The Four Color Media Monitor

The Post-Journal of Jamestown, NY, has written about the controversy surrounding David Goyer's short story in Action Comics 900 too, but the results are pretty mixed:

Superman recently proclaimed that he is renouncing his U.S. citizenship. The comic character admitted in the historic Action Comics #900 that he is disenchanted by "Truth, justice and the American way." In one sense, it is understandable. The political body representing Americans hasn't been much interested in truth, goodness, or justice for a while. He (the embodiment of his creators) is disgusted with being an instrument of American policy which he thinks is evil, and he understandably chooses to withdraw. Another choice he could have made is to fight the crooks in Washington and the state capitals to reverse their abuses and return truth and justice to its rightful place. That could have served to highlight the dangerous path that America is on. He could have helped make the American way virtuous again by fighting to restore the central role of the rights to life, liberty and property, rights conspicuously absent or flaccid in most countries throughout the world, rights which made America different, the country of which he used to be proud.

Worst of all, his announcement includes a tacit belief in the moral superiority of the United Nations: "I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my US citizenship." The U. N. is the corrupt, socialistic parasite on the world population that the U.S. government is becoming to its own citizens. It is the blueprint for the very characteristics which Superman disdains about American policy makers. Thus, he is either ill-informed or he is dishonest (or rather, his creators at DC Comics are.)

First, that should be the scriptwriters in charge of his books. "Creators" is a tricky word, and should really just describe the 2 guys who came up with the Man of Steel back in 1938, Siegel and Shuster. Second, if there's anything about the above that hits bullseye, it's the acknowledgement of the UN's own corruption, and that includes allowing tyrannical regimes ruled even remotely by Islamofascism to maintain a membership in their assembly so long as they continue with their autocratic, barbaric methods, not to mention their continued indoctrination of anti-western sentiment in their educational curriculum.

That Superman has tired of being an instrument of government policy is a good thing. Instead of quitting the American people, however, he should have turned his attention to helping them in their struggle against the politicians who are stealing from the people and bankrupting the country. Someone needs get rid of the crooks and rein in the empire.

More specifically, the writers could have done this, for heaven's sake, but it's their unwillingness to confront their own liberal ideologies that prevents them from coming up with a story to that effect. Otherwise, we could probably have had a decent fictionalized story alluding to how Obama's healthcare mishmash is hurting the country.

And the article turns awkward with the following:

Though Americans should, it seems, quit their support of Superman, his quitting of the American way is actually a positive thing. Dependence of functioning adults on anyone is not healthy or positive, whether it is on superheroes or superpoliticians. Americans became a great people by being free, by being individuals, and by being responsible for themselves, rather than bellyaching that someone isn't fulfilling their every whim.

But independence, responsibility and self-reliance is the American way! Those are beliefs that many made an effort to develop over the past centuries until a lot of these ideas came to bear fruit. By using the kind of wording they do, they're undermining their own argument.

People immigrate to the United States because they see it as the land of opportunity. There was and still is opportunity for those who find a way to fill the needs and wants of others through voluntary exchange, but the politicians and bureaucrats all over this land make it ever more difficult to engage in that voluntary commerce between consenting, free people. Thus, they continually erode the very foundation of America's greatness and goodness, the American way. They are giving incentives to dependency rather than independence.

Immigration is a good thing if the new residents are productive and don't come here to live the easy life on someone else's dime. There is no place for people who take without giving something in return, whether they are descendants of the pilgrims or have arrived on American shores yesterday. America has, for quite some time, become infested with complainers, crying for some savior personality to coddle them and provide all of the things which they should be providing for themselves and their families. We are paying the price of this dependency with a stifling burden of taxes and regulations in place of the freedom to prosper and excel.

Superman, if you cannot stand up in manly character to defend what is great about the American way against the onslaughts of policy-makers, then we don't need you. The superhero mentality is why we are where we are today. We don't need superheroes. We need real, every-day people to be committed to virtue, to what is right, and to what is true and honest, in other words, the "American way". Dishonesty and dishonor are eroding that way. We all need to be our own superheroes, in our work, in our families, in our communities, and all throughout our lives. Superheroes don't whine. They don't give up. They say what they do and they do what they say. They try harder when they are down. They resist evil and tyranny. They inspire other people to be better and stronger. They do what is right, not what is expedient.

Americans, let go of Superman. We don't need him. Are you ready to be your own superheroes?

I don't think this is the way to bring about the argument. It's not Superman's fault but writers, as I've argued a gazillion times, who've brought the situation to where it is now, and the writer of this piece shouldn't be addressing the Man of Steel, but David Goyer and Dan DiDio, among others at DC who greenlighted it (and actually did earlier, but contradicts it with his later address to Superman). And they're the ones promoting and advocating this kind of mentality in their very medium.

What the writer should be saying, if anything, is that if DC - and Marvel - insist on continuing down this dismal path they've taken for many years now, then Americans shouldn't pay their hard earned money for a busload of useless books and spend it elsewhere. Better still, maybe they could suggest, as I myself have, buying out their book publishing arms and reshaping them into something more effective than they ever have been under Time Warner and more recently Disney.

In the end, the article is a very mixed bag. On the one hand, it does recognize that the UN's a corrupt outfit. On the other hand, it spends too much time alluding to Superman more than it does to confronting the writers who penned the story, and the editors who allowed it.

Labels: dc comics, politics, Superman