Glenn’s blog, one of the most read in the world, lead to a book called “How Would a Patriot Act?” released in May, 2006. Glenn has written for American Conservative magazine and appeared on a variety of television and radio programs, including C-Span's "Washington Journal," Air America's "Majority Report" and Public Radio International's "To the Point." His reporting and analysis have been credited in the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Salon, Slate and a variety of other print and online publications.

DaRK PaRTY caught up with Glenn shortly after the mid-term elections to discuss the last six years of the Bush administration, 9/11, and the war in Iraq.)

DaRK PaRTY: After 9/11 you were a big supporter of President Bush and the War on Terror, including the invasion of Afghanistan. But since then you have become one of the administration's harshest critics. What happened to cause such a turn around?

Glenn: The first event which caused me to begin seriously questioning the administration's wisdom and motives was the lawless detention of Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil and then imprisoned incommunicado, with no charges being brought, for the next 3 1/2 years. When the administration argued that it had the power to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without even so much as charging them with a crime, it was obvious that this administration was quite radical and seeking to expand its powers in unprecedented ways.

The invasion of Iraq, particularly when it turned out that the WMDs were entirely nonexistent, underscored not just the administration's insincerity but also its ineptitude. Its ongoing insistence that things were going well there when it was glaringly obvious that the opposite was true made me conclude that they had no regard for the truth and no connection to reality. And the revelation that they were breaking the law by eavesdropping on Americans with no warrants, followed by the President's insistence that he would continue to do so because he has the power to act outside of the law, led me to conclude that the administration simply does not believe in the founding principles of our country and poses a grave threat to those principles..

DP: The invasion of Iraq went from being a populous war to one that may cause the downfall of the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. You supported the war at first, but have since become very critical of the decision. Why did you support the war early on and what do you think the solution in Iraq is at this point?

Glenn: It is not accurate to say that I supported the war at first. Howard Dean was the first political candidate to whom I ever donated money and that was in 2002 and the beginning of 2003, when he was, far and away, the most vocal and aggressive advocate against the invasion.

I was ambivalent about the war, but ultimately accepted the administration's claims that there was no doubt that (a) Saddam had chemical and biological weaopns and (b) had an active nuclear program. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, believing that such a massive fraud -- they were so categorical that he possessed WMDs -- was beyond their capacity to perpetrate.

I lived in New York for 15 years beginning in 1991 and was in Manhattan on 9/11 and was sympathetic to the idea that a more proactive, anti-Islamic-extremist foreign policy was needed. But I also thought it was clear that there were serious risks to the invasion that were being obscured and that the administration, aided by the media, had created a climate where real dissent and the scrutiny that it entails were precluded. That is why I donated to and supported Dean's candidacy, because I thought it was vital that there be a real adversarial force to the administration's arguments in favor of the war.

DP: As a lawyer, you have great insight and respect for the rule of law. In your book "How Would a Patriot Act?" you eloquently argue that the Bush administration has violated the tenets of the Constitution. What do you think have been the administration's biggest abuses?

Glenn: The detention of U.S. citizens (not just Padilla, but also Yaser Esam Hamdi) with no trial, combined with the administration's claim (which they still maintain) that they have the power, is probably the single most severe betrayal of our country's principles that one can fathom. That is a power which not even the British King possessed, at least not since the Magna Carta.

But the greatest abuse is the administration's general theory of executive power -- that the President has the unilateral and unconstrained power to act in all areas relating to defense of the country, which includes both foreign and U.S. soil, against both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens, and that nothing -- not the American people through their Congress nor the courts applying the law -- can constrain him in any way. That is the defining power of a King. It is what the founders waged war and created a Constitution in order to prevent. And it is the power that this administration not only argues it possesses, but has exercised aggressively and enthusiastically in numerous ways.

DP: What do you think it says about the character of the United States that its citizens have let their civil liberties to be eroded without much of a fight?

Glenn: I don't think Americans are particularly aware of the true nature of the administration's conduct, in large part because the media has so profoundly failed in its role to inform them.

The NSA wiretapping scandal was never presented as what it was -- a law-breaking scandal, a scandal about whether the President has the power to act outside of the law -- but rather as a scandal about whether the President should be able to eavesdrop on terrorists without court approval. The Padilla case was barely talked about at all; I guarantee most Americans are unaware that the Bush administration has imprisoned U.S. citizens on U.S. soil for years without giving them a trial, charging them with a crime, or even allowing them to talk to anyone on the outside, even including a lawyer.

The founders envisioned that citizens would stay informed about what their government was doing by an adversarial media, which would expose governmental deceit and inform citizens if things were going awry with their government. For numerous reasons, many systematic, the media simply do not do that and, as a result, Americans are largely uninformed about the truly radical nature of this administration. Nonetheless, Americans have come to the conclusion on their own that the President is dishonest and corrupt, and that is why his popularity has collapsed and, with this last election, so, too, has his presidency.

DP: You write one of the most read political blogs in the country "Unclaimed Territory." What drew you to the Internet and blogging in the first place and what role do you think blogs played in turning public opinion against Bush policies and the war in Iraq?

Glenn: I began reading blogs during the run-up to the war, in 2002, and found that the blogosphere was the only place where truly critical thinking and informative analysis could be found. Most of the mainstream media was enthralled to the President and his chest-beating war rhetoric. It made them feel strong and safe and powerful, and in exchange, they sacrificed their critical faculties in order to be accepted by this war movement.

The blogosphere was borne out of dissatisfaction with media punditry, and so bloggers were, by definition, more forceful and critical thinkers. The highest level political debates were unquestionably taking place in the blogosphere, and I began my blog in order to participate in those discussions. It is hard to quantify the influence of blogs in turning the public against the war, but blogs clearly play a significant role in keeping the media honest, in forcing them to be critical of government claims and not mindlessly convey information given to them from their favorite sources in the government. More critical reporting by the media of the war effort -- "critical" in both senses of the word - is, more than anything, what led Americans to realize just how duped they were and just how destructive this invasion and occupation has been.

Read our essay on the Iraq War here

Read our essay on the Bush Administration here

Labels: 5 Questions, Bush, Glenn Greenwald

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Fiction

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Summary: While talking a stroll about London, Mr. Utterson and his cousin happen upon a dreary section of the city mired in penury. The location was the site of a recent controversy that Mr. Utterson’s cousin relates. An ugly, dwarfish man named Mr. Hyde trampled over and severely injured a young girl. Confronted by a mob lead by the girl’s family, Mr. Hyde makes restitution in the form of a check from Dr. Jekyll – a friend of Mr. Utterson’s. Mr. Utterson, concerned for his friend’s well-being, visits Jekyll, who assures him all is well. Deciding to investigate, Mr. Utterson later meets Mr. Hyde and is struck by the evil he senses in the man. One dark night, Mr. Hyde is witnessed murdering a respected gentleman with his cane. Mr. Utterson protects Jekyll’s association with Hyde, but urges him to cut all ties. Jekyll promises to do so. But Jekyll’s experiments with chemicals have unlocked his evil nature by transforming him into Mr. Hyde. He can no longer control the transformations and Mr. Hyde takes over. In the end, confronted by his friends, Jekyll in the form of Mr. Hyde ends up committing suicide.

Analysis: Poor Robert Louis Stevenson.

He’s often dismissed as a second-rate scribbler of horror stories and adventure tales for children. He suffered greatly under the withering gaze of literary icon Virginia Woolf – who publicly disparaged his works during the height of her fame.

But there’s been a reconsideration of Stevenson as a master of the neo-romanticism movement that sprung up in London during the 1880s. This revisionist take on Stevenson is primarily driven by “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” which is a classic of the style and established Stevenson as a best-selling author in Britain and in the United States after its publication in 1886 (and many believe it was responsible for the wide-spread panic that ensued during the Jack the Ripper murders in 1888).

It’s difficult to read “Jekyll and Hyde” with a clean slate – the characters are so infused into modern society that a reader would have had to have grown up in a vacuum cleaner not to have formed some kind of impression of the characters (see: Legends of Literature Part 2).

But despite the movies, comic books, plays, parodies and TV melodramas (even the children’s show “Arthur” had an episode based on the story), the novella amazingly retains its freshness. Reading “Jekyll and Hyde” is like stepping through a looking glass and onto the gas-lit, cobblestoned byways of Victorian London. You can actually feel the chill of the fog and hear the click of walking sticks on the stones.

Stevenson is a beautiful writer – much to Woolf’s chagrin. He isn’t flowery, however, preferring a concise, direct style and relying on good old fashioned verbs and nouns to tell the story. The results, while too straight-forward for the esoteric Woolf, are vivid portraits and strong characterizations. Take this narrative from Mr. Enfield:

“Street after street, and all the folks asleep – street after street, all lighted up as if for a procession and all as empty as a church – till at last I got into that state of mind when a man listens and listens and begins to long for the sight of a policeman. All at once, I saw two figures: one little man who was stumping along eastward at a good walk, and the other a girl of maybe eight or ten who was running as hard as she was able down a cross street. Well, sire the two ran into one another naturally enough at the corner: and then cam the horrible part of the thing; for the man trampled calmly over the child’s body and left here screaming on the ground.”

This “little man,” of course, is Mr. Hyde. That may be the biggest surprise in the story: the crafty, evil doppelganger known as Mr. Hyde is a dwarf. A twisted and deformed dwarf, but nothing like the lurching giant that he is often portrayed as in film.

While disguised as a supernatural horror story, “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” is actually an indictment on Victorian morals. We told from the point of view of his close-friend, Mr. Utterson, that Dr. Jekyll is an intelligent, kind-hearted man who is well-respected as he moves into middle age. But in actuality, Dr. Jekyll is bored, frustrated, and exhausted by his propriety.

And that leads the good doctor to his basement laboratory to experiment with mind-altering chemicals, powders, and potions. There he discovers not only a way to unleash his primal urges, but in way that protects his reputation and identity. He has the perfect alibi because he has become another person – Mr. Hyde.

Stevenson, of course, was prevented from telling his readers in detail what Mr. Hyde did on his midnight excursions to the seedy parts of London – but one imagines lots of alcohol, opium, gambling, and sex with prostitutes. Dr. Jekyll is seduced by this lifestyle, until it overcomes him and his urges become so debased that he turns to brutality and murder.

Labels: literary criticism, literature, Robert Louis Stevenson

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Kara Emily Krantz, Poem

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

DaRK PaRTY: First, let's talk about Shakespeare the man. Mark Twain once compared Shakespeare's biography to putting together a dinosaur from a few scraps of bone adhered together with plaster. What do we really know about the Bard?

Jennifer: Well, Schoenbaum has written an excellent biography, “Shakespeare's Lives,” which is put together with sound scholarship, and which does a fine job of knitting up the existing bones into a pleasant skeleton. We know that Shakespeare was a successful entrepreneur with some acting ability, who cared a good deal about property and money, and left his older wife his second-best bed (probably not a bad inheritance, however it sounds).

He had three pleasant years as a prosperous man in Stratford after the Globe burnt down, and died at a not very advanced age. He was survived at his death by his wife, daughter and son-in-law, so that his name was not carried on. He wrote 37 plays that were preserved – wonderfully -- by the publication of the First Folio in 1623. So, on the one hand, we don't know very much about Shakespeare's life, though at the same time we know all we need to know.

As T.S. Eliot remarked, if you look for Shakespeare, you will find him not in one of his characters, but in all of them. He is everywhere and nowhere.

DP: What do you think is the biggest misconception about Shakespeare?

Jennifer: In short, that he wasn't himself. I find these various theories, such as the idea that Marlowe was Shakespeare, or, on the other side, that Shakespeare was in fact the Earl of Oxford, or Francis Bacon, or whomever, silly and tiresome. The second biggest misconception -- though you didn't ask -- is that he didn't write any prose, when he was probably the finest prose writer in Renaissance England: for instance, much of “Henry IV” is prose, and “Hamlet,” like many of the plays, shifts between prose and verse in compelling ways, creating a perfect rhythm, a new sound.

DP: As an introduction to Shakespeare which play would you recommend first and why?

Jennifer: That's easy: “Hamlet,” because to my mind, it is not only the greatest play written in English, but the greatest play ever written. From a technical point of view, it also contains a mix of Shakespeare's old style and his new style, falling on the hinge of the 17th Century, and ushering in the wonderful tragedies. And also because you can't read it and help but want to read everything; it's the play that makes you understand, in a way, that, as Eliot put it, 'the whole of Shakespeare's work is one poem'.

DP: Yale professor and literary critic Harold Bloom is fond of saying that Shakespeare created characters more real than living human beings. Which three Shakespearean characters do you consider the most alive and why?

Jennifer: I admire Harold Bloom, and I understand the justness but not the justice of that comment. I would say that it lessens, in a way it oughtn't to, the accomplishment of creating characters as real as human beings, though perhaps inhabiting different realities. That being said, here you are:

Hotspur in “Henry IV,” that brave heart who, with his comedic, choleric temper and his disastrous disregard and dislike for flattery, is a worthy opponent to Hal, and who speaks so real one can hear him talking; Rosalind in “As You Like It,” because, in disguise, she gets to tell inconvenient truths, such as 'Men have died from time to time and worms have eaten them, but not for love'; and Lance, that dog at all things from “Two Gentleman of Verona,” because his mutterings to himself, his clumsiness, and his love of his dog Crab show-- even at the early stages -- Shakespeare's unique ability in creating characters who are both ordinary and extraordinary.

That rich and strange combination is one of the lovely things, to my mind, about literature.

DP: Which three of Shakespeare's plays are your favorites and why?

Jennifer: It is hard for me to rank most of Shakespeare's plays, as I tend to think of them together (excepting “Titus Andronicus,” which has always seemed to me quite crude and which is also likely a collaboration). But to have a good-spirited go at favorites, I would say the following.

“Hamlet:” first for love of the thing; second for he ways in which it gives me pause every time I read or see it; third for its beautiful and generous displays of friendship; and fourth because it is a profound exploration of the many different kinds of realities one can countenance.

Next, “Measure for Measure” because it asks questions that it has the courage to not answer patly, and considers fair-mindedly beliefs with which it does not agree; and “Macbeth” for the astonishing versification and speed of the play, and for its candid and searching presentation of a man who, not unlike Othello, is destroyed by the very things that make him great, his sense of honor and his conscience.

Read our essay "The Undiscovered Country" here

Read our interview about Charles Dickens here

Labels: 5 Questions, Jennifer Formichelli, Shakespeare

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

“`Of all the things that have happened, [the change in telemarketing rules] had the single largest impact,’ said John Kimball, chief marketing officer for the Newspaper Association of America, an industry trade group.”

Kimball, the deluded sod, is blaming the federal “Do-Not-Call” legislation for circulation loss because, he argues, newspapers have lost the ability to cold call people with circulation offers.

That’s not the problem. The problem is that newspapers have been killing themselves for more than two decades.

I miss my daily newspaper. Oh, the Boston Globe is tossed onto my doorsteps every morning – as it has been for more than 20 years. But it’s an empty shell compared to 10 and 20 years ago.

Most of the effort at the Globe these days seems to go into “Sidekick,” a new tabloid section targeted at young people. Sidekick is “irreverent,” “edgy,” and “hip.” Every day Sidekick seems to feature another photograph of an actress in a low-cut top or a boy band trying to look tough.

Sidekick’s graphic-heavy pages are crowded with Hollywood insider briefs, movie and TV snippets, reader commentary on topics like dating and fashion, music and DVD reviews, and excerpts from the blogs of Globe reporters and editors.

In other words, all the things the Web delivers better, easier, and faster. Yet the Globe continues to entice young Internet users back to the newspaper -- alienating their base of readers clamoring for news.

It might seem like I’m picking on the Globe, but unfortunately, every daily newspapers is facing the same challenges – and responding in the same futile manner. Because despite efforts like Sidekick, circulation for newspapers continues to plummet (newspaper circulation has decreased each year since 1984) and ad sales have been dropping like George W. Bush’s approval ratings.

Yet rather than fall back on their core competencies – reporting, analyzing, and breaking news – newspapers have responded by trying to duplicate TV and the Web. This has meant shorter stories, more photographs and charts, and pandering in young audiences with celebrity gossip and “arts” reporting. In other words, they respond with Sidekick sections.

The biggest problem with newspaper executives is that they think the product is the newspaper. It isn’t. The product is content. The “newspaper” is simply a delivery channel. One of many ways now available to bring content to consumers – such as the Web, RSS, blogs, podcasts, email, and video.

Yet despite having the most vibrant, up-to-date content – newspapers have watched content aggregators like Google and Yahoo make mincemeat out of them. In a time when content is king, newspapers have failed to capitalize on it.

Here are three solutions:

• Readers rely on newspapers for news – the in-depth reporting and analysis still in its infancy at online news outlets. Newspapers need to reinvest in a reporting and editing to support quality content creation. Unfortunately, most newspapers have responded to circulation challenges by slashing news staff. That’s short-sighted and suicidal behavior. Readers buy newspapers for more local news, in-depth coverage of national and international issues, sports, and feature stories. Give it to them.
  

• Come to terms with the fact that a newspaper is simply a vehicle. Consumers want the content – not the broad sheet. So provide the content in any way that the readers might want it – give analysis on blogs, break news online, use podcasts and dynamic video (news photographers are already on the scene – arm them with video!), push content via RSS to desktops. Newspapers need to invest in these new technologies. They should turn the "newspaper" into pure news -- local, international, editorial, etc... because that's what readers of their hard-copy editions want.
  

• Stop with the post mortems (like the headline on this essay). Newspapers as a channel might be heading the way of the dinosaurs, but who cares? It’s not about the channel – it’s about the content. Newspapers need to fill in the moats that have dug around themselves and open up. Invite interaction with readers – provide forums, bulletin boards, and blogs for readers. Engage -- become a vibrant source once again.

Labels: Essay, Journalism

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Children’s Literature & Comic Books

Dorothy Gale
Claim to fame: Whisked away by a tornado to become one of the most endeavoring characters in literature and film
Created by: L. Frank Baum
Born: 1900
First appearance: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: A little girl in pigtails with a little dog
Supporting players: Toto, Uncle Henry, Aunt Emily, The Tin Man, The Lion, and The Scarecrow
Enemy: Wicked Witch of the East
Quote: “There’s no place like home!”
Tidbit: In 2000, a pair of ruby slippers worn by Judy Garland in the movie “The Wizard of Oz” sold at an auction for $666,000.

Batman
Claim to fame: The Dark Knight who has become one of the most recognizable superheroes
Created by: Bob Kane and Bill Finger
Born: 1939
First appearance: Detective Comics #27 (comic book)
Appearance in a nutshell: Bat mask with a flowing black cape
Supporting players: Robin, Commissioner Gordon, Albert
Enemy: The Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Two-Face and Riddler
Quote: “A bat! That’s it! It’s an omen. I shall become a bat!”
Tidbit: In the 1954, Psychologist Fredric Wertham asserted in his book “Seduction of the Innocent” that Batman and Robin were gay.

Peter Pan
Claim to fame: The boy who never wanted to grow up is now a disorder for single adult men who can’t grow up
Created by: J.M. Barrie
Born: 1911
First appearance: Peter Pan and Wendy (play)
Appearance in a nutshell: Green tights and a green cap
Supporting players: Wendy Darling, Tinker Bell
Enemy: Captain Hook
Quote: “I can fly!”
Tidbit: Michael Jackson, the self-proclaimed King of Pop, once said: “I am Peter Pan.”

Doctor Dolittle
Claim to fame: He talks to the animals, of course
Created by: Hugh Lofting
Born: 1920
First appearance: The Story of Doctor Dolittle, Being the History of His Peculiar Life at Home and Astonishing Adventures in Foreign Parts (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: A chubby doctor with a top hat
Supporting players: Polynesia (parrot), Gub-Gub (pig), Jip (dog), Chee-Chee (monkey), Pushmi-Pullyu
Enemy: The African King
Quote: Ah, he talks to the animals
Tidbit: The most famous film adaptation of the book was a 1967 musical starring Rex Harrison as the good doctor

Superman
Claim to fame: The Man Steel who is one of the most famous comic book characters of all time
Created by: Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster
Born: 1932
First appearance: Action Comics #1 (comic book)
Appearance in a nutshell: Red cape with an “S” on his chest
Supporting players: Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White
Enemy: Lex Luthor, Brainiac, Doomsday
Quote: “Up, up and away!”
Tidbit: Comedian Jerry Seinfeld is a huge Superman fan and his long running series had several references to the Man of Steel.

Winnie the Pooh

Claim to fame: The lovable bear who may be the most famous bear in the world
Created by: A.A. Milne
Born: 1926
First appearance: Winnie-the-Pooh (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: A gold bear in a red sweater
Supporting players: Tigger, Piglet, Owl, Rabbit, Eeyore, Christopher Robin
Enemy: None
Quote: “Did you ever stop to think, and forget to start again?”
Tidbit: Author Benjamin Hoff wrote two books about Taoism using the characters from Winnie the Pooh to explain the philosophy of the Eastern religion

Spiderman
Claim to fame: The most beloved superhero of the teen set
Created by: Stan Lee and Steve Ditko
Born: 1962
First appearance: Amazing Fantasy #15 (comic book)
Appearance in a nutshell: Red and blue costume with spider webs on it.
Supporting players: Aunt May, Gwen Stacy, J. Jonah Jameson, Mary Jane Watson, Harry Osborn
Enemy: Dr. Octopus, Green Goblin, Venom, Sandman
Quote: “Your friendly neighborhood Spiderman!”
Tidbit: The theme to the Spiderman Saturday morning cartoon has been covered by The Ramones, Aerosmith and Tenacious D

Pinocchio

Claim to fame: A puppet that became a little boy
Created by: Carlo Collodi
Born: 1883
First appearance: The Adventures of Pinocchio (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: A marionette of a boy with a long stick nose
Supporting players: Geppetto, Blue Fairy, Jiminy Cricket
Enemy: Society
Quote: “I’m a real boy!”
Tidbit: The Disney film adaptation (1940) has been deemed culturally significant by the Library of Congress

Nancy Drew
Claim to fame: The girl detective you helped usher in women’s liberation
Created by: Edward Stratemeyer
Born: 1930
First Appearance: The Secret of the Old Clock (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: An independent 16-year-old girl
Supporting players: Mr. Drew, Hannah Gruen
Enemy: Various
Quote: “If worry were an effective weight-loss program, women would be invisible.”
Tidbit: There are 56 books in the first and original Nancy Drew series

The Hulk
Claim to fame: The raging green monster and son of Edward Hyde
Created by: Stan Lee and Jack Kirby
Born: 1962
First Appearance: The Incredible Hulk #1 (comic book)
Appearance in a nutshell: Enormous, green, and muscle bound
Supporting players: Rick Jones, Doc Sampson, Betty Ross Banner
Enemy: The Abomination, Absorbing Man, The Leader, Major Glenn Talbot
Quote: “Don’t get me angry. You won’t like me angry.”
Tidbit: There is an Incredible Hulk roller coaster at Universal Studios Island of Adventure in Florida

Labels: comics, literature

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

I direct your attention to the front row of the courtroom. Take a good long look, my fellow citizens. Why I’m surprised the inebriated old fool remembered to stagger his way into this fine courthouse this morning. Are you going to take the drunken babblings of this doddering, old stooge, Uncle Billy, as gospel? And isn’t that what it comes down to? My word, as one of the most respected businessmen in Bedford Falls, against that of a notorious dipsomaniac? A man – mind you – who consorts with a pet squirrel!

Yes, yes, I know you heard testimony from Bert the Cop that he found the Bailey Building & Loan money locked in my desk. But I can look each and everyone of you in the eye and tell you that when I tucked that newspaper into my drawer, I had no idea that it contained the Building & Loan’s cash deposits.

How could I? Quite frankly, I was emotional distraught after the verbal assault Uncle Billy leveled at me as he barreled into my bank battering me about the face with the very same newspaper. He compared me – Me! The head of the draft board – to the Nazis and the Japs! I was speechless! Shocked and chagrinned!

So when I rolled into my office and tossed that old newspaper in my desk drawer, I had no idea it contained any money. I was as surprised as Bert the Cop when he pulled all that cash out from my desk. But not as surprised as when he violently grabbed me by the lapels and dragged me from my wheelchair to manacle my hands behind my back! Me! A cripple and a respected business leader – arrested like a common thief!

It was mortifying! Mortifying!

And do I really need to address the deceptions put forth by George Bailey? And under oath mind you! I have it under good authority that George Bailey actually profited from this whole experience when the discontented, lazy rabble he calls friends and customers emptied out their piggy banks for him. That braying, spoiled brat Sam Wainwright actually cabled Bailey $25,000! Harrumph!

I remain confounded by the loyalty this town gives to George Bailey, a frustrated, angry, and ungrateful young man.George Bailey hates Bedford Falls and has been trying to leave it ever since he was a boy. Why he’s been heard to say – and I quote -- that he wants to “shake the dust off this crummy little town and see the world!” This is how much he despises our beautiful, little metropolis and a town I’m proud to call my home.

Let me tell you about George Bailey. He’s an arrogant, rude man who once sat in my office, smoking my expensive cigars, and called me a “scurvy, little spider.” This from a man who stole his best friend’s girl! A man who used to regularly vandalize the home he now lives in! A man who consorts with people of low morale character!

Think about social circle George Bailey travels in. How about Mr. Martini? A garlic-eater and owner of a disreputable gin mill on the edge of town! Nick the bartender? A violent ruffian with a police record! And let’s talk about Mr. Sam Wainwright. Shall we? A philanderer who lives in New York City! And how about old man Gower? Why nothing more than a drunk and child beater!

But worst of all may be Violet Bick! An allegedly happily married man like George Bailey is often in the company of this woman of loose moral character! A man who once shouted throughout the town how he wanted to take her skinny dipping! A woman George Bailey is often seen giving large amounts of cash. She’s nothing more than a barroom whore!

Now, now, fair citizens, don’t gasp at me! Do you think George Bailey is the only man Violet hits up for money? That she hasn’t come crawling into my office on her hands and knees begging for my assistance? I may have two useless appendages, but my middle one works fine thank you very much!

What? What? Don’t look at me like that! You think your hero – your Mr. Building & Loan – isn’t getting down on that action? Just because I give the little blond a tap every now and then doesn’t make me a bad man. You think its easy being the town cripple? Huh? Putting up with all your shit? But I got my revenge! Oh, yes. I own this burg! You’re like my… my cattle! Bigger bitches than Violet!

Pottersville! That’s what we should call this shithole! Pottersville!

Wonderful life, my ass!

Labels: Christmas, It's a Wonderful Life, Parody

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Fiction, L Kenyon

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Movies, Stanley Kubrick

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

DaRK PaRTY: What exactly is loyalty?

DP: People have varying degrees of loyalty. What makes some people loyal and others disloyal?

Simon: Well, people are loyal and disloyal in different ways. The disloyal husband may be fiercely loyal to his country. But it is true that loyalty seems to be more important to some people than to others. I'm not sure why. Part of the reason might be that people have different ways of thinking about their moral obligations. Some people think of morality as beginning with the closest relationships, and extending outwards from there; you might think that morality begins with obligations to your family, then moves to your friends, then your colleagues, then your country, then the human race...these people might be more likely to prize loyalty in themselves and other people.

Others think of morality as beginning with a commitment to the basic equality of everybody, and think that more particular moral relationships come later. I wouldn't call those in the second category disloyal, and they may of course be wonderfully loyal in all sorts of ways, but perhaps they are less likely to place a big emphasis on loyalty as such. They are less likely to think of loyalty as the glue that holds the moral world together.

DP: Patriotism is one of the most common kinds of loyalty, but isn't country of origin an accident of birth? What makes people patriotic?

Simon: Yes, country of origin is an accident of birth, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't take it seriously. It is only by an accident of birth, I suppose, that I have my particular mother and father, but that accident underlies a very valuable loving relationship, one that you cannot share with just anyone. Still, I do think that there is something a little suspicious about patriotism. Countries are not like parents; they are big, amorphous, intangible things, whose nature is puzzling and contested. You cannot know your country in the way that you can know another person, and you cannot have a relationship of mutual love and loyalty with a country - not in any literal sense, anyway. So loyalty to country has to be placed into a special category and evaluated on its own terms; it is not just a natural extension of personal loyalties.

As for what makes people patriotic - well, again my inclination is to be suspicious. Patriotism usually (perhaps always) involves pride, or a sense that your own country is not just yours, but is also great. I think that one reason why people are drawn towards patriotism is that it allows them to feel special, or superior, or entitled, just because they were born in one country rather than another.

DP: A high value is placed on loyalty in most cultures. We even have systems in place to strengthen it (marriage, pledges of alliance, etc.). Should loyalty be a quality to be admired?

Simon: I do think that loyalty is to be admired and encouraged, but not in all its forms. People need to be capable of loyalty in order to experience some basic human goods, like the good of having genuine friends. But some forms of loyalty involve delusions, or mindless obedience, or abrogation of responsibility. Sometimes we should wish that people were a little less loyal.

DP: When does loyalty become dangerous?

Simon: Loyalty always involves a degree of vulnerability. Loyalty can be dangerous when its object is dangerous - when it is loyalty to an oppressive government, or a manipulative friend, or an uncaring spouse. It can also be dangerous when it discourages the loyal person from forming her own judgments and beliefs.

Sometimes, we can feel as though we are being disloyal if we don't think that our country is the greatest, or that our friend's novel will be a hit, whether we have good evidence for those beliefs or not. When we have loyalties that move us to make decisions of real consequence (like fighting in a war, or investing in a friend's self-publishing venture), it is important that we are able to step back and make a more objective judgment first.

Read our interview about nuns here

Read our interview about ants here

Labels: 5 Questions, Loyalty, Simon Keller

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

JV Team

Long John Silver
Claim to fame: One of the most fearsome pirates on the open seas who became the arch-type for all pirate characters in literature, film and television
Created by: Robert Louis Stevenson
Born: 1881
First appearance: “Treasure Island” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: A peg-leg with a parrot on his shoulder
Supporting players: Jim Hawkins (friend), Captain Flint (his boss), Billy Bones
Enemy: Jim Hawkins, Captain Alexander Smollet, Dr. Livesey
Quote: “Silver for captain!”
Tidbit: The character of Long John Silver has been portrayed by actors such as Orson Welles, Charlton Heston, Jack Palance and Tim Curry.

Three Musketeers
Claim to fame: A team of French musketeers who set the stage of swordsman heroes and the concept of heroic teams rather than just an individual
Created by: Alexandre Dumas
Born: 1844
First appearance: “The Three Musketeers” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Floppy hats, high boots and swords
Supporting players: d’Artagnan (the fourth musketeer)
Enemy: The Cardinal
Quote: “All for one and one for all!”
Tidbit: Dumas wanted to name d’Artagnan Nathaniel d’Artagnan, but on advice from a friend dropped the first name.

Tom Sawyer
Claim to fame: The arch-type for precocious juvenile rapscallions and for conning his friends into whitewashing a fence for him.
Created by: Mark Twain
Born: 1876
First appearance: “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Curly hair under a floppy hat and barefeet
Supporting players: Huckleberry Finn (best friend), Becky Thatcher (girlfriend)
Enemy: Injun Joe
Quote: "Now that'll learn you. Better look out who you're fooling with next time."
Tidbit: The rock band Rush had a hit song called “Tom Sawyer.”

Conan the Barbarian
Claim to fame: The arch-type for the fighter character in Dungeons & Dragons and the model for heroes of brawn rather than intelligence
Created by: Robert E. Howard
Born: 1932
First appearance: “The Phoenix on the Sword“ (short story)
Appearance in a nutshell: Muscle-bound warrior with long black hair2
Supporting players: Various
Enemy: Various
Quote: “Crom!”
Tidbit: The character of Conan has been featured in TV shows, movies, computer games, Saturday morning cartoons and comic books, most notably by Marvel Comics

Oliver Twist
Claim to fame: Opened the eyes of the 19th century Britons to the conditions of workhouses and the wrongs of child labor. One of the prototype for an innocent being abused by society
Created by: Charles Dickens
Born: 1838
First appearance: “Oliver Twist” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: A ragamuffin with fingerless gloves
Supporting players: The Artful Dodger (friend), Rose Maylie (aunt)
Enemy: Fagin, Bill Sikes, Mr. Bumble
Quote: “Please, sir, May I have some More?”
Tidbit: The musical “Oliver!” won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1968.

Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde
Claim to fame: Vividly brought the concept of split personality into popular culture
Created by: Robert Louis Stevenson
Born: 1886
First appearance: “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” (novella)
Appearance in a nutshell: An English gentleman and a monstrous brute
Supporting players: Gabriel John Utterson (friend), Jekyll’s butler, Richard Enfield
Enemy: Gabriel John Utterson
Quote: “Here then, as I lay down the pen and proceed to seal up my confession, I bring the life of that unhappy Henry Jekyll to an end.”
Tidbit: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde were the inspiration for the villain Two-Face in the Batman comic books

Uncle Tom
Claim to fame: Create the racial stereotype of the passive and loyal black servant. The term “Uncle Tom” is now a pejorative to indicate any African American who buckles under to white authority.
Created by: Harriet Beecher Stowe
Born: 1852
First appearance: “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Elderly, submissive black slave with white hair
Supporting players: Eliza (slave), Eva (little girl), Topsy (slave girl), Arthur Shelby (master)
Enemy: Simon Legree (slave-owner)
Quote: “Sold me down the river.”
Tidbit: Avery Brooks, the tough guy actor who portrayed Hawk on the “Spencer: For Hire” TV series once played the character Uncle Tom in a TV movie.

Hamlet
Claim to fame: The Danish prince who may have been the first Goth
Created by: William Shakespeare
Born: 1600
First appearance: “The Tragical History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” (play)
Appearance in a nutshell: Young, thin, morose
Supporting players: Ghost (father), Ophelia (girlfriend), Horatio (friend)
Enemy: Claudius (King and uncle), Gertrude (Queen and mother)
Quote: “To be or not to be.”
Tidbit: Believe it or not, but the comedy “Strange Brew” was loosely adapted from “Hamlet.”

Frodo Baggins
Claim to fame: Responsible for making “hobbit” a household term and for making creating fantasy fiction.
Created by: J.R.R. Tolkien
Born: 1937
First appearance: “The Fellowship of the Ring” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Small, curly haired halfling with hairy feet
Supporting players: Gandalf (wizard), Aragorn (ranger), Sam (friend), Bilbo (uncle)
Enemy: Sauron, Saruman
Quote: “Free Frodo” (button popular in the 1960s)
Tidbit: Led Zeppelin wrote three classic rock songs that reference “Lord of the Rings” – “Ramble On,” “The Battle of Evermore” and “Misty Mountain Hop.”

Dr. Hannibal Lector
Claim to fame: The most famous serial killer and cannibal in fiction
Created by: Thomas Harris
Born: 1981
First appearance: “Red Dragon” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Bears a striking resemblance to Anthony Hopkins (also has six fingers on one hand)
Supporting players: Buffalo Bill (serial killer), Tooth Fairy (tooth fairy), Clarice Starling (FBI agent), Jack Crawford (FBI agent)
Enemy: FBI, police
Quote: “Quid pro quo.”
Tidbit: Brian Cox was the first actor to play Hannibal the Cannibal on screen in the movie “Manhunter.”

Don Juan
Claim to fame: The greatest seducer of women in literature. His name has come to mean any ladies man.
Created by: Legend
Born: 1620?
First appearance: The Playboy of Seville (fable)
Appearance in a nutshell: Handsome, sly lover with raised eyebrows
Supporting players: Various
Enemy: Various
Quote: I want a hero: an uncommon want/ When every year and month sends forth a new one/ Till, after cloying the gazettes with cant/ The age discovers he is not the true one/ Of such as these I should not care to vaunt/ I'll therefore take our ancient friend Don Juan.” (from Byron)
Tidbit: Lord Byron’s died before his famous poem about Don Juan was completed.

Labels: literature

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Poem, Salvatore Antonio Cavataio

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Because – and let’s be honest here people – the vast majority of the time, the book is simply better than the movie. Movies are limited in scope – they’re abridged versions of novels and most of the time abridged versions are severely lacking. And the big advantage, of course, is that the novel is the novelist’s idea. The movie is an adaptation of that idea.

It’s also the nature of the mediums. Books are more in-depth – epic. The characters are richer and there’s more of an opportunity for a novelist to create and explore personality through action, dialogue, and internal monologue. Novelists have the luxury of back story, multiple sub-plots, and the additions of more supporting characters (there’s a reason why movie characters usually only have one or two friends – anymore and its just too complicated).

Directors, on the other hand, are ruled by action. They need scenes that require the movement and that propel the plot forward. Characters are mostly built through action and dialogue. In order to keep a film manageable, directors need to eliminate sub-plots, pare down the number of characters, and eliminate “quiet” scenes.

But there are occasions where the movie trumps the book. Sometimes – the stories just call out for the Silver Screen. DaRK PaRTY presents “10 Movies that Beat Down the Book.”

Fight Club
Chuck Palahniuk’s overrated novel simply lacks the punch of the film. Palahniuk writes in a visual style, which can’t compete against the real thing. This story has found its home on film. While the novel wants to be “underground” it feels too slick for the distinction, yet somehow the movie (with the likes of Brad Pitt) manages to pull of the anarchist look and feel more successfully.

The Last of the Mohicans
James Fenimore Cooper’s famous and overwrought novel is one of the worst written books with a “classics” distinction ever penned in American literature (It was notoriously panned by none other than Mark Twain). Yet in the hands of director Michael Mann, Cooper’s novel comes to vivid life. The film is visually stunning, packed with action, and dripping with cinematic chemistry between Daniel Day-Lewis and Madeleine Stowe. One of the best action romances of the last two decades.

About a Boy
Nick Hornby is a writer that I want to like – but can’t. His novels are chick-lit written for sensitive guys. The characters never quite get off the ground. It’s the same with “About a Boy,” which falls horribly flat. So imagine my surprise at how well the novel translated into a movie. Damn, if the film isn’t hilarious. Hugh Grant was born to play a middle-aged adolescence and was rightly nominated for an Academy Award for his performance. A fine soundtrack from Badly Drawn Boy is also a plus.

Lord of the Rings
A sacrilege, no doubt. Tolkien fans will probably want to egg my house, but the films just capture Middle Earth better than the books. Tolkien had difficulty with action scenes and was much more comfortable with mythology and back story. So while the books can feel dusty and antiquated, the movie captures the magic and violence of the story and makes it feel young. Director Peter Jackson has made the greatest film trilogy of all time.

The Silence of the Lambs
Thomas Harris wrote an interesting, middle-of-the-road thriller that was a great read while you were stuck in an airport. But Jonathan Demme’s movie became a phenomenon that redefined the genre and ushered in a darker era of thriller/horror movies like “Seven” and “Kiss the Girls.” It also won an Academy Award for Best Picture.

Forrest Gump
Not many people even realize that the movie was based on a Winston Groom novel of the same name. The novel garnered raves (and even comparisons with “Huckleberry Finn”) when it was first published, yet it still falls short of this quirky, likable film starring Tom Hanks. The movie went on to collect six Academy Awards, including Best Picture.

Blade Runner
This movie is based on the Philip K. Dick’s underground science fiction novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” Dick had one of the most stunning imaginations in literature, but his novel isn’t as fully realized as the movie adaptation by Director Ridley Scott. The movie is dark, mysteriously and surprisingly philosophical. It’s better than the book, but overrated as well.

The Shawshank Redemption
Stephen King wrote a novella called “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption” in his collection “Different Seasons.” King has always been underrated as a writer (who writes better horror stories than King?). But the story can’t live up to one of the most beloved films of all time (ranked number 2 in popularity at the Internet Movie Database).

Jaws
One-hit wonder Peter Benchley wrote a scary novel about a man-eating shark that became one of the greatest summer blockbusters of all-time. It was also the movie that put Director Steven Spielberg on the map. So damn terrifying that it continues to make millions of people afraid to swim out over their heads in the ocean – 30 years later.

Maltese Falcon
This is a close one. The novel by Dashiell Hammett is fantastic and remains a great read to this day. But the movie narrowly edges out the novel by a hair for one reason: Humphrey Bogart.

Labels: books, literature, Movies

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Autumn, death, Dylan Thomas, Poetry

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

DaRK PaRTY presents a special three-part series "The Legends of Literature." For today's installment we give you the varsity squad. These are the heavy-hitter of literature -- the all-stars. Next week, we'll present the Junior Varsity Squad and the following week the titans of children's literature.)

Sherlock Holmes
Claim to fame: The world’s most brilliant private detective noted for using logic and the power of observation to solve the most difficult cases in London during the Victorian era.
Created by: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Born: 1887
First appearance: “A Study in Scarlet” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Deerstalker cap and pipe
Supporting players: Dr. Watson (loyal sidekick), Mrs. Hudson (landlady), Mycroft Holmes (mysterious brother)
Enemy: James Moriarty (The Napoleon of Crime)
Quote: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Tidbit: The character of Sherlock Holmes has been the most filmed character in celluloid history with about 200 movie appearance so far.

Tarzan of the Apes
Claim to fame: An English lord stranded on the African coast as an infant and raised by a family of apes.
Created by: Edgar Rice Burroughs
Born: 1912
First appearance: “Tarzan the Ape Man” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Loin cloth and knife
Supporting players: Jane Porter (wife), Jack Greystroke (son), Kala (adopted ape mother)
Enemy: Kerchak (King of the Apes)
Quote: AAAARRROOOHHHH!!!
Tidbit: Sixteen actors from Ron Ely to Christopher Lambert have played the King of the Apes on television and on the movie screen.

Huckleberry Finn
Claim to fame: Orphan boy runs away with an escaped slave and together they sail a raft down the Mississippi River
Created by: Mark Twain
Born: 1876
First appearance: “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Straw hat and overalls
Supporting players: Jim (escaped slave), Tom Sawyer (best friend), Widow Douglas (step-mother), Pap Finn (father)
Enemy: The Duke and the Dauphin (grifters)
Quote: "We said there warn't no home like a raft, after all. Other places do seem so cramped up and smothery, but a raft don't. You feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft."
Tidbit: “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” was the 5th most banned book during the 1990s

James Bond
Claim to fame: The famed “007” is an elite spy with the British Secret Service who has a license to kill
Created by: Ian Fleming
Born: 1953
First appearance: “Casino Royale” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Slim, black hair, blue-gray eyes, cruel mouth
Supporting players: M (boss), Miss Moneypenny (M’s secretary), Q (inventor), Felix Leiter (CIA agent)
Enemy: Ernst Stavro Blofeld (head of SPECTRE)
Quote: “Bond, James Bond.”
Tidbit: Six actors have portrayed 007 on the silver screen, but more interesting might be the two actors who were offered the role but turned it down – Adam West (TV’s Batman) and Burt Reynolds.

Dracula
Claim to fame: Count Dracula is a vampire who travels to England to wreak havoc on the British Isles.
Created by: Bram Stoker
Born: 1897
First appearance: “Dracula” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Fangs and a black cape
Supporting players: Renfield (assistant), The Brides of Dracula (three female vampires)
Enemy: Professor Abraham Van Helsing
Quote: “Children of the night... What a mess they make.” (From the Mel Brooks movie “Dracula: Dead and Loving It”)
Tidbit: Dracula has been so infused into western culture that he’s even embraced by children’s literature and TV. The character Count von Count on “Sesame Street” and Count Chocula of breakfast cereal fame are both based on him.

Robin Hood
Claim to fame: A highwayman in medieval England who stole from the rich and gave to the poor
Created by: Folklore
Born: Sometime in the 1200s
First appearance: “Piers Plowman” (poem)
Appearance in a nutshell: Green tights, pointed cap and a bow and arrows
Supporting players: Little John (fellow bandit), Friar Tuck (fellow bandit), Maid Marian (love interest)
Enemy: The Sheriff of Nottingham
Quote: “But I will tell you of Will Scarlock/ Little John and Robin Hood/ Doun a doun a doun a doun/ They were outlaws, as ’tis well known/ And men of a noble blood/ And many a time was their valour shown/ In the forrest of merry Sheerwood.
Tidbit: The University of Nottingham will be offering students a chance to earn a masters degree on “Robin Hood” in 2007.

Ebenezer Scrooge
Claim to fame: A cruel, skinflint moneylender who his haunted by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future.
Created by: Charles Dickens
Born: 1843
First appearance: A Christmas Carol (novella)
Appearance in a nutshell: A crooked old man in a long under garment
Supporting players: Bob Cratchit (his employee), Tiny Tim (Bob’s crippled son), Jacob Marley (Scrooge’s ghostly business partner)
Enemy: Himself
Quote: “Bah, humbug!”
Tidbit: The role of Scrooge has been played by a diverse range of actors on stage and screen, including Bill Murray and Mr. Magoo.

Romeo & Juliet
Claim to fame: Two young lovers from rival families who accidentally kill themselves.
Created by: William Shakespeare
Born: 1623
First appearance: “The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet” (play)
Appearance in a nutshell: Handsome young couple in tights
Supporting players: Tybalt (Juliet’s cousin), Benvolio (Romeo’s cousin), Lord Capulet (Juliet’s father), Montague (Romeo’s father)
Enemy: Their bickering families
Quote: “Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?”
Tidbit: There have been 11 film adaptations of the play, but the best known movie about the play is probably “West Side Story” (a modern re-telling that features street gangs rather than royalty).

Moby Dick
Claim to fame: The infamous white whale
Created by: Herman Melville
Born: 1851
First appearance: “Moby-Dick, or the Whale” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: An enormous white sperm whale
Supporting players: Ishmael (whaler), Starbuck (first mate)
Enemy: Captain Ahab (Captain of the whaling ship Pequod)
Quote: Umm, he’s a whale.
Tidbit: The electronic rock star Moby is the great-great grand nephew of Herman Melville.

Frankenstein’s Monster
Claim to fame: A creatures assembled from dead bodies and brought to life.
Created by: Mary Shelley
Born: 1818
First appearance: “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” (novel)
Appearance in a nutshell: Hulking creatures with neck bolts
Supporting players: Dr. Victor Frankenstein (creator), Igor (the doctor’s assistant)
Enemy: The villagers
Quote: He only grunts
Tidbit: The monster is commonly called “Frankenstein,” but in fact, Shelley did not name the creature in the book.

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

The commandment is one of the most significant sentences in English literature: “You shall have no other gods before me.” That powerful sentiment is delivered by the Lord God. He follows it up with the second commandment: “Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above.”

There’s a reason why God puts those two commandments first. It’s a clear message that Christianity is the true religion and that his followers should not be worshipping false gods or images of false gods. “I’m the man!” God is saying in today parlance. That’s why I’m often amazed that Christians don’t get more serious about battling the evils of comic books, especially comic books about “alleged” superheroes.

Who, after all, is Superman if not a false god? He’s a savior of the earth – delivering it salvation from the forces of evil. A space creature with powers to rival God: flight, super-human strength, and X-ray vision. How does the Christian Right not understand what a danger Superman and his ilk impose on impressionable, young boys?

If we don’t put a stop to the growing popularity of comic books and the mega-industry of movies, video games and toys they have spawned then it won’t be long before our youth are kneeling down before Ironman rather than Jesus Christ. When children are awe-inspired by fictional "gods" in comic books rather than our rightful fictional God -- then we have problems.

Comic books are clear violations of the first two commandments and for that reason alone Christians should forbid their children from reading them. Take them to the dump! Burn them in a metal trash barrel! Sell them to Muslims on eBay! Do whatever it takes to get these satanic magazines out of your homes!

I’ve seen the effects of these Satanic volumes have on the soft-cheeked, young lads at my church. It’s like an addiction to crack cocaine or pornography of hot chicks dressed up like cheerleaders or nuns. Some boys get so hooked on comics that they end up on the Internet at dead-end destinations of despair like the Comic Book Resources Forums.

Need more proof that comic books are the Devil’s work? Look no further than the content of the more popular titles:

• The Incredible Hulk. This comic is about a man who changes into a rampaging green demon that may, in fact, be a surrogate for Satan. This “transformation” is induced by lust, anger, pain, and humiliation. The Hulk then brutally attacks the cause of his “anger.” Do you really think this is a good message for our children? Even though Jesus went on his own rampage against the moneylenders he never turned green or ripped through is clothing. It's very doubtful he'd approve of the Hulk!

• Wonder Woman. A comic book about a scantily-clad, big-breasted Amazon woman with a magic, golden lasso (obviously a symbol of her sadomasochistic impulses to tie up men). Need I say anymore about how this kind of tripe can cause hormone overload in young boys and turn them into anti-Christian rapists?

• Thor. Talk about false gods! Thor is an ancient Norse god worshipped by the ancient druids of Scandanavia (Denmark, Norway, Holland and Italy). Norse people were barbarians and often wore helmets with horns on them (who does that remind you of!). Thor is the essence of a false god depicted as a superhero! This is exactly what the Lord was talking about in the first and second commandments!

• Ghost Rider. The main character is a motorcycle riding freak with a flaming skull for a head. This superhero actually sold his soul to the Devil for his powers! Clearly the Satanic elements of comic books are front and center in this evil, little tome!

• Doctor Strange. A sorcerer who draws his magic abilities from mystical places (most likely Hell!). He has the abilities to create illusions, teleport to other locations and to mentally possess other people (in much the same way that a demon possesses a person).

Here are the names of some other comic book heroes: Dead Girl, Nightwing, Deathstroke, Doctor Doom, Gay Ghost, Blue Devil, Manhunter and Human Torch. As you can see, these alleged superheroes resemble the evil minions of Satan more than real heroes. I won’t even go into details about the villains in these series because they are so vile that I’d need to read the Bible for a week just to recover my wits.

It makes one long for the days of John Wayne. Now that was a real hero!

If your kids want to read comics -- what about Archie? Or Richie Rich? Or Hot Stuff?

Superhero comic books are not the innocent reading material most Christian parents think they are. They are propaganda for an anti-Christian lifestyle that promote things like super powers, magic, other worlds, and free thinking. Don’t fall into the trap and let your kids read about reality -- in the Bible.

(The Rev. Colson Crosslick is pastor of the Pretty Good Shepherd Church in Ripsaw, Arkansas. In the past, he has called for a boycott of the Spiderman movies. He also writes the regularly appearing column Under God's Right Arm for DaRK PaRTY.)

Labels: comics, Under God's Right Arm

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Shell.

Husk.

Vegetable.

They call me all of these things, as if, somehow, I am not here any more, as if I, James, were somewhere else, out of earshot.

They all do it - my so-called friends, family, and the army of do-gooders that have sprang up around me like weeds and are just as welcome.

But I am still alive inside this shell. I still inhabit this husk they speak of.

My mind is pin-sharp - sharper than it ever was. My remaining senses are keener. Sounds are crystal-clear and amplified. My vision is 20/20. My sense of smell is like a bloodhound.

And I can still feel. I feel each blow from their pity-dripping words like a fist in my face. I can feel every moist-eyed stare and sorrowful look, every resigned sigh. I wish I could rise from this chair and slap all of those looks off their faces.

They seem to think I am deaf and blind, treat me as though I am retarded. That reminds me of a stupid thing we used to do to each other as kids - hey, say this fast...

I

Am

We

Todd

Did

We would roll about on the ground in fits of laughter making mongoloid noises at each other, bending our hands at the wrist and clamping them to out chests, sticking out tongues into the lower left of our lips. There but for the grace of God we went. Until now.

But the only thing that has changed about me is that I am unable to move, unable to communicate. I am still the same James inside here, still the same man they all claim to love and respect so damn much.

They are oblivious to the rage in my eyes. They can not see the anger that oozes out of my every pore. I hate each and every one of them for their blindness. If they would only look me in the eye, they would see.

I'm not a baby!

I'm not an idiot!

Hello! I'm over here!

Fuck you!

I curse and rant at them from the confines of my skull, venom dripping from the sharp point of my tongue but the only sounds I can make are ridiculous guttural grunts. I remain silent now; any noise I make only reinforces their assumption that I am brain dead and magnifies the horror and the pity I can see reflected in their irises.

But there are fleeting moments when I am left alone and I cherish them. They are few and far between but I am as happy as I will ever be now when I am here by myself.

Suzie always adored me and she's a permanent fixture in my apartment now. I know she loves this, this situation. She revels the fact that she is my keeper now, that she has to wash me and dress me and change my catheter and my colostomy bag. She gets off on the power that she has over me now. She enjoys it. She is glad that this happened to me. She enjoys playing wife and mother and nursemaid. This suits her just fine. And I hate her for it. And I hate her for the things she does to me behind closed doors when there is no audience to spectate her martyrdom.

Occasionally she runs errands and leaves me alone her for a short while. Before she goes she wheels me over to the window and pats me on the head like an old dog.

Wipe that self-satisfied smirk off your face, bitch.

Shut the door behind you. Careful it doesn't hit that fat ass of yours on the way out.

Oh, and don't come back now, y'hear?

Silence.

Alone.

By the window looking at her.

Each time I see her I can almost feel the warmth from the light that I know must shine out from my eyes.

I saw her before all of this happened but never really paid her much attention. But now, now, she is my obsession. Now she is my life. She is my first waking thought. She is the last thing I think about at night. She is every other thought in between.

Before, she was not attractive to me - not at all - but now, now she is a goddess. She is everything a woman should be. She is a vision of imperfect and flawed beauty. And that fact - her flaws and her imperfections - are what makes her the ultimate specimen of womanhood.

I know that she knows she is nothing special to look at. I also know that there is nothing false about this woman, nothing fake or plastic; she rarely even wears make up. And I know that she would never suspect she was the center of a man's universe, my universe, the stuff of my desires. She never closes her curtains, never even crosses her mind to - she would never have the conceit to think that anybody would want to spy on her. This is what makes her such a delight to watch; this woman is unaffected and natural. She is the essence of all that is woman, and all that a woman should be.

She is right across the street. Yards away. So close. I am Tantalus stuck in the waters of Hades, tormented by this feast of ripened fruit, ready to be plucked from the vine and devoured...but always just out of reach.

And here she is again. Right on cue. Perfect timing.

She enters her apartment and kicks off her shoes, leaves them where they fall. Shrugs off her coat and leaves it where it lies on the floor behind her. She heads for the bedroom and undresses as she goes, scattering her garments about the place.

The shower in her en suite bathroom is directly opposite the door which she never closes. I can see the setting sun glinting on the clear glass shower stall illuminating her wet skin.

I watch her in fascination as she lathers up her firm skin and luxuriates in the touch of her own hands on her body.
I wonder what her skin smells like; lavender and roses, I fancy. I inhale deeply as if I can smell her scent in the air around me. My God, if only.

As I watch her I wonder what she would have thought of me if we had met before this. I'm sure she would have been quite taken with me. I know I would not have had the slightest interest in her. She would have been far too plain to be afforded the privilege of draping herself around my arm. A girl like that would have ruined my reputation.

And what would she think now? I'm sure I would see the same pity in her eyes that I see from my friends and family and complete strangers. I know I would see the same horror. I know I would see the same I'm-so-glad-it's-not-me looks that no one can hide and every one thinks I haven't enough sense left to interpret.

Would she think about what it would be like to have sex with me now? Would she wonder what it would feel like to make love to a shell, a husk, a vegetable? Do they all think about that? I know that when I happened across somebody like me before, I would look at them and wonder that very thing. Human nature. I remember the look in their eyes too - the same look that stares back at me when I catch a glimpse in a mirror or a reflective surface - fury and bitterness.

And what if I had been different then? What if I had stopped for one second some day as she and I passed each other down in the street? What if I had talked to her a moment and got to know her? Got to know somebody? Anybody?

Where are all my flesh-covered trinkets now? Where has all the eye-candy gone? Where are they? They are gone. Moved on. What use am I to them these days? No use. What could I possibly do for them now? Nothing.

My own insincerity and former fatuousness bother me now. Yeah, a bit too late, I know. I wish I had fallen in love. I wish I had somebody with me now to look after me, somebody who loves me and would never leave me.

But I have Suzie.

Suzie's love for me got twisted up inside her. Her nurse act is her revenge for so many years of unrequited love and ridicule. I know how many times she overheard me talking about her to the others. I know how many cutting remarks she absorbed. I know each and every mocking laugh I aimed at her, and she caught them all. She wears so many scars I gave to her. I know all of this because she tells me. And she knows that I can hear her. She knows I am in here. She knows that I am not the shell she has told everybody that I am. She knows everything.

All of this is payback and I know that I deserve each and every one of the little tortures she hands out to me. I know what I did to her now. And although I despise her, I know I deserve her abuses. I can see the Devil shining in her eyes, the satisfaction in her cruel smile when she wheels me over to the window before she leaves, shuts the door behind her then comes back in and closes the curtains in front of me so that I can't see her. To me this is the ultimate cruelty, to take from me the only moments of joy I have left in my life.

Sometimes I want her to rob me of my sanity but my nature compels me to fight on, fight against it. Sometimes I will myself to die, to just cease to be, to become nothing. But the husk is strong. The shell is resilient. And what lies inside them is purgatory.

This is all my fault. My unfortunate accident was my comeuppance from God, the Devil, whoever, whatever, for my cruelty and my vanity and my excesses.

I made the bed I now lie in, I am chained to, nailed to like a cross to bear for my sins.

Labels: Alex Severin, Fiction

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail