review - Justice Society of America #44

I found the art to be pretty good, but the writing wasn't what I had hoped for. I feel like I'm reading a book from the worst days of the 90s. Dark, brutal and bloody are not words I'd normally use to describe the adventures of the Justice Society, but that's what we got here. Which is not to say that we haven't seen violence in the book before, particularly in "The Next Age" opening arc, but this issue felt far more brutal to me. There was no charm and humor to counter-balance the darker elements of the storyline.

Some super-powered terrorist is being held in a CIA secret prison in Afghanistan. He escapes and slaughters everyone guarding him. He heads to America and attacks a city, so the Justice Society heads out to stop him. This nameless, motiveless, unknown plot device of a villain proceeds to trash the group with ease, bloodying everyone up and breaking Alan Scott's neck. In the end, after hours of fighting in which a good chunk of the city is destroyed, Lightning stops him by seriously electrocuting the guy, while Dr. Fate contains him.

Aside from the fact that Alan Scott/Green Lantern was declared the most powerful man on Earth just two issues ago, and here he's taken out in five seconds flat, didn't we just see a team member seriously wounded and near death in the last storyline? And Alan Scott himself has already been nearly killed back during the Johnny Sorrow storyline early in the run of the JSA title, making this feel like a retread idea.

A few more nitpicky points...

- Does it seem out of character that the polite, doesn't drink, smoke or cuss Jay Garrick flies into a rage and calls the villain a "bastard"? Sure he's shocked at what happened to Alan Scott, but that over the top rage just doesn't seem like the same Jay Garrick I've been reading for years. And this isn't the first time a team member's been mortally wounded. Heck, Alan got killed in the last story arc, and Jay didn't act like this.

- How exactly can Jay be drafted as mayor, without his consent, for a city he doesn't even live in? And in a state he's not a resident of? Monument Point is "outside of Washington DC", but according to JSA #15, Keystone City is in Ohio.

To summarize, it feels like several of the characters are out of character, most notably Jay Garrick. And Alan Scott goes from most powerful man on Earth to "taken out in five seconds to show how powerful the bad guy is". It's a rough beginning, and I hope things turn around for the better pretty fast.

2010 Midterm Elections

Well, that was fairly impressive.

I've been to three tea party gatherings, spurred on by concern about the direction that President Obama has been taking the country. I think the level of spending has been frighteningly high, and the health care law not only too expensive, but sold dishonestly and passed in the ugliest way possible, after we all said "No".

So now the American people have said no, very loudly and very clearly, by handing the still disliked Republican Party their biggest wins since the 1940s. If we borrow Obama's car analogy that he's been fond of using for the past few months, the Democrats may have been in the driver's seat, but the people have put their foot down and slammed on the brakes.

Hallelujah. Gridlock would be vastly preferable to what's been going on for the past two years. I hope, I hope... I hope we actually get our tax rates extended where they are, that spending can be cut, and that healthcare is chipped away at until we can (hopefully) get a new president in 2012 and repeal the thing outright.

Tuesday was a great night. Awesome.

"But I didn't choose to be gay!"

I often hear this from apologists for the gay lifestyle. "You tell me when you chose to be straight. I certainly never chose to be gay."

Really? So that first homosexual relationship or lesbian relationship just happened? It snuck up on you and suddenly you found yourself involved with someone of the same gender through no fault of your own?

At some point, the choice was made to act on those feelings or impulses. THAT's when the choice was made to be homosexual or not. Feelings in and of themselves don't determine who and what we are. I might feel the urge to run naked through a crowded football stadium, but that doesn't make me a streaker.

At some point, a choice is made. Don't pretend that it isn't.

Homosexuality a "civil right"

Since when is a chosen pattern of behavior a civil right?

Homosexuality is often lumped in with gender and race. The proponents, who want to force society to accept their lifestyle, are attempting to claim the same moral high ground taken by those who fought for the rights of women and minorities.

The problem is this: race and gender are what someone IS. They are immutable, innate physical characteristics. Sexual behavior is just that, BEHAVIOR. It is a pattern of actions, of what someone DOES, rather than what they ARE.

That being the case, it seems we've opened up a whole new area for civil rights status to be applied. So when does adultery qualify for civil rights status? How about incest or bestiality? Practitioners of such lifestyles need to come out of the closet and proudly proclaim just who they are and stop tolerating treatment as second-class citizens!

Proposition 8 overturned

The institution of marriage continues to be attacked by the elites in this country, and they pervert the Constitution to do it. Or rather they pre-determine an outcome and try to make that opinion sound like it's based on the Constitution and court precedent.

So here's the truth: marriage is what it is. One man and one woman, legally and morally committed for life. Marriage exists not only for the happiness of the individuals who are married, but in order to create a stable family unit to raise children safely and to pass on the values necessary to function in society. Marriage is the basic social unit of society.

And that's what marriage is. You can no more change it than you can say that 2 + 2 = 7 or that a green leaf is actually red. Marriage is what it is, and it's a social unit consisting of a man and a woman. Nothing else.

So what's been done here is not "equality" or "civil rights" for some oppressed minority. What's being done is the re-definition and watering down of marriage by the elitists, who of course are more enlightened and progressive than the rest of us peasants. The judge in this case has essentially said that 2 + 2 does equal 7, and all of you idiots out there who thought 2 + 2 = 4 are just bigots.

So now actual, traditional marriage is now "homophobic", according to this judge. Huh. Who would have thought? I just married my wife to stick it to those icky homosexuals, apparently.

More thoughts on this later.

The New Currency Is Obedience

From HotAir.com...

The past two years have seen a profound change occur in the American system. Our basic currency is no longer the dollar. People like Jason Levin understand the nature of our new currency, which is obedience.

Obama Democrats worship central planning. They have repeatedly expressed the belief that only powerful, maternal government can be trusted to allocate the most essential resources, or manage vital industries. The free market is a playpen, filled with the stuff that isn’t serious enough to merit direct control by the Mother State. When a particular toy causes the children of the electorate to scream, it is quickly snatched out of the pen. The free market can’t even be trusted to deal with airline fees for carry-on luggage… which turned out to be a market response to previous government action. You are expected to sit quietly and swallow your tears if Mother State chooses to beat you over the head with one of your toys.

Central planning is useless if nobody follows the central plans. Where the free market is persuasive, organizing resources by responding to demand and exploiting opportunity, central planning is coercive. It must compel obedience to its designs, and compulsion is always necessary. If people were eager to follow those designs of their own free will, there would be no need for central planning in the first place.
Obedience to the just laws of a minimal government doesn’t replace the currency of freedom – it enhances its value, by creating an environment of trust and cooperation. Your time is made more valuable by the knowledge you are protected from murder, theft, and fraud. This broadens the options available to you in life.
When the economy falls under political control, the practical value of your freedom shrivels. Success becomes determined by the favor of the State, and the exercise of political power. For example, labor unions are rewarded for their loyalty to the Democrat Party, including proposed public bailouts of their unsustainable pension plans, and exclusive access to government contracts. Such transactions work both ways, as powerful constituencies trade votes for obedient service from politicians.
The Tea Party is the living incarnation of disobedience. It is driven by the words and deeds of people who refuse to submit. Its members demand the return of money and power appropriated by an out-of-control federal government. They won’t allow their lives to be sculpted by the knives and chisels of penalties and subsidies. They speak out against an ugly reality that President Obama’s supporters don’t like to confront: political control of the economy consists of directives, which require submission, which can only be assured through punishment. No matter how benevolent the stated goals of such a system might be, there is nothing benevolent about the methods it must use to attain them.

Brilliant, and exactly right.

An open letter to Steny Hoyer

Courtesy of Roger Simon from Pajamas Media:

Dear Congressman Hoyer,

I have read your statement asking Republicans to condemn threats of violence that have been made toward Democratic representatives in the aftermath of the passage of the health care bill.

I am a registered Democrat, but since I have voted (mostly) Republican in recent years, let me assure you that I unequivocally condemn those threats and any possible acts of violence taken in response to the bill. That is not even remotely the way to settle such political disputes. Such things must be handled at the ballot box.

That said, and for similar reasons, I also unequivocally condemn the actions of the Democratic Party in running roughshod over the clear will of the American people. Every poll taken in proximity of the vote showed our citizenry in substantial opposition to the global health care reform being pushed through Congress by you, Speaker Pelosi and the administration.

And yet, in the grand tradition of totalitarian regimes everywhere, you employed “any means necessary” to make sure your ends were achieved, bribing and threatening your fellow Congressmen and women, etc. It is small wonder that our people are angry. It would be amazing if it were otherwise.

You have reaped a whirlwind by subverting a democracy. Now you must deal with it. The Democratic Party is no longer “progressive” or “liberal.” It is reactionary. And you and your cohorts have forever defined yourselves as reactionary politicians.

Violence is to be condemned, but so is the desecration of a great democracy.

Sincerely,

Roger L. Simon

I couldn't agree more.