A leftist who knew what Identity Crisis was a metaphor for
I found an old blog post by a guy who used to work for Newsarama, who, while he was tragically favorable to DC's abomination from 2004, recognized what it was meant to serve as an allegory for, and explains perfectly why some of the most irrational on the left would favor it:
The reference to surveillance shows that the vile little miniseries was clearly a subtle attack on doing what's needed to keep track of potential terrorists who could be plotting violence against innocent civilians, hinting that the story was an attack on the importance of security steps even before the AP Wire began doing it at least a year ago.
And the writer's claim that info from methods like waterboarding isn't reliable has since been nullified by the news of the info that led to the punishment of bin Laden (Hat tip: Patterico's Pontifications). So just who is he to judge and tell us the steps aren't reliable?
And quite a few of those terrorists locked up in Gitmo were POWs captured in foreign countries, so they'd be subject to military law, and not regular. If they were allowed to be tried on mainland, they'd be awarded rights they don't deserve, and here's a good argument against letting savages be given trial on US soil.
In the end, what's clear is that Identity Crisis, besides relying on an extremely offensive, callous attitude towards women, was also a propaganda vehicle for the kind of beliefs 9-11 Trutherists hold dear, trivializing women's rights all for the sake of siding with a villain who, as out-of-character as he was depicted, still committed an offensive crime against a defenseless woman (Sue Dibny), and all the superheroes like the Flash (Wally West) are worried about is how the previous generation altered Dr. Light's mind? What I find bizarre is that they wouldn't even go public about Light's crime, one of the most stupefyingly awful thing about the whole story.
This stuff has been knocking me out. It’s not all hero vs. villain stuff, or at least not all black and white. It raises all sorts of questions: Is safety worth constant surveillance? How far should a hero go to protect others? What happens when you cross a moral or ethical line in order to protect someone? Will you cross it again? Is the line permanently redrawn? And if we draw that line too timidly, and fail to act with enough force, are we culpable for any deaths that stronger action could have presented? Can we trust the people who protect us? Should we?Would that belief against torture happen to include jihadists and other totalitarians who commit it, like the nazis and communists? It's not too difficult to tell that he's only alluding to authorities in the USA, and implying that their interrogation methods against terrorists are wrong while turning his back on the real victims in the Islamofascist regimes, among other places.
These questions lead to questions about superhero tropes in general. What right, for instance, does Superman have to send someone to the Phantom Zone? Why does Batman get to break and enter to find evidence of a crime, or beat up thugs for information. Why is it okay for Green Lantern to put a supervillain out of harm’s way in a green cage on the moon, but if I lock up someone in my basement I’m a dangerous sicko?
It makes me think of the internment camps at Guantanamo Bay, and the prisons in Abu Ghraib. Locking up people without due process is wrong – but is it keeping us safer? Some people think so. Torture is wrong, but some people think it’s effective, despite the evidence that the information it yields is unreliable.
The reference to surveillance shows that the vile little miniseries was clearly a subtle attack on doing what's needed to keep track of potential terrorists who could be plotting violence against innocent civilians, hinting that the story was an attack on the importance of security steps even before the AP Wire began doing it at least a year ago.
And the writer's claim that info from methods like waterboarding isn't reliable has since been nullified by the news of the info that led to the punishment of bin Laden (Hat tip: Patterico's Pontifications). So just who is he to judge and tell us the steps aren't reliable?
And quite a few of those terrorists locked up in Gitmo were POWs captured in foreign countries, so they'd be subject to military law, and not regular. If they were allowed to be tried on mainland, they'd be awarded rights they don't deserve, and here's a good argument against letting savages be given trial on US soil.
In the end, what's clear is that Identity Crisis, besides relying on an extremely offensive, callous attitude towards women, was also a propaganda vehicle for the kind of beliefs 9-11 Trutherists hold dear, trivializing women's rights all for the sake of siding with a villain who, as out-of-character as he was depicted, still committed an offensive crime against a defenseless woman (Sue Dibny), and all the superheroes like the Flash (Wally West) are worried about is how the previous generation altered Dr. Light's mind? What I find bizarre is that they wouldn't even go public about Light's crime, one of the most stupefyingly awful thing about the whole story.
Labels: Batman, dc comics, Green Lantern, islam and jihad, Justice League of America, misogyny and racism, politics, Superman, terrorism, violence, women of dc
