Friday, June 10, 2011

Comic book morals

Just the other day, I was reading an article on LA Times about a book recently published on the "superhero" philosophy and in particular, Green Lantern. Coincidentally, Green Lantern is opening next week as a highly anticipated summer film, and should, in true Variety fashion, do boffo business. http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/06/08/green-lantern-and-philosophy-heroic-talk-with-the-ring-of-truth/

I wrote a reply to that article, but got frustrated by the site's rejection of my post because it was too long--I figured out a long time ago that the Twitter mentality of using only a limited posting length was going to be the death of me, so I finally gave up on my attempt.

So here it is--my post to the above given LA Times link on heroism, comic books and all that stuff.

As Green Lantern was my favorite character growing up, I was always more drawn to his alter-ego than to what he (Hal Jordan) could do as a superhero. Between GL and Flash (my second favorite), their respective human identities were brilliantly flawed and yet filled with heroism even of the ordinary kind. Both gained their powers in the course of their civilian work identities, so they were both already working in some work which tested them, but were both deeply grounded in their beliefs. Becoming heroes was therefore not unknown to them, but finding out they could do a lot more with their powers was a bonus to them.

Heroism, in real life, is never so black and white. As the authors remind us, action will often compel the "good" man to do nothing if he/she sees it strictly in an either/or frame--moral ambiguity can force all of us to back down if we are put into such a position. Hal Jordan was chosen as a ring-bearer not because he was considered "a good man" but because he was "fearless." Goodness can really be a time waster--a person who is "good" might waver back and forth over options, while a person who knows any action is better than no action at all, is apt to get more things done.

In the early 70s, when GL teamed up with Green Arrow, it was then that there were more than black and white issues began to show up in the DC comic universe, unless the superhero had already crossed that road a lot earlier. Green Lantern hadn't been out in the "real" world much--he had never examined that life, busy with his career and superhero work.

I grew up with the 60s and 70s comics world, mainly that of DC. I always thought the morals of the characters as pretty much the ethics I followed. (I was a kid when I read them) I now feel, in today's world where I am now an atheist, that I didn't have the need for a "something in the sky" to make mostly correct choices and be an ethical person. Comics were always a good way to spell things out in a non-preaching manner, allowing us to be moral, but still allowing us to make our own choices.A

Monday, June 6, 2011

Violence needs to be curbed, not sex!

For fuck's sake, this is absolutely ridiculous. The US is more concerned about some Rep's sexual behavior than it is on the amount of violence in TV, movies and games.

They care more about a presidential candidate's mistress than they do about whether that man had any good ideas for government.

The idea of someone getting a blow job in the Oval Office is far, far more important than a president and his VP starting a war in another country by lying about how many weapons there were in that country.

This country is so fucking screwed up, I'm getting embarassed to live here.

Violence doesn't seem to matter to these fools. Only anything related to sex, which is supposed to be a natural thing, and is legal in all states.

I have always pondered this--why does the simple act of sex make all these fucking right-wingers so jumpy?

As far as Weiner and his weiner, his wife is the only one--repeat, ONLY ONE-- who should be included in any kind of discussion on this issue. Anyone who goes on and on about it, or any other person's ability and right to have sex, I call you out as far more conservative than you would like to admit.

Sex is not a crime. The only way it becomes an issue is if a minor is involved. Or if it's outside marriage and one of the parties opposes it. Beyond that, it aint' a crime.

Violence is far worst than sex. When we harm others, we are exerting our will over them, making them appear weaker than ourselves. Men like to beat women and children, especially when they drink or do drugs. They come from a long line of other offenders, other abusers. When children engage in a violent manner, they are simply continuing a long cycle of such actions. Children who have been beaten in turn beat animals, kill them and harm those who are smaller than they are. Children who have been abused will not fail to utilize fear and violence in their own world, and as they grow older, their techniques will get even better. Violence is, by far, far worse than any consensual sex of any kind.

People who have any kind of life--obviously leaving out the religious right--know this, even if they won't admit it. We, homo sapiens, came up from that kind of rabble--the strongest genes survived for thousands of years before we advanced another milestone in our development--but it doesn't mean we need to stop here. It seems to me that looking at the whole world, the mutant genes of compassion, appreciation of beauty and youth, the chromosomes of understanding higher science, mathematics and wisdom have managed to gain a foothold, but those who don't have an iota of them keep trying to destroy them, knowing that once those people who represent all of these great things have a greater presence than themselves, they will be lost to history.

They tend to beat up in numbers, just like regular bullies. Not one of them is strong enough to upset the cart individually, but in numbers they attack. They prey on the sensibilities of many--the fear of what might--or might not--come. They are evil, greedy, power-humgry and they want to keep the people enthralled, preferably as pliant as possible. And they make the people hate sex, love violence--the natural opposite of the way life should be lived.

Anthony Weiner is fighting for his political life right now, based on a sex related topic. There should have been no need for him to do so--in the correct version of the world, he should have been able to talk to his wife about the incident, then they should have been able to laugh it away, in the privacy of their homes. There should never have been an outcry about it, and there is no way in fucking hell it should have been smeared all around the world, making a moral judgement on him and his family.

Just as there shouldn't have been a moral outcry about Bill Clinton. Just as there shouldn't have been ono about Gary Hart. Just as there shouldn't have been about any other person.

And so why, some might ask, do we make such a big deal when Republicans do it? Because Republicans are hypocrites. We don't make a big deal about what sex games they choose to engage in--we only care when they tell the rest of us how to live, and can't live up to those goals themselves.

I say let's shut the hell up and not act like Republicans. We are supposed to be understanding, so let's act like we are. Sex is part of every single person's world, in one way or another, and it can't be wrong if people don't get harmed from it. If people get harmed, then it's wrong--like rape, pedophilia, or child porn. And among consensual adults, it's fun, healthy and filled with lots of good things.

Noone should try to dictate to any other adult what they should or shouldn't be able to do. And if someone does try to legislate sexual laws beyond those that hurt people, they should be taken out of the places of laws and put into the stocks where people can throw rotten vegetables at them and call them the fools that they really are.