congressional approval.

That's why I posted the link to the Halliburton article. This stuff isn't just being reported by Crazy Leftist Conspiracy Times, either. Here's a longer piece from the New York Times (free registration required): <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html</a> .

Of course, the oil is a nice bonus.

Now, see, THAT would have been too much politics for a comics column. :)

Best,
Stuart

dand66

03-25-2003, 01:11 PM

Stuart, while I appreciate reading that you support the military, your next paragraph is the type of straw-man argument that opponents of the war make, throwing out opinions and uninformed suppositions as if they're fact.

Let's see, the orders are "unrealistic"... it's unrealistic that the full military might of the US and the UK can topple the government of Iraq? Sure it is.

"Bullying" and "immoral"... since you're a columnist and not a journalist, you're not required to be objective, but gee whiz, immoral?

"...will lead to increased terror and hatred..." And after 9/11, it can get HOW much worse, exactly?

Then your finish is the kicker... the implication being that it's OK if people from rich families are killed, but not from poor ones. And how did you come to THAT moral conclusion?

I have no objection to someone being anti-war, as long as they have their facts straight and can make a logical argument. You've done neither. Just admit that you're really anti-Bush, not anti-war, since I'd bet that you didn't protest when Clinton sent the troops into Bosnia without UN approval (a move APPLAUDED by that paragon of consistency, Sen.Tom Daschle).

Stuart Moore

03-25-2003, 01:23 PM

"Let's see, the orders are "unrealistic"... it's unrealistic that the full military might of the US and the UK can topple the government of Iraq? Sure it is."

No, the quick-victory prediction was what was unrealistic. As we're seeing now.

" "...will lead to increased terror and hatred..." And after 9/11, it can get HOW much worse, exactly?"

Come on -- a lot worse. A hell of a lot worse. Bush himself dramatically describes all the ways it could get worse (gas, nukes, chemical weapons) every time he wants to scare people. Trouble is, he's handling it backwards.

"Then your finish is the kicker... the implication being that it's OK if people from rich families are killed, but not from poor ones. And how did you come to THAT moral conclusion?"

That's not remotely what I said. I said the rich are ordering the poor into battle for their own (the rich's) benefit.

"Just admit that you're really anti-Bush, not anti-war, since I'd bet that you didn't protest when Clinton sent the troops into Bosnia without UN approval (a move APPLAUDED by that paragon of consistency, Sen.Tom Daschle)."

I think it's pretty obvious I'm anti-Bush. And I think you can be against THIS war without being against war in all circumstances.

Best,
Stuart

Dave G.

03-25-2003, 01:50 PM

Re: War and Class

Hasn't war always been like this? Any war is usually ordered out by those in political power, almost always the wealthy, and carried out by the lower classes who serve as the grunts.

National or International War is always class war.

The nearest you can get to it not being that is a draft lottery. That went over well, didn't it?

And, with the U.S.'s current volunteer armed forces, the army itself serves as a way of class upward mobility, as it has since the introduction of the G.I. bill after World War Two.

It provides a steady income and standard of living, inside and after leaving the armed forces.

Ed Cunard

03-25-2003, 01:54 PM

As far as being against war and supporting the troops...

It's not mutually exclusive. One can quite easily wish the troops well, hope for a short war, and pray that everyone makes it home safe, all while feeling that the government has erred in its decision.

Furthermore, the same can be applied to the Miss America pageant. One might feel that the contest is a ridiculous thing, but support those who would be willing to enter it, and perhaps to even cheer one on.

Today, military enlistment and pageant joining are both voluntary acts.

dand66

03-25-2003, 02:20 PM

Stuart, no one in our government made any predictions that there would be a quick victory in this war. Given the emphasis on minimizing civilian casualties, there's no way anyone COULD guarantee that. Some people in the media predicted a quick victory, but that's very different from the people in a position of authority doing the same.

And while your point about opposing this war not ALL war is well taken, I still have to ask what makes this war different from others we've fought, specifically in Bosnia? The most common complaint about this war is that we didn't let diplomacy run it's course, and we didn't get UN approval. We did neither of these things in Bosnia, and took a lot less care in safeguarding non-combatants (ask the staff of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, for example). And yet most people, on the left and right, supported that war. At the time I thought because it was the right thing, but it's becoming apparent that the left only supported it because one of their guys was in the White House, since the circumstances are very similar to the war we're fighting today. IF you supported President Clinton in Bosnia, then you should be supporting President Bush in Iraq. The situations, while not identical, are similar enough that the only reason to oppose one and not the other is a personal dislike of the President.

NerveTonic

03-25-2003, 02:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by IanZL:
The article works perfectly fine if you skip the parts that mention the war, except that a totally un-politcally ending was needed, the ending seemed kind of funny. It was an interesting account of history, but I hardly see where the point was?<hr /></blockquote>Obviously Stuart is drawing an analogy, sorta, implying a relation between the "aftermath" of the Image revolution and the eventual "aftermath" of this war.

Maybe he'll show that the creator's revolution was a long time coming. When the day came, the creators were well aware of their power and opportunity -- but they lacked the knowledge of history and context necessary to forecast the consequences. They proceeded to make lousy business decisions, yet got rich despite themselves. Other small groups and independents tried to emulate Image, each thinking themselves fit for the task. A thousand unforseen details evolved into severe challenges to the industry as a whole -- inflation of print costs, loss of newsstand sales, loss of speculators, loss of readers, implosions of comics shops, overrun of creators with limited skill. And now everyone wishes we could turn back the clock, stick to the Creators' Bill of Rights, work within the system to make it evolve, rather than capsize the entire industry.

The analogy? There are good reasons to invade Iraq and overthrow the Hussein administration -- he's bad, we're at risk, it's a long time coming, and no one has the power to stop us. But the upset will have unforseen consequences. We aren't thinking about the Iraqi people's lack of cultural precedent for democracy or free market capitalism. We aren't thinking about the elite guard -- or where they'll go when we drive them out of power and into the surrounding countries. And after we invest a few billion in Iraq, which country will be the next mouse to roar in search of similar liberation? And how about Hairdo Kim in N. Korea?

And once we've made peace-loving democracies of all these nations, and we send them to good schools, will they keep their liberty? How do we insure it?

Or maybe Stuart intended no such analogy.

Gail Simone

03-25-2003, 02:31 PM

You absolutely can support the troops and not the mission, Augie. Millions do.

I don't quite get it. There's a war going on. It's on people's minds. Stuart spoke about it in context of his column. What's the problem? I don't think people are reading his column expecting it to be like Wizard, are they?

Gail

Cliffy

03-25-2003, 02:37 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Augie De Blieck Jr.:
It would annoy me to see someone writing a column as specifically focused as this one is only to pop out of it at random intervals and destroy whatever point he may have tried to make by commenting randomly on some other event.<hr /></blockquote>For someone who writes a column, Augie, you have a very skewed view of what a columnist is. A column is a forum for making your point, whatever that may be. You talk about lettering more than your audience wants (at least insofar as that the rest of your audience is like me), but Stuart isn't allowed to talk about politics?

--Cliffy

SpaceDog

03-25-2003, 02:39 PM

CNN is reporting that Halliburton WAS awarded the contracts.

A.N.Onymous

03-25-2003, 02:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
All I can say is...you missed the point. It may not be the most profound point in the world, and I may not have spelled it all out right on the page. But it's there.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry, Stuart, but whatever point you may have had was blurred and diluted by the repeated interjections of knee-jerk anti-war mantra.

The reasons behind the war, contrary to protestors' claims, can NOT be boiled down to simple sound-bite sloganeering. "No blood for oil" is nothing more than an overly simplistic attempt to get a catchy chant to play on the news.

There are larger issues, and don't delude yourself into thinking that EVERYBODY has told us EVERYTHING. Just because war opponents don't think the President has adequately made his case doesn't render the war unjustified in and of itself. He's told us what he can tell without compromising security interests.

Not being a paranoid conspiracy-theorist who reads fiendish ulterior motive into every government action, Im presuming that they still know things we don't.

I think our actions in the war thus far speak louder about our motivations than the rants of some aging hippie peace-nik grasping for one last moment in the spotlight, or the incoherent babblings of some naive college students duped into marching in lieu of attending class.

As Augie noted, if simply seizing control of the oil fields was our goal, we're already there.

Grow up and shed the liberal naivete. It's not all black and white.

A.N.Onymous

03-25-2003, 02:50 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
[QBI think it's pretty obvious I'm anti-Bush. And I think you can be against THIS war without being against war in all circumstances.

Best,
Stuart[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>And, so you're saying Clinton's unauthorized incursions into Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti were somehow "more moral" than the war in Iraq?

Is it because there's no oil in those countries, because there's no rebuilding contracts to be had, or because Democrats are somehow "morally superior" to Republicans?

PLEASE , Stuart! Prove to us you're better thought-out than that, or you lose ANY benefit-of-the-doubt credibility you may have entered with.

JimHughs4

03-25-2003, 03:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by A.N.Onymous:
Sorry, Stuart, but whatever point you may have had was blurred and diluted by the repeated interjections of knee-jerk anti-war mantra.

The reasons behind the war, contrary to protestors' claims, can NOT be boiled down to simple sound-bite sloganeering. "No blood for oil" is nothing more than an overly simplistic attempt to get a catchy chant to play on the news.

There are larger issues, and don't delude yourself into thinking that EVERYBODY has told us EVERYTHING. Just because war opponents don't think the President has adequately made his case doesn't render the war unjustified in and of itself. He's told us what he can tell without compromising security interests.

Not being a paranoid conspiracy-theorist who reads fiendish ulterior motive into every government action, Im presuming that they still know things we don't.

I think our actions in the war thus far speak louder about our motivations than the rants of some aging hippie peace-nik grasping for one last moment in the spotlight, or the incoherent babblings of some naive college students duped into marching in lieu of attending class.

As Augie noted, if simply seizing control of the oil fields was our goal, we're already there.

Grow up and shed the liberal naivete. It's not all black and white.<hr /></blockquote>A.N., re-read the article with the interjections. You'll find (I hope) that the interjections are part of the history lesson.

As far as protesters slogans, it's hard to get more than 8 or 10 words on a sign small enough to be carried and still have the words legible at a great distance. "No Blood for Oil" boils it down enough to make peoples sentiments clear, and maybe speaking to protesters would allow them to expound on this.

The protesters- have you seen the people attending these marches and demonstrations? There's a LOT of the people you mentioned present, no doubt- but there's also a lot of white and blue-collar working Americans out there. P.J. O'Rourke once asked a friend why the liberals always had marches, and the friend replied "We Republicans have jobs." It's still funny, but now I see a lot of people with jobs out there too.

There's a lot of people who think this war is a good thing (I'm one of them - I think Hussein's a madman and should be removed, and I'd be fine if we blew up his house, servants, and family. That's what collateral damage means) but we've gone about this the wrong way from the beginning. I can't support this president- damn it, the man's my employee and he's ignoring half the country :mad: and the rest of the world. That's not what he's paid for!

Hope you don't take any of this personally, no offense meant. I'm just tired of being lumped in with the hippies and college students cause I oppose this war. JH

Taylor Porter

03-25-2003, 03:08 PM

I have no problem with Stuart Moore interjecting politics into his columns. But I do have a problem with the fact that all of his columns seem pretty pointless. It's not enough for me to just get a brief history lesson on Image's early days; the author needs to take some kind of position, to use the history lesson to make a point. It never feels like Mr. Moore is using these columns to make any kind of point

NerveTonic

03-25-2003, 03:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gail Simone:
I don't quite get it. There's a war going on. It's on people's minds. Stuart spoke about it in context of his column. What's the problem? I don't think people are reading his column expecting it to be like Wizard, are they?
<hr /></blockquote>EXACTLY. Stuart is one of them Wesleyan-style post-hippie, post-punk "cool geeks" whose best work has always been discreetly subversive, who thinks pubs are neat, and who loved Dr. Who so much in junior high that be probably had a long scarf collection. The guy is very smart, and very skeptical.

When you give an Oscar to Michael Moore (and a standing ovation) do NOT feign surprise when he speaks out against Bush's decision to go to war. When you give him an OSCAR for being a populist "crank," don't be surprised when he says "cranky" populist things, sheesh.*

When you click the little link that says "Stuart Moore's thoughts," what do you expect to read? Argue with his facts, argue with his judgment, but don't pretend to be shocked. It's embarrassing.

And if you wish to read more columns that support Bush's decision, go find one! They are everywhere! Or better yet, write one yahself, ya porcupine ya.

*This comparison is not intended to call Stuart a "crank," unless the shoe in this case fits. I don't know whether it fits, and I suppose we won't know until we see the "aftermath" of this war.

Greg O

03-25-2003, 03:34 PM

Augie et al, Stuarts piece is not news nor a feature. It's an Op Ed piece. Please stop pointing out how you were surprised/dissapointed/unhappy that Stuart used his OpEd piece to express an opinion.

You disagree with his opinion fine, please stick to the facts as to why you disagree with it or go write your own column. If you're posting to protest Stuart using his Op Ed piece to express an opinion then please f**k off.

GOD

Michael

03-25-2003, 03:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Augie De Blieck Jr.:
And I think a lot more people are anti-military than would care to admit it right now. I also find it hard to say you can support the troops when you don't believe a word of anything they're doing. That's like saying you support the Miss America contestants, but are disgusted by the piggish male nature of the event. The contestants are the event. The troops are the mission.<hr /></blockquote>Why does it have to be one or the other? I don't find anything contradictory about saying I disagree with the president's political maneuvering and aggressive war tactics yet I still want our US troops to suffer minimal casualties and loss. Do I want them to succeed? I want them out of there safe and sound however that is accomplished at this point.

With your Miss America example, if I object because I find it chauvenistic, then by default the contestants are knowingly supporting the activity. So, I can more rightfully be non-supportive of the contestants.

With military personnel, they have signed on to protect the country and engage in military action. They don't necessarily have to support the philosophy of the mission they are on other than to accomplish whatever goal is given to them. Even if they believe in the objective, I still don't want them to lose their life over it. I find that to be at least moderately supportive of the troops. I don't have to worry about a Miss America contestant having anything happen except maybe slipping out of their dress if they don't have support. (get it? support? dress? never mind).

Although I definitely don't support a woman slipping out of her dress. Ick. :p

Too many people see issues as being dichotomous. Anti-war/anti-troop is a false division. These issues are diamonds with many different facets to them -not just two flat sides.

As for Stuart's column, I want to clarify my earlier post that I don't mind political opinions in these columns, but I didn't think the structure of this particular column served either topic very well.

dogisred

03-25-2003, 03:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GOD:
Augie et al, Stuarts piece is not news nor a feature. It's an Op Ed piece. Please stop pointing out how you were surprised/dissapointed/unhappy that Stuart used his OpEd piece to express an opinion.

You disagree with his opinion fine, please stick to the facts as to why you disagree with it or go write your own column. If you're posting to protest Stuart using his Op Ed piece to express an opinion then please f**k off.

GOD<hr /></blockquote>While I agree with your sentiments, I must confess that I am a little put off that you would be so presumptuous to call yourself GOD. I could understand that as a login name, but to sign your post that was is a little troubling. Then you go so far as to lump yourself with the asinine cliche of the last two words of your post. I'm not perfect, far from it, and use vulgarities now and again, but I'd like to think I'm thick skinned enough to not use them on a message board. To be perfectly honest, though, it might not have offended me (most likely would not have) if your sign-in name was different.

Now...say what you will about my religious beliefs, my political beliefs, whatever...I just needed to speak my peace. Great, now I'm going to be labeled a zealot. :p

Stuart...ignore the bellyaching...keep writing what you want to write, that's why it's called a column and not a report.

RDuarte

03-25-2003, 04:02 PM

Gail,

No I'm not expecting WIZARD. I am, however, expecting a column about comics. This was a thinnly veiled attempt to talk about comics while speaking out against the war. I don't care what Stuart's opinions are. I have my own opinions that I choose to share with others when the time/situation is right. If this site was named WAR-A-RAMA and not COMICS NEWSARAMA then you would hear what I have to say. Otherwise, I'll keep my feelings to myself and be more than happy to discuss artists, writers, late books, the history of comics, the impact of self-publishing, Superman vs. Thor(*), or whatever comic related issue is popular at the time.

All I'm trying to say (without sounding too preachy) is that PRO or ANTI war, there are times people want to get away from the (for lack of a better word) crap in the world. For me (and I'm sure a lot of other people), it's comics. It becomes increasingly difficult in this day and age to find a comics related column that doesn't talk about the war. I know it's their right to speak about whatever they want, but it's also my right to complain about it.

Augie's feelings about war aside (I refuse to add fuel to the fire by agreeing or disagreeing), I thank him for keeping his column politics-free.

(*)PS: I give it to Thor. Magic hammer.

KyleV

03-25-2003, 04:16 PM

I'm a regular Pipeline reader (and poster) and I tend to agree with Augie on the issue of politics popping up EVERYWHERE these days, BUT...

I thought this was genius, basically for the WAY it was written. Stylistically I thought this was the best column yet and I'd love to see more like this.

What I also find interesting is how kneejerk everyone is reacting to this. It's gone from Image comics and the anti-war protests needing to be sexier (c'mon! how can you NOT find that funny?) to a debate on military strategy and the status of a post-war Iraq.

I know there are people out there who are tired of seeing statements on the war in places they really shouldn't be (everyone online these days seems to think they know it all with regards to the war), but give this column some respect for style.

I'd like to see more like this, war or no war.

Nakedmanatee

03-25-2003, 05:06 PM

When I hear all of this talk about war, I can't help but think of an applicable Bob Dylan song. I believe he said it best when he sang:

"Heyyy deeee ssassa eeeee oooo. Naaaa leee laaa loloooo."

Dave

Greg O

03-25-2003, 05:06 PM

Dogisred posted:
While I agree with your sentiments, I must confess that I am a little put off that you would be so presumptuous to call yourself GOD. I could understand that as a login name, but to sign your post that was is a little troubling.

Hey, shoot the message not the messenger.

Then you go so far as to lump yourself with the asinine cliche of the last two words of your post. I'm not perfect, far from it, and use vulgarities now and again, but I'd like to think I'm thick skinned enough to not use them on a message board. To be perfectly honest, though, it might not have offended me (most likely would not have) if your sign-in name was different.

F**k is offensive?!?! Jeez I'm sorry I used asterixes instead of the 'e' and the 'c' so.

GOD

NerveTonic

03-25-2003, 05:11 PM

The following is an attempt to explorer an analogy between creators demanding an alternative to the "work for hire" system and the United States (plus "coalition") overturning the Hussein administration in Iraq. WARNING: I fail.

Okay: Jim Lee, Todd Larsen, Leifeld, McFarlane, Silvestri and whoever -- the Image coalition represents the U.S.-led "coalition."

Iraq represents Marvel or DC, or rather the work-for-hire system.

Man, comics creators (the free nations of the world) had been aware of the badness of the work-for-hire system for generations. Creators had other things on their minds, weren't always thinking about heaven and the future's sakes, had to pay off so many bartabs and bookies and Sallie Mae loans. Oh, in a pinch, creators managed to organize a little, to confer -- the best minds of their generation wrote some resolutions.

Then along come these new kids, loaded with confidence, loaded with power, making money faster than they could blow it on sin. They look around and notice no one can stop them from attacking the old work-for-hire system -- and why not? Everyone knew it was evil, pure evil, for decades. And besides, we can make even MORE money this way.

So they organize. They launch their attack. They're already so popular, their attack works REGARDLESS of the quality of their books, the professionalism of their business practices, or the hardship posed for their allies (the comics shops). Across the whole industry, people think this Image maneuver is pretty exciting; the artists (whether you liked them or not) were revolting against that damned evil system.

And the Big Two did in fact take it on the mouth, BAP! They lost talent, they lost fans, they lost shelf space; they had to renegotiate their deals with creators; they had to fire editor after editor; wholesale changes of staff! Save the industry, save the industry! Comics shops closing left and right! Dag! Where's Shooter? Waht do the readers want? What does a good comic look like anymore? Hire the right people! Who's the right people??

Creators learned that if you were good enough or popular enough, you might swing a "creator owned" deal. You would also get "work for hire" opportunities, of course, but you wouldn't waste your best ideas on 'em. Monthlies suffered, I strongly believe, because creators chose to hold back their best creations; instead, they reused old villains and characters and plots.

Yet, although Image started a lot of trouble for the Big Two, before long Image shattered. Leifeld went back to Marvel, for a time! And came away from it a laughingstock. Jim Lee became a corporate partner with DC. McFarlane became a toyman and a billionaire, not a comics creator.

What are the consequences?

See? I fail to draw a clear analogy. But see, I didn't realize I would fail until after I typed all it all out, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna type and type and type and then erase it.

chriskenny

03-25-2003, 05:13 PM

If this all about the oil, then why does the war continue? We've got control of all the oil fields already. Maybe, perhaps, there's something more to it all?

Couple of reasons we wouldn't stop now-- because we want political control over the domain where the oil is, not just the oil fields themselves. We would not be able to have control of the oil fields long-term without taking complete control of the Iraqi infrastructure.

And why would we bomb Saudi Arabia when we already have them as allies-- why invade a place we already have military bases in? We never left after 1991. We got our foot in the door a long time ago. Plus, Saudi Arabia is someone those who want the oil can deal with, while Iraq is a "rogue" state they cannot. Since Saudi Arabia is our ally (and, some [not me] would argue, our client state) Iraq is the nation that needs to be beaten into submission.

I believe this war is about oil AMONG OTHER THINGS. But one must not underestimate the motivation of oil...

Chris

Greg O

03-25-2003, 05:39 PM

Re: the confused nature of this piece maybe it's intended to relate to how some of the Image founders got distracted by events outside of their own sphere and their work lacked focus and commitment as a result before finally their efforts, commitments or ideals petered out.

GOD

NerveTonic

03-25-2003, 05:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GOD:
Re: the confused nature of this piece maybe it's intended to relate to how some of the Image founders got distracted by events outside of their own sphere and their work lacked focus and commitment as a result before finally their efforts, commitments or ideals petered out.

GOD<hr /></blockquote>You're wrong, God.

(I've been waiting since Catholic boys school for a chance to speak that sentence. Thanks!)

A.N.Onymous

03-25-2003, 06:01 PM

Sorry. Inadvertant duplicate post.

A.N.Onymous

03-25-2003, 06:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GOD:
Augie et al, Stuarts piece is not news nor a feature. It's an Op Ed piece. Please stop pointing out how you were surprised/dissapointed/unhappy that Stuart used his OpEd piece to express an opinion.

You disagree with his opinion fine, please stick to the facts as to why you disagree with it or go write your own column. If you're posting to protest Stuart using his Op Ed piece to express an opinion then please f**k off.

GOD<hr /></blockquote>Actually, the point here is that, OpEd piece or not, this is a site devoted to subjects related to COMIC BOOKS. Stuart is inappropriately using the forum and the credibility provided by his regularly featured column to espouse personal political opinions that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COMICS, and therefore do not belong in this venue.

If you want to have and express opinions, fine. But venting one's political spleen on a comic book news site is akin to putting a cooking show on ESPN.

Keep it to the subject, Stuart. If I want real world topics and discussions, I'll go to an actual news forum.

Mr_Roboto

03-25-2003, 06:11 PM

Heres what Im tired of seeing....

People with no expirience in politics, people who've never even been outside of the states, giving their opinion about something they essentially know nothing about.

Nobody knows how this war is going to turn out, or what it means in the long term, it could go bad, or, it could be major success.

Nobody has sat in the oval office, or anywhere near a security council meeting, so lets quit pretending we have some inside track on the scene in Iraq.

Theres no point in forming an opinion on this thing untill its over, and even then, you cant be sure what the future will bring in that regard.

PS: When I click on a comic column, I want to read about comics. Whatever Stuart said regarding the world scene, has been said a million times before, on a million different venues. When I want to read about politics, I'll find a site where somebody with the 'professional credentials' can make an educated summary of what may or may not be going on.

A.N.Onymous

03-25-2003, 06:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by chriskenny:
If this all about the oil, then why does the war continue? We've got control of all the oil fields already. Maybe, perhaps, there's something more to it all?

Couple of reasons we wouldn't stop now-- because we want political control over the domain where the oil is, not just the oil fields themselves. We would not be able to have control of the oil fields long-term without taking complete control of the Iraqi infrastructure.

And why would we bomb Saudi Arabia when we already have them as allies-- why invade a place we already have military bases in? We never left after 1991. We got our foot in the door a long time ago. Plus, Saudi Arabia is someone those who want the oil can deal with, while Iraq is a "rogue" state they cannot. Since Saudi Arabia is our ally (and, some [not me] would argue, our client state) Iraq is the nation that needs to be beaten into submission.

I believe this war is about oil AMONG OTHER THINGS. But one must not underestimate the motivation of oil...

Chris<hr /></blockquote>I think the real irony here is how many of these "no blood for oil" yuppie/ex-hippie middle-aged protesters and pampered upper-middle-class college student activists drive to the rallys in their gas-guzzling SUVs.

Talk about your flaming hypocrites!

Mr_Roboto

03-25-2003, 06:19 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I think the real irony here is how many of these "no blood for oil" yuppie/ex-hippie middle-aged protesters and pampered upper-middle-class college student activists drive to the rallys in their gas-guzzling SUVs.

Talk about your flaming hypocrites![/QB]<hr /></blockquote>We're all hypocrites bro.

If only life was as easy as the stories presented in comicbooks.

Greg O

03-25-2003, 06:24 PM

Nerve Tonic: You're welcome, if I wanted to be infalible I'd be the Pope :)

A.N.Onymous posted:
Actually, the point here is that, OpEd piece or not, this is a site devoted to subjects related to COMIC BOOKS. Stuart is inappropriately using the forum and the credibility provided by his regularly featured column to espouse personal political opinions that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COMICS, and therefore do not belong in this venue.

But as a comicbook writer and former editor everything Stuart Moore writes can't be described as having ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COMICS. Besides more of the column had to do with comics than didn't, or do you have a quota system in mind? If Matt is interviewing Joe Kubert about the forthcoming Rock GN, is there a limit as to how much non-comic stuff Kubert can talk about?

Keep it to the subject, Stuart. If I want real world topics and discussions, I'll go to an actual news forum.

You know sometimes Comics and the real world can collide or were you really annoyed when you heard about all those 911 tribute books?

You do know that these are comic creators are REAL people and with the exception of say YB Bloodsport most of the topics here are about REAL things right? or do you stick to the 'who would win in a fight' and 'how does mr Fantastic stretch threads'?

GOD

Jaime

03-25-2003, 06:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Augie De Blieck Jr.:

Besides, Iraq has control of a measly 3% of the world's oil supply.
-Augie<hr /></blockquote>I think that you are misinformed: Iraq is also the SECOND country in the world with BIGGER OIL RESERVES. It ACTUALY exports only 3% of the world oil supply beacause the HEAVY post-gulf war restrictions imposed over Iraq oil exportations by the UN.

I think that you MUST read this article originally published in the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 20, 2002. Maybe you will learn one thing, or two:
<a href="http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-25-02.html" target="_blank">http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-25-02.html</a>

A.N.Onymous

03-25-2003, 06:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GOD:
Nerve Tonic: You're welcome, if I wanted to be infalible I'd be the Pope :)

A.N.Onymous posted:
Actually, the point here is that, OpEd piece or not, this is a site devoted to subjects related to COMIC BOOKS. Stuart is inappropriately using the forum and the credibility provided by his regularly featured column to espouse personal political opinions that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COMICS, and therefore do not belong in this venue.

But as a comicbook writer and former editor everything Stuart Moore writes can't be described as having ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COMICS. Besides more of the column had to do with comics than didn't, or do you have a quota system in mind? If Matt is interviewing Joe Kubert about the forthcoming Rock GN, is there a limit as to how much non-comic stuff Kubert can talk about?

Keep it to the subject, Stuart. If I want real world topics and discussions, I'll go to an actual news forum.

You know sometimes Comics and the real world can collide or were you really annoyed when you heard about all those 911 tribute books?

You do know that these are comic creators are REAL people and with the exception of say YB Bloodsport most of the topics here are about REAL things right? or do you stick to the 'who would win in a fight' and 'how does mr Fantastic stretch threads'?

GOD<hr /></blockquote>Not at all. Talk about misreading and over-analyzing! All I'm saying is there's plenty of places on the web for political commentary if that's what I want. I come HERE to read news and commentary about comics. I don't give a flaming pile of crap about Stuart's political opinions. Especially insofar as they diluted whatever his intended point was on the creators' rights issue and the Great Image Revolution.

As long as any real-world references directly relate to comics, or to a creator's approach to comics, it's fine. If Kubert wants to discuss his life experiences and how they affect his approach to his art, that's fine; that's in context.

But to juxtapose real-world real-time political opinion with a legitimate attempt to relate the evolution of creators' rights in the comic book industry is pure non-sequitor, and does a disservice to both subjects.

Kevin

03-25-2003, 08:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by A.N.Onymous:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
All I can say is...you missed the point. It may not be the most profound point in the world, and I may not have spelled it all out right on the page. But it's there.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry, Stuart, but whatever point you may have had was blurred and diluted by the repeated interjections of knee-jerk anti-war mantra.

The reasons behind the war, contrary to protestors' claims, can NOT be boiled down to simple sound-bite sloganeering. "No blood for oil" is nothing more than an overly simplistic attempt to get a catchy chant to play on the news.

There are larger issues, and don't delude yourself into thinking that EVERYBODY has told us EVERYTHING. Just because war opponents don't think the President has adequately made his case doesn't render the war unjustified in and of itself. He's told us what he can tell without compromising security interests.

Not being a paranoid conspiracy-theorist who reads fiendish ulterior motive into every government action, Im presuming that they still know things we don't.

I think our actions in the war thus far speak louder about our motivations than the rants of some aging hippie peace-nik grasping for one last moment in the spotlight, or the incoherent babblings of some naive college students duped into marching in lieu of attending class.

As Augie noted, if simply seizing control of the oil fields was our goal, we're already there.

Grow up and shed the liberal naivete. It's not all black and white.<hr /></blockquote>Amen. I couldn't have said it better myself!

-Kevin

Greg O

03-25-2003, 09:01 PM

A.N.Onymous posted:
Not at all. Talk about misreading and over-analyzing! All I'm saying is there's plenty of places on the web for political commentary if that's what I want. I come HERE to read news and commentary about comics. I don't give a flaming pile of crap about Stuart's political opinions. Especially insofar as they diluted whatever his intended point was on the creators' rights issue and the Great Image Revolution.

So....who exactly forced you to read Stuart's piece?

GOD

Nakedmanatee

03-25-2003, 09:04 PM

This is just my opinion, but I *like* to hear what my favorite comic book creators and columnists think about subjects not necessarily related to comic books. Sure, if that was *all* that they managed to talk about, I'd get pissed, but that isn't the case. You're acting like this has suddenly turned into the Fox news channel.
You're not looking for that, that's cool. But there are tons of other articles that do not mention the war, politics, opinions, feelings, thoughts, fears, hopes, or anything that might have a direct effect on anything we do. Life does go on. I would suggest clicking on the Mark Millar "Trouble" story. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> No chance of any of those things affecting the possible enjoyment of that.
As for me, bring it on! I like comics, I like to hear about what makes my favorite writers, artists, and editors tick. If Bill Jemas has nude pictures of Elizabeth Dole, I wanna read about it. If Neil Gaiman wants to run a story about how Pat Buchanan changed his life, I wanna read about it. And if Joe Quesada is out protesting llama abuse after a hard day of running Marvel Comics, yeah, I may be a geek, but I wanna read about that, too.

But that's just me. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Dave

Denton Tipton

03-25-2003, 09:08 PM

Auggie said: <blockquote>quote:<hr />Besides, Iraq has control of a measly 3% of the world's oil supply. Surely, if this were some overzealous attempt by "the rich" to "get richer," we'd be bombing someone with more oil. I don't know the numbers, but I'd imagine that would be someone like Saudi Arabia. <hr /></blockquote>War has been historically proven to stimulate the economy.

Also, Bush has said the administration's aim is not to take the "oil of the Iraqi people".

The administration recommends that citizens should keep their gas tanks at least half full in case of terrorist attacks. Shouldn't we be working to become LESS oil dependent? Who is that benefiting?

And Bush's family is already in bed with the Saudis. See <a href="http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm" target="_blank">American Freedom News</a>, which also goes on to detail the grandfather's dealings with Hitler and the son's connection with Osama bin Laden's brother. Sounds far fetched? Read for yourself.

Auggie also said: <blockquote>quote:<hr />
And I think a lot more people are anti-military than would care to admit it right now. I also find it hard to say you can support the troops when you don't believe a word of anything they're doing. That's like saying you support the Miss America contestants, but are disgusted by the piggish male nature of the event. The contestants are the event. The troops are the mission.<hr /></blockquote>Anti-military? People are against those serving to protect them? And your pagaent analogy is slipshod. I think it is more along the lines of: Kobe thinks he can win the game by shooting, but the coach tells him to pass it to Shaq because it's a better percentage shot, and Kobe passes because it's for the good of the team. Because he can think of a better (to him) way to win doesn't make him anti-Shaq.

BTW, troops CARRY OUT missions.

And again: <blockquote>quote:<hr /> I'll skip Tony Isabella's column, thanks. I gave up on that one years ago. When I want to read political commentary, I'll go to other websites. When I want to read comic book commentary, I'll go to another columnist who might actually talk about comics once in a while.
<hr /></blockquote>I guess you haven't read Mr. Stuart's past 13 articles. Busy reading those "other websites"?

IMHO, Mr. Moore did get off track in his column. But I can understand why. And maybe that was his point. Maybe there's something going on more important than COMIC BOOKS?!

Slangword

03-25-2003, 09:39 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Augie De Blieck Jr.:
The troops are the mission.<hr /></blockquote>The troops are NOT the mission. The troops are people, and that should never be forgotten.

Without getting into discussions about the current military action, I want to point out that it's very easy to support the troops without supporting the mission -- ask anyone who's had a family member in the military. You can think an action is unwise on a strategic or tactical level, but still want everyone involved to come out safely.

--Scott Rowland (Father was career Army, sister and brother-in-law were Air Force)

pickard

03-25-2003, 10:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:

This stuff isn't just being reported by Crazy Leftist Conspiracy Times, either. Here's a longer piece from the New York Times (free registration required): <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html</a> .
<hr /></blockquote>It's not just being reported by crazy leftist newspapers. It's also being reported by accepted, established leftist newspapers.

Nakedmanatee

03-25-2003, 10:23 PM

Ah, but what about the articles found at <a href="http://www.theonion.com?" target="_blank">www.theonion.com?</a>

Dave

MindTricked

03-25-2003, 10:40 PM

Pointless??? Any article that includes anything similar to this paragraph:

"Some of these celebrities are probably pro-war, but I bet most of them aren’t. And why stop there? Let’s get some hardcore porn actresses marching on the lines. A little girl-girl kissing in high heels down Broadway would beat the hell out of the usual footage of the eight guys who got arrested because they stumbled into a barricade."

is far from pointless. Hell - I think anyone wanting to start a war should just think about some nice girl-girl action, and they'll reconsider, well, just about everything.

Oh yeah, Stuart - I got it. I could have used more of it, though.

*goes back to thinking about high-heeled girls kissing and protesting and stuff*

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Karl Hamner

03-26-2003, 01:38 AM

I find the absolute stupidity of the "it's about oil" line mind-numbing. Guys, if was about oil, Papa Bush never would have left in the first place. The first war WAS about ensuring the stability and availability of world oil supplies, but neither that war nor this one are about confiscating that supply (which is the distinct impression one gets listening to ultra leftist propoganda).

And Stuart, I'm wondering if war is okay with you so long as it doesn't include the insertion of ground troops. Coalition aircraft have been bombing the shit out of Iraqi military targets both inside and outside the no fly zones for well over a decade. Clinton used Iraq to wag the dog in 1998 and I didn't hear a peep out of all of you peace-lovers. Incidentally, Bush's justifications for this war are almost word-for-word identical to the rationales offered by Clinton in '98, an action that was broadly supported by the same Democrats that are giving Bush all sorts of hell now. (Incidentally, I didn't disagree with Clinton's actions against Iraq, just the timing.)

Where were all the peaceniks demanding a political solution while Clinton bombed CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE for 2 months in Bosnia to aid a group that a year before had been listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department? Where were the cries of protest when Clinton bombed a medicine factory in Sudan, one of poorest, most disease-ridden countries on the planet?

So you're man enough to cop to being anti-Bush. Good for you. But that's all you and the rest of the protesters are. I wish the media would simply call you guys anti-Bush protesters rather than anti-war protesters because the former is really an inaccurate description.

Anyway, I've grown quite accustomed to leftist comic creators mouthing off. What irritated me was that the nonpolitical part of your column didn't tell me anything that I (and I suspect most of your other readers) didn't already know. The column seemed to be building toward some unique epiphany you'd had regarding the Image founders, but when I got to the end, there was none. I assume you get payed by the click, so when I come back next week, please have some thing worth reading or I won't be clicking anymore.

Thanks,
Karl

Nakedmanatee

03-26-2003, 02:38 AM

And, by the same token, I guess you would be against the war if it was all President Gore's idea.
Clinton, whether it was because he was a decent guy or perhaps he was too busy getting his knob polished, never courted war as heavily as Bush Jr. has. Nothing he has done can compare to Gulf War, Part Deux. History will play that out...that's my sad prediction.
Besides, this war just isn't opposed by a few crazy liberals. It's most of the FREAKIN' WORLD. This isn't about some weirdo hippies. Even General Norman Schwarzkopf (remember him?) has expressed doubts about this war. We have very little support from the world on this. And for a bunch of people who supposedly value the democratic ideal, I find this disturbing.

Dave

Nakedmanatee

03-26-2003, 03:03 AM

Oh, and another thing... there were plenty of liberals decrying Clinton in the 90's. Michael Moore was a big critic of Clinton and Gore. There was a big group of liberals who found little difference between Gore and Bush. They all voted for Ralph Nader.
I can't say I agree or disagree with military actions that Clinton presided over. I honestly don't know enough about them. But I do know that they were not on the same scale and Bosnia, at least, we were part of a NATO peacekeeping force.

Dave

wrog

03-26-2003, 04:07 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Iraq has control of a measly 3% of the world's oil supply<hr /></blockquote>Ummm. They currently have 3% of the world's production, "production" being the rate at which one is pulling the stuff out of the ground. You might recall something about an embargo. Suffice it to say they haven't exactly been pumping flat out.

The number that really matters is reserves. And the story there is that 1/2 of an incredible crapload (namely Saudi Arabia, with 1/4 the world's known reserves) is still an incredible crapload. So it's more like 1/8 of all the currently economically accessible oil everywhere is sitting there in that one country(<a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html" target="_blank">source</a>). That's not "measly".

Bush+friends aren't stupid. Well okay, they're being stupid in other ways, but they're not being stupid about where the oil is.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'd imagine that would be someone like Saudi Arabia<hr /></blockquote>Give it time. Iraq has the advantage of a ready-made pretext. With Saudi Arabia there's a bit more work to do. But I'm sure They will get around to it eventually...

Stuart Moore

03-26-2003, 09:03 AM

Three quick observations:

I just looked over the column again, and the word "oil" doesn't appear once. It's the Bush-supporters who keep bringing this up -- though, as noted, it's also a shorthand a lot of protesters use. (When you can only fit five words on a sign, you've got to pick your shots.)

The subtitle of the column is "Comics, Pop Culture, and the World Outside." Isn't that enough of a warning label?

Thank god somebody's finally discussing my porn-star proposal. Can we devote a LITTLE more time to the important things?

Best,
Stuart

JimHughs4

03-26-2003, 09:30 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
Thank god somebody's finally discussing my porn-star proposal. Can we devote a LITTLE more time to the important things?

Best,
Stuart<hr /></blockquote>I don't know that it needs discussion, Stuart. What we need now is ACTION! Know any porn stars with time on their hands? :D JH

A.N.Onymous

03-26-2003, 11:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GOD:
A.N.Onymous posted:
Not at all. Talk about misreading and over-analyzing! All I'm saying is there's plenty of places on the web for political commentary if that's what I want. I come HERE to read news and commentary about comics. I don't give a flaming pile of crap about Stuart's political opinions. Especially insofar as they diluted whatever his intended point was on the creators' rights issue and the Great Image Revolution.

So....who exactly forced you to read Stuart's piece?

GOD<hr /></blockquote>No force involved. Unlike the people of Iraq, we do have the freedom to choose what we read. I chose to read Stuarts column under the erroneous assumption that he had a point or conclusion to make on his ongoing topic of creators' rights.

Had I known that he would leave the primary topic dangling literaly in mid-paragraph with no point or conclusion reached because he felt compelled to spew his warped perceptions of the war and his Pavlovian anti-Bush response, I would have skipped it. As I said before, there are more than enough forums on the web for political discussion. I visit comic sites to get away from all that for a while.

Comics are supposed to be escapist entertainment. So too should sites devoted to them.

Karl Hamner

03-26-2003, 11:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nakedmanatee:
And, by the same token, I guess you would be against the war if it was all President Gore's idea.
Clinton, whether it was because he was a decent guy or perhaps he was too busy getting his knob polished, never courted war as heavily as Bush Jr. has. Nothing he has done can compare to Gulf War, Part Deux. History will play that out...that's my sad prediction.
Besides, this war just isn't opposed by a few crazy liberals. It's most of the FREAKIN' WORLD. This isn't about some weirdo hippies. Even General Norman Schwarzkopf (remember him?) has expressed doubts about this war. We have very little support from the world on this. And for a bunch of people who supposedly value the democratic ideal, I find this disturbing.

Dave<hr /></blockquote>Just so you know, Clinton was responsible for more foreign troop deployments than any other President in history... all while balancing the federal budget on the backs of the Defense Dept. and the CIA. I knew a guy who went through Advanced Infantry Training in the late nineties. He told me that Army training guidelines called for soldiers to be issued twelve grenades for grenade launcher practice. Budget constraints reduced that number to one. Can you imagine having to defend yourself and your comrades with a weapon you'd only fired once?

"Clinton, whether it was because he was a decent guy or perhaps he was too busy getting his knob polished..." That's about the funniest juxtaposition of phrases I've ever seen. Decent and Clinton don't really go together in the same sentence unless you're saying something like "Clinton got a decent amount of pussy".

Your point about Bosnia is just hollow. The Coalition of the Willing represents significantly more nations than the NATO Alliance. Action against Serbia went forward without the all-important Security Council resolution because the Russians would have vetoed it. NATO is an antiquated relic whose continued expansion has caused considerable consternation amongst our Russian friends. The only reason I can find for its continued existence and expansion is so that we can establish large and lucrative arms contracts with former Eastern Bloc nations. I frankly hope that this schism over Iraq rips apart Nato and the EU.

As far as Bush being more eager for war than Clinton, what do you call Haiti? Haiti had nothing to do with our national security or national interests. It had to do with the Clinton administration reinstalling the utterly corrupt (but democratically elected) nutball head of state there in the hope that improved conditions might stem the hordes of Haitian boat people washing up on Florida beaches. See, the Clinton administration didn't like the way its policy looked to its black constituents. Haitians were turned back or deported while Cubans (before Elian) were welcomed with open arms, despite the fact that the Haitians were coming from far more deplorable conditions. The C-130s carrying the invasion force were turned around midflight when Jimmy Carter and Colin Powell managed to strike an eleventh hour deal with the military dictatorship that had seized power in Haiti.

You did make a salient point about the Green voters, though. Score one for the left.

Stuart, I thought I made clear that I wasn't really bothered by your foray into political commentary, but rather the lack of original thought relating to your purported subject matter.

Thanks,
Karl

A.N.Onymous

03-26-2003, 12:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
Christy Turlington’s very active in anti-smoking causes -- has anyone called and asked if she’s against the war? What about Cindy Crawford or Shalom Harlow? Maybe they’d be flattered and honored to speak at one of these rallies. That’d get on CNN -- they’ve got to be tired of showing blurry videophone footage of tanks rolling across the desert.

Think about it. Wouldn’t you like to see Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze Jr. up there, telling the President to get out of Iraq? Or Kirsten Dunst? Or even that guy from The Shield, looking all tough? Nothing against Nelson Mandela and Susan Sarandon, but it’s time for some new blood.

Some of these celebrities are probably pro-war, but I bet most of them aren’t. And why stop there? Let’s get some hardcore porn actresses marching on the lines. A little girl-girl kissing in high heels down Broadway would beat the hell out of the usual footage of the eight guys who got arrested because they stumbled into a barricade.<hr /></blockquote>Anybody who places any value on what a pampered, coddled, insulated-from-the-real-world celebrity thinks about politics and world affairs needs to be immediately checked into the nearest mental health facility.

What, for example, does former-President Clinton's political consultant Barbra Steisand know about the real world? She hasn't lived there since about 1963.

Celebrities have NO CLUE what actual working class Americans think or feel about things. They have platoons of bodyguards and personal assistants protecting them from ordinary people.

Perfect case in point is the clueless nitwit from the Dixie Chicks. The core fan base of country music is comprised of hard-working, blue collar, patriotic Americans who support the president. How can Natalie Maines be "shocked" by the massive outpouring of fan-backlash to her anti-Bush comments, unless she's totally out of touch with her fans and their values and beliefs?

And how about the Oscars and pseudo-documentarian Michael Moore? Just the fact that he deludes himself that he's producing works of non-fiction is indicitive of his mental state. Audience reaction to his "acceptance speech" were split. The celebrities in the orchestra pit sat silently in their seats. The "real people" in the balcony seats booed him off the stage. What does THAT tell you about how in-tune celebrities are with the mood of the country?

Augie De Blieck Jr.

03-26-2003, 12:13 PM

Gail -->

I have a difficult time with the argument that one can support the soldiers without the supporting the war. Doing that is like chopping them off at the knees. Intellectually, it doesn't make sense. It's something I've thought a lot about since the start of this thread yesterday, but I still struggle with it.

How can someone say: The soldiers are there to kill innocent Iraqis. The soldiers are deployed to get the oil for the rich Americans to make them richers. The soldiers are there to destroy buildings and infrastructure. These are all evil things that I am opposed to. But I support the soldiers for doing it.

Can you honestly look a soldier in the eyes and tell him or her that you disagree with everything they're doing and that you think they're pawns in an evil game, but that you support them -- and then expect the soldier to say anything other than, "$&%* you"?

I don't understand it. And just because millions say it, it doesn't make it any more right. (Millions use the phrase "could care less," but it doesn't mean they make any sense, either...)

I imagine it would be like Fredric Wertham telling Bob Kane he supports his writing career, while telling him everything that he does is corrupting the youth of the nation and that his writing should be censored.

There. A last ditch effort to bring it back to comics somehow.

-Augie
<a href="http://pipeline.comicbookresources.com" target="_blank">http://pipeline.comicbookresources.com</a>

Nakedmanatee

03-26-2003, 12:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Karl Hamner:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nakedmanatee:
And, by the same token, I guess you would be against the war if it was all President Gore's idea.

Clinton, whether it was because he was a decent guy or perhaps he was too busy getting his knob polished, never courted war as heavily as Bush Jr. has. Nothing he has done can compare to Gulf War, Part Deux. History will play that out...that's my sad prediction.
Besides, this war just isn't opposed by a few crazy liberals. It's most of the FREAKIN' WORLD. This isn't about some weirdo hippies. Even General Norman Schwarzkopf (remember him?) has expressed doubts about this war. We have very little support from the world on this. And for a bunch of people who supposedly value the democratic ideal, I find this disturbing.

Dave<hr /></blockquote>Just so you know, Clinton was responsible for more foreign troop deployments than any other President in history... all while balancing the federal budget on the backs of the Defense Dept. and the CIA. I knew a guy who went through Advanced Infantry Training in the late nineties. He told me that Army training guidelines called for soldiers to be issued twelve grenades for grenade launcher practice. Budget constraints reduced that number to one. Can you imagine having to defend yourself and your comrades with a weapon you'd only fired once?<hr /></blockquote>I won't argue that that sucks, but I would be willing to bet that we'll see more Americans killed under Bush's watch than the total 8 years of Clinton. I honestly hope that prediction is wrong. I would love to be wrong on that one.
As far as balancing the budget goes, at least during the Clinton era, the economy was pretty bright.

[QUOTE]
"Clinton, whether it was because he was a decent guy or perhaps he was too busy getting his knob polished..." That's about the funniest juxtaposition of phrases I've ever seen. Decent and Clinton don't really go together in the same sentence unless you're saying something like "Clinton got a decent amount of pussy".[QUOTE]

LOL! Good one! I was trying to say that you could subscribe to either one... That he's a decent guy or that he's an amoral horndog. I suppose he could be both, but that isn't what I meant.

As far as Bosnia and Haiti go, I don't know enough about either one to make an educated decision on whether they were just and moral conflicts. With a little research, I may find out that they weren't. Regardless, does it make what Bush is doing right? And will they compare in terms of scale when all is said and done? Why wasn't the whole world outraged at these military actions the way the world is now? Or is the rest of the world just sympathtic to Democrats and this is their way of making Bush look bad?
I don't know what happened in Haiti, but I have a hard time believing that Clinton needed any help attracting voters. He had a new scandal every other week and people still voted for him.

Dave

Nakedmanatee

03-26-2003, 12:54 PM

To Augie--
As you can tell from some of my posts, I am against this war. Having said that, now that our troops are over there, I hope that they are safe and do the job that they are supposed to do, quickly and safely.
At the same time, I feel that it is my right and my duty as an American to voice my disagreements with the policy-makers... Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. I don't agree with their policies.
Why does it have to be if you're against the war, you're against "our troops." Or if you're against the war, you're "against America."
Bullshit. I love this country. I certainly don't want our troops to be defeated in battle or any such nonsense. I just disagree with the President. Have you ever disagreed with any of our Presidents? And if you have, did that make you against America?
I don't think that we needed to stir shit up in the Middle East. But now that we have, I want our troops to be successful and safe.
I don't understand *your* viewpoint, Augie... It's like you're pushing away people who support the military personell because they aren't all hardcore.
Don't you get it? There are people (like myself) who don't agree with the war, but still understand the need for this country to come together and support our troops regardless.
That doesn't mean that I won't continue to voice my opinions on what the President should or shouldn't do. Hell, that's one of the joys of being an American: armchair bitchin' about the commander-in-chief.
Being an American means I can do that. Disagree. And you can disagree with me. Call me a chump on the internet. Say that the liberals are full of shit. You can rail at the Dixie Chicks if you want. At the end of the day, you are still my fellow countryman, whether you listen to NPR or watch the Fox news network. We all live in the same country, enjoying that same free speech. I would hope that despite everything, we could all realize what unites us, instead of focusing on what divides us. Because what unites us is pretty fucking great. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Dave

Nakedmanatee

03-26-2003, 01:07 PM

Okay, one more point Augie... In your Pipeline column you talk about the Oscars and how you liked Adrian Brody's speech.
This, to me, is an example of someone who is basically saying that he is against the war and for peace, but is also supporting his pal who is stationed in Kuwait.
Does that make more sense?

Dave

NerveTonic

03-26-2003, 01:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:

The subtitle of the column is "Comics, Pop Culture, and the World Outside." Isn't that enough of a warning label?
<hr /></blockquote>When comics moved from the newsstands to the specialty shops, the readership instantly shifted from "general public" to "people who visit comic shops." Some comicshop visitors seem quite HAPPY not to shop newsstands, as if comics were a lovely children's fairyland.

Stuart has always edited challenging comics with special relevance to cultural trends and politics and adult concerns -- not in a documentary style, but to show how our disturbing world, via the media often, can totally upset our little minds. It is completely consistent with his previous work that Stuart describe how the war and the protests -- in the news and on our streets -- mess with his thinking.

I know it's messing with mine.

some_bloke

03-26-2003, 02:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by A.N.Onymous:
Comics are supposed to be escapist entertainment. <hr /></blockquote>*ahem*
All together now...

"A MEDIUM, NOT A GENRE".

No, A.N.Onymous, that's a BAD A.N.Onymous.

Tssk!

Now while you're in dentention
I want you to give me examples
of comics that are:

1) Commentary
2) Documentary
3) Escapist
4) Biographical
5) Instructional
6) Informative

When you've finished, leave your work at the front of the class and then stare at the wall until the bell goes.

Augie De Blieck Jr.

03-26-2003, 02:10 PM

Dave -->

Brodey only mentioned that he wants peace and a quick end to the war. He said that war has a tendency to dehumanize people. Then he expressed support for his friend. He didn't go into all the usual vitriolic anti-war hysteria that usually proceeds someone's "support for the troops." He didn't say that the troops were doing evil things, but that he supports them. He just made a general declaration for peace and an optimistic hope for the end of the current war.

Even I would love a quick end to this war. I've got no problem with that idea.

I still have a problem with those who would spit in my eye and then tell me they support me. Mixed messages.

-Augie

Elayne Riggs

03-26-2003, 02:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by RDuarte:
I don't care what Stuart's opinions are.<hr /></blockquote>Then I suggest you're reading the wrong section. As others have pointed out, this is the OP-ED section of Newsarama. That means you're going to get OPinions and EDitorial.

- Elayne

Nakedmanatee

03-26-2003, 02:22 PM

Like a lot of debates, I think we agree on many of the same things. I don't really like the "spit in your eye" approach either and I think that a good deal of war protesters are not like this.
Of course, the ones that are tend to get the most press.
I think most people are more likely to take Adrian Brody's approach to disagreeing with the war. I think evidence of that could be found in the thunderous applause he got. Compare that to the more disrespectful rabble-rousing of Michael Moore's speech. He did not get the same response. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Dave

Joe Kilmartin

03-26-2003, 02:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dogisred:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GOD:
Augie et al, Stuarts piece is not news nor a feature. It's an Op Ed piece. Please stop pointing out how you were surprised/dissapointed/unhappy that Stuart used his OpEd piece to express an opinion.

You disagree with his opinion fine, please stick to the facts as to why you disagree with it or go write your own column. If you're posting to protest Stuart using his Op Ed piece to express an opinion then please f**k off.

GOD<hr /></blockquote>While I agree with your sentiments, I must confess that I am a little put off that you would be so presumptuous to call yourself GOD. I could understand that as a login name, but to sign your post that was is a little troubling. Then you go so far as to lump yourself with the asinine cliche of the last two words of your post. I'm not perfect, far from it, and use vulgarities now and again, but I'd like to think I'm thick skinned enough to not use them on a message board. To be perfectly honest, though, it might not have offended me (most likely would not have) if your sign-in name was different.

Now...say what you will about my religious beliefs, my political beliefs, whatever...I just needed to speak my peace. Great, now I'm going to be labeled a zealot. :p

<hr /></blockquote>"GOD" is pretty generic, isn't it? I mean, by saying "GOD" there's a good chance he might not be reffering to your God, or your interpretation of same.

Good column, Stuart, keep up teh good work, and all opinions are valid here - if I wanted ONLY facts I wouldn't be reading an Op Ed piece.

Joe (who's Canadian and very glad his country has decided to focus on what's going on within its own borders for the next little while...).

Joe Kilmartin

03-26-2003, 02:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by pickard:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:

This stuff isn't just being reported by Crazy Leftist Conspiracy Times, either. Here's a longer piece from the New York Times (free registration required): <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html</a> .
<hr /></blockquote>It's not just being reported by crazy leftist newspapers. It's also being reported by accepted, established leftist newspapers.<hr /></blockquote>The NEW YORK TIMES is LEFTIST ?

LEFTIST???

man...

Dogs & Cats.. Living together... total anarchy...

Joe

PS: To see how "Left" well regarded "Leftists" think the NY Times is, I refer you to Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky.

Joe Kilmartin

03-26-2003, 02:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Augie De Blieck Jr.:
[QB]Gail -->

I have a difficult time with the argument that one can support the soldiers without the supporting the war. Doing that is like chopping them off at the knees. Intellectually, it doesn't make sense. It's something I've thought a lot about since the start of this thread yesterday, but I still struggle with it.

How can someone say: The soldiers are there to kill innocent Iraqis. The soldiers are deployed to get the oil for the rich Americans to make them richers. The soldiers are there to destroy buildings and infrastructure. These are all evil things that I am opposed to. But I support the soldiers for doing it.

Can you honestly look a soldier in the eyes and tell him or her that you disagree with everything they're doing and that you think they're pawns in an evil game, but that you support them -- and then expect the soldier to say anything other than, "$&%* you"?

QB]<hr /></blockquote>Its the soldiers right to say whatever they want, Augie, but I think (and yes, this is the beginning of my expresion of an *opinion*) that most people, the soldiers included, recognise that they are there to do what they are told to do by the people who have commanded them to do so.

You can disagree with the orders that they are given without disagreeing with the human tools (notice I said humans first and tools second) that are being used to perform some actions that a large number of the people of the world disagree with.

Lets say that a comics company's policy is to only publish "positive" letters in its lettercols. Is the editor who follows that policy (and the doctrines under which he has agreed to perform) a hypocrite if they ignore the 60% negative mail that comes in on a book that only receives 40% praise in its correspondance?

If it sounds like I'm simplifying things or condescending or trivialising the loss of life that will inevitably result in the actions that are proceeding by reffering it back to comics this is not my intent (as a matter of fact, as a Canadian, I have watched and closely followed stories in our news where your millitary has deliberately ignored instructions by their superiors that have resulted in my countrymen losing their lives in peacekeeping actions that have nothing to do with this war, and if I was going to criticise them there are a long list of things that I could bring up here). I *am* surprised that you can take an international criticism of illegal war actions being mandated by a government and project that we are somehow criticising the honest people who are doing what they have been told to do because that is their job.

My people aren't actively co-operating in this war because we disagree with its legality (just like Vietnam before it). That doesn't mean that I don't support soldiers overseas giving everything they can (their *lives*, lets face it) because they have been trained to do what they are commanded to do, trusting in the ethics of the officers and statesmen making those commands.

In all due respect,

Joe

PS:

"I imagine it would be like Fredric Wertham telling Bob Kane he supports his writing career, while telling him everything that he does is corrupting the youth of the nation and that his writing should be censored."

I take it by this that you hven't read any of Werthams post-"Seduction of the Innocent" writings where he not only supported *adult* comic books and genre fiction, but the people who were producing fanzines supporting that genre fiction. It was a good attempt at swinging it back round to comics, but I think you used exactly the wrong example to do so...

Its not that hard to respect someone artistically but disagree with what they're saying in the art. I recognise that William F Buckley is a great thinker, writer and political pundit, but I think he's also a pompous ass and, given the opportunity, wouldn't invite him to dinner.

Greg O

03-26-2003, 03:01 PM

Augie De Blieck posted"
I still have a problem with those who would spit in my eye and then tell me they support me. Mixed messages.

You know Augie, you're not the only one. I'll bet somewhere in the world, right now a lot of people are thinking "Don't invade our country, destroy it's infrastructure, bomb it's people, sieze control of it's natural resources, ignore UN mandates on Food For Oil, impose the military leader of the invading force to oversee our rehabilitation and tell us you support us".

GOD

A.N.Onymous

03-26-2003, 03:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by some_bloke:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by A.N.Onymous:
Comics are supposed to be escapist entertainment. <hr /></blockquote>*ahem*
All together now...

"A MEDIUM, NOT A GENRE".

No, A.N.Onymous, that's a BAD A.N.Onymous.

Tssk!

Now while you're in dentention
I want you to give me examples
of comics that are:

1) Commentary
2) Documentary
3) Escapist
4) Biographical
5) Instructional
6) Informative

When you've finished, leave your work at the front of the class and then stare at the wall until the bell goes.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, yeah! When you wish to evade the core issue, resort to nit-picking irrelevant details as a diversion.

I'm quite aware of the "medium, not a genre" catchphrase/concept, but that's irrelevant here. I was, admittedly, generalising but I'm sure everyone BUT YOU grasped the point I was trying to make.

Kinda like Bill Clinton asking the inquisitors to define the word "is". Forget the issue at hand, let's debate usage and syntax until everybody loses interest and goes home without a resolution!

Virtually the only comics that fall outside the realm of escapist entertainment (regardless of subject matter) are straight documentaries (which are rare) and editorial cartoons commenting on current events. And for some people, documentaries constitute escapeism as well.

Stuart Moore

03-26-2003, 03:27 PM

Augie: I appreciate your heartfelt reply. I won't argue with it, because the other posters have said pretty much everything I would. I will say this: If war protesters learned anything from Viet Nam, it was not to blame the troops for an unjust military action. Not only was it grossly unfair to often seriously traumatized soldiers, but it became a quick shorthand way for the right to vilify protesters. It was a shameful exercise all around, and I think everybody learned from it.

Of course, the right still trots it out as criticism, just as they do the myth of the "liberal media" (which sure ain't CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News). Like "blood for oil" on the left, it's a quick slogan that rallies the, er, troops.

Oh, and to the other poster: I never suggested that celebrities had a lot worth listening to when it came to social causes. Just that they're good for getting you on TV!

Best,
Stuart

P.S. Looks like Halliburton got the contract. Good news for Dick Cheney!
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030325/pl_afp/iraq_postwar_us_oil_1" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030325/pl_afp/iraq_postwar_us_oil_1</a>
<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/030325/1048611960_2.html" target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/030325/1048611960_2.html</a>

A.N.Onymous

03-26-2003, 03:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GOD:
I'll bet somewhere in the world, right now a lot of people are thinking "Don't invade our country, destroy it's infrastructure, bomb it's people, sieze control of it's natural resources, ignore UN mandates on Food For Oil, impose the military leader of the invading force to oversee our rehabilitation and tell us you support us".

GOD<hr /></blockquote>And exactly WHO is doing all the things you're describing? Certainly not the US forces and their British allies in Iraq.

Our forces are carefully and conscientiously avoiding the targetting of civilians and the destruction of infrastructure.

The oil fields are being seized to prevent their destruction by Saddam loyalists (and the resulting environmental catastrophe)

And, as I recall, Saddam seized power through a coup, so who, exactly, is the "military leader of the invading force" here, really?

A.N.Onymous

03-26-2003, 03:38 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
Oh, and to the other poster: I never suggested that celebrities had a lot worth listening to when it came to social causes. Just that they're good for getting you on TV!<hr /></blockquote>That was me, and we're certainly in agreement on that point!

It IS quite entertaining, if irritating at times, to hear celebrities sharing their "profound" views of world affairs. Funnier than most sitcoms to hear the clueless "solve" the world's problems!

Elayne Riggs

03-26-2003, 03:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dand66:
Stuart, no one in our government made any predictions that there would be a quick victory in this war.<hr /></blockquote>That seems to be a fairly hot-button topic at the moment; <a href="http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/032303.htm#032503" target="_blank">this site</a> has lots of relevant before-and-after quotes. I agree with you that the unpredictability of war would make any knee-jerk prognosticators look utterly foolish, but apparently there were a number of mouthpieces willing to take that chance.

- Elayne

Greg O

03-26-2003, 04:09 PM

A.N.Onymous posted:
And exactly WHO is doing all the things you're describing? Certainly not the US forces and their British allies in Iraq.
You know A.N. every so often you write a decent post that kind of makes up for some of your more inane ones, then you go and post this. Seriously who do you think my post referred to?

Here's a couple of facts for you, not opinions. See if you can understand them: the coalition has invaded Iraq, blown up Iraqi's (including civillians accidentally but that's what happens when you target civillian 'residential areas' 300 feet from marketplaces), deliberately targeted the Iraqi infrastructure as a means of undermining Saddam's command structure, seized control of Iraqi Oil Fields, intends to use the funds raised from selling Iraqi oil to ease the cost of the campaign; ignoring the UN's Food for Oil provisions which are in place, and General Tommy Franks will assume control of Iraq after the war to oversee it's rehabilitation. Feel free to point out anything that isn't true.

Our forces are carefully and conscientiously avoiding the targetting of civilians and the destruction of infrastructure.
I didn't mention civilians, did I? I said Iraqi's. Although I don't think carefully and conscientiously apply when deliberately deciding to fire missiles into 'residential areas' 300 feet from a marketplace full of 'civilian men, women and children. The coalition has deliberately attacked (I can only assume they intend to destroy not miss) the television and telecommunications infrastructure of Iraq.

The oil fields are being seized to prevent their destruction by Saddam loyalists (and the resulting environmental catastrophe)
So you agree they are being seized right? That's all I said, they were being seized. Your arguement can get a little confused when you're actually agreeing with me.

And, as I recall, Saddam seized power through a coup, so who, exactly, is the "military leader of the invading force" here, really?
Well Think about it A.N. did Saddam an Iraqi invade Iraq? If you haven't figured it out by your next post I'll tell you (hint: It's General Tommy Franks; military leader of the coalition who have invaded Iraq by force, and you know how those Iraqi muslims will love their Iraqi dictator being replaced by an American, right?)

You know you might have very good and powerful reasons for your own personal opinions regarding this war A.N. but it's hard to tell amidst deluded and ignorant posts like your last.

GOD

A.N.Onymous

03-26-2003, 04:53 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GOD:
A.N.Onymous posted:
And exactly WHO is doing all the things you're describing? Certainly not the US forces and their British allies in Iraq.
You know A.N. every so often you write a decent post that kind of makes up for some of your more inane ones, then you go and post this. Seriously who do you think my post referred to?

Here's a couple of facts for you, not opinions. See if you can understand them: the coalition has invaded Iraq, blown up Iraqi's (including civillians accidentally but that's what happens when you target civillian 'residential areas' 300 feet from marketplaces), deliberately targeted the Iraqi infrastructure as a means of undermining Saddam's command structure, seized control of Iraqi Oil Fields, intends to use the funds raised from selling Iraqi oil to ease the cost of the campaign; ignoring the UN's Food for Oil provisions which are in place, and General Tommy Franks will assume control of Iraq after the war to oversee it's rehabilitation. Feel free to point out anything that isn't true.

Our forces are carefully and conscientiously avoiding the targetting of civilians and the destruction of infrastructure.
I didn't mention civilians, did I? I said Iraqi's. Although I don't think carefully and conscientiously apply when deliberately deciding to fire missiles into 'residential areas' 300 feet from a marketplace full of 'civilian men, women and children. The coalition has deliberately attacked (I can only assume they intend to destroy not miss) the television and telecommunications infrastructure of Iraq.

The oil fields are being seized to prevent their destruction by Saddam loyalists (and the resulting environmental catastrophe)
So you agree they are being seized right? That's all I said, they were being seized. Your arguement can get a little confused when you're actually agreeing with me.

And, as I recall, Saddam seized power through a coup, so who, exactly, is the "military leader of the invading force" here, really?
Well Think about it A.N. did Saddam an Iraqi invade Iraq? If you haven't figured it out by your next post I'll tell you (hint: It's General Tommy Franks; military leader of the coalition who have invaded Iraq by force, and you know how those Iraqi muslims will love their Iraqi dictator being replaced by an American, right?)

You know you might have very good and powerful reasons for your own personal opinions regarding this war A.N. but it's hard to tell amidst deluded and ignorant posts like your last.

GOD<hr /></blockquote>First of all, I hope you're not relying on only one source (or multiple sources with similar bias) for your info, because you'll never get an accurate view of what's happening that way. Balance CNN with Fox News. Balance the New York Times with the Wall Street Journal. And so on. Get your news from both left-leaning and right-leaning sources (journalistic objectivity is a myth in actual practice). The "real" truth lies somewhere in between. Each media outlet reports the angle of the news that best reflects the opinions of its respective editorial board.

It's documented fact that, during Desert Storm, when coalition forces inflicted minimal civilian casualties during their brief incursion into Iraq, Saddam's troops dragged civilians (men, women AND children) from their homes in villages the coalition had passed through, shot them in the street, and put pictures of the carnage on the state-run TV station as "examples of the brutality of the American-led forces". Some Western news outlets reported these "incidents" as gospel.

KNOW where your "facts" originate, cross-verify them with a disparate source and temper your acceptance of them accordingly. If you're reading the NY Times, DON'T use the Washington Post to fact-check. It's like asking Hillary if Bill was being honest about Whitewater.

And there IS a difference between seizing the oil fields to prevent destruction/environmental disaster until the war is over, and seizing them
for keeps. Your previous post implied the latter, thus my comment.

You also claim "Iraqi muslims will love their Iraqi dictator being replaced by an American" as if that's a foregone conclusion/permanent situation. I assume from this comment that you must be privy to some high-level administration meeting detailing our total domination of Iraq and its annexation as our 51st state after the war ends.
In your perception, there's no ongoing behind-the-scenes arrangements being made with leaders of various Iraqi factions to install an interim coalition government post-Saddam, just because the administration doesn't share details of everything it's doing with the world press.

NerveTonic

03-26-2003, 05:58 PM

The US armed forces entered Iraq last week because the administration in Iraq failed to meet the stipulations of the UN resolution regarding disarmament and of the treaty that ended Desert Storm. US and UN diplomacy failed to enforce that resolution, and Bush felt military action was our last and only choice.

We may agree or disagree.

It is irrelevant whether Saddam Hussein is a bad man, or whether democracy is better than totalitarianism; the US government has no jurisdiction in Iraq. All we have to justify our actions is the treaty and the resolution(s), and the general principles of international law.

But people in the Bush administration, in the media, and on the streets are implying this is a war of morality, of good-and-bad, and that our actions are justified because we are good while Saddam is evil. This implies that the US can execute international military actions simply because we think we're right.

That's gonna mess with our national head for a long time.

Some Americans are heroes, honest to god heroes. But we are not "liberating" Iraq because we are heroes. At best, we are "liberating" Iraq because Saddam gave us no other choice.

A.N.Onymous

03-26-2003, 06:10 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NerveTonic:
The US armed forces entered Iraq last week because the administration in Iraq failed to meet the stipulations of the UN resolution regarding disarmament and of the treaty that ended Desert Storm. US and UN diplomacy failed to enforce that resolution, and Bush felt military action was our last and only choice.

We may agree or disagree.

It is irrelevant whether Saddam Hussein is a bad man, or whether democracy is better than totalitarianism; the US government has no jurisdiction in Iraq. All we have to justify our actions is the treaty and the resolution(s), and the general principles of international law.

But people in the Bush administration, in the media, and on the streets are implying this is a war of morality, of good-and-bad, and that our actions are justified because we are good while Saddam is evil. This implies that the US can execute international military actions simply because we think we're right.

That's gonna mess with our national head for a long time.

Some Americans are heroes, honest to god heroes. But we are not "liberating" Iraq because we are heroes. At best, we are "liberating" Iraq because Saddam gave us no other choice.<hr /></blockquote>Okay, all diverse opinions considered, I can get behind that.

Nice, well-balanced summation

MindTricked

03-26-2003, 11:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JimHughs4:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
Thank god somebody's finally discussing my porn-star proposal. Can we devote a LITTLE more time to the important things?

Best,
Stuart<hr /></blockquote>I don't know that it needs discussion, Stuart. What we need now is ACTION! Know any porn stars with time on their hands? :D JH<hr /></blockquote>Let's hope it is just time....

But really - where are ya, porn stars?? Get out there, damnit! End this war!

NerveTonic

03-27-2003, 05:34 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Let's hope it is just time....

But really - where are ya, porn stars?? Get out there, damnit! End this war![/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I say we flood Iraq with gays and punkrock drag queens, to open up their Iraqi hearts and minds -- to undermind religious orthodoxy and traditional family heirarchy.

But that's my solution to everything.

lawman

03-27-2003, 05:40 PM

FWIW, I think Stuart's column was extremely clever. Its subtitle does, of course, mention the outside world, and nobody should be surprised to read opinions about that. Furthermore, comics (or any other form of entertainment) are *not* exclusively about "escapism"; entertainment with some challenging intellectual content that impacts how we see the world is IMHO usually far more satisfying. Despite all that, Stuart managed to find a very effective thematic link between Image's founding and current events: the difference between embarking up on a challenging venture -- no matter how auspicious initial circumsntances and how glowing the initial rush of success -- and being able to *sustain* what you've accomplished, as circumstances change and unexpected consequences emerge.

As for A.N. Onymous's remarks that...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Anybody who places any value on what a pampered, coddled, insulated-from-the-real-world celebrity thinks about politics and world affairs needs to be immediately checked into the nearest mental health facility...

Celebrities have NO CLUE what actual working class Americans think or feel about things. They have platoons of bodyguards and personal assistants protecting them from ordinary people.<hr /></blockquote>...what I find interesting is how easily you can substitute the words "business executives and legacy politicians" for "celebrities" in the above and get a remarkably accurate description of GWB and his coterie of advisors.

And anyone who thinks of CNN and the New York Times as "left-leaning" has a very skewed sense of where the center is on the political spectrum. Furthermore, at least in the print media, there still *is* some distinction between what editorial boards think and how straight news gets covered; e.g., the Wall Street Journal has soem damn good news reporters, even if its editorial board is a bunch of raving wingnuts.

A.N.Onymous

03-27-2003, 07:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lawman:
As for A.N. Onymous's remarks that...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Anybody who places any value on what a pampered, coddled, insulated-from-the-real-world celebrity thinks about politics and world affairs needs to be immediately checked into the nearest mental health facility...

Celebrities have NO CLUE what actual working class Americans think or feel about things. They have platoons of bodyguards and personal assistants protecting them from ordinary people.<hr /></blockquote>...what I find interesting is how easily you can substitute the words "business executives and legacy politicians" for "celebrities" in the above and get a remarkably accurate description of GWB and his coterie of advisors.

And anyone who thinks of CNN and the New York Times as "left-leaning" has a very skewed sense of where the center is on the political spectrum. Furthermore, at least in the print media, there still *is* some distinction between what editorial boards think and how straight news gets covered; e.g., the Wall Street Journal has soem damn good news reporters, even if its editorial board is a bunch of raving wingnuts.<hr /></blockquote>That's a rather interesting view. You don't think the New York Times and CNN are "left-leaning", and yet you have no trouble accepting my characterization of the Wall Street Journal as right-leaning. However, in the process, you do show your true colors by referring to the WSJ editorial board as "a bunch of raving wingnuts".

That's the biggest problem with US media outlets today. The conservative press is not only unafraid, it's proud of its slant. Whereas, the liberal media seems embarassed of its position, vehemently claiming to be objective, despite the often crystalline transparency of its bias.

Bias can be subtle. Use of adjectives and adverbs in the context of a news story when quoting someone, for example, can color the readers' perception. Anything other than "he said; she said" is tainted and non-objective.

Four candidates speak on the issues at a debate.
"We need to do something about that" Candidate A smiled.
"We need to do something about that" Candidate B whined.
"We need to do something about that" Candidate C pleaded.
"We need to do something about that" Candidate D snarled.
The reporter's choice of wording gives a distinct picture of each candidate as the reporter personally perceives him/her. It is NOT an objective report of the debate. The reporter is clearly biased in favor of Candidate A.

And I'd say the recent polls showing 70% of Americans in favor of military action in Iraq speaks volumes of how in-tune GWB is with the mainstream in this country.

William Coate

03-28-2003, 01:19 AM

Despite everyone's eloquent remarks or perhaps misguided perceptions of what war really means to both a leftist and rightist it would seem that most people really don't understand what is at stake. To use the news as reference is absolutely useless and to depend on perecentages obtained my the media is even more useless. Why? Because how they attain them is never a real measure of societies views and its simply a ploy to convince people that what we are doing is okay.

Why do we go after one dictator and support other dictators?

Why do we assassinate democratically elected presidents and place dictators into power?

Are people really that blind to the suffering the United States has inflicted for it's own benefit?

The deception is believing anything the media has to say. Why can't we get true estimates on Iraqis casulties? It is no wonder that people want to paint this as good versus evil and hide behind that when Cheney's company gets the contract for rebuilding a portion of the nation. What a big joke.

The other point which needs to be said is that any good graduate of political science knows what is going on and this idea that Bush and Cheney have some special knowledge about what is going on is absolutely ridiculous. Those who are willing to learn can understand the strife that the whole Middle East has suffered.

We make promises that we cannot keep and we make everyone suffer for it. Ask the Kurds. Ask the Panamanians. Ask the Colombians. Even ask the Yugoslavians who were broken up because of oil too.
Why does the US send Milosevich to the World Court when the US itself is unwilling to be judged by it?

I suppose we can be glad to be an American so we can get away with certain crimes (Italian gondala deaths & Japanese ship sinking) and not feel responsible for them.

And just what is at stake? World Peace. Not because of Saddam Husein but because of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield and even Powell. Rumsfield even called those who spoke out against the war as traitors. Wow. Talk about betraying one of the most important principles of American freedom. Is 1984 going to happen in 2004? Let's pray George Orwell's vision of the future does not become reality!

There are agendas out there and to not see that is childish.

Wake up to the world please. We are not alone.

William Coate

A.N.Onymous

03-28-2003, 01:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:
 Despite everyone's eloquent remarks or perhaps misguided perceptions of what war really means to both a leftist and rightist it would seem that most people really don't understand what is at stake. To use the news as reference is absolutely useless and to depend on perecentages obtained my the media is even more useless. Why? Because how they attain them is never a real measure of societies views and its simply a ploy to convince people that what we are doing is okay. <hr /></blockquote>Ah, a conspiracy theorist.
While I am in full agreement with your assessment of the accuracy of the media, I have to question that last sentence. You seem to imply government control of the media.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Why do we go after one dictator and support other dictators?
Why do we assassinate democratically elected presidents and place dictators into power?
<hr /></blockquote>It's called "situational ethics", or, in laymen's terms "the lesser of two evils". Sometimes referred to also as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the friend of my enemy is my enemy".

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Are people really that blind to the suffering the United States has inflicted for it's own benefit? <hr /></blockquote>No, but apparently the war protesters are blind to the daily carnage inflicted throughout the world by terrorists, many of whom are sponsored or funded by Saddam.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The deception is believing anything the media has to say. Why can't we get true estimates on Iraqis casulties? It is no wonder that people want to paint this as good versus evil and hide behind that when Cheney's company gets the contract for rebuilding a portion of the nation. What a big joke. <hr /></blockquote>We can't get true estimates of Iraqi casualties because Saddam loyalists distort and inflate them to serve their own agenda. There is, for example, some question about the true source of the missle that devastated a residential area yesterday. It's quite possible (and quite likely, given documented similar events during Desert Storm) that the Iraqi army themselves inflicted the strike, to use as a propaganda tool against US forces.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The other point which needs to be said is that any good graduate of political science knows what is going on and this idea that Bush and Cheney have some special knowledge about what is going on is absolutely ridiculous. Those who are willing to learn can understand the strife that the whole Middle East has suffered.<hr /></blockquote>Why is it so hard to believe or accept that the administration is privy to knowledge that they don't share with everyone else? Do you really think that everything, every detail and nuance has been publicly revealed?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> We make promises that we cannot keep and we make everyone suffer for it. Ask the Kurds. Ask the Panamanians. Ask the Colombians. Even ask the Yugoslavians who were broken up because of oil too. <hr /></blockquote>So, what you're saying is that you're an apologist for, and sympathizer with, terrorists in the Middle East and throughout the world, because they're supposedly "righting wrongs" done to them? So you believe "two wrongs make a right"?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Why does the US send Milosevich to the World Court when the US itself is unwilling to be judged by it? <hr /></blockquote>Maybe because Milosovich was conducting programs of genocide and ethnic cleansing against an entire race of people in his country? And, I think the blatant anti-US bias displayed by the UN over the last 2 decades is reason enough to expect nothing less than kangaroo court proceedings against the US if it did sign on to the World Court concept.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I suppose we can be glad to be an American so we can get away with certain crimes (Italian gondala deaths & Japanese ship sinking) and not feel responsible for them. <hr /></blockquote>Perhaps you have trouble distinguishing between the concepts of "accidental" and "intentional"?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> And just what is at stake? World Peace. Not because of Saddam Husein but because of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield and even Powell. <hr /></blockquote>So now, the TRUE agenda here is revealed: "Republicans=BAD; Democrats=GOOD".

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Rumsfield even called those who spoke out against the war as traitors. Wow. Talk about betraying one of the most important principles of American freedom. Is 1984 going to happen in 2004? Let's pray George Orwell's vision of the future does not become reality!<hr /></blockquote>On this, we agree (Although, I think you may mean Ashcroft). I have no objection to the voice of well-reasoned dissent. What I have a problem with is how anti-war protesters were quiet when Democrat Clinton engaged in military incursions in Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti without UN approval but, because Bush is a Republican, have suddenly found their voice of moral outrage. Talk about hypocrisy! Either you're against war, or you're not. The party affiliation of the occupant of the White House should be irrelevant.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> There are agendas out there and to not see that is childish. <hr /></blockquote>ABSOLUTELY no denying THAT! It's just that some are more honest about their agenda than others.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Wake up to the world please. We are not alone.

William Coate <hr /></blockquote>Amen to that, brother!

NerveTonic

03-28-2003, 05:38 PM

Here's my problem. I didn't major in poli sci or international relations.

Seems to me that US presidents support or subvert international leaders out of convenience: who is most tractable?

Should that come as a surprise? the responsibility of the US President is to defend the constitution and to insure the safety of American citizens. Nowhere in his job description is the President required to promote democratic republics around the globe. That's not his job.

(We may argue whether the promotion of democratic republics around the globe is a good thing. Good or not, it's not the President's job.)

The President has no jurisdiction in Baghdad.

Bush's position has been that Saddam's failure to fulfill UN resolutions and the treaty that ended Desert Storm require that he leave office forever, and that the only means to insure he leave is the current military action.

Why has the US overlooked Israeli disregard for UN resolutions? Because Israel has not threatened the safety of US citizens or our international trade. Could Bush invade Israel and enforce peace between Israelis and Palestinians? How would that work, exactly? You guys please tell me, as I never majored in international relations or poli sci.

Sadaam is a straw man; he's Bush's opportunity to show of his shiny new boots, sacrificing a couple hundred American soldiers in Iraq so he won't have to sacrifice thousands in N Korea, Iran and the Phillipines [sp?].

Do I agree Bush made the right choice? Awwwww, let's talk about porn stars awready.

I've written a gay porn musical about 9-11 and US military action in Afghanistan. It's loaded with sodomy and moneyshots -- and songs! -- and comedy at the expense of all involved. I want to cast young gay pornstar Stonie as one of the wacky hijackers. How's that grab ya?

Too bad you can't do musical porn in comic-book format, or I might try to sell it to Stuart.

William Coate

03-28-2003, 06:03 PM

To be frank with you I am of neither party and many things the Clinton Administration did in terms of foreign policy follow along many things the Republicans would have followed such as the attacks on possible terrorist camps and conspirators. Many people in the Clinton Administration also had oil ties. Influences beyond influences that hijack government policy.

What I am worried about is the stirring up of further terrorism because of this conflict which you and I can agree is the most likely result of this situation.

Somethings do differ between the two major parties that are quite extreme and because of Bush's feeling towards Palestine for example are obvious feeling carried over from his father. Not willing to ever speak with Arafat giving no intention on a peaceful resolution which drove the Palestinians back into survival mode. Clinton tried really hard but Israel was unwilling to let go of various things and so that problem is back. Secondly the national debt has returned thanks to needless tax cuts and throwing money out the door to various useless programs. These are realities and are of public record and I don't ever need to use the media as my source.

This brings me to another point. The media for the most part is unreliable. You see a fraction of the truth. There are many books on these subjects that have reliable resources and sources that identify the problems of the world.

I am not against the US. I love it and believe in it. What we need to understand is that it is a democracy not a aristocracy. We need to extend freedom to others and not help other leaders exploit it's people.

On the matter of Yugoslavia which the media took part an extensive coverage of exploiting the true nature of this war. If Milosevich is responsible for genocide then Bush senior would be as well. 3000 Panamanians died in that incursion that happened in less than two days. The same amount of people that are claimed dead in Milosevich's attempt on keeping the country together. That's not say that Milosevich had his own agenda which involved an oil pipeline which many nations were keeping for but like President Lincoln he was unwilling to let go of the idea of a United nation. This is all information available at your library, some on the internet but I would recommend the History Behind the Conflict in Central Europe featuring Richard C. Hottelet (audio) and Nato's Balkan War by Dr. Chuck O'Connell (audio). You would be amazed at what you will learn from both of them. For the Panama information look for the documentary The Panama Deception which uses the words of Bush senior himself and your jaw will drop. It came as shock to me.

Just keep your mind clear of media influence and clear your mind clear of all your influences from your family and friends. Go read and cross analyse and you will learn a lot more than the junk that they want the average Amercian to believe.

Cheney and Bush's only advantage on information are the things they want to know not what they care about. You can formulate all the information in the world. How you characterize it and present it is a completely different matter. How many people were convinced by Powell's satellite imagery?

All I am saying is that don't be blinded by everything you hear. There are always more than one reason for an action being taken.

William Coate

William Coate

03-28-2003, 06:19 PM

Why has the US overlooked Israeli disregard for UN resolutions? Because Israel has not threatened the safety of US citizens or our international trade. Could Bush invade Israel and enforce peace between Israelis and Palestinians? How would that work, exactly? You guys please tell me, as I never majored in international relations or poli sci.

The reasoning involves Bush's approach of simply "hand's off" method not forcing any kind of resolution. There had been no major conflicts for 12 years because Clinton worked really hard to come up with some kind of resolution.

It didn't help that both Prime Ministers involved in this peace effort suffered politically and one with his life.

What it comes down to is there are no true benefits of US involvement except selling arms to Israel and maintaining the same policy of "support" when Israel was established.

Bush sees Arafat as a terrorist. Sharon takes terrorist actions without any concern because there isn't anyone to stop him.

There you have it.

William Coate

NerveTonic

03-28-2003, 07:10 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:


What I am worried about is the stirring up of further terrorism because of this conflict which you and I can agree is the most likely result of this situation.
<hr /></blockquote>I don't doubt further terrorist actions will occur. Will MORE or WORSE terrorist actions take place than if we had not "liberated" Iraq? Will more or worse terrorist actions take place in the US? No matter what happens, we'll never know what WOULD have happened, so it's moot.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:

All I am saying is that don't be blinded by everything you hear. There are always more than one reason for an action being taken.
<hr /></blockquote>William Coate -- Your metaphors collide in that sentence with such tectonic concussion that hot tears squirt from my eyes, and a spoonful of throw-up roils in the back of my throat. This Critical Theory major -- and his scorched uvula -- salute you.

Stuart Moore

03-30-2003, 01:26 PM

Excellent history and analysis of the neoconservative movement behind this war, and the likely pitfalls of their approach, at:

<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html</a>

Best,
Stuart

William Coate

03-31-2003, 02:58 AM

There are a couple points I wanted to address A.N. if you are still out there.

No I don't believe two wrongs make a right but if you are to support this war than you should acknowledge the fact or the idea in principle that the whole idea of going into Iraq is because we were wronged and terrorism needs to be abolished. That is the supposed purpose of this war. "Saddam is a real bad man. Let's go in and mess it up even more!"

Secondly all politicans are bad, democratic and republican. They are upper class controlers only interested in there own bottom line. Every once in a while you will get a geunine person willing to look at the real problems but overall the US government is screwed.

Thirdly accidental or intentional people need to take responsibility for their actions.

Thanks Stuart for the link. Real interesting reading.

A.N.Onymous

03-31-2003, 12:27 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:
There are a couple points I wanted to address A.N. if you are still out there.

No I don't believe two wrongs make a right but if you are to support this war than you should acknowledge the fact or the idea in principle that the whole idea of going into Iraq is because we were wronged and terrorism needs to be abolished. That is the supposed purpose of this war. "Saddam is a real bad man. Let's go in and mess it up even more!"

Secondly all politicans are bad, democratic and republican. They are upper class controlers only interested in there own bottom line. Every once in a while you will get a geunine person willing to look at the real problems but overall the US government is screwed.

Thirdly accidental or intentional people need to take responsibility for their actions.

Thanks Stuart for the link. Real interesting reading.<hr /></blockquote>For the most part, William, I don't disagree with your statements.
I DO think the underlying motivation behind this war is "we're mad as Hell and we're not going to take it any more".

That's not to deny that some individuals involved in policy and decision making may have personal agendas to pursue. That's called "human nature". ALL individuals, no matter how altruistic their surface motives, are harboring (consciously or subconsciously) a personal agenda. Career politicians are, for the most part, the worst offenders in this regard.

One large reason we are in the current situation is the 8 years of shoulder-shrugging attitude of the Clinton administration toward the Middle-East.

After the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Clinton Administration's "solution" was to put the bombers on trial and throw them in jail. OOOOOH! REAL SCARY "punishment" for a bunch of terrorists! Even in maximum security lock-up, these guys are enjoying a standard of living much higher than they had in their native lands.

After the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, we did nothing.
After the US Embassy bombings, we did nothing.
On no less than THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS during the mid-to-late '90s, various foreign governments offered us Osama bin Laden, acknowledged mastermind/financeer of ALL the above listed terrorist acts (plus, of course, the attacks of 9/11) on a platter, but the Clinton Administration declined the offers. No doubt not glamorous-enough a coup for the master of self-agrandisement.

To a Western culture, this lack-of-response may be deemed "civilized" or "rational". But, to a culture that breeds such terrorist acts, such inaction sends a message of weakness, of a lack of resolve. Thus, emboldened by his perceived success at cowing the "Great Satan" into submission, bin Laden set into motion his crowning achievement. He took the "battle" to our home soil. What he didn't expect is the major difference a change in leadership can do.

While, as I acknowledged above, there are doubtless many personal agendas at work among the policy makers in this conflict, the fact is that terrorism must be stopped before it goes nuclear/bio-chemical.

Anyone so delusional as to think a culture that equates "negotiation" and "compromise" and "dialogue" with weakness and "fear of the righteous" can be stopped by anything other than brute force is living in a dream world.

Saddam had 12 long years to comply with the UN resolutions, but thumbed his nose at the world instead. How long, exactly, is "enough time"?

NerveTonic

03-31-2003, 01:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by A.N.Onymous:

After the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Clinton Administration's "solution" was to put the bombers on trial and throw them in jail. OOOOOH! REAL SCARY "punishment" for a bunch of terrorists! Even in maximum security lock-up, these guys are enjoying a standard of living much higher than they had in their native lands.<hr /></blockquote>May I twist that statement a bit. There are people living in conditions SO MUCH WORSE than in American prisons, some willingly kill themselves in a desperate attempt to change things. Or maybe they have no hope of changing things whatsoever, and give up their lives for lack of any other meaningful gesture.

We're not going to quash terrorist actions by driving anyone further into the corner. By making their lives EVEN WORSE, we're giving desperate men even less to lose.

I think Lao Tsu said, "If you drive a rat into a corner, it will turn and defend itself to the very death." Let's twist that statement a bit, too. If you drive a cute duckie or fuzzy bunny into a corner, it too will turn and defend itself to the very death.

In other words, whether Iraqis are good people or bad, rational people or zealots, patriots or loners, duckies or bunnies, we must expect them to defend themselves to the death.

No doubt this is why Saddam has obstructed the delivery of humanitarian aid. If the Iraqi citizens remain desperate and destitute, Saddam can count on them to serve his purposes.

Now, some other writer once said, "How do you hurt a man after he's lost everything? You give him something back, broken."

William Coate

03-31-2003, 03:13 PM

A.N. I do understand your point of view yet there are aspects that are incorrect. Because of the fear of another Vietnam War Clinton was never willing to commit to a ground war that would cause plenty of casulties probably because he wanted to remain popular. Everyone's got an agenda, right! But he did maintain an air war campaign that has never stopped after the Gulf War. This is a known fact.

He did strike some facilities after the embassy attacks in his Wag the Dog effort but it would seem that the democratic party has always been more interested in diplomatic efforts compared to the republicans. It just seems there's always a war or two when the republicans are in office.

You can sum it down to "taking action" but sometimes diplomacy, which does take time, is less hurtful and less painful. I think you would agree that preventing pain for those families that are losing loved one's here in the US is something we all want to prevent. Yeah they knew the risks but I don't think many of these families knew.

Anyhow we do need to prevent terrorism but the real fight is in the Intelligence community which really dropped the ball when it came to 9/11. Where were they and what did they have to say? Not a whole lot. So why are we paying taxes so that they should being doing their job they are supposed to and informing our government about what could happen!

I also want to point out that Jimmy Carter has risked his own personal life in diplomatic efforts and it is an amazing thing to see when his efforts come to fruition. I don't see Bush senior doing the things that Carter is doing and that says a lot about the kind of individuals they truly are.

William Coate

A.N.Onymous

03-31-2003, 04:39 PM

NerveTonic,
Granted, the situational validity of your "rats backed into a corner" analogy. But, to take this current situation back to its immediate roots, there were no "rats" backed into any corners on 9/11.

That attack, for which we are still in extended retaliatory mode, stemmed solely from the obsessive need by psychotic billionaire Osama bin Laden to launch a Holy War on America for daring to defile the "sacred soil" of Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm. No one backed HIM into a corner; it was his response to his warped interpretation of the Quran that triggered his Jihad. If he wasn't a wacko, he'd be living it up somewhere on the family fortune, and not be an international threat.

As a known sponsor of terrorism, Saddam is a deserving target. especially as his arsenal grows more deadly.

It's documented fact that Nazi scientists were only months away from developing the atomic bomb when the war in Europe ended. The V2 rocket program was within reach of intercontinental delivery capability.
Had the US chosen not to enter WW2 in defense of our allies, Hitler's goal of conquering all of Europe would have been achieved by 1946. By 1947, his nuclear arsenal would have been a threat the US and to the rest of the world.

A parallel situation exists now in the Middle East. If terrorists and their sponsors are not eliminated today, nuclear and biochemical weapons technologies are within their grasp tomorrow. And, as before, only the United States has the capability and the willingness to do the job.

These terrorists have demonstrated absolutely NO respect for human life (including their own). NO ONE would be safe from them, anywhere. Don't delude yourself that the invasion of Iraq will "cause" more terrorism. These lunatics have proved they don't need a reason, but they WILL play the media into believing the war is their motivation. More terrorism would have occurred with or without the attack on Iraq.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NerveTonic:
In other words, whether Iraqis are good people or bad, rational people or zealots, patriots or loners, duckies or bunnies, we must expect them to defend themselves to the death.

No doubt this is why Saddam has obstructed the delivery of humanitarian aid. If the Iraqi citizens remain desperate and destitute, Saddam can count on them to serve his purposes.
<hr /></blockquote>Agreed, But, as we are demonstrating every day in Iraq, we are NOT targetting civilians. We fight the soldiers and administer aid to the civilian population. A fact used to our disadvantage by Iraqi soldiers who disguise themselves as civilians and ambush our troops. Word is travelling, and they will know us by our actions, NOT by the lies spread about us.

NerveTonic

03-31-2003, 06:10 PM

Let's try the "Iraqi liberation"/"Image revolution" analogy in light of the newspaper editorial.

Right wing mucky-mucks are said to use Saddam's defiance of UN resolutions as authorization to invade Iraq. This move gains the US its foothold in the Middle East in order to destablize the nations in the area. With the US military in place, the Bush administration gains political control of the entire Middle East, and puts American business in control of the oil and the economy throughout the region.

Now, how may we compare this to Image.

The Image boys were big fans of Marvel. Well, they were big fans of The X-Men. Their styles art styles, although somewhat varied, seemed influenced more by Byrne, Cockrum and Paul Smith than by oldschool greats such as Kirby or Eisner. Neither did any of the Image guys show much life-reference to real human figures; they seem to have learned to draw comics by reading comics. Some of them emulated the exaggerated figures and textures of Frank Miller's WOLVERINE, perhaps not understanding Miller's multi-layered storytelling. Another genii Miller let out of the bottle: Japanese pop styles.

This newfangled, high-energy artwork sold like crazy! It seemed as though the new generation of readers appreciated the new-looking art and the way it played up certain underlying themes in Marvel properties -- the inner conflict of good and evil, power, violence, alienation, yet an extremely simplified human beauty. The art was important. The character concepts and themes were important. The stories-- well, since the books sold regardless whether the story made any sense at all, the stories seemed inconsequential. So did the writers.

The (future) Image Boys made good money, working at a high page rate while Marvel sales delivered additional high royalties. These guys were hot commodities. They could make or break a book, regardless of any other factor.

So far, the Image Boys were playing along with the work-for-hire system, plus royalties. They were happy to suck the work-for-hire teet

BUT

they wanted the whole cow.

Which came first? Did the Image Boys inherit a resentment of the work-for-hire system from creators who had gone before? Or did they simply figure it out on their own, saw that the owners took all the big money, and decided to take over? Or were they simply greedy hounds who attacked the system, then later put on the sheeps clothing of the old "creator's rights" ideology?

By leaving Marvel, the Image Boys upset the company (and DC, too) in ways they could not imagine.

They did intend to take over the comics world, thinking themselves the only game in town. I don't think, however, they intended to wreck Marvel or DC. I don't think they had a plan.

Publishing as Image, they invaded Marvel and DC's borders. They gained their foothold in the area of publishing, apparently ignorant of how to make anything work. They upset not just the work-for-hire system but also the business patterns of the comics shops, the collecting habits of the readers, and the schedule and promotion practices of the distributors. They drastically affected the editorial direction at companies big and small, and screwed up a whole generation's sense of what belongs in comics.

Then they pretty much collapsed, splintering.

And it's funny, but what remains of Image is actually -- way better comics than what they published in their heyday. Yet nobody cares anymore, since no one reads comics. Except you. Loser.

The Image guys upset the work-for-hire system a little, but helped upset the industry a lot; and, the work-for-hire systen survived; and, the Image guys made a lot of money in the meantime.

The US invaded Iraq, upset the Hussein regime a couple times. Stuart expects the invasion to upset much more than the Hussein regime. Will some version of Hussein survive, some legacy? In the meantime, will we make a lot of money?

The Image guys capitalized on their immense popularity as creators. This sorta seemed to correspond with the "Creator's Rights" ideology, kinda -- or was that just coincidence?

The Bush administration and his associates in Big Oil anticipate capitalizing on our invasion of Iraq (if the article Stuart cites is accurate). We justify it as "liberating Iraq" from an evil dictator whom we didn't seem to hate so much fifteen years ago. Justifying ourselves in this way, our actions in Iraq sorta seem to correspond with the ideology of the US Constitution, kinda -- or is that just coincidence?

If I was a little bit smarter, I might play Ayn Rand by showing how capitalism justifies the Constitution and the "Creator's Bill of Rights," not the other way around. But I'm not that smart.

If I was a little bit smarter, I might play Robert Heinlein by showing how neither the invasion of Iraq NOR the Image revolution can be justified UNLESS it profits us -- after which we are free to air all kinds of ideology. But I'm not that smart either.

I do, on the other hand, have a lot of free time.

NerveTonic

03-31-2003, 06:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by A.N.Onymous:
Agreed, But, as we are demonstrating every day in Iraq, we are NOT targetting civilians. We fight the soldiers and administer aid to the civilian population.<hr /></blockquote>I am very nearly convinced we have minimized civilian casualties. I'm not convinced any Iraqi will say, "Check out the sweet aid from the US! It easily makes up for all the civilian casualties, which, y'know, they minimized."

A.N.Onymous

03-31-2003, 07:30 PM

NerveTonic,
Maybe you should ghostwrite this column for Stuart. You appear to have made HIS point more clearly and concisely than HE did!

:D

NerveTonic

04-01-2003, 10:59 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by A.N.Onymous:
NerveTonic,
Maybe you should ghostwrite this column for Stuart. You appear to have made HIS point more clearly and concisely than HE did!

:D <hr /></blockquote>[ egad ]

Stuart provokes thought. I simply executed his implied analogy, poorly.

A.N.Onymous

04-01-2003, 02:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NerveTonic:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by A.N.Onymous:
NerveTonic,
Maybe you should ghostwrite this column for Stuart. You appear to have made HIS point more clearly and concisely than HE did!

:D <hr /></blockquote>[ egad ]

Stuart provokes thought. I simply executed his implied analogy, poorly.<hr /></blockquote>Not that poorly. At least YOU MADE the point!

I thought Stuart focused too much on his "distractions", to the overall muddying detriment of his intended point (which he never really ultimately seemed to get to). He didn't tightly draw his analogies, and just sort of meandered off at the end, as if losing interest entirely.

NerveTonic

04-01-2003, 03:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by A.N.Onymous:
NerveTonic,
Maybe you should ghostwrite this column for Stuart. You appear to have made HIS point more clearly and concisely than HE did!<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NerveTonic:
Stuart provokes thought. I simply executed his implied analogy, poorly.<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by A.N.Onymous:
Not that poorly. At least YOU MADE the point!

I thought Stuart focused too much on his "distractions", to the overall muddying detriment of his intended point (which he never really ultimately seemed to get to). He didn't tightly draw his analogies, and just sort of meandered off at the end, as if losing interest entirely.<hr /></blockquote>Please. I'm not fit to wash the dish of Stuart's dirtiest, smelliest dog. My language doesn't flow naturally; it seems to skip metrical beats, distracting the reader, making my argument hard to follow. Stuart, on the other hand, exercises an Empsonian "strategic ambiguity," driving his reader to search actively for the point, as if solving a Chinese puzzle-box. Stuart draws us into a poetic process transpiring between writer and reader, evoking imaginative collaboration by the reader. That, surely that, is the ultimate victory of any true columnist: to activate some "new organ of sense, or of cognition" in his readers.

> hee hee <

A.N.Onymous

04-01-2003, 08:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NerveTonic:
Stuart, on the other hand, exercises an Empsonian "strategic ambiguity," driving his reader to search actively for the point, as if solving a Chinese puzzle-box. Stuart draws us into a poetic process transpiring between writer and reader, evoking imaginative collaboration by the reader. That, surely that, is the ultimate victory of any true columnist: to activate some "new organ of sense, or of cognition" in his readers.

> hee hee <<hr /></blockquote>Or, perhaps he was too "clever" for his own good and lost sight of his original point due to too many sidetrips to the war zone!
:D <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> :D

William Coate

04-01-2003, 09:17 PM

A.N. I also wanted to point out that the reason the media cooperates with the government during times of war is so that they can receive access. There is very little negative news so that the American people will not become against it the way the Vietnam War became overwhelmingly unpopular.

Case in point:

Peter Arnett stated an opinion on Iraqi television and was fired because of his opinion. Sure it was mistake to grant an interview with the “enemy” but I have a feeling the outcome would have been the same if he stated it on regular television.

These are the things that happen because the media walks a fine line in please its viewers and currently the government. Coverage of the war brings ratings and so having access with embedded journalists and cooperation with the military is essential in the kinds of coverage that brings them ratings. Unfortunately all the media is skewed. One journalist from Latin American news outlet pointed out the US has its media and the rest of the world is watching something completely different. Talk about perspective!

And none of this mentions the overall links that the media has with corporations and the ownership of many media outlets. Keep this in mind when you are watching what they want you to know, not what you should know.

William Coate

A.N.Onymous

04-02-2003, 07:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:
A.N. I also wanted to point out that the reason the media cooperates with the government during times of war is so that they can receive access. There is very little negative news so that the American people will not become against it the way the Vietnam War became overwhelmingly unpopular.

Case in point:

Peter Arnett stated an opinion on Iraqi television and was fired because of his opinion. Sure it was mistake to grant an interview with the “enemy” but I have a feeling the outcome would have been the same if he stated it on regular television.
William Coate<hr /></blockquote>Granted, the "embedded" media has to toe somewhat of a line in order to be granted the access they have, but I would hardly categorize ALL the media war coverage as "very little negative news".

Regarding Peter Arnett's exploits, legendary newsman Walter Cronkite stated in a New York Times op-ed piece yesterday:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Under the Constitution, giving "aid and comfort" to a wartime enemy can lead to a charge of treason. So far as I know no one has yet suggested that Peter Arnett be charged with that capital offense. But it seems that Mr. Arnett hangs by a rope of his own weaving.
<hr /></blockquote>Few practicing journalists today carry the credibility and credentials of Cronkite. And I would definitely not classify his Viet-Nam war reporting as bowing to the administration or to the corporate suits.

If a journalist of Cronkite's stature labels Arnett's actions as "treasonous", I'm inclined to accept his view.

William Coate

04-03-2003, 02:54 AM

While I understand your point of view I personally don't place any one journalist's opinion over another no matter their background. They have all been a part of a system thet they benefit from and like leaches they suck the energy of society right out from under us making the people "understand" what they want you to understand.

It is all part of their masterplan of coma for the masses. Like entertainment the news uses peronalities like Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, Cronkite, and many others to maintain a certain trust. They are familiar, they seem wise. And to some extent they are. But in the end they shape what kind of news you hear and see. Nothing gets past them. And nothing is ever so simple...

William Coate

Stuart Moore

04-03-2003, 09:19 AM

Print media has a very different approach these days from broadcast media. All of the all-news stations -- even CNN, which is the best of them -- have a strong right-leaning, pro-administration bias. They're in a tight competition for ratings; they've seen that the sensationalist ranting antics of Fox News has gotten Fox the lead in those ratings; and they're terrified of being denied access, which could hurt them immensely. Plus, the news stations are all owned by giant corporations, which have their own interests in these matters. It's a pretty shameful state of affairs.

Print media has a lot more competition, and isn't quite as monopolistic (though it's getting there). Hence the New York Times -- which, as has been pointed out, isn't exactly the socialist's best friend -- publishes op/ed columns by both Maureen Dowd and William Safire. There are actual different positions being argued there, not the puppet-show you see on MSNBC or Lou Dobbs' Moneyline.

Best,
Stuart

NerveTonic

04-03-2003, 12:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:
They have all been a part of a system thet they benefit from and like leaches they suck the energy of society right out from under us making the people "understand" what they want you to understand. <hr /></blockquote>Touche'. I prefer journalists who have no opinions or ambitions of their own, who understand the manipulation of their evil, faceless Star Chamberlains, and who report only facts, cold hard facts. Like Mentor, or the Uatu, or Wallace Stevens.

Man, all information is "formed" by the medium that conducts it -- even if that "medium" is photons bouncing off the object and flying directly into your eyeballs. Man, we can't even decide if photons exist, or are they simply an illusion created by the behavior of continuous waves. What I'm saying is, information is always biased; you cannot get the facts except upside your head.

Your degree of understanding will always be of limited accuracy, no matter what the subject, no matter how you learned it. But accuracy is relative; you may work to gain greater accuracy by examining critically all the biased information, checking for inconsistencies and paradoxes and contradictions, accounting for the interests and manipulations by the media, and doing the best you can.

I happen to have a huge tattoo across my shoulders and trapezius that says, "Ignore the things they tell you; the truth's the same as lies; don't believe your elders, and don't believe your eyes." (I was young, and I thought Eddie and the Hot Rods were punkrock.) But even given that extreme viewpoint, I know to ignore information simply because I resent media bias is to leave myself helpless to understand, and helpless to take my own appropriate action.

Still, shortwave is still the coolest. The stations move around the dial, and you have to chase them... and sometimes you can hear Iceland! Coooool.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:
They have all been a part of a system thet they benefit from and like leaches they suck the energy of society right out from under us making the people "understand" what they want you to understand. <hr /></blockquote>When I read this stunning mixed metaphor, I felt a magnesium flare go off in my skull. The hair on my head did not merely stand up; it exploded from my skull, sprayed across the room, and now dangles from my walls and ceiling like Spanish moss.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:
It is all part of their masterplan of coma for the masses. Like entertainment the news uses peronalities like Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, Cronkite, and many others to maintain a certain trust. They are familiar, they seem wise. And to some extent they are. But in the end they shape what kind of news you hear and see. Nothing gets past them. And nothing is ever so simple...
<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, let's just use cosmic awareness and sit around and let the "facts" wash across our collective Unimind.

When you turn on the TV news, just imagine the newsperson prefacing each sentance with "I don't KNOW, but I been TOLD..." Words are not truth; you can't build truth out of words. You can only use words to sculpt a model of truth, a model of inevitably finite accuracy.

Of course, Grant Morrison seems to think otherwise. I don't know Stuart's view of the matter.

NerveTonic

04-03-2003, 01:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:
It is all part of their masterplan of coma for the masses. Like entertainment the news uses peronalities like Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, Cronkite, and many others to maintain a certain trust. They are familiar, they seem wise. And to some extent they are. But in the end they shape what kind of news you hear and see. Nothing gets past them. And nothing is ever so simple...
<hr /></blockquote>Okay okay, let's agree that the media are owned by profit-seeking capitalist corporations, and for that reason and others, the compromise of journalistic ethics will always be an inevitable peril.

It makes no sense to blame capitalist outfits for striving to make profits. That's their job; if they failed, they'd close. It has always been that way, and until the Revolution, oy oy oy, it'll always be the same. Ask Hearst, ask Pulitzer -- in those days, muckraking and rabble-rousing was profitable. Nowadays, patriotism is more profitable.

Currently, the Fourth Estate is making big money by supporting the first Three Estates rather than criticizing them. Why is that? I'll tell ya. Because tv viewers like that crap.

Shall be blame tv viewers? Why do they like and demand jingo horseshit homilies? Why do they not hold tv news -- or any news medium nowadays -- up to close critical scrutiny? Why do tv viewers put up with dour Nazi-sounding MARCH MUSIC during tv news reports? Left right left right company halt. Why do tv viewers not suspect bias when they see little computer-animated American flags waving at the bottom of their tv screens? Why do American tv viewers not smell a rat when tv stations play along with the Bush administration by calling this war "Iraqi Freedom?"

Why? Because they're stupid?

Nope. I blame the artists.

Artists should be waking Americans from their "coma," demanding debate, demanding critical thinking, demanding alertness -- showing us the intellectual crimes of modern journalism, showing us why it matters.

"But nobody will pay for art like that."

Then art is a failure, art is a whore in the temple, art is nothing more than pornography.

And as Stuart noted in his article, porn stars don't participate in war protests.

[Hey, somebody applaud for that sweet callback at the end.]

William Coate

04-04-2003, 12:50 AM

Nerve Tonic you certainly have a way with words and like you said in some ways their is no absolution in words and even I stated in another post somewhere something similar to that affect.

People should be more aware unfortunately they get caught up in their materials and their personal situations. We've all been there. Let's face: It's easy to ignore the rest of the world and all the problems in the world. Many families worry about their budgets. Most kids, at one time, worry about how they are going to defeat King Koopa in a Super Mario Brothers game. They all get stuck in a wave of non-thinking because it's easy. That is how they want us. They benefit from it.

Nothings perfect. But we need to remember that this is a democratic society not a capitalist society. Capitalism has become more important than the principles of this nation. Let's not allow it to direct the actions of this nation. There are dire consequences.

Let's hope people start opening their eyes!

William Coate

NerveTonic

04-04-2003, 01:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:
Nerve Tonic you certainly have a way with words and like you said in some ways their is no absolution in words ... <hr /></blockquote>There is no absolution in words, perhaps -- but you can't say the Bush administration hasn't tried. "Operation: Iraqi Freedom." Y'know, Roosevelt didn't try to talk Hearst into referring to World War II as "Operation: Liberate Sudetenland" or "Operation: Liberte' a la France." Bush is begging for absolution in words. If that doesn't work, he'll gladly accept absolution in CGI, in Souza marches, in "freedom fried," in yellow ribbons 'round the old oak tree...

[ sigh. I'm belaboring a pun. "Absolution" does not mean "absolute truth." It means, "forgiveness of sins." See, I'm saying the Bush administration and the tv press are using symbols including but certainly not limited to words to make this invasion look like a heroic project -- not like the failure of US and UN diplomacy to drive Hussein out of power. It's a pun. Sorry. I woke up this morning feeling like Alexander Pope. Or Bennet Cerf. )

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:
People should be more aware unfortunately they get caught up in their materials and their personal situations. We've all been there. Let's face: It's easy to ignore the rest of the world and all the problems in the world. Many families worry about their budgets. Most kids, at one time, worry about how they are going to defeat King Koopa in a Super Mario Brothers game. They all get stuck in a wave of non-thinking because it's easy. That is how they want us. They benefit from it. <hr /></blockquote>No one educates him- or herself out of moral obligation. People educate themselves and inform themselves in pursuit of their own interests, not because they're "supposed to." Nowadays, the common consumer feels no power to change anything, and therefor has no motive to follow the news -- no motive except fear or sport.

Why should anybody in my lower-middleclass neighborhood in Brooklyn demand accuracy from tv newscasts? Earnest question. What could they possibly do with more accurate news? In Sunset Park, we watch the news to learn whether to expect delays on the N Line into midtown. We don't know any way to use news about Iraq, so who cares?

Art should remind us that we're not helpless, that we do influence the world where we live, that each of us judges right from wrong and should pursue what we think is right, that all of our judgments are imperfect but we may strive for accuracy by educating ourselves and keeping sharp our reasoning. That we learn through debate. That, despite our different opinions, we are working together to avoid dumb mistakes. And that we may approach the Truth, even if we can't ever quite grasp it.

A tractable, predictable market is an advantage to business, and business seeks its greatest advantage -- AS IT SHOULD; that's its job. If you believe people -- human people -- should be anything more than a docile, tractable marketplace, prove why we should! I'm a big fan of capitalism, but I hope art occasionally shows us we have value beyond and in addition to our part of our capitalist system.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by William Coate:
But we need to remember that this is a democratic society not a capitalist society. Capitalism has become more important than the principles of this nation. Let's not allow it to direct the actions of this nation. There are dire consequences.

Let's hope people start opening their eyes!
<hr /></blockquote>Me, I like capitalism. I have problems with corporate law and how corporations affect the democratic process, but aside from that, I kinda LOVE capitalism. Still, I'm distressed that Americans play the game so passively, not asserting themselves or their own best interests.

We Americans do have our eyes open. That's the pity! We simply don't bother to make sense of what we see. We don't see any reason to try!

Capitalism is good, but needs something better to drive it, to call it to accounts. Only art can provide that.

[ no, I don't count the CGI American flag at the bottom of the msnbc newsscreen as "art" ]