Recent Comments by Our Readers

I think it is entirely appropriate. Holder's motives for not investigating ACORN are entirely political. What could be more appropriate than a private citizen creating a political motive for Holder to do his job and investigate ACORN?

I think that the business decision explanation is partly true but of very limited value. Of course any comic book will have to have a certain level of sales (in the context of its times) in order to continue. The Denny O'Neil run of Green Lantern/Green Arrow was cut short despite Neal Adams's terrific art and the kudos it got for being sophisticated because it replaced science fiction adventure stories with simplistic lefty fairy tales. The sales weren't there.

But there are multiple potentially market-viable approaches and it wasn't like the comic book public was begging for Captain America to become an Easy Rider knock off in the form of Nomad. Captain America (who had been depicted as killing lots of Germans during WWII) was shown as agonizing over killing a terrorist in self-defense in the 1980s. It is possible to have a (somewhat) successful comic book with that kind of story, but I see no evidence that this was what was demanded by a public that was, elsewhere in the culture, devouring revenge fantasies against criminals, ect. The relationship of Captain America to patriotism had alot more to do with the prevailing opinions of the book's creative and editorial staff ( a climate of opinion that existed, but was not the majority within the general culture) than with maximizing economic utility. And many of them would have been no more comfortable writing Cap fighting communists in the 1970s than writing stories having Cap help Bull Connor beat up Martin Luther King Jr.

I remember an interview with Steve Englehart (who wrote Cap in the 1970s) who said that if he had been writing Cap in the 2000s he would be going after the neoconservatives. Because after 9/11 people wanted to read about Captain America punching William Kristol - well some did but you get the idea.

A similar dynamic is at work in Hollywood. How many financially unsuccessful Iraq War/War on Terror movies have been produced? Nobody in Hollywood actually want to lose money, but did anyone in the world think that Lions For Lambs was the most productive possible use of studio money? They thought it would do well enough and it was a movie they wanted to make for political reasons. Meanwhile, there is one heck of a movie about battlefield heroism to be made in Bing West's No True Glory (and not a pro-Bush story either). But I guess America wants another "a veteran came home crazy" movie. Well they are going to get one whether they want it or not.

Market demand matters, but the preferences of the people who write, produce, act in, and greenlight the movies also decide what gets made - especially if it is supposed to be "important". The same is true of the people who wrote and edited Captain America.

Should this really be surprising?

What would be really surprising is if this was the only case. I doubt it is ... it's simply the first one to be publicized.

Because the public does not value that which makes a man "substantial," and he who is substantial is wise enough to not pursue the office.

There is a fine line between strength of character and vanity, and the temptation to cross it must be strong the higher in elected office one gets.

I recall immediately after 9/11 there was a renewed sense of appreciation for "quiet men of strength and courage." We never lose that our awareness of how important that is in our world, but we often forget it.

But is this new? Recall Henry Adams' quip that the progression of presidents from George Washington to Ulysses Grant refuted the theory of evolution.

From Obama to Palin to Bush and the Clintons, why does American politics (at least lately) draw out and elevate such insubstantial persons?

Thanks for the comments, Ben and Brutus. My understanding of Stan Lee is that he was basically apolitical except for a general commitment to tolerance. He was mainly interested in selling comics, and was hesitant to risk alienating any segment of his audience. However, by the late 1960s he realized that he either had to offend either those who wanted Cap to fight communists or the apparently larger number who wanted him to embrace liberal causes. A middle course was likely to alienate both. In short, Captain America's transformation from "superpatriot" to "now hero" was a business decision, plain and simple.

Just an addendum to the above . . . what I mean to say is that I don't think she inspires as much fear in the hearts of Dems as she did once upon a time for about 3 weeks. I had been open to the argument that she could stir up that fear again, once unleashed. But it's been a year . . . and every time she's been in the news since then I don't think it has been to her advantage. Do you? Book sales are one thing . . . and, really, I'm glad that she's doing so well with that. But votes (from people not already your cheerleaders) are another thing entirely. I don't see her doing anything at all to win them.

Cowgirl . . . if that last line is your own creation, you should put a patent on it. Priceless.

But I don't think Sarah Palin inspires as much fear in the hearts of Dems as you think she does. Sorry.

Want to see a liberal have a meltdown? Say Sarah Palin. Especially to Liberal Sarah Palin Hating Andrew Sullivan. Want to see a liberal commit suicide? Say Sarah Palin is running for President in 2012. Liberal Sarah Palin Hating Andrew Sullivan has shut down his blog for a couple of days to read and discover all the lies in Going Rogue. Especially about the lie about Sarah Palin being Trig's mom. I think Andrew Sullivan has shutdown his website for two days because he has figured out that Sarah Palin looks better in running shorts than he does.

Good talk, caught the podcast. Something that I think is sort of interesting is that Wolverine's backstory places him with Captain America during the war as a Canadian counterpart before he had the claws or adamantium skeleton. However, Wolverine took on the sort of man with no name persona based on the transformation instead of direct refrence to the changes in society.
It is interesting that these characters let go of the truth justice and the American way so early on, while that sort of thing is still used politicly with and without sucsess, while I don't think the comics have ever tried to use it again outside of goofy cartoons where they say things like always brush your teeth before going to bed.

What a sham... isn't it only warm enough to run in Alaska for 20 days a year?

Taxes and Spending are not connected. Under Bush we had tax cuts plus increased spending much like under Reagan. The dollar is pure fiction. It seems that the only thing keeping it alive is the game of russian roulette we have going with china where if they sell our debt or unload it we stop buying their slave wage goods.

Step back and put that scenario in General Ripper's diologue, sounds crazier than flouride damaging our fluids.

"loony-left blog"

I thought that was what this blog is.

"if you really believe that "paid leave and work benefits" take us "in the direction of socialism," - and I'm guessing that's problematic for you - then perhaps you should do your part, and decline your own paid leave and benefits, for the good of America."

This is a bogus argument. We've been forced to pay for government-mandated benefits many times over, in the form of higher taxes, higher prices and lower wages. Why should we not collect what we've already paid for?

Look for this argument to be used in a big way should--God forbid--health care "reform" become law. After all private insurers have been driven out of business, or their prices forced so high that only the wealthiest can afford private health insurance, we'll have liberals telling us that if we had any principles we'd stop seeking health care.

Hey, at least I don't stutter!

I like "benighted" because it describes what you are...in the dark, hopelessly lost, and aggressively, willfully ignorant.

Craig, why are you even on this blog? What perverse psychological needs are you satisfying by sniping at your betters? If you really want to do the polity a service, go over to some loony-left blog and "center" them a bit.

http://www.claremont.org/about/pageID.287/default.asp

Lists you as an 'institute fellow'. I take it you are not paid a stipend for that, which suggests someone at the institute fancies they benefit from having your name associated with it.

You appear to have no conception of what a 791 word rant in response to a brief and mildly stated complaint suggests about the person ranting, which is your problem. And no, it is not her 'pattern'. It is what an unpleasant middle aged woman choses to impute to her. You should find an avocation for which you are suitable. Topical commentary is not it.

Julie, you are saying that Palin is wrapping herself in a cloak of victimhood, but she seems a little too forceful to either be that or be able to pull of the appearance of victimhood for long. Some are born victims, some achieve victimhood, and some have victimhood thrust upon them. She may fall in the latter category.

I have not read the book, but have read a few reviews and Palin seems to be responding to the questions a lot of us had as to what the heck happened in the campaign. You were among many at the time asking just that question.

As to the Newsweek cover, it was surely not meant kindly. I guess we could ask, was that what Maggie (Thatcher) would do? On the other hand, it betrays a kind of innocence, doesn't it? She was not anticipating a national spotlight and the glare of that seems all th harsher for the lack of preparation for it. If our "then" knew what our "now" knows we might all have handled ourselves differently in our "then", but we do not know.
Newsweek was trying to be nasty and to do harm with an out-of-context photo. Can't anyone say so?

Redwald, it wasn't that hard to get you, as you contradicted yourself quite nicely within one single comment.

But I understand your approach to things now. When other change or adjust the direction of the thread topic, they're going "off-topic" but when you do that, the thread is "evolving." Pretty convenient. A small correction, though, the original post was about climate change AND supermodels in bikinis, and calls for them to wear even less, so the family values discussion was pertinent, given the histories of the bloggers here.

Also, what's with your fetish for the word "benighted"? Did you hear Limbaugh use it or what?

Redwald, it wasn't that hard to get you, as you contradicted yourself quite nicely within one single comment.

But I understand your approach to things now. When other change or adjust the direction of the thread topic, they're going "off-topic" but when you do that, the thread is "evolving." Pretty convenient. A small correction, though, the original post was about climate change AND supermodels in bikinis, and calls for them to wear even less, so the family values discussion was pertinent, given the histories of the bloggers here.

Also, what's with your fetish for the word "benighted"? Did you hear Limbaugh use it or what?

Mr. Adams, if you really believe that "paid leave and work benefits" take us "in the direction of socialism," - and I'm guessing that's problematic for you - then perhaps you should do your part, and decline your own paid leave and benefits, for the good of America.

[Also, thanks to FoxNews, the phrase "fair and balanced" is just a joke best avoided in serious discussions of journalism]

Dear Ken:

Appreciate so much your commentaries.

May I mention that using the phrase "capitalism" is extremely negative. Subconsciously people associate it with phrases such as "cannibalism", "communism".

The liberals are smart enough not to speak of "communism" yet we lose each battle before we start.

May I suggest the phrase "free enterprise" or American freedom in business, etc.

Carleton W. Brown, Ph.D.

Gov. Palin's 'charge' was one sentence long, reproduced below:

The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now.

Nestled within a mild complaint that the photo had been taken for an article in Runner's World for an entirely different purpose.

Above are eight ordinary words and two hyphenated words. Your commentary runs on for 791 words. That is not flattering...to you. If there is anything that might be offered in evidence that the Claremont Institute is a patronage dump, it is your continued employment there.

Julie, your blog post makes you sound like a screeching, unbearable liberal twit!

The tax protests may have an impact at the state level where spending is more closely tied to available income.

But not at the federal level where deficit spending is fully embedded into the mind of the current political class.

The states *should* have had their day of reckoning, but the "stimulus" bought them a reprieve. It was all phantom money, but it served its purpose to forestall the inevitable.

Bottom line -- ultimately it is the spending that's the issue. High taxes support the spending. Lower taxes would normally put pressure on the spending, but it seems there are some who think otherwise.

I rather like the photo.

I suspect many do ... perhaps more than will admit.

I suspect Palin's "protest" is fully calculated.

Julie, interesting thoughts. Over at the ATLANTIC, Ta-Nehisi Coates is calling out NEWSWEEK for sexism despite his longstanding contempt for Palin. I don't know what I think about this issue, but it is nice to see some people stick to their principles rather than twist things around so that they cheer their team and boo the other side.

Until I looked here, I hadn't seen any whuning.

Wonder what made me think there was value here. The misleading "No Left Turns" thing, I guess.

Reeow!

Whining doesn't play well for me either, Julie.

As an aside, Runner's World is asserting copyright infringement, looks like --the photos were under embargo.
http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/

Richard, good point but you'd be a terrible headline writer.

Fascinating talk. Fun, too. I think that Marvel and Stan Lee have always been firmly in the counterculture's camp, with some liberal internationalism thrown in for good measure. That said, I was always more of a Marvel guy than a DC guy, and Iron Man was my favorite.

I despise these process arguments. Money is just a means. Ultimately, it's the purpose that counts. High taxation and spending are important indicia of wayward purposes in a frugal republican regime. Both Stossel and O'Reilly postpone ultimate questions, as did Stephen Douglas, et al.

You've touched on something pretty important here, I think. It's not just "the press," though -- it's the American people in general now. It's as if we've forgotten how *different* America was supposed to be.

We once understood the concept of America as an experiment in liberty and individualism. We understood that meant not pretending that life can be perfect. It meant that liberty was important enough, in and of itself, to accept its consequences with its benefits.

That's not the case anymore. Ask the typical 21-year-old why America didn't long ago embrace government-run health care as other countries did, and they're likely to BLAME it on something: this stubborn industry, these thoughtless politicians, that strain of backwards thinking.

Rarely will you find the one who questions the essential premise of the thing: It's not so much about America actively not-embracing government health care, as it is (was) about America actively embracing liberty. It's not like we were just some thoughtless country; on the contrary, our founding represented the highest pinnacle of human thought. Freedom, independence, individualism -- these weren't just nifty buzzwords. They were very real, and very deliberate, and very important.

For a variety of reasons, most of us don't grasp that anymore. That includes your typical 21-year-old and your typical pro journalist, your next-door-neighbors and the folks on the other side of the country. We used to look at Europe and intuitively grasp that we'd set out to be something very different; today we're puzzled, even irritated, that we're not like them.

I don't read the Post as attacking him because he believes in natural law. They attack him because he wishes to enact his views on natural law (despite being shared by many, many others) in his state's courtrooms.

Is this not a significant difference?

Oooh! This one's not exactly a law, but I juuuust now read a comment made by VA's attorney general elect who said that "Homosexual acts are... intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that." Does this count?