Monday, February 6, 2012

Untold Tales

SEVEN – Tomorrow

I wrote what’s below and I can’t take any more time today….


First, Untold Tales

A few stories I promised to tell:

An Ad-venture and an “Expensive” Lesson

I lived in Pittsburgh in the early 1970’s, and sometimes I worked freelance for Pittsburgh-based Lando-Bishopric Advertising, usually on the U.S. Steel account. At various times, I served as a concept creator, copywriter, designer and illustrator. Yes, illustrator. I’m not as practiced, fast and facile as most good comic book artists, but give me lots of reference and all week to make one illo and I do okay.

Once, I was asked to serve as a freelance art director. Grey Advertising in New York shared the U.S. Steel account with Lando-Bishopric. They were doing a project for the “U.S. Steel: We’re Involved” campaign, for which L-B had primary responsibility. I was hired to represent L-B at a creative meeting at Grey’s offices, to coordinate what Grey was doing with what L-B was doing, offer input and provide art direction.

So, I flew to New York as I so often did when I was working for DC Comics and made my way to Grey. Their offices, as I recall, were on Lexington, near Grand Central Terminal. In the Graybar building, I think. I could be wrong.

Anyway, I spent a day working with the Grey people. It was fun. If any of them wondered why a kid right out of high school was Lando-Bishopric’s sole representative, no one let on. They treated me as if I were for real, and cheerfully accepted my contributions. I think I did okay.

I stayed that night in the hotel I used to use on trips to New York when DC wasn’t picking up the tab. It was an older hotel, nice enough, but not as expensive as the snazzy, newer places. It was on Eighth Avenue in the Times Square area. I think it was eventually refurbished and became the Milford Plaza. Not sure. I flew home the next morning.

Here’s the funny part. A few days later, I turned in my invoice and my expense report to the V.P./creative director. As he looked over my expense report, line by line, he got increasingly upset! He said, words to the effect, “Are you crazy?! This is ridiculous!”

I’d flown student standby. Round trip airfare, $28.50 (regular coach fare was more than $100). I took the bus into the city from Newark Airport and back, 55 cents each way. The hotel was around $20. The meals I’d paid for totaled around $10.

No way, he said, could he submit an expense report like that. What, did I want to ruin travel and entertainment for everyone? What if the client says, hey, this is great! From now on no more fancy hotels and chauffeured cars! We want all of you agency people to be as frugal as this guy!

He tore up my expense report and added a few hours to my invoice instead. (Oh, by the way, that didn’t cost the agency anything—they billed my time to the client at triple the fat hourly rate they were paying me.)

The V.P. said he’d tell the client that I’d had other business for the agency in New York and, therefore, Lando-Bishopric picked up my expenses. And he warned me that, if I ever traveled on business for L-B again, I’d damn well better fly first or business class, take a black car or at least a cab, stay in a nice place and eat very well.

Okay. Yes, sir.

I guess that’s why advertising is so expensive.


Sex Education

Marvel did this custom comic book for the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse:
Marvel donated its services. That was rare. Also a little out of character for the greedy suits upstairs, I thought. Could it be that they were inspired to do something selfless?

Nah.

Marvel ate the costs and got nothing for the book domestically, but the suits planned to sell the bejeezus out of the book rights for publication in foreign markets, starting with Europe.

Marvel held a meeting of its European publishing licensees at the Frankfurt Book Fair to pitch the book. I wasn’t in attendance, but I got a full report from Dominique Boniface. Dom was a director of international licensing for Marvel and handled most of our European business. Great guy. Good friend. I believe he faithfully reported the gist of the meeting.

Marvel President Jim Galton himself, with great fanfare, pitched the book.

The reaction from the European publishers was “ho-hum. What else do you have?”

Galton couldn’t believe that no one was interested. He was sure Marvel was going to make a killing on the book.

According to Dom, dumbfounded Galton asked, words to the effect, “Don’t you have a child abuse problem here (in Europe)?”

One publisher, I won’t say which one or which country, said, “Over here we call it ‘sex education.’”

That was a long time ago. I don’t know how much attitudes may have changed. But, initially, Marvel had no takers in Europe for the Spider-Man and Power Pack anti-child abuse book.

Dom, by the way, was one of the few Marvel licensing/business people I respected. There were a few good ones.

Last I heard, Dom was living back in his native Paris, doing what these days, I don’t know, but whatever it is, I’ll bet he does it well. He’s an amazing photographer, by the way. I believe he still does photography for Arts et Lettres Verso.


Bomb Scare Aftermath

The bomb threat Marvel received after publishing an issue of Web of Spider-Man set in Northern Ireland was just the first wave of fallout. There was no bomb, as it turned out, but the building had to be evacuated. All that was lost was work time and peace of mind.

The second wave of fallout was outrage against Marvel in some of the many Irish publications on the newsstands, seen all over New York, and I assume elsewhere around the country.

The Irish Echo sent a reporter, an Irish (of course) woman, to interview me, basically to find out why Marvel had chosen to take sides regarding the troubles in Northern Ireland.

PR Director Pam Rutt set up a lunch with the reporter. Pam sorted through our staff until she found someone Irish-looking enough, an assistant editor named Rosemary…McCormick, I think, a smart, charming, red-haired young woman. She didn’t have anything to do with the book, Pam just wanted to have her come along, as evidence that Marvel employed some Irish people, I suppose. Pam made us a reservation at Caliban’s, a restaurant in the neighborhood, on Third Avenue, I believe.

Caliban’s. I wouldn’t have done that. Caliban’s was sort of a very upscale Irish pub. Why an Irish place, full of Irish people if you plan to talk about an Irish tinderbox topic?

Anyway, the four of us had lunch. The reporter made a few notes, but mostly seemed content with our repeated denials that Marvel meant to take sides. We weren’t aware that we had made any intimation that could be taken that way until the bomb threat.

The reporter said she’s write a brief piece saying just that.

As the lunch ended, Pam asked the reporter if she had any copies of her paper with her. The reporter reached into her large bag and pulled out several copies of the Irish Echo.

Whereupon, our waitress, a tall, robust red-haired young woman strode up to our table and belligerently demanded to know what the hell we were doing with copies of the despicable Irish Echo.

The waitress and reporter quickly launched into a shouting match. The waitress tried to grab the offending papers. The reporter got up spitting fire. The waitress clenched her fists. Each of them was eager to pound the other.

So, I jumped up, glad to be scary big for once. I stepped between the would-be combatants, pointed a finger at the reporter and roared, “YOU SIT DOWN!” She almost fell back into her seat, freaked out by the giant, looming ogre. I turned to the waitress. “YOU GO AWAY!”

She backed off, then turned and scurried into the kitchen. To get a knife, maybe? I don’t know. By then, we’d attracted enough attention so the manager took over peacekeeping duties.

I paid the check. The Irish Echo reporter packed up her bag and we got ready to leave—rather hastily. I was still worried about a knife attack.

I said to the reporter, “You know, now I think I’m beginning to understand….”

P.S. At this point, I don’t remember which sides the Irish Echo reporter and waitress were on. What I remember is that they were really intense about it.


NEXT: SEVEN, the Kabbalah Kustom Komic

336 comments:

1 – 200 of 336   Newer›   Newest»
Aaron Scott Johnson said...

Jim,

On a marginally related note, I just went back and re-read my "Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics" book and, considering all of the additional history you tell of on this blog from your tenure there, I wonder what your perspective is on the book. The book (which I think was published in 94 or 95?) takes an expectedly favorable view of people like Galton and DeFalco, as well as a pretty good view of you (it even seems that you were interviewed directly for the book). Do you remember much about the book or have any thoughts on it?

John Taber said...

Fantastic stories! :)

Marc Miyake said...

Dear Jim,

If you have any more advertising stories, I'd like to read them. Did you ever fly out to San Francisco to do Levi’s Jeans ads for Foote-Cone Belding/Hoenig? What was making a TV spot like? What carried over from your comics experience and what didn't?

I'd also like to see any illustrations that you have from this period.

I'm guessing your height, attire, and of course your maturity and competence led the Grey people to treat you "as if [you] were for real," which you were. You didn't look like a kid. I envision you being dressed up like you were when you visited DC.

Even though I try to keep bills low when someone else is paying the tab, I couldn't guess the punchline of your first story!

I can't imagine the Power Pack custom comic doing well in Europe because I assume "message" comics have to be culturally in tune with the audience to be effective. Was Power Pack licensed in Europe?

Rosemary McCormick wrote an issue of Psi-Force drawn by Bob Hall.

If I were the manager at Caliban's*, I'd have quite a few words with that belligerent waitress. Maybe some final words. Being hostile to customers is not good for business. Bizarre. But I'm glad you were there to take control.

*I can't help but imagine the place being run by Caliban the Morlock.

Anonymous said...

We all know that the ultimate Levis commercial is the Rob Liefeld one

Defiant1 said...

I'm not shocked that you got the reaction you did from your employer. They have to justify what they are charging and most people would spend more. If the expenses were somewhere in the ball park of what they were used to charging, I doubt the guy would have thought twice about what you submitted.

From what I can tell, my family hails from England, not Ireland. A great uncle of mine from the 1700's cast the Liberty Bell. I was never really exposed to Irish-American culture until I was an adult. I remember the conflict being in the news all the time, but never really understood it. Equally so, I never understood what prompted it to fade away.

When I think of child abuse, I think of my nephew calling the police on his mom because she wouldn't let him go out with his friends on a Saturday night. I guess that's a form of emotional abuse, but the police didn't fall for it.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Miyake has had a pretty sheltered life, if he thinks the restaurant business trumps a civil war and the name Caliban makes him think of Marvel's Morlocks before anything else.

ja said...

Mr. Anonymous has had a pretty condescending life, if he thinks Mr. Miyake thinks those things. Unless Mr. Anonymous psychically knows what's in Mr. Miyake's mind and life experience.

Because if he didn't, then Mr. Anonymous would just be an insulting jerk for chiming in the way he did.

Just sayin'.

=D

Anonymous said...

Marc, here in the UK some Power Pack stories were published as the back-up strip in the Star Wars comics (actually it was titled Return of the Jedi by the time I read any issues). I don't know whether they were published anywhere else in Europe, though.

jimshooter said...

Dear Aaron,

RE: "Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics"

I don't think I've ever seen the book, though it's possible that I was interviewed for it. I give a lot of interviews. It sounds warm and fuzzy.

jimshooter said...

RE: " Did you ever fly out to San Francisco to do Levi’s Jeans ads for Foote-Cone Belding/Hoenig?"

Yes, and it's quite a tale. Too long to tell here. But I'll tell it soon.

RE: "What was making a TV spot like? What carried over from your comics experience and what didn't?"

Unfortunately, I wasn't in attendance when the commercial based on my U.S. Steel cartoon was filmed. I've been on the set for other shoots, though. It's like watching paint dry. Many takes, minute adjustments, long waits for all sorts of reasons between takes. Nobody cares what the writer thinks. They can be putting emphasis on the wrong words and nothing you say will cause them to get it right.

RE: "I'd also like to see any illustrations that you have from this period."

If I can dig any up, I'll show them. They're nothing to write home about. Alex Ross I ain't.

RE: "I'm guessing your height, attire, and of course your maturity and competence led the Grey people to treat you "as if [you] were for real," which you were. You didn't look like a kid. I envision you being dressed up like you were when you visited DC."

I wore a jacket and tie. I guess I looked older than I was.

RE: "I can't imagine the Power Pack custom comic doing well in Europe because I assume "message" comics have to be culturally in tune with the audience to be effective. Was Power Pack licensed in Europe?"

Power Pack had some exposure in Europe, and Spider-Man certainly was well-known. I suppose we weren't culturally in tune.

jimshooter said...

Dear Defiant1,

RE: "I'm not shocked that you got the reaction you did from your employer. They have to justify what they are charging and most people would spend more. If the expenses were somewhere in the ball park of what they were used to charging, I doubt the guy would have thought twice about what you submitted."

The only shocking thing, and my point, is how naive I was.

Ole M. Olsen said...

Re. Power Pack:

There was a Power Pack special (about 100 pages, I guess) published in Norway once (late 80s or possibly very early 90s. I can dig it up).

It's quite possible that it was also published elsewhere in Scandianvia, as a lot of comics were at the time. Only the actual text (language) was different.

PC said...

In the 1980s, I believe sexual abuse of children wasn't considered a crime in some countries (I know in Portugal it wasn't). It wasn't until the Marc Dutroux case (raped six children and killed four of them) that European authorities started paying attention to pedophilia.

Jerry Bonner said...

Hey Jim,

I came across this interesting piece on Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/02/the_avengers_why_i_m_boycotting_marvel_s_movie.html

And I was curious as to what your thoughts were on it? I know you've spoken/written at length about the whole art return policy and Jack Kirby's issues with that, but I thought this author made some interesting and/or valid points. You?

Jerry Bonner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Xavier Lancel (SCARCE) said...

Power Pack was published widely here in France, until issue 39, with sometimes big alterations on art or missing issues here and there. But we never saw the Spiderman Power Pack special.
Culturally, France doesn't mix bandes dessinées and education. Helas, a lot of people would think it is "grotesque" to mix this kind of educational message with comics. sowe never saw the Heroes for Hope or Heroes against Hunger also in France. It's a pity, but that's like it.
Power Pack was rather popular here: at the end of 2012, we'll published an issue of SCARCE devoted to Power Pack, isn't that a sign? :)

Anonymous said...

Jerry, interesting article. The author and myself led prallel lives growing up. No mention of Ditko.

Jim, I think that you have stated that Jack Kirby's agreement was the same as all artists. Was it actually longer like the article says?

Neil

Jerry Bonner said...

Neil,

My guess is Ditko isn't mentioned because he had nothing to do with The Avengers, really. The lion's share of his Marvel work was on Spider-Man and Dr. Strange. Two books that Kirby had little, to no, influence on if I am recalling correctly.

Anonymous said...

@ Jerry Bonner

It's Slate. It's whiny pathetic nonsense. "Hey, how about a boycott cause some dude that's been dead for nearly 20 years wasn't shrewd enough in business to get himself a better deal than what he got! Corporations are bad! derp derp derp..."

Anonymous said...

Marc Miyake says..."I can't imagine the Power Pack custom comic doing well in Europe because I assume "message" comics have to be culturally in tune with the audience to be effective."

And by "culturally in tune" we should say "Europeans are fine with child rape." Just ask Roman Polanski.

Anonymous said...

@Ja

Miyake did say both of those things, more or less (closer to more than less).

He and Defiant1 really suck the air out of this blog.

Anonymous said...

Actually, people like Defiant1, who tell the truth straight with no chaser, are a breath of fresh air on the Internet. I wish we had a dozen of him on here


And for the Anon who says boycotting is whiny - you're out of your mind. Do you know how many pallets of money Marvel made from the Spider-Man movies?? Do you know how much Ditko got from any of those movies?? Yeah, wake up

ja said...

Anonymous said: "Miyake did say both of those things, more or less (closer to more than less).

He and Defiant1 really suck the air out of this blog."

For you, maybe.

Conversations have participants who are more verbose than others. If you were in person with these people, and they talked your ear off, you'd make sure to avoid them in the future. Nothing wrong with that. However, on this (or any) comments section, you have the ability to skip over anyone's post that you wish.

You come across as one of those people who complain about the Howard Stern radio show, or gay marriage, falsely claiming that the very existence of them is ruining your day, when both of those things have NEVER negatively affected your life whatsoEVER.

When all you have to do is change the radio station, or simply choose not to get your balls in a twist because Adam & Steve got married and then live their lives not in your house, you instead choose to be offended by their very existence. Or in this case, offended by someone "sucking the air" out of this blog.

As if you are forced to read every post, which you are not. Puh-LEEZE.

Marc Miyake is long-winded. So what? He's got things to say. I read his posts, and sometimes I don't. Same with anyone else who pontificates with duration. I'm one of them myself. I'd much rather have opinions on this blog that I can skip over if I wish, rather than have Drive By Dicks like yourself on this blog who thinks insulting people and acting like a pompous dipshit is a fun or justified thing to do.

You know, DBDs who find it hilarious to jump into the conversation, only to be insulting and ridiculing. It's certainly your right to be a bullying jerk, and there's really nothing anyone can do about it.

Oh wait! There IS something we can do about it... we can just skip your posts whenever they pop up.

BRILLIANT! =D

Fran said...

In Spain we never got to see these custom comics as the aforementioned spider-Man and Power Pack.

Sure, Spider-Man was hugely popular. Power Pack was slipped as an 8-page back-up in the monthly X-Factor and later, in Uncanny X-Men. It required 3 months to see published an entire issue, so it never got past issue #20 or so.

But these kind of custom comics never saw light in Spain, and I understand it.

ja said...

Strike 'pompous'.

Replace it with 'malicious'.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous, re "boycotting": He (earlier Anon) didn't say boycotting was whiny. He said "it" (I assume "it" being the article in general) was whiny. Which is not the way I would put it, but I was also not impressed. For instance, the writer says that he "planned on seeing the movie the first week it opened" and acknowledges that he wrote for Marvel as recently as 2003. But Marvel's treatment of Kirby has been well-known, at least in comic circles, for decades. Is it really plausible that the huge comic nerd he claims to be just found out about all of this in the last few months? The failure to explain how he discovered Marvel's treatment of Kirby and/or the evolution of his thinking with respect to it is a giant hole at the center of the article. (It seems his thinking has certainly changed over the years, anyway, so it would be nice to know why.) (It's also awkward that Spider-Man is misspelled, but whatever.)

I mean, people should boycott the movie if they feel strongly about it, and they should also let it be known why they are doing it, but there should also be an end game of some kind: what change do you want to happen as a result of a successful boycott? (Let's just acknowledge that it's too late to do anything for Jack and Roz, right?) Payment to Kirby's heirs? General policy change for all creators (I have no idea what it currently is)? Revert rights and/or payment to living creators of WFH work, like Gary Friedrich? Not much point to boycotting if the company doesn't know how to respond in a positive way.

--kgaard

Anonymous said...

@Kgaard - I hear you. But the guy I was responding to also said that Kirby has been dead 20 years, and that he wasn't shrewd enough to get a batter deal. So he was doing more than criticizing a poorly-written article

As far as boycotting having a goal - I think you are right when we are talking about Occupy Wall Street or some other social movement. But when it comes to boycotting companies - there need be no goal. They respond to the all mighty dollar. There have been many instances of corporations pulling ads just because of some flack. So yeah, not going to see Avengers - for whatever reason - will hurt their profits - which is all they care about

Anonymous said...

Well, it wasn't the most well-rounded critique, for sure.

Re: boycotting, I think you implicitly agree with my point when you say "There have been many instances of corporations pulling ads just because of some flack." Right, so there the boycott goal was "pull this offensive ad". Now, if you think, say, Marvel should go bankrupt and you'll never buy a Marvel product ever, no matter how they act in the future, that's more like vegans who boycott all meat-related products. It's perfectly fine but seems to reflect the idea that there is something inherently corrupt in Marvel, or that their actions were so egregious they can only be punished, not redeemed. I'm not convinced that's the idea behind the proposed boycott. I could be wrong about that, of course.

--kgaard

bmcmolo said...

ja wrote "I read his posts, and sometimes I don't. Same with anyone else who pontificates with duration. I'm one of them myself. I'd much rather have opinions on this blog that I can skip over if I wish, rather than have Drive By Dicks like yourself on this blog who thinks insulting people and acting like a pompous dipshit is a fun or justified thing to do. "

Ex-freakin-actly. Well put.

Paul Dushkind said...

One of the Anonymouses:

It's rumored that Steve Ditko was offered money for the first Spider-Man movie. Apparently, he turned it down, because he didn't want any fees beyond what he originally agreed to.

The theaters have a teaser poster for The Avengers, with a big A logo with an arrow for a crossbar, based on the comic-book masthead, lettered by Gaspar Saladino. It seems to me that the estate of Gaspar Saladino deserves a royalty.

I wish all the original artwork ever was preserved archivally, and kept accessible, so that everything could be reprinted with its original quality or better. A pipe dream I know.

Defiant1 said...

Jim,

Do you really feel naive is the proper word? I think innocent is a better word. A business mentality can corrupt a social responsibility to be honest and trustworthy. Don't think your point zipped over my head. I was just retracing the possible scenarios and thinking out loud.

Anonymous,

If Marc and I suck the wind out of the blog, what is your idea of what blog comments should be? I've always marveled over people who read comments with the expectation to be entertained & inspired, yet they offer forth none of the very content they hope to find. Am I supposed to appeal to your specif whims? Perhaps you aren't so interesting yourself? I know that when I walk into a room, more than half the people will have a huge smile on their face from ear to ear. The people who aren't smiling are probably the people I like to see miserable.

Anonymous said...

"You come across as one of those people who complain about the Howard Stern radio show, or gay marriage, falsely claiming that the very existence of them is ruining your day, when both of those things have NEVER negatively affected your life whatsoEVER. When all you have to do is change the radio station, or simply choose not to get your balls in a twist because Adam & Steve got married and then live their lives not in your house, you instead choose to be offended by their very existence."

[MikeAnon:] I'm sorry to have to get into this, but it really offends me that when it comes to gay marriage the burden of "choice" is always placed on the people who have nothing wrong with them, whereas the people who do have something wrong with them are cast as having no "choice" at all.

I first saw two guys kiss when I was eight years old. It made me sick. It made me feel like I had witnessed something that simply should not ever happen. Eight years old. How does an eight-year-old "choose" to feel like that? And why should an eight-year-old who feels like that "choose" to ever feel otherwise? Homosexuality ISN'T supposed to happen. So why should we teach our children, who can recognize this fact on sight, that THEY need to change their natural feelings, rather than advise homosexuals that THEY need to control their natural feelings so as not to offend the normal people around them?

I know this is not going to be a popular post, but it needs to be said, especially in light of what's happened in California today: Something that clearly ought not to exist -- that the world unquestionably would be better off without -- has been put, probably without remedy, on the same plane as that which clearly needs to exist for the continuation of the species. If this doesn't disturb you to your core, I honestly don't know why.

Now that the opposing view's been heard from, I hope we can get back to talking about comics and leave delicate social and political matters aside, save for when those matters impact directly on the post at hand. [--MikeAnon]

Defiant1 said...

My understanding is that Steve Ditko did turn down money from the Spider-man movie. Stan Lee had to sue Marvel Entertainment because they were shortchanging him money owed through creative bookkeeping.

It's my opinion, but feel Kirby didn't get a fair share because he didn't know how to market his name and his work. In the past couple of weeks, Stan Lee has posted various pictures of himself online with Spielburg, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and others. People may not have any clue who Stan Lee is, but most of them know an "A-List" Hollywood celebrity. Stan isn't stupid. He knows that it adds value to his name to be seen with these people. Stan Lee is a salesman. His marketing is a big reason we remember Ditko and Kirby.

Anonymous said...

@Mike Anon

It's hard to read that post as anything but a parody


@Defiant

Hmm. Well if Marvel did offer Ditko movie money, then it does make me wonder if marvel will be giving money to the Kirby heirs

czeskleba said...

Defiant1 said:
My understanding is that Steve Ditko did turn down money from the Spider-man movie.
*********************
Have you got a source for that claim? I've read claims/speculation about this in many places, but I've never seen anyone cite a source to prove it.

I myself am skeptical, because it seems very unlikely that a corporation such as Marvel would offer unsolicited money to anyone. Given the fact that Stan Lee had to sue to get the money to which he was contractually obligated, it seems *even more unlikely* that Marvel would be offering money to Ditko when he wasn't even asking for it, particularly when he has no legal basis to ask for it even if he did want to.

I'm also skeptical that Ditko would turn down money if it was offered. The fact that Ditko won't do things that would net him some easy money (such as selling his original art or doing commissions) doesn't mean he does not like money. IIRC Jim quoted Ditko once as saying something to the effect of how he doesn't feel entitled to money for any of his past work, but wouldn't turn it down if Marvel chose to gift him with it. From what I understand about him, Ditko is not opposed to getting paid, he simply is not willing to do certain things for money that most people in his shoes would choose to do.

jimshooter said...

Dear Jerry,

RE: "I came across this interesting piece on Slate:http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/02/the_avengers_why_i_m_boycotting_marvel_s_movie.html

And I was curious as to what your thoughts were on it? I know you've spoken/written at length about the whole art return policy and Jack Kirby's issues with that, but I thought this author made some interesting and/or valid points. You?"


It's an emotional, outsider's take.

Now for an emotional insider's take: I have always said that the comic book business from the get-go has been unjust. If the world were right, Jack Kirby would have been properly rewarded for his efforts. Steve Ditko would have been properly rewarded for his efforts. Stan, though better rewarded than those two, would have been better rewarded for his efforts. Marv Wolfman would have been better rewarded for the success of Blade and other things. Len Wein, Dave Cockrum, Herb Trimpe, you name 'em would have been better rewarded.

I would have been better rewarded.

Funny, everyone seems to be up in arms over Kirby's unjust treatment -- though he SIGNED HIS RIGHTS AWAY WILLINGLY MANY TIMES (I have copies of the documents) -- and pretty much nobody is up in arms over the fact that white collar criminals stole my VALIANT creations. I never signed away anything, there. Anyone notice the Comics Journal leaping to my defense?

No, I am not comparing my small creative output to Kirby's immense output. But isn't the principle the same?

Anyway....

There is no "droit moral" in this country. Work made for hire is part of the copyright law. Marvel is venal, selfish and corrupt. So is DC. But by the benighted laws of this land, they are right.

The criminals who stole VALIANT were not right, but by falsifying documents, lying under oath, buying people off and having the money to employ really good, corrupt lawyers, they got away with it. By the way, I have the documents there, too.

Change the law. Crusade for justice. Or shut up.

jimshooter said...

Dear Neil,

Jack was first sent a four-page art return document made especially for him. I have a copy of that document. I objected. I insisted that Jack be sent the exact same document that everyone else signed. I had sworn to Steve Ditko that Jack would have to sign exactly the same document as he, Steve, did, which was a condition Steve insisted upon before he would sign. I fought like a wolverine. I won. Jack eventually signed the same, standard one-page document as everyone else.

P.S. Jack had already signed HUNDREDS of copies of that one-page document during the time he worked for Marvel under contract between 1975 and 1978, as required by the routine artwork return process at the time.

Many such documents signed by Jack attested to Marvel's ownership of all that he had created for Marvel.

P.P.S. That one-page document was ENTIRELY REDUNDANT, belt and suspenders, because his employee contract -- let me make this clear -- his EMPLOYEE CONTRACT, which specified that his work was already W4H because he was an employee (and therefore fell under the very definition of W4H) was the governing agreement.

Morally, Jack was, and his estate is entitled to far more that either got. No question. Legally, however, I think no. If I could snap my magic fingers and have moral justice done, there would be no contentions. Jack and all the other founding fathers of Marvel, or their estates, would be justly compensated.

jimshooter said...

Dear Defiant1,

RE: "Do you really feel naive is the proper word? I think innocent is a better word. A business mentality can corrupt a social responsibility to be honest and trustworthy."

Innocent. Yes, that's a better word. Sometimes I look back at what I did when I was young and I'm amazed at how savvy I was so quickly, and sometimes I'm amazed at how I ever survived being so young, foolish and...let's call it "innocent."

RE: "If Marc and I suck the wind out of the blog, what is your idea of what blog comments should be?"

Everyone should say whatever they wish. I read all the comments. I find yours and Marc's (and most others) very thoughtful. Anyone who doesn't can avoid the people they find tedious.

jimshooter said...

RE: "Hmm. Well if Marvel did offer Ditko movie money, then it does make me wonder if marvel will be giving money to the Kirby heirs"

Ladies and gentlemen, please understand that when someone is suing you, or even threatening to sue you, that every action you take, every word you say can and will be used against you in court. It is impossible to be generous, or even fair, when someone is taking or threatening legal action against you without it being turned into an admission of the propriety of their claims. Jack Kirby's legal threats against Marvel and Steve Gerber's suit against Marvel delayed for years the sales incentive payment plan, the character creation incentive plan and the old artwork return program I initiated, just because enacting those things might have been seen by a jury as tacit admissions of the legitimacy of their claims.

ja said...

*sigh*

MikeAnon, you are so shamefully full of shit, it is not even funny.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ANYONE BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. What a fearfully ignorant and stupid conclusion from which to spring forth your asinine opinions about the value of folk, as if their sexuality determines whether or not they're good quality people. BEING GOOD QUALITY PEOPLE is what determines this!

In EVERY aspect of the animal kingdom (the human animal included), a percentage of each species is homosexual. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS NOT THE PREDOMINATE TRAIT OF A SPECIES, DOES NOT MEAN IT ISN'T PART OF THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS. Since when are you the arbiter of what should and should not be?

Sexuality is sexuality. If you're objecting because of religion, then you need to know that God created people as they are. Who the hell are YOU to determine that what God created isn't right? Just because of something MAN (not God) wrote in the Bible? Bullshit. People are what they are, and if you don't like it, then I hope you curse God for making your life miserable because gays exist, not gays for existing in the first place.

“[MikeAnon:] I'm sorry to have to get into this…” Well, you don’t *have* to flaunt your ignorance and hatred, but I see you have a need to be the Village Bigot, so okay.

I'm sorry that you stew in your anger over the very existence of gays. You don't like guys kissing? Good! Don't kiss guys! That 2 men kissing "simply should not ever happen" is the conclusion of disgusting bigots who can't be happy unless they are pissing on a class of people that does no harm to ANYONE in this world for being who they are.

You place yourself on the same vile and hatefully bigoted level as White Supremecists, as Nazis, as gang members and as plain old bitter men who yell at imaginary boogeymen in clouds, who share the same kinship as you do. How proud you must be.

"Homosexuality ISN'T supposed to happen." Again, who the hell are YOU to determine this? I hope this internal hatred of yours metastasizes into such a ball of pain within your mind and soul that it cripples you in life. Seems like you’re not too far away from that happening, from what I have read. I hope that you have close people in your life you discover are gay. They’re there anyway, likely not telling you about themselves because they already sense your hatred of the very existence of them as human beings. I suspect they (and their loved ones) see you for what you are and will turn (or have already turned) their backs on you. You will grow old and alone in your life, as you realize you find less and less people who share your level of bile and bigotry.

That is, unless you’re able to pull your head out of your ass and understand that sexuality is but the smallest aspect of WHO PEOPLE ARE AS PEOPLE. That you as a person are not judged by where you put your dick, but as what KIND of a (kind, understanding, helpful, productive, compassionate) person you are!

ja said...

(Continued)


MikeAnon said: “So why should we teach our children, who can recognize this fact on sight, that THEY need to change their natural feelings, rather than advise homosexuals that THEY need to control their natural feelings so as not to offend the normal people around them?” HAHAHAH! You just contradicted your own argument AGAINST gays by admitting that their feelings ARE NATURAL!

Mike, "Normal" is just a setting on the washing machine. You remind me of Frank Miller, as depicted by Ty Templeton: http://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/frank-miller-funnies-large.jpg You’re the one in the blue shirt.

To clarify, ‘normal’ is NOT being an ignorantly hateful bigot such as yourself.

“…in light of what's happened in California today: Something that clearly ought not to exist -- that the world unquestionably would be better off without --"… GET THIS ‘STRAIGHT’, MIKE: THIS IS ONLY CLEAR TO YOUR HATEFUL BIGOTED MIND. Your hatred and bigotry is the thing that clearly ought not to exist, and that the world would be better off without.

“…has been put, probably without remedy, on the same plane as that which clearly needs to exist for the continuation of the species.” What an amazingly MORONIC thing to say. Homosexuality isn’t the predominate trait of our species, especially in a world that has gone from 3 Billion in population in 1960 to 7 BILLION PEOPLE TODAY. We are in no danger, NOR WILL WE EVER BE, of extinction due to homosexuals being themselves. Heterosexuals being themselves is what has more than doubled this planet’s population in the last 52 years, which really buggers your lame thesis right there in its tracks. So please, pull some more bullshit theories out of your ass.

I really used to enjoy reading your comments. That is, until I found out they came from such a hateful and bigoted mindset that is the most outward representation of toxicity and cancer that I can think of.

MikeAnon, being gay does not define who a person is, or make them any less of a human being. However, being a hateful bigot such as yourself ABSOLUTELY DEFINES YOU.

Shame on you.

Brian Foss said...

I first saw A GUTTED FISH when I was eight years old. It made me sick. It made me feel like I had witnessed something that simply should not ever happen. Eight years old. How does an eight-year-old "choose" to feel like that? And why should an eight-year-old who feels like that "choose" to ever feel otherwise?

As I got older I learned how to clean a fish and got over my initial reaction. Growing up, wow.

Brian Foss said...

I first saw A TOMATO ON MY PLATE when I was eight years old. It made me sick. It made me feel like I had witnessed something that simply should not ever happen. Eight years old. How does an eight-year-old "choose" to feel like that? And why should an eight-year-old who feels like that "choose" to ever feel otherwise?

Later on I grew to enjoy eating tomatoes, but man I sure hated them when I was a kid.

Ole M. Olsen said...

Dear ja,

After what happened here in Norway last summer, I'm reluctant to let bigotry and hatred of any kind go uncommented.

Thank you.

ja said...

Dear Ole,

My honor. My pleasure. My (and everyone else's) duty.

In just one of the 2011 Norway attacks by Anders Behring Breivik last summer, he dressed in a homemade police uniform, showed false identification to gain access to the island of Utøya and subsequently opened fire at the participants, killing 69 attendees and wounding 60. 55 of these had critical injuries and 1 died two days later in hospital and became the 69th victim.

He was xenophobic, and he hated Muslims. He just stewed with his rage and hatred, fearing them so much that he decided to kill as many of them as he could.

When MikeAnon writes "... Something that clearly ought not to exist -- that the world unquestionably would be better off without...", it is NOT AT ALL a huge leap to see his kind of hatred manifest itself into the kind of thing that happened in Norway. Or that happens countless times across the world.

MikeAnon's attitude gets bigger, uglier, and more powerful when people don't speak up to put it back under the shitty rock it came from. It can grow like a lethal virus from his part of the world, to Uganda, where there is a legislative proposal that would broaden the criminalization of same-sex relations, in which an offender would receive the death penalty, or "the offense of homosexuality" in which an offender would receive life imprisonment.

Or here in the USA, where the dying Republican Party (some of which are actually affiliated with the Uganda bill) is fighting mightily to deny the civil rights of gays who do no harm to them whatsoEVER.

In a world wherein everyone is more informed than at any other time in history, there are still 'dark ages' kind of people people who in this world choose to be close-minded. Bigoted. Hateful. And I think, downright evil in the way they try to harm other people's lives, just because they're just the slightest bit different from them.

Defiant1 said...

czeskleba,

Sorry. Any article about Ditko and the Spider-man movie would have been read 8-9 years ago. I could not direct you to a source. I will say that I weighed the credibility of the source when I read it or heard it and that is why I repeated it. I find it congruent to his other comments and behavior in the past. Keep in mind that I equate "not pursuing one's rights" as the equivalent of turning down money. Ditko's comment could have been sarcasm.

Let's say I bring a cooler of water to a camp site. People are drinking from that cooler. I don't expect the people to quit unless I ask them to. I don't expect them to offer me a drink from it unless I tell them. Right or wrong, silence is sometimes the wrong choice to accomplish an objective.

Jerry Bonner said...

Jim,

Thanks for your words of wisdom as always. That's why I always find that going to the source or those in the know is the best policy when it comes to issues like this. My old journalism profs would be so proud...

Ole M. Olsen said...

Dear ja,

Wise words.

"He was xenophobic, and he hated Muslims. He just stewed with his rage and hatred, fearing them so much that he decided to kill as many of them as he could."

Just a small clarification there, ja, if I may:

ABB thought that attacking Muslims directly would just make the general public more sympathetic towards them. So instead he set out to "punish" the "cultural Marxists" of the co-governing Labour Party, whom he deemed "traitors" and responsible for his imagined "islamisation" of Norway and Europe (it's a conspiracy, you see...).

His way of doing that was to set off a bomb outside a government building in Oslo (killing 8 and doing damage for countless millions in any currency) and a mass murder of kids at the Labour Party's youth organisation's peaceful summer camp at Utøya?

32 of the 69 victims at Utøya were younger than 18 - legally children. 2 of those were 14 years old, 7 were 15... You get the picture.

In a country of less than 5 million citizens, most people don't have to look very far to find someone affected by this, the most horrific crime in Norway since World War II. My wife's colleague had one daughter murdered and another seriously wounded at Utøya.

ABB considers himself a hero and a saviour, and thinks that in 60-70 years we will have come around to his point of view. Now, I'm generally fairly pessimistic, but even I can't imagine that even 70 years will make it look okay to murder defenseless children in cold blood.

The trial starts in April.

This was just meant as a clarification, and OF COURSE the Norway terror attack has nothing to do with MikeAnon! The only direct connection is that I just don't want to see hateful remarks stand unchallenged any longer. The overwhelming majority of people, even the most hateful and bigoted, are not likely to go out and kill anyone, let alone harm anyone physically. But keep propagating the hatred, and SOMEONE - mentally disturbed or not - will sooner or later go out and "do something about it".

To the point:

I have always failed to see the charm in going around hating people at all, particularly people who have done you NO HARM WHATSOEVER and who simply ARE different in some way - different gender, different skin colour, different sexuality...

What a poor, cheap and shameful existence that must be.

Think it's unnatural? Take it up nature!

JayJayJackson said...

why should we teach our children that THEY need to change their natural feelings?

"The Lord of the Flies" is a scary realistic book. At a young age I saw other children out of control doing incredible evil. Children need to be taught right and wrong. And intolerance is wrong.

Besides, 8 year old boys think girls have cooties. Any kind of kissing makes most of them sick. lol.

Anonymous said...

Jim,

I may have worded my earlier post poorly. It was hastily written. I have no doubt that if you could have snapped your fingers and made Jiminey Cricket part of the Marvel Universe you would have. I fully understand what it's like to be stuck in the middle. I have made the statement "this is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG" to the point that I was told "If you don't like it, go work for Bob." (Bob being the owner of a rival company).

I can't speak for the other participants of this blog but I certainly understand what a bitter pill the Valiant episode must have been. Like Bill Finger, Ditko and Kirby are the 400lb. gorillas in the room. There is also some distance with them. I doubt that I would bring up the returned art or rights issue on a Ditko blog that he personally ran; I ovoid Valiant because I think it's a sore spot.

Good Hump Day to all.

Neil

Anonymous said...

If someone is going to argue that homosexuals feel the way they do because they're born that way and that homosexuality is therefore 'natural', then one could surely argue that those who feel revolted by such behaviour were born that way and that their revulsion is likewise natural. Therefore, any insulting description of the latter group's expression of their natural state as being ignorant and hateful, etc., surely qualifies as the same kind of bile-filled intolerance that the former group ascribes to their opponents.

Anonymous said...

MikeAnon: I'm going to try to take a leaf out of the book of a great teacher and illustrate a point by way of parable.

Once upon a time, in the very late 1960's in Southern Virginia, there was a three year old white boy.

This boy spent a lot of time with his grandparents, who considered themselves good, Christian folk. The grandmother prayed and read her Bible every morning and the grandfather sang in the church choir. Every room in the house had a copy of a religious themed painting in it.

Now, these good Christian, Southern folk of a certain age spent a good deal of their free time complaining about black people, about how they were stupid, and lazy, and bad,if not criminal and the three year old boy took it all in and believed them. His beloved grandparents wouldn't lie to him about something like that, would they?

So, one very hot summer day, the grandmother and a lady-friend were out driving in the country with the three year old boy in the back seat, and they came upon an old black lady walking along the side of the road. The two white women decided to offer to give the other woman a lift. The three year old boy, having taken to heart the message of black people being evil and with a mixture of terror and hatred as pure as a three year old could manage, threw a fit, broke down in tears and begged the women not to let the black woman in the car, much to the white women's mortification and embarrassment.

Despite the awkwardness of the little boy making a scene, the black woman got her lift, and the boy got a lecture from his racist grandmother about not creating embarrassing scenes.

Flash forward three years and the boy begins to go to school. "Massive resistance" in Virginia has failed and the now six year old boy's first grade year is the first year that his school system is truly integrated. He and a lot of the kids in his grandmother's neighborhood, whose parents are just as racist as the boy's grandparents, are assigned to a black teacher. While these other children's parents pull their kids out of the black teacher's class and have them reassigned to a white teacher, the boy's parents refuse to do so.

The boy, whose moral sense has become slightly more developed since he was three learned a vital lesson in racial tolerance.

That lesson got him thinking over the years about how people should treat each other. Over time, he came a long way from the boy he was when he was five years old and he scandalized his grandparents by claiming he didn't and couldn't love Jesus because, after having internalized the greater society's homophobia, men loving men was bad.

He came to the conclusion that one's physical conditions - one's race, gender, size, weight, sexual orientation, physical ability and creed - didn't really matter. The true person was the consciousness within the body - the soul, for those spiritually inclined, or the electro-chemical impulses which make up consciousness, for those of a more scientific bent.

It is people's souls that fall in love with each other and want to share their lives with each other. Their bodies come along for the ride and are merely one of the many tools used to express that love.

He also came to the conclusion that a just society is one that errs on the side of fairness, on compassion, and on empathy. A just society does not codify discrimination into law by privileging the narrow interpretation of one religious dogma over another.

He also came to the conclusion that denying people's souls the rights to form loving bonds,to acknowledge those bonds, and to have legal protection for such bonds is an affront to human dignity.

-DonAnon

ja said...

DonAnon,

Beautiful. Truly wonderful.

Thank you.

ja said...

Anonymous said: "If someone is going to argue that homosexuals feel the way they do because they're born that way and that homosexuality is therefore 'natural', then one could surely argue that those who feel revolted by such behaviour were born that way and that their revulsion is likewise natural. Therefore, any insulting description of the latter group's expression of their natural state as being ignorant and hateful, etc., surely qualifies as the same kind of bile-filled intolerance that the former group ascribes to their opponents."

Wrong. That is a false equivalency.

It's a value judgment. One disagreement doesn't cancel out the other. They're not equal in any way. Certainly not when the one opinion has to do with the belief and statement that "... Something that clearly ought not to exist -- that the world unquestionably would be better off without...". This is not the equivalent to those who disagree with such a statement.

Society, more and more, is making a value judgment that the way we have acted toward certain groups has been wrong, and must be changed for the better. They're making the value judgment to be good people. Better than those who can't see beyond their own prejudice and ignorance.

To equate the one side who wishes gays never to exist, to the other side that stands up to such nonsense with better, more inclusive and humane standards, is a falsehood. It makes as much sense as when Bill O'Reilly claiming that if gay marriage becomes the norm, it will lead to man being able to marry a goat, duck, turtle or a dolphin.

Said plainly like Anonymous did, or in the over-the-top way that O'Reilly stated things, it's all various forms of hate speech. The ultimate goal of which is the eradication of homosexuality, even though that means classifying those who are gay as lesser human beings.

People can see through your attempt at intellectualizing fearful bigotry and hateful prejudice.

This is from the court that ruled Proposition (H)8 in California to be unconstitutional:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

That sums it up quite nicely.

ja said...

Ole,

Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate it.

I agree with you. If you have a problem with what nature has made, then take it up with nature!

However - I've said it before - I do love those beautiful cute little Ku Klux Klan outfits. I love those wonderful white robes, and those stylishly pointy hoods that they wear as they are burning crosses on the lawns of whomever they happen to hate, or when they're on the way to lynch someone from a big old tree.

Why, you may ask? BECAUSE I LIKE MY IDIOTS RIGHT OUT WHERE I CAN EASILY SPOT THEM.

Anonymous said...

Re: “If someone is going to argue that homosexuals feel the way they do because they're born that way and that homosexuality is therefore 'natural', then one could surely argue that those who feel revolted by such behaviour were born that way and that their revulsion is likewise natural. Therefore, any insulting description of the latter group's expression of their natural state as being ignorant and hateful, etc., surely qualifies as the same kind of bile-filled intolerance that the former group ascribes to their opponents.”

Human sexuality is incredibly diverse. It is clearly not the case that all humans are simply purely homosexual or purely heterosexual. While the Kinsey scale is somewhat out of date, it was an early recognition of this fact, and suggests that yes, for some and to some degree, homosexuality is a choice. So whether or not homosexuality is acceptable turns on whether it is harmful, to the person acting on it, those around them, or to society in general. This is a more complicated question, but here, the burden of proof is on those who want to describe it as harmful. (To save time, let’s note that “because it makes you uncomfortable” does not rise to the level of harm I’m talking about.) Do some people “choose” to be gay? I would be amazed if the answer were anything but yes. Is that okay? Of course, why not? No one is born Catholic, or Methodist, or Muslim, or Orthodox Jewish (I’m referring to Judaism in its religious, not ethnic, sense), but we allow it, because it’s a choice people are entitled to make. Freedom, baby.

Equally, human attitudes are non-manichean, and they are also “natural” only in the loosest sense of the word. MikeAnon didn’t live in an inputless bubble for the first 8 years of life (I’m guessing). It’s unlikely that his reaction to two men kissing rose straight out of his lizard brain. Influences, subtle and not, shaped his thinking and reaction to his environment. That’s totally normal, and would be weird if it didn’t happen that way. But again, harm is what matters. MikeAnon can feel and think any way he wants. But only so far as his behavior, and collectively, all of our behavior, doesn’t cause harm. And to deny an entire class of Americans, on the basis of behavior that is itself not harmful, full and complete access to the array of rights that everyone else has access to, causes them a great deal of real, provable harm: couples split apart in hospitals, denial of the basic human right to entwine yourself with the person you love, public discrimination. It’s unconscionable in a free, rights-based society.

Finally, there’s something a little embarrassing about suggesting anything analogous between the treatment of GLBT people, who have suffered immense physical and psychological harm over history from the forces of bigotry, and the frankly mild rebukes bigots have to put up with for trying to reframe their personal tastes as public policy.

--kgaard

czeskleba said...

Defiant1 said: Sorry. Any article about Ditko and the Spider-man movie would have been read 8-9 years ago. I could not direct you to a source.
********************
I see. You mentioned the Ditko story with a degree of certainty that made me hope you did have a source. I've seen this story repeated many times over the years, but never with a source cited, which is one of the things that leads me to suspect it's an urban legend. That and the reasons I noted above... it just doesn't seem likely (or good business practice) to offer someone money for nothing, particularly unsolicited money.

Perhaps a more plausible scenario would be that Marvel offered Ditko money in exchange for doing something, such as giving an interview or promoting the film in some way, and he refused under those conditions. But that's just speculation. Absent any proof or verification from a source, I think it does Ditko a disservice to repeat the "Ditko turned down Spider-Man film money" rumor.

Anonymous said...

Ja,

I was making no judgements about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, only pointing out that castigating someone for their natural aversion to, or revulsion of it, and often trying to bully them into an intellectual acceptance of its 'equality', is surely just as wrong as any other kind of militant confrontation of someone who is of another inborn or acquired persuasion.

Not everyone who is revolted by homosexuality condones verbal or physical abuse of homosexuals, instead taking the view that whatever happens between consenting adults in their own homes is none of their business. Your attempt to tar everybody who is averse to 'gay' culture with the same brush as being aggressive, violent or some kind of anti-homosexual fascist is therefore without any foundation whatsover.

Jim Drew said...

Hey, guys. Comics. Jim Shooter's work. Stuff like that? I don't need to see the gay stuff debated here.

(PS, I'm gay and I still don't need to see it debated *here*.)

Anonymous said...

Well, being gay is apparently part of superhero comics now. And if I said I don't need to see guys kissing on TV, I'd be told "You don't need to watch."

Jim (Drew) - you don't need to read.

Jeff Z said...

A thousand threads ago, I turned my back on a debate about religion Mike Anon and I were engaged in. Seeing his pathetic homophobia, I regret engaging in any kind of discussion with him at all. Hundreds of species exhibit homosexual behavior but only one engages in homophobia. So which is "unnatural"? Santorum votes have to come from somewhere, I guess-- more's the pity.

Brunomac said...

I don't like that this thread has long since moved away from slamming Europeans! Back on topic, please!

Anonymous said...

Hundreds of species may indulge in acts of homosexuality, but that's only in the same way that dogs hump lampposts...they're just not fussy. Only humans take it to the extreme lengths we're discussing. I may love some of my male friends and relatives...doesn't mean I want to play the ol' "brown-box boogie" with them.

Jeff Z said...

Highly recommended: the movie God Save Me From Your Followers, in which a real-life Christian apologizes to the gay community for the suffering they endured at the hands of the Santorum variety "christians

Anonymous said...

Jim - I was looking through an old G.I. Joe issue and I noticed that Jon D'Agostino inked it. I didn't realize he ever worked for Marvel. I was wondering if you had any stories about any of the Archie guys (Stan G, Dan DeCarlo, etc)

Thanks

Anonymous said...

God save me from the advances of guys who try to proposition me when I'm not the slightest bit interested, and who aren't prepared to take "get lost" for an answer. Let's get back to comics...not jokers with an agenda to "give it a try".

kgaard said...

"Well, being gay is apparently part of superhero comics now. And if I said I don't need to see guys kissing on TV, I'd be told "You don't need to watch."

Jim (Drew) - you don't need to read."

My Sarcasm-Sense is tingling here, but yeah, pretty much.

"God save me from the advances of guys who try to proposition me when I'm not the slightest bit interested, and who aren't prepared to take "get lost" for an answer. Let's get back to comics...not jokers with an agenda to "give it a try"."

That never happened.

--kgaard

Jeff Z said...

The ones who protest the loudest are the ones who wind up dragged out of the closet

Defiant1 said...

czeskleba,

I prefaced my comment about Ditko with the words "My understanding". Those words alone restrict the scope of what I'm saying and prevent it from being presented as an irrefutable fact. I did have a source for my comment. You should not assume that my inability to point you to the source somehow means it did not exist.

The fact that you have multiple people repeating the same exact information about Ditko means that we are either collectively lying, collectively mislead, or it is simply true. I have no incentive or motive to lie about Ditko. If a great number of people believe the information, that tends to imply the unnamed source is someone people trusted. The source may have been lying or mislead hence my choice to say "My understanding".

I did a few searches. I haven't found anything that looks familiar. I did find this page of art which is amusing. Check all the credits and read the artist's comment at the very bottom of the psge.

Defiant1 said...

Ooop!... I left out the link..

http://bit.ly/wVU9YV

Anonymous said...

Digger says:

To the Anonymous who did not know that John D'Agostino ever worked for Marvel:

Good grief, man! John D'Agostino helped pour the foundation of the Marvel Universe! Check out the credits for Amazing Spider-Man #1 (March 1963)!

Even though he died over a year ago, I saw D'Agostino's signature on the cover (new, I believe) of an Archie comic currently on sale at newsstand outlets.

marco said...

Is that 'Digger' as in Steranko?

Anonymous said...

Steranko? No.

And if “Digger” is a pseudonym that Steranko has used, then I was previously unaware of it (perhaps I should look for a new nom du pixel).

Anonymous said...

Jeff Z - I wondered how long it would be before someone trotted out that old myth - designed merely to embarrass those who are opposed to gay culture into silence. Doesn't happen in any other discussion. If anyone ever says "Pedophiles/rapists/murderers disgust me!", nobody ever suggests that such vocal critics are closet pedos, rapists or murderers.

So anyone opposed to homosexuality on the grounds of religion, culture or natural revulsion (helluva lot of people) is a repressed homosexual, huh?

Must be nice in your simple little world. You should get out more.

Jeff Z said...

Anony-mouse: your real name wouldn't be Marcus Bachmann, would it? If not, you seem to have a lot in common.

Anonymous said...

kgaard, "that never happened"? I bow to your superior knowledge of my life. How could I have been so stupid as to think that's a subject I might know better than you?

marco said...

The only pseudonym Steranko ever used is, "I Am Your God, You Peasants." Digger was an 'Uncle Creepy' type host of a Marvel anthology comic introducing a Steranko story. Guy with a shovel.

Anonymous said...

Marco,

Now that you provide details, they jog my memory a bit. The story you refer to would have been in Chamber of Darkness or Tower of Shadows, right? I collected those titles a few years ago, and read them. I can kind of picture the Steranko-drawn gravedigger in memory; unfortunately, I hadn’t remembered his name.

--the poster formerly known as Digger

Anonymous said...

Digger - save your "good griefs". You have no idea what you're talking about

D'Agostino inked a total of about 6 or 7 Marvel books (some Marvel Two-In-Ones, a Power Man). He did a colossal amount of work at Archie - that is where his entire legacy lies

Look, I know there are a lot of clueless people on the Internet with strong opinions - but correcting someone who knows what they are talking about is a jedi-of-clueless-ones move

Anonymous said...

Just look at the credits, man. If they’re wrong, feel free to educate us.

Digger

kgaard said...

Yeah, I was referring to the implication that people in this thread were somehow promoting homosexuality like it was a sport you can take up and not as a human rights issue ("Let's get back to comics...not jokers with an agenda to 'give it a try'"). Which, as I say, never happened.

But I'm totally sympathetic to the trauma you must have suffered from experiencing something that women have to put up with all the time.

marco said...

Some extraordinary stuff by Steranko here, including Digger's debut:

http://www.raggedclaws.com/home/category/jim-steranko/

Bendis and Maleev whacked out the character in a recent issue of Moon Knight, which was either the height of genius or the depths of wretchedness. If you're dropping the name, can I be Digger now?

Jeff Z said...

If he's not Marcus Bachmann, is it possible that he was hit on by Marcus Bachmann?

Anonymous said...

Marco,

If you want to be Digger, be my guest.

Just watch out for anonymous scholars who apparently find hyperlinks much too tiresome to click on.

--someone out Digging up a new name

Anonymous said...

[MikeAnon:] (Sigh)...So much for leaving the issue alone. [--MikeAnon]

"THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ANYONE BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY....as if their sexuality determines whether or not they're good quality people. BEING GOOD QUALITY PEOPLE is what determines this!"

[MikeAnon:] (Sigh)...I did not say, "Gay people are evil." I said, "There is something wrong with gay people." Namely, they are gay. This is not making a moral judgment about the quality of someone's soul. This is merely a statement of biological fact. There is a way human sexuality is supposed to work. Gay ain't it. [--MikeAnon]

"In EVERY aspect of the animal kingdom (the human animal included), a percentage of each species is homosexual. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS NOT THE PREDOMINATE TRAIT OF A SPECIES, DOES NOT MEAN IT ISN'T PART OF THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS."

[MikeAnon:] And just because something is natural, that doesn't make it a good and right thing. In every species of the animal kingdom, things go wrong -- *naturally* wrong. Maybe a dog is born without forelegs. Maybe a bird is missing its magnetic compass. To say that homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom says nothing besides, "Sometimes the same thing that goes wrong in humans goes wrong in animals, too." [--MikeAnon]

"Since when are you the arbiter of what should and should not be?"

[MikeAnon:] I'm not. Reproduction is. If two guys could have sex and make a baby, or if two women could have sex and make a baby, then homosexuality would be normal. Sex has a primary function, and that's reproduction. Sexual orientation likewise has a function, and that's to lead you to someone with whom you can reproduce. That's the only way you can naturally get babies, and that's how 97% of human beings are wired up, so there's zero rational grounds for rejecting heterosexuality as the "normal" baseline for human sexuality. Consequently, if your sexual orientation is wired so that it either (1) only leads you to people with whom you can't make babies or (2) doesn't even make a distinction between whom you can make babies with and whom you can't, your sexual orientation is unfortunately jacked up.

Don't hate me for recognizing that fact. I didn't make the world. I'm just not letting people's feelings blind me to how the world actually is. Also, please note the utter lack of religious content in everything I've said so far. Just as it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that there's something wrong with homosexuality, it doesn't take a priest, either. [--MikeAnon]

"If you're objecting because of religion, then you need to know that God created people as they are."

[MikeAnon:] Some people are born without limbs. Some people are born blind from birth. Some people have Tourettes. Some people have Down Syndrome. Are you saying God *wants* these things? That God *likes* these things? That God *approves* of these things? That these things were all part of God's plan? What kind of loving, caring God would would *deliberately* design a biological system in which some people would be attracted only to persons with whom they cannot make babies? Seriously: is that even the kind of world that *you* would design? Have you no heart? The kind of God that would *purposely* instill "you're never going to have your own babies with the one you love" into certain members of His chosen species is a cruel, sadistic God not worth worshipping.

Continued.... [--MikeAnon]

Anonymous said...

"You just contradicted your own argument AGAINST gays by admitting that their feelings ARE NATURAL!"

[MikeAnon:] Not at all. Just because a feeling is natural doesn't make it right to act upon. If I saw a hot married woman and became sexually aroused by her hotness, that natural reaction wouldn't be a license to commit adultery with her. Nor does a homosexual's natural arousal reaction toward a member of the same sex constitute an automatic stamp of approval upon the acts that might result from that reaction. Heck, we see this dichotomy between natural passion and withheld action all the time in comics. Batman would LOVE to kill the Joker -- that's his natural passion -- but he doesn't do it because he knows it would be wrong. I see homosexuality in the same light. [--MikeAnon]

"We are in no danger, NOR WILL WE EVER BE, of extinction due to homosexuals being themselves."

[MikeAnon:] So you're saying that if we ever did get back down to an extinction-level threshold, it *would* be okay to stop homosexuals from "being themselves?" See, *that* is the kind of "logic" that actually makes no sense -- no different, really, from the kind of logic that says, "If it's natural, then it's okay," because what you're implying is, "If it were *not* natural, then it would *not* be okay." Homosexual behavior is either right or wrong. Origins and conditions don't matter. [--MikeAnon]

Jeff Z said...

Those who stood in the way of civil rights and interracial marriage wound up on the wrong side of history. So will the homophobes(I'm straight and married, by the way- just not arrogant enough to insist that my sexuality is the only acceptable one).

ja said...

Anonymous said: "Your attempt to tar everybody who is averse to 'gay' culture with the same brush as being aggressive, violent or some kind of anti-homosexual fascist is therefore without any foundation whatsover."

It's not about being against anyone who's averse to gay culture. I'm not into gay culture myself, yet I'm speaking about the civil rights of those who are. I'm 'tarring' only the viewpoint of those who would deny people their rights. That's where the anti-homosexual fascism comes into play.

You are wrong to characterize me or anyone who shares my viewpoint as us trying to cram gay culture down your throat (so to speak). If you're truly paying attention, you know that's not what we're doing.

There's no problem with anyone who's uncomfortable with sexual acts they're not into. That's not the standard we've been talking about here. When MikeAnon - or anyone - talks in language, the bottom line of which is that gays should not exist in this world... THAT is fascism.

And when gone unchecked, unchallenged... that attitude grows into the kind of monster that fuels ignorance and hatred to the extent where people find it justified to physically hurt another person just because they're different (gay, black, ugly, Liberal, Conservative, Muslim, foreign, WHATEVER). Worse still, when unchecked or unchallenged, it grows into a worldwide collective attitude that it's okay to deny people their personal rights and liberties, forcing them to be second & third-class citizens.

Or it grows into the most terrifying thing of all, like in Uganda, with the legislation in play that would apply the death penalty to those people who are gay. And once you do that, then it's an easy step to apply that standard to other ethnicities, to your enemies, or to those whom you wish to subjugate.

So you can characterize anything I've written about this subject as hyperbolic rhetoric all you wish. It wouldn't be the case, and you know it. This is the real world where millions of others' worlds overlap with everyone else's on this planet. I'm speaking up for a standard where you don't have to be into a certain culture, but you damned well should respect it enough to attain its basic human rights.

Anonymous said...

"I first saw A GUTTED FISH when I was eight years old. It made me sick....As I got older I learned how to clean a fish and got over my initial reaction. Growing up, wow."

[MikeAnon:] Yes, in growing up you recognize that there are disgusting things in this world that are nevertheless necessary either to your personal survival or to the survival of the species. You learn to accept and approve of gutted fish because if you don't gut the fish, you don't eat, and after enough of not-eating, you die. You might find your parents' kissing to be gross, but you learn to accept and approve of heterosexual behavior because if it weren't for that, the human species would die out, and probably you yourself wouldn't exist. But homosexuality is necessary neither for personal survival nor the survival of the species. It's not how anyone got here, how anyone stays here, or how anyone ever will get here. It's a totally superfluous facet of human existence that, were it to vanish tomorrow -- if every homosexual and bisexual person in the world woke up straight tomorrow morning -- no one would miss it, and the human race would continue on, business as usual -- probably happier than usual, no longer having the need to deal with all the confusion that came from it. The same simply cannot be said for behavior like eating food and making babies -- take those away, and it's Game Over. [--MikeAnon]

ja said...

(another?) Anonymous said: "God save me from the advances of guys who try to proposition me when I'm not the slightest bit interested, and who aren't prepared to take "get lost" for an answer."

Welcome to the world of WOMEN.

The fact is that society is more and more open, to the extent where men are starting to experience what women have experienced throughout history.

There are jerks who can't take 'no' for an answer in any culture. Deal with it.

Women do.

ja said...

Anonymous said: "So anyone opposed to homosexuality on the grounds of religion, culture or natural revulsion (helluva lot of people) is a repressed homosexual, huh?

Must be nice in your simple little world. You should get out more."

So should you! In my lifetime, I can count over a dozen people that I've observed who have made a HUGE PROTESTATION about those gays, only to find out that they either came out, or were discovered to have been on the Down Low.

Just because you don't want to see a phenomenon, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Anonymous said...

"...8 year old boys think girls have cooties. Any kind of kissing makes most of them sick. lol."

[MikeAnon:] Exactly! I was one of those boys myself. And what concerns me is that today instead of telling kids, as I was told in my day -- by people, by television, by books, by comics, by culture, by teachers, etc. -- "Just you wait. One of these days, when you're older, you'll be chasing those girls like you wouldn't believe," society is instead telling them, "Hey, maybe the fact that you find those girls 'icky' means you're gay!" and pushing them to "explore" their sexualities and try everything in sight rather than start from the default expectation of heterosexuality and just not worry about it until puberty kicks in. I wonder how I myself would have turned out in the midst of such confusing messages, and it saddens me that kids today have to deal with all that mess instead of being given a clear picture of an ideal world to shoot for -- yes, I mean a 100% heterosexual world -- even if because of nature's flaws we'll never reach it (unless genetic research gets so good we can find whatever may cause homosexuality and carve it out of the genome). [--MikeAnon]

Anonymous said...

"If someone is going to argue that homosexuals feel the way they do because they're born that way and that homosexuality is therefore 'natural', then one could surely argue that those who feel revolted by such behaviour were born that way and that their revulsion is likewise natural. Therefore, any insulting description of the latter group's expression of their natural state as being ignorant and hateful, etc., surely qualifies as the same kind of bile-filled intolerance that the former group ascribes to their opponents."

[MikeAnon:] THANK you. Whether or not you agree with anything I've had to say, it's comforting to know that there are other people out there who aren't comfortable with seeing raging rivers of vitriol directed at *anyone* simply because of their different beliefs. [--MikeAnon]

Jeff Z said...

Those who most seek to suppress a phenomenon are hiding something from themselves...

Anonymous said...

MikeAnon is right. His only problem is, he doesn’t take his argument far enough.

Homosexual activity is reproductively futile, and therefore must be prohibited. Masturbation is equally futile, and therefore must be prohibited!

Only when we eradicate from the face of the earth all persons who have ever masturbated will the planet be pure and incorruptible!

--was Digger, who still hasn’t dug up a new name

P.S.: They’re just sperm, dude. It’s not like wasting them hurts anything.

Anonymous said...

"He came to the conclusion that one's physical conditions - one's race, gender, size, weight, sexual orientation, physical ability and creed - didn't really matter. The true person was the consciousness within the body - the soul, for those spiritually inclined, or the electro-chemical impulses which make up consciousness, for those of a more scientific bent. It is people's souls that fall in love with each other and want to share their lives with each other. Their bodies come along for the ride and are merely one of the many tools used to express that love.

[MikeAnon:] I'm glad you brought this up because it illustrates very well one of the key differences between those who are on the pro and con sides of the argument. The pro side tends to believe, "Bodies don't matter, just souls; people are basically individuals; gender is no more important an attribute than skin color." The con side, on the other hand, subscribes more to the position, "People consist of both souls and bodies, so both matter; people are basically men and women, with roles and properties appropriate to each; gender is an essential and important facet of human social existence, especially since it takes a person from each gender to make new human life." So it seems to me that when you abandon the notion of human identity properly belonging to both soul and body and begin ascribing human identity to the soul alone, that's when there comes a corresponding jump in attitude toward gender-based issues. [--MikeAnon]

ja said...

"[MikeAnon:] (Sigh)...So much for leaving the issue alone. [--MikeAnon]"

Hey, you're the idiot who threw the grenade in the first place. Deal with your hatred and bigotry being exposed for the accurate representation of you that it is.

"[MikeAnon:] (Sigh)...I did not say, "Gay people are evil." I said, "There is something wrong with gay people." Namely, they are gay. This is not making a moral judgment about the quality of someone's soul. This is merely a statement of biological fact. There is a way human sexuality is supposed to work. Gay ain't it. [--MikeAnon]"

Oh really, Professor? Human sexuality is supposed to work the way it has ever since man was created: some are straight, some are gay, some are bisexual. SO WHAT? NONE of these variations have EVER affected your life. Your hatred and disgust with people who are different than you is what affects your life.

Jeff Z said: "The ones who protest the loudest are the ones who wind up dragged out of the closet"

SO TRUE.

"[MikeAnon:] And just because something is natural, that doesn't make it a good and right thing. In every species of the animal kingdom, things go wrong -- *naturally* wrong.[--MikeAnon]"

So you *ARE* the arbiter of what is right and wrong with the world! I've always wanted to meet the perfect person. I just never expected him to be in the form of a bigoted asshole.

YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT. I love it that you keep pontificating, as if your value judgment on gays sounds intellectual, when it's just nothing but fearful pomposity gone amok.

"[MikeAnon:] So you're saying that if we ever did get back down to an extinction-level threshold, it *would* be okay to stop homosexuals from "being themselves?" See, *that* is the kind of "logic" that actually makes no sense -- no different, really, from the kind of logic that says, "If it's natural, then it's okay," because what you're implying is, "If it were *not* natural, then it would *not* be okay." Homosexual behavior is either right or wrong. Origins and conditions don't matter. [--MikeAnon]"

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! WE'RE NOT AT AN EXTINCTION-LEVEL THRESHOLD, YOU Y2K DUMBASS! HAHAHAHAHAH*cough*cough*HAHAHAHAHAHA!

MikeAnon, you are so wrong about your value judgments, and you know it. I'm so sorry for you that the world has passed you by.

Anonymous said...

"Do some people 'choose' to be gay? I would be amazed if the answer were anything but yes. Is that okay? Of course, why not?"

[MikeAnon:] Because while the world may not be perfect, any deliberate choice that sets us even farther away from a perfect world is wrong, plain and simple. [--MikeAnon]

ja said...

"[MikeAnon:] THANK you. Whether or not you agree with anything I've had to say, it's comforting to know that there are other people out there who aren't comfortable with seeing raging rivers of vitriol directed at *anyone* simply because of their different beliefs. [--MikeAnon]"

Hateful, bigoted beliefs. They are, by definition, "different beliefs" of those people who aren't hateful or bigoted.

Anonymous said...

Going by the same inverted logic exhibited by some on this page, those who shout the loudest about those who find gay culture unacceptable (even if they don't believe in aggression towards homosexuals or that the state should legislate against their private behaviour) must therefore be repressed homophobes, desperately fighting to supress their natural instincts to condemn homosexuals. You're secret is out...we're on to you.

It's interesting that those who bleat on about tolerance and understanding on this page are also the first to indulge in insults and casting aspersions against those of a different viewpoint.

It's clear what's going on. Buying into the myth that only closet homosexuals are not accepting of gay culture, they think that by appearing to support the 'gay cause' and condemning its critics, no one will ever suspect them of harbouring gay thoughts themselves. Talk about a smoke screen?

See? Two can play that absurd game.

ja said...

Anonymous said: "It's clear what's going on. Buying into the myth that only closet homosexuals are not accepting of gay culture, they think that by appearing to support the 'gay cause' and condemning its critics, no one will ever suspect them of harbouring gay thoughts themselves. Talk about a smoke screen?"

Nope. Not what we're talking about, no matter what kind of bullshit 'logic' you try to come up with.

Though it is true that some people who protest the loudest are closeted gays, it's by no means all, or even most. Most of those people who protest are simply those who don't like change, or who were raised believing that gays are bad, or simply that they are bigots.

I apply the word 'bigot' not to those people who are uncomfortable with gays' sexual activity. I apply 'bigot' to those people who speak out in such a way that fuels the underlining attitude that denies the civil rights of people who are different from them.

Nice try, though.

Anonymous said...

ja, that 'bullshit logic' was an ironic parody of your own, so you've just admitted that your own thinking is flawed. Talk about an own goal?

Not-so-nice try. You've lost the argument fella. Give it up now before you make that hole any deeper.

ja said...

I know you are, but what am I?

My logic is based upon the belief that we all can get along in this world without having to deal with hateful people who strive to treat others like second and third-class people.

Play semantics with my imperfect phrasing all you wish. It doesn't change the fact that you're showing your support to hateful views.

Jeff Z said...

While the reactionaries try to turn back the clock on birth control and other gains of the previous century, progress marches on. Gays are marrying and there's nothing narrow minds can do about it. A very good thing.

Defiant1 said...

When my grandmother was approximately age 84, my sister explained to her what a homosexual was and how they had sex with one another. My grandmother burst out laughing, did a classic slap to the knee, and said "They march down the street and they are proud of that?" I think her reaction sums up my own attitude.

I don't have a problem with two people loving each other. It's a chemical reaction in our bodies which are chemical machines. Love and bonding are tied to the chemical Oxytocin. Looking at a puppy or a baby, hearing a baby's cry all release this chemical in the brain. Oxytocin is associated with pair bonding and trust between two people.

I do not feel gay marriage should be legalized. Simply loving someone is not a reason to socially accept gay marriage and call it the same as a heterosexual marriage.

At some point, the love and the sex need to be separated. You can love your dog, does that constitute grounds for a marriage? Of course not. Andrew Dice Clay made references to having sex with meatloaf and fur coats in his comedy routine. Is that grounds for a marriage? Of course not. So where does the line get drawn?

For me, the line gets drawn at a stage that is natural for bonding and procreation in our species. So yes, I do have a problem with gay marriage being legalized. By the same token, I have a problem with scientists creating seedless (I would say sterile) grapes. My problem is that it's against the natural order of things that allow the species to continue. It was also highly prevalent just before the fall of the Roman Empire. Og vourse I', sure this offends people, but consider that I'm also against married people being taxed differently whether it be strait or gay.

If two people really love each other and share a relationship, the only thing legalized marriage offers are the free tax perks and shared insurance plans. I've never been married and I don't care if I ever get married. The one thing I do find priceless beyond anything is the ability to be with someone I love with all my heart. Yes, I'm addicted to oxytocin just like everyone else. I already have someone that feeds my brain the chemical I need. I'm not asking the rest of society to pay a share of my taxes for me. I'm not asking for heath care recipients to pay slightly higher premiums so I can get a break on my healthcare costs. I don't really have pity or concern for gay couples or anyone that needs validation to accept what they've already accepted in their heart. The more someone thinks they need validation, the less likely I am to offer it. When I hold a door open for someone, and they reply thank you. I respond "I know." I feel that people need to be able to self-validate their actions and choices without relying on public opinion.

In dolphins and rats, the occurrence of homosexuality has been tied to overcrowding. The more overcrowded they are in an area, the increased likelihood of same sex mating. I classify homosexuality as a subset of hedonism. I feel the the current "political correctness" associated with the topic of gay marriage is the byproduct of movies and television promoting these lifestyles. I typically just don't watch them when I feel they are pushing an agenda.

For my critics, I present this rather sarcastic piece of original art in my collection which is drawn by Ivan Brunetti. Any complaints about my opinions are deemed just as absurd as the response in this piece of art.
http://twitpic.com/48ps5n

If two people are gay and love each other, I'm happy for you. Oxytocin is a rewarding high.

Anonymous said...

Hateful people and hateful views? You're the one who is insulting those of a different opinion to your own. How about showing a bit of tolerance to those who don't happen to see things your way?

And it's not your phrasing that's imperfect...it's your thinking. Your phrasing merely reflects that aspect of your personality.

As for your claim that I'm showing support for hateful views, what utter garbage. I don't believe that homosexuals should be persecuted, imprisoned, spit upon, assaulted, or anything of that nature. What consenting adults get up to in privacy is none of my business or concern.

However, I resent the bullying nature of their tactics to coerce everyone into accepting their behaviour as 'normal', and their suggestion that those who don't see things from their point of view are unreasoning bigots or narrow-minded fascists.

And just because YOU may have gay sympathies or leanings doesn't mean that everyone else needs to have them too.

Anonymous said...

Avoid ja's comments. I do.

ja said...

Defiant1,

Okay, now you and I are going to go at it!

I love seedless grapes! I have a bowl of them next to my drawing table right now. They're wonderful!

To borrow a phrase from someone I know... seedless grapes are "Nature's Nipples". I can't get enough of them!

Harumph. =D

Defiant1 said...

Ja,

You are clearly a perverted hedonist if you condone the sterilization and murder (by consumption) of innocent little grape vine babies.

ja said...

Anonymous said: "Hateful people and hateful views? You're the one who is insulting those of a different opinion to your own. How about showing a bit of tolerance to those who don't happen to see things your way?"

I show wonderful tolerance toward those people who don't happen to see things 'my' (and most of mainstream society's) way. I am insulting of those people when their views go beyond the 'I don't agree', into the 'We should deny people their rights'.

It's a clear distinction, even though you refuse to acknowledge it.

"And it's not your phrasing that's imperfect...it's your thinking."

My thinking is just fine, thank you. You can try to distract the subject at hand all you wish by trying to characterize me as being mean to those who are okay with classifying gays as subhuman just for being who they are, but it won't work.

"However, I resent the bullying nature of their tactics to coerce everyone into accepting their behaviour as 'normal', and their suggestion that those who don't see things from their point of view are unreasoning bigots or narrow-minded fascists."

I'm sorry you feel that coerced by people fighting for their rights. You don't have to think of them as 'normal'. Your resistance toward their quest to be treated as equal citizens in a country that was founded upon individual freedoms makes you less and less normal as time goes on.

"And just because YOU may have gay sympathies or leanings doesn't mean that everyone else needs to have them too."

There you go again, making about someone's sexuality. It's about their rights as human beings, and their 'need' to be legally and fully appointed the same rights and privileges as everyone else.

ja said...

Defiant1,

I don't believe in the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good.

But yes, I am a mass murderer of seedless grape vine babies. Me and several billion other people on the planet. Doesn't make me perverted. It makes me appreciative of delicious green balls of goodness that goes very well with my salad.

Mmm, tasty. =D

jimshooter said...

Re: "...any stories about any of the Archie guys."

I don't have any noteworthy memories about Archie people, other than DeFalco, working for Marvel.

czeskleba said...

Defiant1 said: For me, the line gets drawn at a stage that is natural for bonding and procreation in our species. So yes, I do have a problem with gay marriage being legalized.
************************
So do you also believe that it should not be legal for sterile individuals or post-menopausal women to get married, since they are not able to procreate? What about couples who simply choose not to have children... should they be allowed to marry?

Defiant1 said: If two people really love each other and share a relationship, the only thing legalized marriage offers are the free tax perks and shared insurance plans.
*********************

As well as community property rights, and the right to have access to one's partner and make medical decisions for them if they are incapacitated, as well as several other things summarized here: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

My question to you would be, why should the law make a distinction between which people it allows to marry and which it doesn't?

Defiant1 said...

czeskleba,

I'm not going to debate any further. A man and a woman is a man and a woman. We disagree at a fundamental level. I suspect that if married people had their special rights taken away, no one would care what their relationship was called. I would prefer that be done.

I'm not goingto get angry if the law changes, I just refuse to agree with it.

I also refuse to agree with a justice system that uses speeding tickets to fund policing activities. Money and justice should not be tied together to determine whether a policeman writes a ticket or not. Too much incentive to write tickets or pass laws for the sake of revenue.

There are a lot of things I disagree with others about. That's why we vote. It doesn't make you OR me right.

Anonymous said...

ja said...

"I show wonderful tolerance toward those people who don't happen to see things 'my' (and most of mainstream society's) way. I am insulting of those people when their views go beyond the 'I don't agree', into the 'We should deny people their rights'.

It's a clear distinction, even though you refuse to acknowledge it."

What you refuse to acknowledge is that I have gone to great pains to make clear that I am not and never have advocated denying people their rights. But you are not the arbiter of what these rights are any more than I am.

ja said...

"My thinking is just fine, thank you. You can try to distract the subject at hand all you wish by trying to characterize me as being mean to those who are okay with classifying gays as subhuman just for being who they are, but it won't work."

I haven't seen anyone classifying gays as 'subhuman' anywhere on this page - only people not agreeing with their BEHAVIOUR. There's a distinction between people and their actions.

ja said...

"I'm sorry you feel that coerced by people fighting for their rights. You don't have to think of them as 'normal'. Your resistance toward their quest to be treated as equal citizens in a country that was founded upon individual freedoms makes you less and less normal as time goes on."

'Fighting for their rights'? No, that's NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being made to feel that I'm somehow out of step with humanity, or am some unfeeling nazi, because I refuse to be bullied into regarding such behaviour as on a par with relationships between men and women. However, I don't go on marches, sign petitions, or call for leglisation to enforce my point of view...regardless of how many times you seek to characterise me as someone who is trying to 'deny anybody their rights' as you rather simplistically put it.

ja said...

"There you go again, making about someone's sexuality. It's about their rights as human beings, and their 'need' to be legally and fully appointed the same rights and privileges as everyone else."

You were the first to cast aspersions on the sexuality of all those who don't hold your point of view, although you back-pedalled slightly when I pointed out how absurd your position was. Don't seem to like it when people play you at your own game, do you?

And you'll find that NOT all people have the same rights and privileges as everyone else. In some cases, the law of the land awards different rights to people on the basis of whether they're married or single, over or under the age of 21, etc.

You can try and distort the facts as much as you want to, but your over-simplification of anyone who doesn't agree with gay culture as 'bad' and those who support it as 'good' reveals just how impoverished is the nature of your argument.

Now, I would advise all gay men to go along to their nearest Indian restaurant and partake of a couple of extra-large dishes of triple-strength chicken vindaloo. Not only will this allow them to enjoy some good food in pleasant surroundings and to chill out a bit...it'll also teach them what their ass is for.

Jeff Z said...

Someone needs to chug a nice tall glass of Santorum, it seems...

Ole M. Olsen said...

Unsigned Anonymous said:

"I haven't seen anyone classifying gays as 'subhuman' anywhere on this page - only people not agreeing with their BEHAVIOUR. There's a distinction between people and their actions."

MikeAnon said (my emphasis):

"(...) it really offends me that when it comes to gay marriage the burden of "choice" is always placed on the people who have nothing wrong with them, whereas the people who do have something wrong with them are cast as having no "choice" at all.

I first saw two guys kiss when I was eight years old. It made me sick. It made me feel like I had witnessed something that simply should not ever happen. (...) Homosexuality ISN'T supposed to happen. So why should we teach our children, who can recognize this fact on sight, that THEY need to change their natural feelings, rather than advise homosexuals that THEY need to control their natural feelings so as not to offend the normal people around them?

I know this is not going to be a popular post, but it needs to be said, especially in light of what's happened in California today: Something that clearly ought not to exist -- that the world unquestionably would be better off without -- has been put, probably without remedy, on the same plane as that which clearly needs to exist for the continuation of the species. If this doesn't disturb you to your core, I honestly don't know why."


Close.

ja said...

Anonymous said: "What you refuse to acknowledge is that I have gone to great pains to make clear that I am not and never have advocated denying people their rights."

Again, I am saying that the degrading attitudes contribute to the actions of those who deny people their rights. It's all connected.

"But you are not the arbiter of what these rights are any more than I am."

Not me, but me and the millions of others who are speaking up, and the legislators and judges who clarify these rights are.

"I haven't seen anyone classifying gays as 'subhuman' anywhere on this page - only people not agreeing with their BEHAVIOUR."

The word 'subhuman' wasn't used specifically, but again, I'm talking about the hateful things that have been said, which amount to the same thing.

"There's a distinction between people and their actions."

By 'actions' you mean sex. Sex is irrelevant (except to you and the little dirty movies going on constantly in your head that gets you all worked up), and is not the point here. We're talking about people's attitudes that translate into the denial of people's rights.

"I'm talking about being made to feel that I'm somehow out of step with humanity, or am some unfeeling nazi, because I refuse to be bullied into regarding such behaviour as on a par with relationships between men and women."

You are out of step with the progression of society, to be sure. How you regard someone's sexuality doesn't matter.

"You were the first to cast aspersions on the sexuality of all those who don't hold your point of view, although you back-pedalled slightly when I pointed out how absurd your position was."

Never did I cast any aspersions on anyone's sexuality. Show me where I have, and not something that you've wildly interpreted. I never back-pedaled on anything. I've been very consistent.

"In some cases, the law of the land awards different rights to people on the basis of whether they're married or single, over or under the age of 21, etc."

False equivalency. Not what we were talking about.

"You can try and distort the facts as much as you want to, but your over-simplification of anyone who doesn't agree with gay culture as 'bad' and those who support it as 'good' reveals just how impoverished is the nature of your argument."

Never distorted anything. Always backed my points up with evidence and reasoning. I'll say again: I do not care what anyone's opinion on gay 'culture' is. I'm talking about attitudes and their consequences by people who are ignorant and hateful.

ja said...

Anonymous said: "Now, I would advise all gay men to go along to their nearest Indian restaurant and partake of a couple of extra-large dishes of triple-strength chicken vindaloo. Not only will this allow them to enjoy some good food in pleasant surroundings and to chill out a bit...it'll also teach them what their ass is for."

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PROVING MY POINT!

THAT is the attitude that I'm talking about. You have no cogent argument against allowing gays their civil rights, so you resort to the kind of hateful, insulting vitriol that so many bigoted people fall back upon.

Ridicule.

Your insults are bad enough, but it's worse when it's part of a chorus, and worse still when part of its own culture of intolerance, affecting people toward treating others badly because of their differences.

Good thing that crap is being whittled away as time goes on.

Forget the fact that you're going to find out one day that some relatives (close ones?) are gay, and there you'll be, ridiculing them, trying to ostracize them out of your family, as you seem to be trying to do with gays in general.

You are a great example of my previous KKK analogy. The poisonous words you spew is your white pointy robe.

Thanks again for proving my point.

=D

ja said...

Ole,

Nicely done!

Boy, I sure wish I had the ability to embolden some of what I type.

All I can do is EMPHASIZE IN ALL CAPS.

=D

Jeff Z said...

Anonymous will inevitably wind up in the same dustbin as those who threw things at black children as they attempted to enter schools in the South. He knows that, which is why he 's too cowardly to share his name.

ja said...

Jeff Z,

To be fair, the same could be said of me, as I wish not to show my name.

However, I believe that no matter who is anonymous, nor *how* anonymous one is (I have TWO letters in MY name!:]), one's words and ideas should be the thing that is judged.

I blather on about nonsense quite a bit at times, but I believe I've been damned well on point this last day and a half. I think my words and reasoning (along with yours, Ole's, czeskleba's, JayJay's, kgaard's, DonAnon's, Brian Foss's, and at least one Anonymous's) are wiser than, stronger than, and resonate much more than the narrow-minded hateful people who fling their disdain around.

Good ideals that serve people will always trump those that try to harm others.

Anonymous said...

Ole, saying that someone has something wrong with them in relation to their behaviour is an entirely different thing to calling them 'subhuman'. You have spectaculary failed to make your case, but have demonstrated how readily you are prepared to distort what people actually said.

MikeAnon did not refer to anyone as being subhuman, and you trying to impose that definition on his words is how YOU may see things, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the speaker.

You can go now, you have proved yourself unworthy of further discussion.

ja, let me address this use of what you clearly imagine are some kind of magic words with the power to invalidate any point you can't effectively deal with...'false equivalency'. You might as well yell 'abracadabra' into the air for all the good it will do you.

When you're trying to make your point, everything seems to be connected, but when you can't refute your opponent's view it becomes convenient for you attempt to dismiss it by resorting to the one size fits all phrase 'false equivalency'.

Dear me, you really haven't got a case, have you?

Ja said:

"Never did I cast any aspersions on anyone's sexuality. Show me where I have, and not something that you've wildly interpreted. I never back-pedaled on anything. I've been very consistent."

Okay ja, I'll show you. The following is from one of your comments:

'Jeff Z said: "The ones who protest the loudest are the ones who wind up dragged out of the closet"

SO TRUE.'

There it is in black and white fella. Live with it.

The back pedal? Here you go:

"Though it is true that some people who protest the loudest are closeted gays, it's by no means all, or even most."

So you go from "So true" in agreeing that the most vocal critics are all repressed homosexuals, to saying that not all of them are. You conceded my point, which makes that a 'back-pedal on your earlier stance.

ja said:

"Never distorted anything. Always backed my points up with evidence and reasoning."

Wrong. The only things you 'backed up' your points with were the 'false equivalents' of opinion and distortion.

You talk about ignorant and hateful people. I don't see anyone calling for gays to be locked up, beaten up, spit upon, or exterminated. But in your mind it's 'as good as' if someone doesn't think that homosexuals should have the 'right' to adopt, for example. Even some gays don't think that they should have the right to adopt, so hetros hardly have a monopoly on that stance.

Oh, and as for 'the dirty little movies going on in my head that gets (me) all worked up'...I think you'll find that's another example of you casting aspersions on someone's sexuality,,,something you claimed you never did. I've now shown you two examples of something you denied.

It's also an example of you projecting your own fantasies onto someone else, but we're wise to your little techniques to discredit your opponents by now. It's all you've got in the absence of any real argument.

Ole M. Olsen said...

Before anyone is tempted to categorise a group of people, try running your words through "the jew test": Exchange the name of the group you're writing about (e.g. gay people) with "jew(s)" (or e.g. "blacks") and see what it looks/sounds like.

Doesn't look too good? No, I didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

And mildly humorous ridicule hardly constitutes 'vitriol'. Yet another example of you overstating your impoverished case. That's all you've done from the start.

Ole M. Olsen said...

ja:

For italics, put the tag (minus the spaces) < I > before the relevant block of text and < /I > at the end. For bold text, use < B > and < /B >. :-)

Ole M. Olsen said...

Some Anonymous:

"Ole, saying that someone has something wrong with them in relation to their behaviour is an entirely different thing to calling them 'subhuman'."

What behaviour was discussed besides a kiss? (Kissing!? *GASP!* How dare they?!)

Ole M. Olsen said...

Bad Google translation, but you get the picture: Conviction of homphobia maintained in Strasbourg

Now, let's return to slamming Europeans. Freedom fries, anyone?

Anonymous said...

Ole, yet another distortion. Mike Anon was referring to homosexual behaviour. That's not confined to just kissing.

Having had the fallacies of your argument exposed, you now seek to distract attention from the fact by resorting to mockery.

That's fine. Just so long as YOU know that WE know why.

Anonymous said...

Couple things in response to Defiant

One of the really big issues with gay marriage is important legal rights - particularly end-of-life stuff. There have been many instances of a gay partner, who has spent his/her entire life with his/her partner, being utterly locked out of an end-of-life situation by the family. It is soul-shattering, and legal marriage is a remedy of this

As far as the propagation of the species - I think there are far too many people on this earth already, so I have no problem with curbing birth rates in this way (see Twain's The Lowest Animal for further thoughts)

Anonymous said...

In that scenario, other anonymous, there are ways to to address those issues. If two unmarried people have spent their lives together, they should have arranged to provide for one another in a legally recognised manner long before death claims one of them.

ja said...

Anonymous said: "Ole, saying that someone has something wrong with them in relation to their behaviour is an entirely different thing to calling them 'subhuman'."

You may claim that, but the experience of those who are denigrated by hateful people in various forms, denied rights, etc... doesn't make it true. Ole made his point very clearly.

"MikeAnon did not refer to anyone as being subhuman, and you trying to impose that definition on his words is how YOU may see things, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the speaker."

Ah, but the speaker's whole attitude - along with the words Ole highlighted - speak volumes, and clearly demonstrates what I've been talking about.

"You can go now, you have proved yourself unworthy of further discussion."

Only if things worked for you that way in real life. =D

"When you're trying to make your point, everything seems to be connected, but when you can't refute your opponent's view it becomes convenient for you attempt to dismiss it by resorting to the one size fits all phrase 'false equivalency'."

I use that term accurately to reflect how you were wrong. Someone not being able to drink until they're 21 isn't the same thing as denying gays their civil rights.

But denying marriage - an institution that has been abused & pissed upon by heterosexuals throughout time - to gays is part of denying them their civil rights, and that is what is changing in this country.

""Never did I cast any aspersions on anyone's sexuality. Show me where I have, and not something that you've wildly interpreted. I never back-pedaled on anything. I've been very consistent."

Okay ja, I'll show you. The following is from one of your comments:

'Jeff Z said: "The ones who protest the loudest are the ones who wind up dragged out of the closet"

SO TRUE.'"

It is true for a great deal of people. I never said it applied to everyone. You're the one falsely characterizing what I wrote. My clarifying this point wasn't a back-pedal at all.

"Wrong. The only things you 'backed up' your points with were the 'false equivalents' of opinion and distortion."

I don't believe I've distorted anything. I've observed how people have been ridiculed and made to feel as if they're subhuman for being gay. People sadly commit suicide because they feel they've been bullied into a corner, and they can't see any other way out. It is my observation that this bullying causes harm to people. This is real, not hyperbole.

Maybe you can't see that because you're too busy with ridiculing others for being what you hate.

"You talk about ignorant and hateful people. I don't see anyone calling for gays to be locked up, beaten up, spit upon, or exterminated."

I refer you to Ole's highlighted passages above, which I believe to be very accurately presented.

"But in your mind it's 'as good as' if someone doesn't think that homosexuals should have the 'right' to adopt, for example."

They absolutely should have the right to adopt. Responsible loving parents are responsible loving parents, no matter their sexuality.

"Even some gays don't think that they should have the right to adopt, so hetros hardly have a monopoly on that stance."

And I've met black people who believe that a black man should never be president, because they can't handle it. So what?

ja said...

Anonymous said: "Oh, and as for 'the dirty little movies going on in my head that gets (me) all worked up'...I think you'll find that's another example of you casting aspersions on someone's sexuality,,,something you claimed you never did. I've now shown you two examples of something you denied."

It wasn't an aspersion on your sexuality. I believe you're a straight man. It was an aspersion on your hateful obsession, as if when you talk about gays, it's incredibly easy for me to picture you not being able to get the image of guys having sex with each other out of your head. That's funny to me, because gays are not harming you or society one bit. Your own angry obsessions are.

"It's also an example of you projecting your own fantasies onto someone else, but we're wise to your little techniques to discredit your opponents by now. It's all you've got in the absence of any real argument."

Yes, my sneaky techniques of stating the truth with common-sense reasoning. Oh, I have been found out. My arguments are so real, that they are more and more backed up by millions of people in this country who are standing up to hateful ridiculing like you, which is affecting positive change.

As for my own fantasies... there you go again with your ridicule. It doesn't matter that I'm not what you suggest, but there you are, thinking that accusing me of being so somehow justifies you being a maliciously derisive person.

I heard someone saying this yesterday. Sums up things pretty well:

To be clear, here are the values I stand for: honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you want to be treated, and helping those in need.

We can do this all month. This is fun! Haters are my motivators. =D

ja said...

Anonymous said: "And mildly humorous ridicule hardly constitutes 'vitriol'. Yet another example of you overstating your impoverished case. That's all you've done from the start."

You may think it doesn't constitute vitriol, but it does. Again I refer you to the people who are bullied, denied their civil rights, and those who are so ridiculed that it drives them to suicide.

You know full well your statements aren't meant to be "mildly humorous". You obviously enjoy presenting your obfuscation of others' dignity and rights. You're proud of it.

You have great power with your hateful words, because so many people echo your sentiments. But like the Republican Party after George W. Bush, your power and influence is fading. People see you more and more for the cruel and indifferent voice that you actually have. Soon you will end up like those who denied civil rights to blacks, or The Vote to women.

Completely irrelevant.

This is why everyone needs to stand up to your kind of hostility and malevolence, until you end up in the dustbin of history, like Jeff Z suggested.

ja said...

Why, thank you, Ole! =)

Anonymous said...

Learn your facts first. What other "legally recognized manner" would that be? Name it explicitly - or you don't know what you're talking about

If they are not legally recognized as next of kin - then the family is. It is the perfect opportunity for an vindictive family to take advantage of the situation - and it is a scenario that has been played out a lot in this world. Cases where the family will not even allow them in the hospital room - won't even allow visitation. Imagine what that must be like - I know, you can't.

Wake up - talk FACTS - if you have any

ja said...

Jim,

Do you have any stories and pictures from your trip(s) to the Frankfurt Book Fair? I do like to read about your international travels.

Anonymous said...

Soon you will end up like those who denied civil rights to blacks, or The Vote to women.

***
ON our money and monuments?

Rob

Anonymous said...

As far as the propagation of the species - I think there are far too many people on this earth already, so I have no problem with curbing birth rates in this way
***
I always wonder why people who feel this way don't practice what they preach and do the samarai(sp) thing,

There's too many people. But not me. Im cool.

Rob

Anonymous said...

But like the Republican Party after George W. Bush, your power and influence is fading.
***
Except they won in the midterm elections and have the house. Even if they don't take the presidency, they are likely to control the senate as well after the election

and they control the majority of governors and the Supreme Court.

Rob

Anonymous said...

I know i will get jumped on again but this is why i come to this site less frequently,

Personally, i can get these political "insights" anywhere. Im here for Jim's insight and talk about comics.

it was cool for a few months. Other creators would even stop by

Now i can barely find his posts, much less others who are comic pros. and its harder and harder to find the comics discission in the midst of this gay rights/not gay rights crap.

The blog has become less fun because the guests overran it in a rude way. IMo.

Rob

Jeff Z said...

The most unpopular Congress in history is going to take over the Senate as well now? Go back to your tea party, silly,,,

Jeff Z said...

Wall st journal(owned by Murdoch) poll: 56% want to dump the entire 535 member Congress. Approval rating:11-13%. I don't think a Republican takeover is going to happen this year:)

Jacob said...

Jim and a commenter discussed the difference between being naive and innocent.

Well, here's my personal bit of naivete - I used to think people who immersed themselves in superhero stories since a young age might have picked up at least SOME of the worthwhile and salutary values of those stories: values like personal integrity, courage, diversity, teamwork, and above all a deep reverence for reason.

Instead I see grown men waving around their deep personal cowardice about where penises go, their cringing fear about being hit on by a dude (OH NO! HOW HORRIBLE!) and hiding behind illogic and appeals to tradition.

It's embarrassing. It's shameful. Some people didn't learn a damn thing from their comics.

Anonymous said...

Well, he's probably correct. The Republicans are favorites (not locks, but favorites) to gain control of the Senate, see Nate Silver's piece here. (Note that the post is from last December, so the math may have changed some, but probably not significantly.)

On the other hand, writing three posts responding to a conversation then another one complaining about the existence of the conversation seems rather like wanting to eat one's cake and have it, too.

--kgaard

Jeff Z said...

Just checked- Congressional approval down to 10% as of today (Gallup poll). Yeah- America really wants that kind of idiocy in the Senate as well... Cantor will be lucky to keep his job come November.

Jeff Z said...

If one wants to see how the 10% think, look no further than Anony-mouse... He's the one with Santorum oozing from his lips...

Anonymous said...

Jeff Z,

Keep in mind that while this is historically the most unpopular Congress, Congress always polls poorly. This is because people are being asked to rate all of Congress, which includes a few people they voted for, and hundreds of people they didn't, which results in a lot of "I can't believe the idiots in State I Don't Live In voted for Jerk I Can't Stand!" People generally tend to like their representatives (if they voted for them, and by definition that means a lot of people like them). As I noted above, the math favors the GOP in the Senate this year, although it's still possible for the Democrats to retain their advantage.

--kgaard

Jeff Z said...

Voters overturned Congress in 2006 and 2010 when approval numbers were higher than they are now. I expect the tea partiers will be sent packing with the exception of the really backwards districts- you know , the ones where they're still resentful of civil rights legislation.

Anonymous said...

People that follow politics like to watch the same TV show over and over and over again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF0TTUXHEl4

Anonymous said...

Don't know if everyone heard - but marvel won a $17,000 law suit today against former Ghost Rider writer Gary Friedrich, for selling Ghost Rider t-shirts at conventions.

Anonymous said...

Congressional/Senate approval isn't end all and be all though. Iut's not a national vote.

Because people "hate" congress

But when you poll them about their individual congressman/Senator, they are much more likely to say "oh no, him I like, it's the other ones who are bums."

Throw in redistricting for the house, and incumbency advantage and it is harder for an incumbent to lose.

Then there are several retirements that hurt the democrats more than the republicans.

So national approval ratings for congress dont really matter. I dont get to vote on Nevada's senator even if they suck. I only get to vote for mine. I dont get to vote for your congressman, only mine. and my gu, just like everyone's guy, makes sure they are as popular as possible in their district. Not to mention allthe senators are not even up.

Having said all that, Im not sure why Im being called a tea partier for presenting the prevailing wisdom right now. You are a little rude.

"A total of 33 seats will be up for grabs in the 2012 election, 23 of which are held by Democrats. Republicans will have open opportunities in six of those 23 states where the Democratic incumbent is retiring. Only two Republicans are retiring, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona, although the GOP will likely hold on to those traditionally red-state seats."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-control-senate-top-races-watch/story?id=14374992


Clearly, at the very least, it's more complicated than you make it which is "congress unpopular so they lose". In 2010, it wasnt congress unpopularity, it the was the president's that caused the flip.

Rob

anyway, i would like to get back to comics stuff.

Anonymous said...

Jacob, I would say it takes more courage and persnal integrity for someone to publicaly argue (or at least on this message board) the anti gay marriage position. dont you think, since it's in the minority here and the person is being piled on? How is it courageous to spout what everyone else here is? Not that I agree with him, but it's hardly cowardly, or shows a lack of integrity.

You speak of diversity (comics being one of the least diverse mediums in terms of race, sexuality lol but ok), but have no respect for diverse viewpoints. The diversity of ideas.

Getting along despite our differences. Respect ofr other people's opinions that are heartfelt. Even if i disagree.

I learned that from superhero comis too. Did you?

Something to think about.

Rob

Anonymous said...

Rob, there's a meaningful difference between a person's right to have an opinion and the content of that opinion. Some opinions are ethically dubious or grounded in an uncertain grasp of facts or reality or just plain dumb. I can respect someone's right to think that black people are shiftless or Jews are avaricious and still have contempt for the content of the opinion.

When you have a situation that's a zero-sum game, such as: gays will able to marry, or gays will not be able to marry, it's not very useful to say, well, let's just respect each other's opinion on this one. If I want to allow gay marriage and MikeAnon doesn't, in practical terms, one of us is going to get what we want and one of us isn't, opinions be damned.

--kgaard

Jacob said...

Rob, "diversity" means that people of different backgrounds can work together for a common goal, not shrugging and going along with the guy who thinks people are subhuman because of the color of their skin or the preferred destination of their genitals. "Tolerance" means overlooking ultimately unimportant differences, not making excuses for the moral corrosion of others.

It's time to quit making excuses, Rob. The time for courage is now. Will you seize it?

ja said...

Rob,

For someone who criticizes everyone for their non-comics posts, you sure have jumped in to join the party. Welcome! =)

It takes "more courage and personal integrity for someone to publicly argue the anti gay marriage position"? Considering what precisely these people were saying, "courage" and "integrity" wouldn't be the words to describe them.

Cowardly. Hateful and ridiculing. Generally denigrating people who are not like them, while stating that they shouldn't exist. But you know this, having read the thread, I'm sure.

The "diversity of ideas" is just a technicality, but really doesn't apply here in a positive way. Not when people outright ridicule someone for their sexuality, and suggest that certain people (even though they'll say they were only talking about 'the act' and not the person) shouldn't exist because of their sexuality, and talk in denigrating ways about denying equal rights to people they don't like only because of their sexuality.

It was more than several people spewing these anti-not-their-kind-of-sexuality viewpoints, not just one. There wasn't any kind of a 'pile on'. It was a vigorous back and forth.

Their arbitrary views certainly were heartfelt, though. So, please respect them if you wish. But to do so, you'd be taking the side of people who want to oppress others' equal rights. That's not a good thing.

I learned that from superhero comics too. Did you?

Something to think about.

Anonymous said...

"YOU, SIT DOWN"

"YOU, GO OVER THERE"

If only were were in a restaurant :)

Jeff Z said...

Is this gonna be another Indian restaurant "joke"?

kgaard said...

"YOU, SIT DOWN"

"YOU, GO OVER THERE"

If only were were in a restaurant :)


Ha, well played.

Anonymous said...

ja, never have I seen such a self-righteous tyrant try to bully people who do not share his views, or distort to such an extent what people are saying in order to attack a figment of his imagination.

Anyone who has a different opinion to you is full of evil, ignorance, malevolence, hatred, malice, vitriol, hostility, and a whole host of other nasty traits. You on the other hand are the very model of kindness, common-sense, reason, honesty, compassion, and obviously view yourself as the male equivalent of Mother Teresa.

Talk about deluded.

The gay agenda is not an issue for me. I have no real interest in it and it has no actual relevance to me. I am probably indifferent to it in the main, except when they get militant and try and bully society into their way of thinking.

So, all your projected fantasies of me running dirty movies of what they get up to in my head is total nonsense because I never give a second thought to what people do to one another in their own homes in private. However, that doesn't fit in with the image you've tried to create of so-called homophobic boogie-men who are intent of robbing a certain class of people of their 'rights'.

Let's talk about rights. Two parents were killed in a car crash and one set of grandparents looked after the two children who had been left behind. Until, that is, a gay couple (not related to the children in any way) wanted to adopt them...so the court took the kids away from their grandparents and awarded custody to the gay couple.

What happened to the children's rights in that situation? What happened to the grandparents rights?

That's a true story by the way. In nothing more than a shameless act of social manipulation, two kids were taken from their loving grandparents and given to two gay men merely to curry favour with the gay lobby and win a few votes for someone.

I merely joined this conversation to point out that for anyone to be insulted or attacked for not subscribing to the gay cause was just as bad (in principle if not degree) as people being insulted or attacked for being gay. In other words, neither was justified. A very moderate view I'd humbly suggest. But no. According to you. anyone of that opinion is akin to the Anti-Christ.

What utter garbage. Hang around. I'll be back to address your other deluded, self-righteous rantings after I grab a quick coffee and a stogie.

Anony-Mouse said...

And to add to the horror, it was the gay couple who killed the real parents!! Damn those homoz

Jacob said...

"What happened to the children's rights in that situation? What happened to the grandparents rights?"

It's amusing that the reflexive assumption is that the children weren't being taken into account, because GAYS. What a perfect example of weak, cringing bigotry. What a masterpiece painting in the medium of pure human failure.

Amousey-non said...

It's obvious the kids were needed as ornaments in a PRIDE parade float which is certainly more important than any old geezers!

Marcus Bachmann said...

Gayths make me thick!

Anonymous said...

Let me address this before I continue: Another anon said:

"Learn your facts first. What other "legally recognized manner" would that be? Name it explicitly - or you don't know what you're talking about"

Make a will, or have everything in joint names. Simple as that. If two people love one another like you say, then surely they'd sort that out before it ever became an issue. Why award them the same status as married couples simply so that they can benefit financially? Men and women get married, not men and men or women and women. Simple as that...live with it.

Right, back to ja's nonsense.

All your so-called reasoning is based on presumption and arrogance. MikeAnon said nothing about homosexuals being subhuman as I have already pointed out. You have merely transposed your own biased interpretation onto his words the better to villify him."

Ah, but the speaker's whole attitude - along with the words Ole highlighted - speak volumes, and clearly demonstrates what I've been talking about."

It's only clear to you because you want to see it that way. If I say I want to eradicate all disease and illness from the face of the planet, that does not mean that I want to eradicate all those currently suffering from illness and disease from the face of the planet. There's a difference, and anyone who was truly reasonable would see that. (And that is only an example and not necessarily intended to suggest that homosexuality is an illness or disease, although I'm sure you'll try and project that meaning onto it.)

"I use that term accurately to reflect how you were wrong. Someone not being able to drink until they're 21 isn't the same thing as denying gays their civil rights."

When you distort the intent of my words and say it like that, it sounds as if you have a point...but only because you missed or ignored mine. I was demonstrating that not all groups of people have the same rights at the same time. They're dependent on different factors: age, status, location, country of origin, etc. Just because one group of people of one particular status do not have the same rights as another does not make that situation wrong per se. Most rights are arbitrary to some degree or other anyway. Not all hetrosexual people are automatically entitled to adopt, so why should gay people be? Just because straight people are? The child's rights should come first, and that being the case, every child should be entitled (circumstances permitting) to be raised by a father AND mother, even if it's only adoptive ones.


"It is true for a great deal of people. I never said it applied to everyone. You're the one falsely characterizing what I wrote. My clarifying this point wasn't a back-pedal at all."

Jeff Z said "the ones who protest the loudest..." He did not qualify it by saying "Some of the ones...",so he obviously meant all. You said "SO TRUE.", thereby agreeing with his assessment. Your later 'clarification' was a back-pedal.

I said:

"You talk about ignorant and hateful people. I don't see anyone calling for gays to be locked up, beaten up, spit upon, or exterminated."

You replied:

"I refer you to Ole's highlighted passages above, which I believe to be very accurately presented."

In other words you preferred to ignore what I clearly said, and attach someone else's projected meaning onto my words. That's what's known as erecting a straw man. Not clever, not reasonable, not worthy. You can't deal with what people actually say, so you have to make it mean something else to give you an excuse to attack it.

Anonymous said...

I said:

"Even some gays don't think that they should have the right to adopt, so hetros hardly have a monopoly on that stance."

You replied:

"And I've met black people who believe that a black man should never be president, because they can't handle it. So what?"

So what? They're entitled to their opinion, right or wrong...and to express that opinion without you being dismissive about it. And anyway, that is a 'false equivalency' for the following reason. These guys (if they exist and are not just an expedient invention of yours) are not claiming that blacks should not be allowed to be president...only that they should not want to be president. There's a difference.

The dissent between gays on the adoption issue is not based on the same premise as the blacks/presidency one.

Finally (because a man can only deal with so much deluded nonsense in one night):

"Yes, my sneaky techniques of stating the truth with common-sense reasoning. Oh, I have been found out. My arguments are so real, that they are more and more backed up by millions of people in this country who are standing up to hateful ridiculing like you, which is affecting positive change."

You haven't displayed one iota of common-sense reasoning or real argument in anything you've written. All you've done is project your own distorted interpretations onto the words of others and then argued against your own ignorance.

It's extremely revealing that the only person to so far identify himself as gay did not even want to read the discussion and has not contributed to it. It clearly isn't the issue to him that it is to you. How do you explain your unhealthy obsession with the subject? (Apart from trying to portray tourself as some kind of saint I mean.)

Anonymous said...

Jacob, as you don't actually know the facts of the case, your views carry even less weight than you imply mine do. Unless you know for a fact I'm wrong, that is.

If ja is going to argue that gays should have the same right that hetros do, then the grandparents should have been allowed to bring up the children they were related to. As actual relatives, shouldn't they have that right?

Anonymous said...

For tourself read yourself.

Dickie Santorum said...

If we let gays get married , they 'll steal our grandchildren!

Jacob said...

"If ja is going to argue that gays should have the same right that hetros do, then the grandparents should have been allowed to bring up the children they were related to. As actual relatives, shouldn't they have that right?"

Not if the court deems them unable! If they're in a precarious financial situation, or ill, or for one of a million other reasons for which courts - who are, after all, charged with the well-being of the children in their charge, not the sensitive feelings of grown-ups - deny custody to relatives every day across the country. It really amazes me that I have to explain this to you.

kgaard said...

Let's talk about rights. Two parents were killed in a car crash and one set of grandparents looked after the two children who had been left behind. Until, that is, a gay couple (not related to the children in any way) wanted to adopt them...so the court took the kids away from their grandparents and awarded custody to the gay couple.

What happened to the children's rights in that situation? What happened to the grandparents rights?

That's a true story by the way.


Link, please!

It's extremely revealing that the only person to so far identify himself as gay did not even want to read the discussion and has not contributed to it. It clearly isn't the issue to him that it is to you.

Uh, he said, quite clearly, that he didn't want to discuss it here, not that it wasn't an issue for him. Maybe it isn't, but you don't know that. And even if it isn't, one gay person doesn't speak for all of them, they're not fungible, you know.

H Omo Phobe said...

I knew someone who wanted to book their wedding reception at this really classy venue- but the date was already booked by (get THIS) a GAY couple! I'm not going to stand for this!!!

Anonymous said...

This is the story I was referring to. I got the details of the parents' deaths confused with a similar one.

Child Taken From Grandparents for Gay Adoption

The latest evidence I submit to you, dear reader, that the world is upside down is this topsy turvy tale from jolly ol' England.

Two grandparents just had their grandchildren whom they adored ripped away from them so the state could give the child to a homosexual couple to adopt. You see, we must remember that the highest good here is not the child's welfare but making a politically correct social point.

Says the Daily Mail:

Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents.

The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition.

The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old - at 46 and 59.

For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict.

They agreed to an adoption only after they faced being financially crippled by legal bills.

The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them.

When the grandfather protested, he was told: 'You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.'

The man said last night: 'It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.'

Social workers themselves have admitted that the little girl is 'more wary' of men than women.

One of the things that jumps out at me in this tale is that even though the grandfather is having his grandchildren torn away from him he still feels the need to assure everyone he's not prejudiced against gays. Dude, you've got a right to be pretty damn outraged. Two children are being taken away from you so some jerk with a social welfare degree can pronounce himself a hero for standing up for alternative lifestyles.

In a sane world, a movie would be made of this from the poor grandparent's perspective. In this mad mad mad world, a movie will be made about the young social worker standing up to the system. It'll probably get some awards.

Anonymous said...

Jacob, you are just as unaware of the details of why the courts decided in the gay couple's favour over the grandparents as I am. Therefore, as I have already pointed out, your opinion carries no more validity than you imply mine does.

I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. I'm even more surprised I have to repeat myself.

Anonymous said...

"So do you also believe that it should not be legal for sterile individuals or post-menopausal women to get married, since they are not able to procreate? What about couples who simply choose not to have children... should they be allowed to marry?"

[MikeAnon:] No, but considering that procreation is the general reason why governments condone marriage and grant benefits and privileges to married couples, government would have a rational basis for withdrawing such persons from eligibility to marry. That government doesn't choose to go so far into a person's fertility or state of mind is government's choice. However, it is easy enough for a judge to note that two men or two women, rather than a man and a woman, are standing before him/her asking for permission to marry, realize, "No babies coming from that!" and deny permission on those grounds.

With regard to the whole "subhuman" business: Saying that someone has something wrong with him/her does not in any way mean that person is subhuman. I have extreme nearsightedness. Does that make me subhuman? Or does it just mean that there's something wrong with my eyes? Do you have to convince yourself that there's nothing wrong with my eyes before you can accept my basic humanity? If so, then either everyone has 20/20 vision to you, or the world is replete with subhumans.

Moreover, nearsightedness is a condition that should never happen, and that the world would be better off without. If tomorrow everyone who was nearsighted were to wake up with 20/20 vision, the world would never miss nearsightedness -- indeed, the whole world, myself included, would rejoice to see it pass into history. (Okay, the opticians would be upset at first, but they'd get over it.)

All I'm saying is that homosexuality is like nearsightedness: it is a disorder in need of a cure, not a variation on the norm deserving of glory and "pride" -- (When was the last time you saw a nearsightedness pride parade? All those people bumping into things....) -- and certainly not worthy of the affirmation given it through marriage, seeing how it lacks the fecundity of heterosexuality that brought marriage into existence in the first place. Marriage, after, all, is an affirmation of two natural realities that human beings did not create but merely recognized about themselves: man normatively exists as two distinct and complementary groups (males and females), and only the union of a member from each group can produce new human beings. Extending marriage to same-sex couples, then, robs marriage of all its underlying natural truth and turns all marriages into nothing more than government-invented civil unions. And, yes, when you rob marriage of all its natural meaning, you DO cause harm to the marriages of everyone else who, up to that point, understood their marriage to be something special and worthy of recognition due to its underlying natural realities. Granted, easy divorce and the social legitimization of extramarital sex have gone a long way toward demeaning marriage and reducing its importance in people's lives, but it's taken gay marriage to change the very institution itself into a meaningless abstraction having no natural underpinnings. I wonder how many people even recognize what has been lost with this turn of events, since it seems so many people consider marriage to be only a meaningless abstraction -- only a "piece of paper" -- anyway, so for them, with their already-reduced view of marriage, I suppose nothing has changed. [--MikeAnon]

Jeff Z said...

The very best thing about gay marriage is the people it upsets.

Anonymous said...

kgaard, neither did he say that it WAS an issue for him. Maybe it is, but you don't know that either. However, even if it is, it's not enough of one for him to want to contribute when he has the perfect opportunity to state his case.

Anonymous said...

Jeff Z, not got a real argument then, huh?

Anonymous said...

Jeff Z

Great quote

Jacob said...

Okay, so that quote comes from a 'Christian' website that is in turn quoting an article from the Daily Mail. For those of you who don't know, the Mail - often called the Daily Fail by UK residents - is a tabloid magazine currently under investigation by the UK's *conservative* government for lawbreaking and that is routinely sued for libel.

For contrast, please observe that the London Times - an internationally-respected conservative paper - did not report on this story. Nor did fellow tabloid The Sun.

A quick googling also reveals that the Mail has been implicated in several "gay panic" stories.

Jacob said...

MikeAnon, what you know about the purpose of marriage could fit into a thimble. Legal marriages exist for bookkeeping and property reasons (wills, probate, etc.) - not to foster procreation.

Stop making excuses for your weakness. Stop making excuses for your cowardice. It's the 21st century; it's time to leave behind childish fears and enter the world of grownups.

Anonymous said...

For some reason I keep thinking of that scene from The Simpsons, where Flanders is trying to get Homer to go on the 5K walk for the cure with him

Flanders: "Yeah. The cure for homosexuality!"

kgaard said...

kgaard, neither did he say that it WAS an issue for him. Maybe it is, but you don't know that either. However, even if it is, it's not enough of one for him to want to contribute when he has the perfect opportunity to state his case.

Yeah, (a) you were the one making claims about his thinking ("It clearly isn't the issue to him that it is to you."), and (b) I clearly acknowledged that I don't know either, so you repeating what I wrote as if I didn't know it is weird, and you should take this opportunity to stop digging.

Anonymous said...

Actually the Sun and Daily Mail are sister publications and quite a few English newspapers are routinely sued for libel. The Sun has often reported on the issue of gay adoption, but few U.K. residents regard it as a quality newspaper. Also, some employees of the publishers of the Daily Mail are being investigated in relation to how they obtained their stories, not in regard to the accuracy of them. Well done that man. (Jacob.) When you don't like the facts, cast doubt on those who report them. What was that you said about entering the world of grown ups?

Bill Beattie.

Anonymous said...

kgaard, I was the one making claims about his thinking based on his actions. (Or lack of them.) Cause and effect. It's a recognized scientific principle...maybe you've heard of it? And me repeating what you wrote was irony. Maybe you've heard of that as well?

Anonymous said...

Gillian Bowditch of the Times did comment on the story actually, but from a wider perspective and less of an interest in the gay context.

Bill Beattie.

Defiant1 said...

I didn't create the legal perks for married couples under the law. I don't really care what a gay couple is missing out on. I'm not eligible for societal perks because I'm single. Why would I feel sad for a gay couple whining for special considerations I don't get?

If gay people are considered "married", why not brother and sister? It's not really a matter whether a line is drawn, it more a matter of where it is drawn. Since the laws were written with the union of a man and a woman, I think it's a little deceptive to try and circumvent the intent of the law by redefining the scope. I'd rather see the laws rewritten from scratch. Get rid of all the perks for being in a relationship and see who cares or clamors for the social status after that.

Anonymous said...

Why is some asshole pontificating about gay marriage on a comic book blog? Moreover, why is the same asshole stating that there is something wrong with someone just because they prefer a partner of the same sex on a comic book blog?

Finally, why are right wing bullies such assholes that they can't even let it go when on a comic book blog?

What the h?

-Northstar

Anonymous said...

Holy butt plugs! I have no idea Northstar.

Robin

Anonymous said...

"Men and women get married, not men and men or women and women. Simple as that...live with it."

Umm, you're wrong. Men and men and women and women get married too. Gay marriage is legal in several states. Wake up.

As for your "make out a will" and (laughable) own everything jointly argument, that is the crux of the issue: why should homosexuals have to do things differently than other couples?

Also, Brent E, when you start quoting Andrew Dice Clay, you have lost the argument. Andrew Dice Clay . . . hilarious. Let's quote a washed up guy who's act was one bigoted joke after the other.

Anonymous said...

Jacob, good point.

Really, you'd think some of these folks could come up with an argument that isn't straight out of faux news.

Can anyone give me a real reason why it matters if a few gay folks want to get married?

Seriously, is this such a big deal that a comic book blog has to turn into a gay marriage argument? Who gives a shit if two people of the same sex are in love and want to be married so they can obtain the same legal rights as everyone else?

How does this hurt anyone else?

All it really means is that I will definitely be the last one of my friends to get married. ;-)

I guess the one good thing is several regular commentators have been exposed as close minded bigots.

JayJay, I LOVE you.

-Carol Danvers

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, one last thing, fuck you Karl Rove.

ja said...

"ja, never have I seen such a self-righteous tyrant try to bully people who do not share his views, or distort to such an extent what people are saying in order to attack a figment of his imagination."

I'm speaking up for a righteous cause. I've only clashed with those who choose - CHOOSE - to be ridiculing, insulting, and who suggest those people who are gay should not exist. I don't care that you don't share my views, but I always speak up against the attitudes and efforts to subjugate a class of people that does you no harm whatsoever.

I haven't distorted anything. It's sad that you can't see how your attitudes are harmful, but they are.

I'm not concerned with opinions. Only actions like yours, which you demonstrate to be hateful and harmful to others by the way you insult and mischaracterize. There is a clear difference between me speaking truth to bigots, versus you speaking discrimination and suppression of people's civil rights.

"The gay agenda is not an issue for me... I am probably indifferent to it in the main, except when they get militant and try and bully society into their way of thinking."

Sure you have an issue with this. Otherwise you wouldn't be fighting so hard to express your hatred for gays, and your desire to make them third-class citizens with no equal rights. You're being dishonest when you characterize people advocating for the rights of those who are currently denied theirs as being militant.

Bullies and oppressors don't like when people stand up to them, and your reaction to all this is a good example of that.

"... However, that doesn't fit in with the image you've tried to create of so-called homophobic boogie-men who are intent of robbing a certain class of people of their 'rights'."

They're not boogie-men. They're real. I'm conversing with you right now! Your characterization and protest of it being harmful that gays get married, or being able to adopt is just plain facile. But you are part of an age-old aristocratic barrier that over time, denied people their rights. Over time, that barrier has eroded, allowing for women and blacks to vote, segregation to be mostly dismantled, and one day it will allow for gays to be equal.

Even if you're not prejudiced against women, blacks, or interracial marriage, you must understand that it's the same kind of undeserved bigotry and oppression against gays, about the last group of people that conservatives and bigots feel okay to openly and loudly discriminate against. Different focus, same kind of prejudice and hatred.

The only gay cause I have talked about is the one that leads to equal rights. Along the way toward this goal, there are countless people who will do anything to deny those rights. More to the point, these people will lie about gays being a danger, about how society will crumble if there is gay marriage, they will further the myth that gays are bad for raising children.

Anything to paint the picture that gay rights are dangerous, even though more and more, people are waking up to the fact that the true toxicity is the mass effort by small-minded hateful people that vilify a class of people that don't do harm to the world, but actually have always added great value to it.

Anonymous said...

Ja, did you check your comment against the unfailing wisdom of the Diceman?

Surely all bigotry and hatred can be excused by reference to the unquestioned philosophy and unbridled genius of Dice.

-Andrew Dice Clay "The Diceman"

ja said...

"If ja is going to argue that gays should have the same right that hetros do, then the grandparents should have been allowed to bring up the children they were related to. As actual relatives, shouldn't they have that right?"

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[MikeAnon] said: "With regard to the whole "subhuman" business: Saying that someone has something wrong with him/her does not in any way mean that person is subhuman."

Not on the surface. But the extent to which so many people go to rationalize these viewpoints - even to go so far as to wish people not to exist at all, which you did earlier in this thread - absolutely is the same as saying that gays are subhuman.

Interesting that you advocated that, but now you don't own up to it.

History has shown that these kinds of attitudes die on the vine when a huge spotlight reveals how diseased those attitudes are. You're a good example of that.

Anonymous said: "Ja, did you check your comment against the unfailing wisdom of the Diceman?

Surely all bigotry and hatred can be excused by reference to the unquestioned philosophy and unbridled genius of Dice.

-Andrew Dice Clay "The Diceman"


Yeah, and look what happened to his career. LOL!

Anonymous said...

Jayjay said "Children need to be taught right and wrong. And intolerance is wrong. "

Umm sure. As long as we agree as to what it is we're tolerating.

Jeff Z said...

Santorum's wife slept with the doctor who delivered her and he's worried about other people's sex lives?? A huge % of idiots against gay marriage were likely also convinced of WMDs in Iraq. Wrong about so many things...

Anonymous said...

"Why is some asshole pontificating about gay marriage on a comic book blog? Moreover, why is the same asshole stating that there is something wrong with someone just because they prefer a partner of the same sex on a comic book blog?

Finally, why are right wing bullies such assholes that they can't even let it go when on a comic book blog?

What the h?"

-Northstar

Seems to me there's more than one asshole doing it. And why is another asshole pontificating on some assholes pontificating about gay marriage on a comic book blog? And why can't that asshole even let it go when on a comic book blog?

Anonymous said...

"As for your "make out a will" and (laughable) own everything jointly argument, that is the crux of the issue: why should homosexuals have to do things differently than other couples?"

Well, they have sex differently from other couples for a start.

Same anonymous as above(not really) said...

While I, personally, have never had sex

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 336   Newer› Newest»