Remember how ludicrous it was when John Ashcroft draped cloths over the bare breasts of the statue of justice?
Well, Gordon Lee, a Georgia comics retailer, isn’t laughing. Because Gordon is being prosecuted under Georgia law that stems from the same “human body is evil” thinking. A law so sweeping that the following titles can get retailers arrested and charged with fines and jail time: “Watchmen.” “Contract With God.” “Sandman.”
Interested yet? Sit back, I’ll explain:
Every year, Gordon routinely distributes thousands of free comics on Halloween. This year he blew through over two thousand comics. One of the comics distributed was “Alternative Comics #2,” (provided by the publisher during Free Comics Day) in which there was a story called “The Salon.” The subject depicts the meeting of artists Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso.
It is an historically accurate depiction, right down to the fact that Picasso’s studio was brutally hot during that summer and Picasso would paint in the nude.
There is nothing sexual in the depiction. Picasso, shown fully nude, doesn’t have an erection or engage in sodomy with Braque. It is what was: A startled Braque meeting a blissfully immodest Picasso.
For the distribution of the comic (not even the sale, mind you) Gordon was busted on two charges. The first is “distributing obscene material to a minor,” even though the material doesn’t even begin to fit the Miller test for obscenity. And the second, even more insane, is “distributing material depicting nudity.”
Yes, that’s right. Any comic book in Georgia depicting nudity of any kind can get you busted. Remember Doctor Manhattan? He’ll get you one to three years in Georgia.
If these laws are able to withstand constitutional challenge, do you REALLY think there aren’t states who would love to adopt them?
Consider: If a comic book publisher produces a comic biography of the artist Michelangelo, and accurately depicts his statue of David or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, any retailer in Georgia who sells it can be arrested. To say nothing of the publisher using the US mails to send out review copies. Distributing obscene material through the mails has some pretty stiff penalties.
Speaking of Michelangelo, here’s an interesting factoid: There was a chief censor in Rome who considered the master’s fresco atop the Chapel to be obscenity. After Michelangelo died, the censor converted others to his beliefs and hired one of Michelangelo’s students to paint cloths and drapes over the naughty bits of Adam et al.
Now…how many people, off the top of their head, remember the name of the censor? How many remember the name of the artist who aided the censor?
How many remember the name Michelangelo?
And yes, I know some smartguys will immediately claim Michelangelo is only remembered because of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Well, guess what: Except for sashes and masks, the Turtles are naked, so…
The CBLDF will naturally be undertaking this case. And the point of the foregoing is that censors may sometimes win their short term goals, but in the long term it is the art and the artists who survive and revered while the censors are relegated to laughing stocks and the dustbin of forgotten history. Aid the CBLDF in tossing these particular censors into the dustbin they so richly deserve.
PAD
• 
Was someone there holding a gun to your head? If not, you could have refused to take the stuff. I do it all the time if I go into a store and someone is handing out free samples. I’m under no obligation to take them. As an adult, you’re able to decide for yourself whether or not that is something you want. A nine year old however, is not mature enough to decide what is appropriate for him to read. It is up to the adults around him to make that decision for him, whether those adults be parents, teachers, or yeah even comic book store owners.
I get what you’re saying, but my question doesn’t pertain to the content…it pertains to whether the book (regardless of content) was – as the law being misapplied states – “unsolicited.” If one attends a promoted, giveaway, “trick-or-treat” event, and receives the advertised giveaway, even if it’s ultimately taken away as “inappropriate,” was that giveaway “unsolicited.”
(In the “Boo at the Zoo” example, while we did indeed turn down at least one item that was plainly and foreseablyl obnoxious, I’d say that, even with that blasted whistle declined, it wasn’t “unsolicited,” as we took our son to “Boo at the Zoo” specifically for the trick-or-treat “loot.”)
Particularly in the case of “trick-or-treat” events, it would appear that most parents (ourselves included, for better or for worse) opt to get all the “loot,” then weed out the proverbial chaff at home and pass the rest along to the little ones. (I don’t recall from any of the articles…did the parents in this case call the police during such a “weeding” process, or did they catch a glimpse while the 9-year-old was perusing the book?)
Short form (I know…too late), I’m just curious as to whether one can simultaneously expect to receive (or at least be offered) an item (in this case, a free comic) and maintain that it was unsolicited when/if the situation goes south.
Hey, if you want to be civil, point out what you disagree with and we can debate. If not, its my opinion, not yours, so screw you.
Short form (I know…too late), I’m just curious as to whether one can simultaneously expect to receive (or at least be offered) an item (in this case, a free comic) and maintain that it was unsolicited when/if the situation goes south.
Since I get all sorts of unsolicited other junk in the mail, my guess is that the answer is yes. The law was not saying you could not receive anything unsolicited, but was clearly aimed at the consumer not being given sexual content and/or nudity unsolicited.
Iowa Jim
Since I get all sorts of unsolicited other junk in the mail, my guess is that the answer is yes. The law was not saying you could not receive anything unsolicited, but was clearly aimed at the consumer not being given sexual content and/or nudity unsolicited.
I get that’s what it’s saying. But that’s where my question comes in. (Maybe I’m just not getting the core of the question out properly. It happens. ) If the material – regardless of the content – is received as part of a publicized giveaway promotion, that the recipient attended specifically or primarily so as to receive the giveaway(s) offered (and, again, I don’t recall anything to say that the 9-year-old in question was or was not necessarily there for that reason…I’m mainly just thinkin’ “out loud”), can we really say the receipt of the item was “unsolicited.” After all…the recipient went with the intent of receiving the giveaway.
(Hey, if the DA’s gonna split hairs about it, selectively and creatively interpreting the law in question, why not us, too? )
And just to throw this conversation even more off topic…
Anyone remember awhile ago that there was a bet made on this board that the draft would be reinstated?
Apparantly it’s getting close.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6862691?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single4&rnd=1108279324953&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024
Personally, I would find Mr. Gordon Lee guilty. Guilty of being an imperfect human being that sometimes makes mistakes just like every other human being. I’d sentence him to a thorough talking to about monitoring the content made available at these events.
The prosecutor, on the other hand, would be utterly chided for throwing a handfull of charges at the wall to see what sticks.
What I see in this case is a symptom of a bigger problem. The Cult of the Child* (CotC)is at it again. Children are treated by this cult as a political tool and as if they are the most fragile things in existance. Children are constantly underestimated in their ability to cope with new situations and information. I’m willing to bet that, more often than not, a nine-year-old accidentally exposed to something like the comic book in question will understand it’s context better than over-protective adults would like to believe. Hëll, the kid will probably get a chuckle out of it!
But hey, far better to put blinders on the childs eyes lest they are exposed to something they likely already know about. The CotC, I believe, consists of people who are affraid to let children grow and learn from experience. This is why we have mandatory bicycle helmets and play dates.
I’m not suggesting that children have free reign or that we, as adults, expose them to all manner of material. But, dammit, do we have to constantly berate them by our actions? The child in question probably thinks his parents don’t trust him now. I bet that hurts.
Hey, the child in question is READING!!Wouldn’t that be a step in the right direction? Hëll, alot of the adults I know don’t read and can’t spell worth a dámņ.
Here’s something to think about: Does anyone else remember a time when parents needed their kids to operate the VCR? Did these parents also have trouble operating an audio cassette player? Children aren’t stupid. They do, however, run the risk of being kept ignorant for far too long by people who would shelter instead of nurture. Then when the world hits that kid like a brick in the face they can just say “Life isn’t easy.”
So, yeah, let’s blind the child.
And shame on Mr. Lee for getting involved in an event would bring the community together for whatever reason. (WARNING: Sarcasm Ahead) This kind of activity cannot be allowed to continue. Mr. Lee must be sacrificed in the name of the CotC. After we ruin his bussines financially we must break out the windows and torch his merchandise. Then we can find his home, burn a cross on his front lawn**, and have him and his family deported to Michigan. Then our children will be safe. Except from us.
*Thanks to George carlin for coining the phrase “Cult of the Child.”
**Thanks to religous extremists in the KKK for makeing cross burning a popular visualization. Nah… Screw the KKK and all they stand for.
[b]But if it held, and he’s convicted again, and the jury is allowed to consider prior convictions, then a harsher sentence is likely.[/b]
Juries don’t sentence defendants. Judges do.
And actual jail time is highly unlikely. Even if Mr. Lee were convicted, most any judge would give him probation, at the most. Probation is incredibly common in Georgia in lieu of jailtime.
[b]And according to the facts known about the prior conviction, it involved the sale of books of a very adult nature sold to adults. It’s not clear of the sale involved a mailing, or who complained about it.
The earlier incident involving this law was over a purchase. Unless Gordan forced the adult to buy the books at gunpoint, it’s hard to imagine how the “unsolicited” aspect of the law was broken.[/b]
It wasn’t. You’re confusing two different statutes. The prior conviction was for “Distributing Obscene Materials” (OCGA 16-12-80, a misdemeanor). The “Unsolicited Mailing of Nudity” statute is 16-12-81, a felony. Different laws, different standards.
And the “Distribution to a Minor” statute is a THIRD law, 16-12-103.
Anyone remember awhile ago that there was a bet made on this board that the draft would be reinstated?
Apparantly it’s getting close.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6862691?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single4&rnd=1108279324953&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024
Nothing much new there…when someone with a little more clout than Charlie Rangel starts pushing for it I’ll listen. Until then, I’d say the ones betting against the reinstatement are on solid ground right now.
All paranoia and Bush Bashing aside, since there is an election every two years, when exactly do you think that the Republicans are going to try to get something as unpopular as the draft through congress? Where are the votes going to come from?
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Juries don’t sentence defendants. Judges do.
I don’t know Georgia, but in other states (such as Texas), the jury does at least recommend a sentence. So the jury can have a say in the matter.
And actual jail time is highly unlikely. Even if Mr. Lee were convicted, most any judge would give him probation, at the most. Probation is incredibly common in Georgia in lieu of jailtime.
Based on the stated facts of the case, I would think there would be no jail time. Having just read a story where a drunk driver hit a womoan, leaving her forever harmed and unable to talk for 20 years, and he only got 6 months, clearly a sentence of 3 years would not fit the “crime.”
Iowa Jim
What I see in this case is a symptom of a bigger problem. The Cult of the Child* (CotC)is at it again. Children are treated by this cult as a political tool and as if they are the most fragile things in existance. Children are constantly underestimated in their ability to cope with new situations and information.
I can see your point. But I also see the other side. I have dealt with the victims of abuse. And the sexual abuse can start with something as simple as showing a kid a nude picture. The fact that the law is perhaps misapplied in this case does not mean a law protecting kids is a bad idea. In fact, they are an essential tool in protecting kids from true predators. The harm done, even in the early stages of abuse, does not easily go away.
Iowa Jim
Mitch Evans wrote
….and have him and his family deported to Michigan. ….
Why would deporting someone to Michigan make everyone else safe? I like it here
bryan (who doesn’t think he was deported to Michigan)
I get what you’re saying, but my question doesn’t pertain to the content…it pertains to whether the book (regardless of content) was – as the law being misapplied states – “unsolicited.” If one attends a promoted, giveaway, “trick-or-treat” event, and receives the advertised giveaway, even if it’s ultimately taken away as “inappropriate,” was that giveaway “unsolicited.”
Nytwing, there’s an easy enough standard to apply to answer your question. Ask yourself why are you there? If you were just shopping for comic books and you probably would have been there anyway regardless of the giveaway, then the answer is “yes”, it was unsolicited. If you are there specifically because of the giveaway, in other words, absent the incentive of the giveaway you either would not shop or otherwise be in that store, then the answer is “no” the giveaway is not unsolicited. Hope that helps.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Keep telling yourself that and maybe one day you’ll believe it.
But then, it’s YOUR President that has threatened military action against Iran (regardless of what little Condi, filling in for Powell, says).
Iowa Jim: “I can see your point. But I also see the other side. I have dealt with the victims of abuse. And the sexual abuse can start with something as simple as showing a kid a nude picture. The fact that the law is perhaps misapplied in this case does not mean a law protecting kids is a bad idea. In fact, they are an essential tool in protecting kids from true predators. The harm done, even in the early stages of abuse, does not easily go away.”
Hiya Jim,
I don’t disagree with protecting children from predators at all. I recognize that such laws prevent harm. Rather I take issue with the CotC zealots whose actions make such laws more a burden on society than a tool to keep children safe. Let us assume that this case goes too far and Mr. Lee is found guilty. Would he then be put in a sex offender database and then required to register every three months? Would that be justice or extremism?
I believe, and if I’m understanding your position correctly you do as well, that this case started with what may have been a disproportionate response, either by the childs parents or by the prosecutor (hard to say without witnessing it). A disproportionate response by people with power, such as a judge, could turn this case into a gross miscarriage of justice. All “for the children.” We wouldn’t be protecting children. We’d be punishing a man for making an honest mistake. That is what I would like to see avoided.
And Jim, you’re right when you say it can begin with a nudie picture. If it’s in the hand of a mental defective with the intention to harm a child. By itself the picture won’t do that level of harm. I have never heard of a case of child abuse where the child saw a picture in a book and then said child sought out a molester. What I’m trying to say is that it’s a matter of intent. And I think you’ll agree that Mr. Lee, from what little we know, does not appear to have the level of intent required to harm a child nor is there evidence to suggest that Mr. Lee was trying to lure a child with dirty pictures into some back room like an episode of Law & Order: SVU.
I agree with you that some laws are needed to protect children. Hëll, I even believe that we need more laws so we can have greater penalties for the people that protect the abuser. By overprotecting children we are stiffling them in ways that are quite serious. We’ve created a mentallity that says no one can fail. Take kids in school, for example. Everyone plays a soccer game, but there is no scoring and those incharge reinforce the idea that everyone did a great job. Now Tommy thinks he’s a great soccer player which is cool because he REALLY loves to play soccer. In reality Tommy sucks at soccer and we’ve robbed him of that knowledge and, to compound that crime, we continue to make him play. Years later Tommy will learn how bad he plays soccer and will be made fun of by classmates and BOOM!! No self esteem. Therefore he stops trying altogether. As it turns out Tommy could have been the next Peter David or Andy LaRoque or Matt Thompson… pick a name. But by overprotecting him he was robbed of the knowledge that his energies should have been spent persuing something that he loved AND was good at.
Dammit, Jim (I’ve always wanted to say that!) I’ve gone all long-winded again. I hope my point didn’t get lost in the astounding amount of hypotheticals above.
By the way…
I salute you for standing your ground without losing your civility.
Seeya around.
Bryan White:”Why would deporting someone to Michigan make everyone else safe? I like it here
bryan (who doesn’t think he was deported to Michigan)”
Hi Bryan,
I’m in Michigan too. You must be in the part where irony isn’t dead yet. Where I’m at things are pretty bad. Almost everyone I encounter is a racist substance abuser with no ability to think outside of that particular box. I’m not exagerating. It’s made me something of a shut-in untill I have the money leave.
Catch you later.
I don’t know Georgia, but in other states (such as Texas), the jury does at least recommend a sentence.
Hmm, I didn’t know that. But in Georgia, I’m pretty sure the only time the jury has a say in sentencing is when it’s a death penalty case. It’s a standard jury instruction that jurors shouldn’t consider punishment during deliberations.
[i]Anyone remember awhile ago that there was a bet made on this board that the draft would be reinstated?
Apparantly (sic) it’s getting close.[/i]
It was I and I didn’t bet it. I predicted it. The article is very correct.
I messed up the italics. How do you do those things again?
Not. Gonna. Happen.
“Keep telling yourself that and maybe one day you’ll believe it.”
Um, I DO believe it, Craig. I could be wrong, of course, and if I am you can remind me of my statement and point out how wrong I was. But to speculate that I really don’t believe it…is odd. So you think that I really do believe that the draft is coming soon but I’m saying that I don’t because…ok, I’m not clear on the reason but I guess you must think that there is one.
Most puzzling.
Joe,
You have to put the italics for each paragraph. Close the first italics after “reinstated?”
I stand chastened for my poor spelling. You can draft me now.
Um, I DO believe it, Craig.
You’re right, you must believe it.
Because it’s utterly insane to think it won’t happen.
Just for the hëll of it, another Bushism that should scare the living šhìŧ out of everybody:
The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies.”
– 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005
Oh, here’s another reason to cry for the future.
I’d suggest laughing, but, dámņ, this is just too mind boggling to do anything OTHER than cry:
“This is one of the most intellectually gifted presidents we’ve had.” – Karl Rove, “Hardball,” MSNBC, Jan. 19, 2005
So, out of curiosity, just how soon do you see the draft coming back? Just so I know when I can stop doubting my sanity.
I’ve already said why I think we won’t get a draft. It is politically untenable. the majority party seems to have no desire to implement it. Only a few members of the minority party have advokated it. So where are the votes going to come from?
I’ve already said why I think we won’t get a draft. It is politically untenable. the majority party seems to have no desire to implement it. Only a few members of the minority party have advokated it. So where are the votes going to come from?
The votes will have to come when Bush puts this country in yet another war when our military is already stretched thin. If Bush wants it, anybody else voting against it is an unpatriotic Commie bášŧárd, you know.
Bush has already shown he doesn’t care how many body bags it takes, whether from the US military or Iraqi civilians, democracy will prevail… but it won’t be forced on anybody or anything.
Right now, Bush is just trying to push buttons at random (N Korea, Iran, Syria) to see who will take the bait and do something so Bush has an excuse to invade somebody else.
And it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to Bush sacrifice the political careers of every Republican in the house to carry on his little Crusade against oil-rich Islamic Middle East countries who don’t do exactly as they are told.
Nytwing, there’s an easy enough standard to apply to answer your question. Ask yourself why are you there? If you were just shopping for comic books and you probably would have been there anyway regardless of the giveaway, then the answer is “yes”, it was unsolicited. If you are there specifically because of the giveaway, in other words, absent the incentive of the giveaway you either would not shop or otherwise be in that store, then the answer is “no” the giveaway is not unsolicited. Hope that helps.
Kinda sorta, yes. Thank you!
Personally, I’d also expand to include awareness of the promotion.
(Ex. I go to a store not knowing there was a special promotion – sale, giveaway, whatever – until I see signage about it as I go in. Since I’m now apprised of the promotion, and expect to receive its benefits, I’d consider myself as having soliciited those benefits.)
But, even with only the “Why are you there?” standard…might be worth checking out in this case. 🙂
Mitch quote:
Bryan White:”Why would deporting someone to Michigan make everyone else safe? I like it here
bryan (who doesn’t think he was deported to Michigan)”
Hi Bryan,
I’m in Michigan too. You must be in the part where irony isn’t dead yet. Where I’m at things are pretty bad. Almost everyone I encounter is a racist substance abuser with no ability to think outside of that particular box. I’m not exagerating. It’s made me something of a shut-in untill I have the money leave.
Catch you later.
end quote
Hi Mitch,
don’t know where you in MI, but the Ann Arbor area seems to give you a bit of everything, might be more to your liking
Good luck
Mitch:
>I’m in Michigan too. You must be in the part where irony isn’t dead yet. Where I’m at things are pretty bad. Almost everyone I encounter is a racist substance abuser with no ability to think outside of that particular box. I’m not exagerating.
Maybe you want to try hanging out at a different bar…? 😉
By overprotecting children we are stiffling them in ways that are quite serious.
Your point was made quite well. As a child who was overprotected (no surprise, I am sure, to some of you), I do understand the problems.
Iowa Jim
The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies.”
Why, exactly, should this statement scare me?
Right now, Bush is just trying to push buttons at random (N Korea, Iran, Syria) to see who will take the bait and do something so Bush has an excuse to invade somebody else.
I understand you are convinced of this point. So I will just check back with you in 4 years to see which one of is right. I, personally, do not think Bush has any desire to invade anyone else. I also think he has smart enough advisors to know that to invade 2 of the 3 countries you mention (N Korea and Iran) would not accomplish anything and would cause more harm than good. And invading Syria is just pointless.
Do we want to influence them? Absolutely. Invade them? Absolutely not. (And despite the fact that some of you consider us blind idiots, most Republican supporters of Bush would not endorse or support the invasion of another country without good reason. Iraq was a convergence of a number of circumstances that made invasion something a Republican would support. Those circumstances do not exist in another country, and Bush cannot artificially manufacture those circumstances.)
Iowa Jim
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for the scoop. As it turns out I am not too far from Ann Arbor. I’m in Muskegon county, in a little “cow town” called Ravenna. It’s… enlightening. Thanks again for the scoop. I might just look into it.
Hasta la Seeya!
There’s the issue: we want to protect children from harm, but OVER protection itself can harm a child. We strive for balance. And as each child is unique, most “one size fits all” rule will never be a good solution for all folks.
With this case in particular, there are also adult issues and morals that come into play. The only reason the pictures and words in question are regulated at all is because adults have decided to place such importance on them. Children learn how to react to various stimuli by watching adults, and if they see adults making a big deal over nudity and sexual references, then they are themselves going to develop similar reactions.
Fred Chamberlain: “Maybe you want to try hanging out at a different bar…? ;)”
Hi Fred,
The truth of the matter is that I don’t go to bars. Well, not much at least.
Las week I went to lunch with a former co-worker at a bar and witnessed two UAW guys get into a fight over car keys.
Two thoughts occurred to me while watching the show:
1) These people make out-sourcing look REALLY good.
2) This would make great reality T.V.
Catch you on the flip side.
Jim, I have to admit that I’m a little surprised to your casual reaction to Bush’s statement from the SotU address. If he truly feels that the US has no right to impose our form of government on other countries, then why is he stumping around claiming a victory in Iqar because we (the US) brought democracy to them?
We toppled their government, and then basically installed a US appointed interim government, which then held elections to create a constitutional conference to draft a government. How is that not an imposition of a US based government system?
The “Mature Audiences” is a vague tag, intended as a tool for both parents and retailers (when a parent is not present) to use to gauge the proper audience for a sale. It can mean anywhere from a PG13 to an NC-17 in comparison to movie terms.
What is really needed (as I’ve contended for some time now) is a graduated scale version of the CCA. Marvel took the lead on this one–and unfortunately had to do away with the tags they had because they lifted them whole cloth from the MPAA and then replaced them with something not readily understandable to anyone (a bit of marketing is needed to expand public awareness of this, Marvel-folks.)
Thanks Jim.
I was worried that my point got lost while I was stabbing away at the keyboard. It happens sometimes.
Gab at you later.
Hi Bobb,
Sure. Go ahead and reduce my take on this to two paragraphs and make my point better than I did.
In my best Charleton Heston voice:
“Ðámņ you, Bobb with three B’s!!”
😉
Enjoy!
Jim, I have to admit that I’m a little surprised to your casual reaction to Bush’s statement from the SotU address. If he truly feels that the US has no right to impose our form of government on other countries, then why is he stumping around claiming a victory in Iqar because we (the US) brought democracy to them?
We aren’t imposing a constitutional republic with three branches and separation of church and state – we are allowing them to form their own democracy. We have freed them from a dictator to allow them to make those decisions of the form of their government.
The Islamic terrorists have said that what they want is a church-based government based on the Koran, and off with the heads of the rest of the infidels. That’s a pretty big difference if you ask me.
Mark, what you’re suggesting is that the US doesn’t feel that it has the right to bring a 3 tiered constitutional government with oversight of national issues while allowing local units of goverments (states) to establish parallel governments, etc. etc. etc. HOWEVER, the US is free to attack, when warranted (or when the appearance of a justification exists) and remove governments that the US opposes and force the people of that country to reform their government?
If that’s the case, that’s hogwash. If we don’t have a right to impose our government on others, we don’t have the right to tell them they “got it wrong,” and use force to get them to reconstitute.
A dictatorships is just as valid as a form of government as a democracy. Maybe the former is more prone to individual corruption, while the latter is more prone to institutional corruption. But both systems have the possibility of bringing peace, stability, and prosperity to a country. And if run correctly, the dictatorship can do so with a lot lower administrative costs.
The militant islamist position is irrelevant to Bush’s statement. If they want that form of government, and that is what they ELECT to use, then Bush’s statement would dictate that the US has no right or intention of hitting the Giant Governmental Reset Button. If that state were to attack US interests in pursuit of their “off with their heads” policy, of course the US would be compelled to react.
The fact that we aren’t carrying a copy of the Constitution with us to Iraq is an irrelevant point. Bush’s actions and his words of the past are in direct conflict with the words he used in the SotU address.
Mitch, sorry to 1-up you. I skimmed through the weekend’s posts, as I try not to repeat what others have said.
Does this mean I have to keep my paws off you?
And I really, REALLY hope you get that reference…
Hiya Mitch,
looked you up on the map …. sorry dude 🙂
I’m not as liberal as many on this blog and I don’t know much about that area, other than I probably wouldn’t want to live there. I have a friend over there (Grand Rapids) and she loves it.
And I’d be bummed about the car key fight.
Best Regards from your travelogue,
bryan
Mitch:
>Las week I went to lunch with a former co-worker at a bar and witnessed two UAW guys get into a fight over car keys.
>Two thoughts occurred to me while watching the show:
>1) These people make out-sourcing look REALLY good.
>2) This would make great reality T.V.
An immediate #3 would be that this is a perfect example of Darwinism at work.
Good luck in your quest for intelligent life, Mitch. I’ve no doubt that it is there even if you are having some time finding it.
*Just out of curiosity, was the fight due to a friend being concerned over an intoxicated pal driving? If so, sounds reasonable.* This thread is going wayyyy to far off-topic. heh
A dictatorships is just as valid as a form of government as a democracy. Maybe the former is more prone to individual corruption, while the latter is more prone to institutional corruption. But both systems have the possibility of bringing peace, stability, and prosperity to a country. And if run correctly, the dictatorship can do so with a lot lower administrative costs.
So, you view an oppressive regime with no property or individual rights as equal to a democracy by the consent of the governed? Sorry, but I don’t buy into that sort of relativistic thinking.
I’ll take the US Republic over the zealots in Iran, the anarchy in many of the African nations or the military-run Korea any day of the week.
What is really needed (as I’ve contended for some time now) is a graduated scale version of the CCA. Marvel took the lead on this one–and unfortunately had to do away with the tags they had because they lifted them whole cloth from the MPAA and then replaced them with something not readily understandable to anyone (a bit of marketing is needed to expand public awareness of this, Marvel-folks.)
See, I disagree that a stringent “ratings system” is anything remotely like “what’s needed.” Prose novels seem to have no problem reaching their intended target audiences without such a system. No reason comics can’t, either.
Aside, of course, from that pesky incorrect preconceived notion (mentioned earlier) among the “mainstream” of American society that all comics are and should be “kids’ stuff.” In my view, all such a ratings system would accomplish (in regards to that incorrect perception, at least) is reinforce it…essentially saying, “Comics are kids’ stuff…except for stuff with this rating.”
No, Mark, and nothing I posted would have lead you to observe that about me. Saddam’s dictatorship is by no means one I would use as an example of how such a regime could lead to a successful country. But that’s not because it was a dictatorship: it’s because Saddam was a power-hungry masochist that used fear, torture, and genocide as a means to attain and retain his power. And which form of government you prefer as an idividual really stems from your point of view. The people Saddam was killing? Probably very happy to see him gone. The folks that have died since Saddam was toppled, but were mostly left alone before then? Maybe not so happy.
We aren’t imposing a constitutional republic with three branches and separation of church and state – we are allowing them to form their own democracy.
Actually, a little bit further down in said same SotU address, Bush said that we gave Iraq democracy.
But, no, that’s not forcing it on them or anything.
And if you think that their idea of self-government is really democracy, you’re only kidding yourself.
It won’t be Saddam’s government, but, as you can see, we don’t approve of Iran’s government, and lo and behold, Saudi Arabia just had “democratic” elections while denying women the right to vote!
Such an improvement we’ve made!
At any rate, our “three branch” government right now is a joke – not when all three branches are controlled by the same set of nut jobs.
Prose novels are not comics. Comics are a visual medium that are puts them closer to movies than to novels.
Movies have a guideline rating system. Hasn’t seemed to chill their output any.
Howard:
>Movies have a guideline rating system. Hasn’t seemed to chill their output any.
It has had huge changes on many of the films that are seen by the public. Pick up any entertainment magazine or trade mag on a regular basis and you’ll be amazed by how much a small group who can’t even agree with one another can arbitrarily put an inconsistant stamp on a piece of art….. leaving the creators of the project with 2 options:
1) Change the content of their work to meet a “more acceptable rating”.
2) Leave the content as is and not only limit the number of people who will see the film due to theatre distribution, but very likely leave them at a financial loss.
Comics are much more managable in the sense of being easily reviewed by parents or shop owners before they are seen by the kiddies than films are.
Fred
Howard, can’t disagree more. There are people who’s entire jobs with a studio is to view edits of movies and send back notes, with the intent to achieve or avoid a certain rating. And then there’s the ratings board itself. This is the same august body that forced the Makers of Team America to edit a sex scene with marrionetes 11 times before it was toned down enough for an R rating. As in, puppets, anatomically worse than Barbie, strings, joints, and all.
And put aside for the moment that, aside from one joke that my friends have adopted as our own, Team America probably should never have been released because it was plain BAD, and those are 60 minutes I’ll never, ever have back. It still changed the way the creators wanted to film to be.
And take a look at most movies that are PG-13 these days. Studios will request a random swear word, or maybe some “brief nudity” to get the PG-13 rating, which attracts the teem audience, because teens think if G and PG movies as kids films. The rating system totally impacts the content of the films.
Jim, I have to admit that I’m a little surprised to your casual reaction to Bush’s statement from the SotU address. If he truly feels that the US has no right to impose our form of government on other countries, then why is he stumping around claiming a victory in Iqar because we (the US) brought democracy to them?
We toppled their government, and then basically installed a US appointed interim government, which then held elections to create a constitutional conference to draft a government. How is that not an imposition of a US based government system?
First, you completely leave out the fact that Saddam started the ball rolling by invading another country. Saddam actually did what you are now accusing Bush of wanting to do. Saddam did not invade to free Kuwait but to take over its resources (something we clearly have NOT done either time we have entered Iraq). The roots to the current invasion cannot be divorced from the fact that Saddam DID try to take over another sovereign country.
Second, the fact that the current outcome or our invasion is a constitutional deomcracy does not mean we imposed it on them. The reality is, there has been a significant segment in Iraq who want such a government for some time now. We did remove a ruthless dictator. We then allowed them to run their own campaign. We are currently allowing them to design their own government. The fact that the most thriving economies in the world for the last 50 years have primarily been constitutional democracies obviously could influence their decision to go in that direction.
Bottom line, “democracy” is not an exclusively American value or concept. For Japan, Germany, England, etc., to have a form of a “democratic” government does not mean we forced an American system on them anymore than we have on Iraq. Furthermore, I believe than any form of government that truly suppresses the people is immoral. Communism as it existed in Russia was an immoral system. Yes, you can have a benevolent dictator, but without a form of checks and balances, you will always end up at some point with a malevolent dictator. That is why our system, while not perfect, is a model to other countries. There are built in checks and balances to prevent one person from having undue influence over everyone. As much as some of you may disagree with virtually everything Bush does, he by no means has a free hand to do anything he wants. And I think that is a very good thing.
Iowa Jim