Late to the Party, but What the hell? or, Why Can't they Make a Great Superman Movie?

I'm late to the party because the movie, Man of Steel, came out last summer. A bunch of people have already written about this, so why am I writing about this now? I just watched it again, and I decided to put out there what has bothered me about the live action depictions of Superman. Maybe some fans will read and agree, maybe not but what the hell?

Before I start, I should first say that Superman is my favorite comic book superhero. My brother thinks that I'm lame for it (only one reason, there are others) mostly because of his amazing powers. Very little can harm him, he's strong beyond anything, the heat vision, etc. Oddly, it's sort of despite all that that I like Superman. He has all that power, and he just wants to help. He could rule the world, and he serves instead. To me, that's just remarkable. In Superman/Batman #3 Batman observes, 

"It is a remarkable dichotomy. In a way, Clark is the most human of us all. Then he shoots fire from the skies, and it’s hard not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that that does not occur to him." 

I'll admit, when I was 4 and 5 watching "Adventures of Superman" reruns with George Reeves, It was the powers that I liked, but as I got older and gave it more thought, it was the other aspects that got me more interested.  Unfortunately, the factors that I like most aren't the factors that I see portrayed often enough, or done in a sort of haphazard way. Maybe Hollywood has such a hard time with the character because they focus on the obvious things rather than some of these more subtle aspects of the character. 

First, let's talk about Clark. No, let's talk about the "disguise." There have been many discussions about how much of a non-disguise this is. You know them, "How can people be fooled by this?"etc. Over the years, there have been many explanations why it works, all of them have forgotten the simplest reason why no one puts it together that Clark and Superman are the same guy, which is, why would they? 

Superman bends steel in his bare hands, changes the course of mighty rivers, all that jazz. On the other hand, Clark is a big Midwestern farm boy that works in the office. Superman doesn't wear a mask the way Batman does, so why would anyone think he has a secret identity? In fact, a funny bit could be that someone noticing the resemblance and Clark reacting by saying something like "Not you too, I get that from my mother!"

Now let's talk about Clark. Mild mannered doesn't have to mean wimpy, it could just mean polite and not one to start something. In other words, not being a "tough guy." As a reporter for a major newspaper, he can still be a brave, self assured man of action, he's just not reckless.  If some bully starts something, instead of folding, he ducks the punches, and lets the clown beat himself up while saying something like "I'm the wrong guy to start something with. You'd really rather pick on someone more your own speed." It's always bugged me that Clark is portrayed as a doofus, a coward, or both.

I also thought that his becoming a journalist would be a natural job for him. In school, because of his unfair advantage, athletics would be out. Besides, he'd never be able to give a blood sample. So by writing, he can compete fairly. Even though he has an amazing intellectual capacity, for example, he can remember everything; learn a language in a week, etc. writing a great story takes work. This would be a challenge, so that's why he is drawn to journalism. Since he can't be hurt, he takes dangerous assignments. War stories from the front, investigative pieces on major crime rings would be Clark Kent's stock and trade, and after doing this for a while, he gets recruited by the Daily Planet.

With that, Lois Lane falls for Clark Kent, not Superman. That usual depiction of that romance never really made sense to me. Superman is an extraterrestrial alien. He may be attractive, but no. It makes far more sense to me that she would fall for Clark, at least my version of Clark. Clark, knowing his true nature, avoids romance with Lois, which makes her pursue him harder. His rationale is that he prefers globetrotting and only took the Planet job because he wanted to take a break, and the offer is too good. Soon he will go back to that life when he gets bored. 

Since we have to have the romance, Lois will win him over because she is independent, fierce and not a "damsel in distress" and, for Clark, a perfect partner. He will figure that out as they investigate a story that would serve as the main story arc in the film. Superman becomes his "dark secret" that he's reticent to reveal. 

Lex Luthor should be in the story of course, but not the comic villain from the ‘70s movies. He should be a ruthless multibillionaire industrialist. He should also have a legitimate fear of this super-powered alien. He would be the antagonist, but not really a villain, this way he’s more interesting. Instead of hatching some scheme, he sincerely believes he’s protecting everyone.

At this moment someone is the victim of a crime. Since Superman can’t be everywhere all the time, there are cries for help that go unheeded, but he hears them all. You want a gritty Superman? How about examining that?

This is a Superman story, so there have to be huge action sequences, but Superman would go out of his way to keep collateral damage to a minimum. Whatever damage does occur, show him lending a hand to fix it in the epilog. At least have a nice sequence of him clearing the rubble.

I’m aware that it’s easier being a critic than to create a work, but the character has been around over 75 years. There’s really no excuse for making a lackluster movie about such a character that has been part of our modern mythology for so long; especially if you’re going to throw that much money into telling such a story. The Marvel studios have shown over and over how to make a great superhero story. Take notes.

Why the minimum wage should matter to you.

Whenever I hear discussion about the minimum wage, I generally hear the same arguments. Those for raising it, tend to argue that one cannot live on minimum wage, and those opposed, tend to argue that people in certain occupations, being unskilled, should not earn a professional level wage, and if the minimum wage were raised, it would lead to increased joblessness, as employers would now have an increased burden from those costs. Also, raising the minimum wage would cause the cost of everything else to go up, since this financial burden would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices.

Interesting arguments, but both sides miss the reality of the situation. In a report from the National Employment Law Project that came out in July of '12, the truth of the situation is very well spelled out. While it is true that the minimum wage reached it buying power peak in 1968 (the $1.60 wage was worth about $10.60 in today's dollars),  and today's minimum wage is about 30% less in real buying power, the real problem is the current ratio of low-income workers compared to those that earn a real living wage. Compound that with the fact that low income jobs are the majority of the new ones created, and a pattern emerges that points to the slow recovery, that may not be sustainable, and an economic reality that may, in fact, lead this country further into the third world.

Some things that aren't brought up by these arguments:

• Most minimum wage workers work for large corporations, not small companies. In fact, most small companies pay their front line workers more than minimum wage, it's the mega-corporations that don't.
• Most of these companies with low-wage front line workers, are profitable. Many of them paying their executives bonuses and paying shareholders up to billions of dollars, while their front line workers only get by thanks to public assistance.

I'm not going to argue that some jobs offered by these employers should pay well. I don't believe that a part-time highschooler gathering carts in the parking lot should be getting $20/hr. On the other hand, a corporation that can afford stock buybacks and can afford to pay their executives more in an hour than their front line employees earn in a month, should be able to afford to pay those employees enough that they don't qualify for public assistance.In fact, the numbers suggest this can easily be done by our nation's largest employers, they just choose not to do it.

I care about this because I just don't see a reason that my tax dollars should be used on a person with a full-time job working for a profitable firm. Since that person is working for a profitable outfit, the compensation should be there so he/she is making too much for public assistance, instead of relying on me, and other taxpayers to make up the difference.

If WalMart, the largest employer in the US, paid their workers more,

•  those folks would probably spend the bulk of that increase right back in the store, after all, just about any consumer goods one can get, can be gotten at WalMart. 
• this would result in higher revenues, and more orders which would have the effect of creating more manufacturing jobs to meet the demand
• They would also be able to attract and retain quality employees, not because they have nowhere else to go, but because that is where they prefer to be. 
• WalMart would not need the multimillion ad campaign to offset the recent bad press concerning the compensation of the employees.

These corporations, unfortunately, don't see the error in continuing the practice of paying employees the minimum they can get away with, instead of a reasonable amount they can afford, which is the only reason there is a minimum wage law on the books. It is largely forgotten that before there was a minimum wage law, there were situations were free people didn't get paid by profitable business at all.

Properly compensated, these employees would create a consumer base that would really turn the economy around, bring the US back to being comfortably a first world nation, get people off of public assistance, which would help lower our tax bill, and have more tax payers sharing that bill, and finally create new revenue streams for these companies.

What Control Do We Really Need?

I don't think we really have a gun problem in the United States, though overall, we are more armed than any other developed nation. We have more guns per capita than any other nation, and we are no. 2 in per capita gun homicides (Mexico is #1). These kinds of figures would suggest that gun control may solve the problem of gun violence. It certainly should be part of the discussion, but will that work?

Much like the "War on Drugs" major gun control legislation will not do much to stem the tide of illegal gun ownership/use, since the people that comply aren't going to be the ones cause the problems. What will probably happen though is that certain behavior, that's currently legal, will be criminalized.


Unfortunately, the NRA doesn't do itself any favors when it puts out adverts like this:



Every President with school-age children has had some gun-toting Federal Agent following those children to and from school ever since the Secret Service has been in the business of Presidential protection. To put an advert like this, is obviously manipulative, misleading and disrespects the members of the NRA. If anything, this sort of phony emotional appeal will make more supporters of the "feel-good" knee-jerk gun control legislation than focused on real world solutions that will actually work.

I think an amount of gun control should be part of the discussion, but more people are killed with household tools than with firearms each year, and this kind of talk doesn't get to the root of the real problem. We don't have a gun problem, we have a violence problem. That's what we need to face, and that's what we need to fix.

The Pledge of Allegiance--Ruminations.

One of my friends (real friends, that is) posted this on his facebook status.

I am an UN-APOLOGETIC AMERICAN!! I pledge allegiance to the flag of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under GOD, indivisible, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all!! I grew up reciting this every morning in school. We no longer do that for...fear...of OFFENDING SOMEONE!! Let's see how many AMERICANS will re-post this & NOT CARE about offending someone!

I agree with several points:

1. I also am an unapologetic American. ( I don't need the emphasis, but I am a veteran, so I think I'm pretty patriotic)
2. I grew up saying the pledge, at least in primary school I did.
3. I don't worry about offending anyone. As long as offending isn't my aim.

I just wanted to make that clear before going further.


Going Further:

Ever since I first heard of the debate concerning the phrase, "under God" sometime in the 1980's, I really never got why that phrase was a big deal. I really still don't get it. The phrase was included to the pledge in 1954 after the Knights of Columbus  petitioned Congress for this change in the pledge. At the time, during the latest "red scare" the feeling was that this would help protect the country from the Godless communist threat. Who knows? Maybe this worked, maybe not. 

On the other hand, this is what the pledge looked like from 1924 until 1954:

  "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Why is this important? It seems that the generation that survived the Great Depression, and won World War II, didn't have the phrase "under God" in the pledge. Does this mean, to the faithful, that these feats were accomplished without God? Of course not!

Since the phrase has been put into the pledge, what has happened to the country? We've become a bunch of whiners in a world where the phrase "good old Yankee know-how" is more about how our corporations can get the government to foot their bills, and less about the innovation and industrial leadership are hallmarks of the American system that made us the envy of the world.

I'm actually in favor of removing the phrase, not because I'm afraid of offending a few atheists, but really because I want to be more like, in many ways that Greatest Generation. Look at the old pledge again, tell me what was wrong with it. If it got them through those times, why wouldn't it be good enough to help us now?  

What's Wrong with Modern Politics

I suppose the term "modern" may not apply, since negative campaigning, and character assassination have been going on between politicians since... well since there have been politics. I am troubled, however, by the current level of fear mongering from the right, and the left not doing anything to stem the tide.

What I want is a good honest debate between the conservative and the progressive points of view. I think both sides offer good ideas, and we don't hear them. Instead we get authoritarian nonsense from the right and nothing of value from the left.

Recently, I read an article about the aide to a congressional representative that tweeted a rather coarse critique of the President's reaction to the fear mongering around the Park 51 Community Center. The tweet congratulated the President for his diplomacy, and stated, in less polite terms that the individuals against the center were not versed in the Constitution and were less than intellectual. The critique, though crude, was spot on.

Every federal elected official swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. This means, at least in my mind, that while individually one may think it isn't a good idea, they would calm the crowd and assert the right of the group to exercise their first amendment right to peaceful assembly wherever they choose. Several of them not only provided no aid to these American Citizens in the enjoyment of that right, but inflamed crowds to strip this right from these citizens.

So this Congressional Aide, tweeted his critique, it got picked up by some on the other side of the aisle, and in turn, he was critiqued for using crude language. Instead of defending the sentiment, and even apologizing for the language, he closed his twitter account. That was lame. He was correct, and if he was willing to put his statements out there for all to see, he should stand by them.

Currently the situation calls for the Right to be wing-nuts and for the Left to be wimps. Real conservatives need to speak up, put these usurpers in their place and get real ideas for solving our crises, and real progressives need to help them by also speaking up and sending these clowns back to the circus.

The Authoritarians- a recommendation

I recently read a book by an American social scientist working in Canada. I was frankly shocked by what I read, but many things that have been going on around the world and here in  the States, are explained by this book. I believe that everyone from all political stripes should read it. It's free, it isn't terribly long, it is written for the layman, so we all can understand what's in it and not be bored by the language used. What can be gained by reading this? Well, I can't say this better than the author.

OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what’s happened to the American government lately. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right” teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It’s about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches.

“Well,” you might be thinking, “I don’t believe any of this is true.” Or maybe, you’re thinking, “What else is new? I’ve believed this for years.” Why should a conservative, moderate, or liberal bother with this book? Why should any Republican, Independent, or Democrat click the “Whole Book” link on this page?

Because if you do, you’ll begin an easy-ride journey through some very relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities--one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research.

For example, take the following statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?

Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.

Don’t think for a minute this doesn’t concern you personally. Let me ask you, as we’re passing the time here, how many ordinary people do you think an evil authority would have to order to kill you before he found someone who would, unjustly, out of sheer obedience, just because the authority said to? What sort of person is most likely to follow such an order? What kind of official is most likely to give that order, if it suited his purposes? Look at what experiments tell us, as I did.

If, on the other hand,  you’re way ahead of me, and believe the extreme right-wing elements in America are poised to take it over, permanently, I think you can still get a lot from this book. The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank and file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?

I think you’ll find this book “explains a lot.” Many scattered impressions about the enemies of freedom and equality become solidified by science and coherently connected here.

You think I’m pulling your leg? Click the link.

                                                            -Bob Altemeyer

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Evolution, Reason, and Faith

This week on "The View" there was a discussion concerning a study conducted by NOAA scientists describing how natural laws may have played a role in the Exodus story of the Red Sea parting. Sherri Shepherd, a panelist on the show, was visibly upset by the encroachment of science on her faith. This discussion lead her to explain, briefly, her belief system which does not include things like evolution, etc. Similarly, Christine O'Donnell stated in 1998 that "evolution is a myth" and she's running for a Senate seat in Delaware. Several Republican candidates for President of the United States, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo, during the primary debates, stated for the record that they do not believe in evolution.

The debate has and seem to continue to be that a belief in a religious life or a deity, is exclusive of scientific facts. In other words, one either believes in Science or one believe in God, and these beliefs are incompatible.


NONSENSE!!

Until recently, say the last 150 years, many scientists, in fact, were clergy, since those were the guys that got the most education. They certainly didn't seem to have a problem of balancing belief with knowledge. Isaac Newton defined thermodynamics of Thursday, and still preached the Gospel on Sunday, and I'm sure his congregation benefited from having such an intelligent and learned vicar.

The real debate here is one between knowledge and belief. Knowledge being something that we know is true, either by direct observation, or by the application of logic to provide  a  deduction based on those observations. Belief, on the other hand, is an opinion. It may also be based on logical observation and deduction, but often without the strict methodology that is required to call it knowledge. In other words "I know it in my heart" or "I know it in my gut" is not the same as "I know it."

The two, Knowledge, and Belief do not have to be mutually exclusive. I remember being nineteen years old discussing this very thing with an Anglican priest. I asked if he believed the Adam and Eve story. He chuckled and told me he thought it was a nice story, but that's what it was, a story. When he saw the confusion on my face he told me that science may describe the possible mechanism used by God to make me, but it didn't affect his belief that it was God that did it, and that God loves us all.

I recently read a study based on some experiments done in Canada concerning authoritarianism. I do recommend following the link, and reading the study. It's written for laypeople, so you don't have to be a social scientist to follow it. One of the things this study points out is the lack of intellectual curiosity in people with a certain orientation toward authority. This is not to say that these people lack intelligence, in fact they may operate at a genius level, but they defer to authority to provide their answers. So if they are told, by their trusted authority that something is not worth knowing, they will avoid the understanding of this "unnecessary" knowledge.

I honestly feel sorry for people that close themselves from knowledge. As Galileo once said:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

So, let's say the Red Sea was parted by a constant wind, it sure happened at a convenient time for Moses and company. Sounds like a miracle to me. As more discoveries happen, I am more in awe of the wonders in the universe, and the God that made them.