The Terrible Destruction Plaguing Our Planet

The new Captain Planet and the Planeteers series...is bad.

I know it's only two issues in, and I'm going to give it a fair shake, at least until the end of the first arc here, but it's not looking good.

And look, let's not be unrealistic here. It's not entirely surprising that a reboot of Captain Planet would turn out bad. The original cartoon wasn't exactly Citizen Kane. It wasn't even Gargoyles. It was perhaps the most incredibly early-'90s series that could possibly have existed, down to a multicultural cast that looked like the Burger King Kids Club and an opening narration that had to be hastily redubbed after the fall of the Soviet Union. The series was Oops, All Very Special Episodes, which is honestly admirable to a degree, even if they approached every issue, from air pollution to The Troubles to AIDS with the exact same degree of didactic bluntness and simplistic liberal moralizing. If you'd asked me to lay money on which cartoons from this era were least likely to rate a revival in one form or another, Captain Planet, despite its popularity at the time and enduring legacy, would have landed somewhere between Wild West C.O.W. Boys of Moo Mesa and C.O.P.S. in my ranking.

Actually, it seems I was about right.

But also... now is precisely the right time for a Captain Planet revival. There's a lot about the show that didn't age well, but the core concept—that the world is in peril, and that the only real solution to that is for young people from around the world to band together and take on the polluters who are actively making things worse—is far more salient now than in 1990. At the time, the monstrous, one-dimensional villains clear-cutting forests for fun and polluting for profit seemed unrealistic, but now? 

Now there is an entire subculture dedicated to damaging your expensive truck so that it will produce more smoke in ways that make it less efficient, and blowing that smoke at electric cars and bicyclists. Now, the world's richest man built an artificial intelligence that he turned into a Nazi and wants his eugenic progeny to live on Mars while the rest of us die on the hollowed-out husk of Earth. Now, the President of the United States is a doddering germophobic rapist who appointed a Secretary of Health and Human Services who does not believe in germ theory and is actively dismantling the federal apparatus dedicated to tracking and fighting disease. The EPA just released an order to "make gas cans great again" reversing nearly 20 years of regulations designed to reduce emissions and danger to children. The entire tech industry is currently dedicated to replacing the entire working and creative class with a pathological liar machine that runs on drained aquifers and uses more power than entire countries. 

Verminous Skumm spreading panic about AIDS so he can take over the world seems entirely reasonable by comparison.

It would be so easy to do a new Captain Planet series, one that draws from the examples of Greta Thunberg, from the Water Protectors who stood against the Dakota Access Pipeline, from Little Miss Flint Mari Copeny who raised awareness about the Flint water crisis, and those are just the first three examples I could come up with off the top of my head. You could look to Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, Greenpeace, and other similar organizations; I may not always agree with the actions those groups take, but they would be easy fodder for stories about modern Planeteers. 

And that's without touching on issues of environmental justice, something any reasonable Captain Planet revival ought to be doing in the 21st century. One of the biggest problems with the original series is that its multicultural cast is a thin veneer pasted over a very white, liberal, America-centric view of the world. A Captain Planet who addresses how climate change hits the global south hardest, how communities that are already stressed by poverty and oppression become further marginalized as the temperatures and waters rise, how the capitalist drive for endless growth and cheap labor and resource extraction is ultimately the driving force behind all of this planetary degradation, is necessary to communicate concepts more complex than turning off the lights when you leave the room.

I take it back. It wouldn't be easy to do that Captain Planet series. It would require courage and research. It would likely require multiple writers and sensitivity readers. It would ruffle feathers. It would anger YouTubers. 

But it would at least be easy to tell a story there, one that meets the moment, one that has a solid foundation, one that feels timely and relevant. 

Instead, there's what David Pepose and Eman Casallos have chosen to do in Dynamite's Captain Planet and the Planeteers, which is to write a book that feels ashamed of every aspect of its source material. It's got all the hallmarks. Looten Plunder? That name's too silly, like "Victor Von Doom." Gotta change it, now he's "Lucian Plunder" and "Lootin'" is just what the protesters call him. While the original series was a goofy Saturday morning cartoon, this series is serious and grown-up and violent. The first issue kicks off with Plunder's paramilitary goons hunting Gaia with assault rifles from helicopters, and the second issue starts with her in restraints. Linka is a Pussy Riot-styled rocker who fights cops, and some fake cops kidnap Gi and Kwame when they arrive in New York City. 

Oh, and don't you dare think about making all the old jokes about this Captain Planet series. Because Ma-Ti, he's not the useless kid who talks to animals anymore. No, he's a deadly eco-terrorist who threatens loggers with jaguars. And Captain Planet himself? Well, if you ever thought that his tight midriff top and briefs ensemble with a mullet was a threat to your masculinity, don't worry, this Captain Planet is butch as hell, with a beard and way more of that blue skin covered, so you can rest assured in your mostly unassaulted heterosexuality. 

Everything about the aesthetics and execution of this book feels twenty years out of date, like it was printed in the same "what, were you expecting yellow spandex?" swaggering, irony-poisoned era that gave us Transformers with testicles and sex slave ThunderCats. 

That feeling extends to the guiding politics of the series, which feel like some kind of Bush-era, South Park-tinted centrist cynicism. Kwame is a former soccer star whose career ended due to an injury, seeking to recapture his glory days. Linka is not just an anarchist punk rocker, but a child of immense privilege, whose activism is framed as petulant teenage rebellion against her wealthy father. Wheeler is a Union auto worker whose carelessness with his new power ring causes his plant to burn down, amidst layoffs and protests driven by green EV initiatives. And while they've added a smidge of additional diversity by making Gi textually queer, they've also turned Wheeler's womanizing dialogue up to eleven. The overall effect feels like sneering at the idea of people sincerely fighting for the environment; instead, they're mostly deeply flawed and compromised, much like the environmental protesters we're shown in a couple of occasions. Our villain doesn't provide much contrast. While Plunder is clearly bad, he's not bad in a realistic way. He wants Gaia's magic power for himself, and his goons have robotic exo-suits. The only time this comic feels genuine is when cops apprehend our two heroic immigrants for no reason at JFK International Airport, but even they turn out to be fake cops, presumably to give some plausible deniability to all those readers with blue line flags on their SUVs. 

I don't think this cynical approach can work for Captain Planet. The original series was earnest to a fault, and I think the only way you can make Captain Planet work for a more grown-up, sophisticated audience is to lean right into that earnestness by having him tackle all the same problems that the original series tackled, and then some, but with added complexity and nuance. Not to demean our heroes or to humanize our villains, but to illustrate the realities of the world around them. There's no need for Wheeler to be sexist or for Ma-Ti to be violent, any more than there's need for Looten Plunder to be driven by something other than greed and lust for power. What's needed is a story that explores how the Looten Plunders of the world operate, and what a team of idealists could do if they were given the power to take them down. We can roll our eyes and suspend some disbelief when Superman says that it's not his place to step in and reverse climate change or dismantle capitalism. Captain Planet doesn't have an excuse. 

Yesterday, a person with a high-powered rifle murdered an executive of Blackstone (among other people), an investment firm whose holdings have been involved in logging the Amazon rainforest, making children work in slaughterhouses, and collaborating with ICE, and that's just what's in the Wikipedia controversies section. Now, I'm not suggesting that Captain Planet and the Planeteers should be about five teens and a glittering Pride float dancer gleefully using elemental powers to Luigi their way through the Forbes billionaire list.

But that would be a better book than this one.

In fairness, I never said which November

Content Warning: Sexual assault, election stuff, violence, everything. Stuff is changing around here, sorry folks. 

The Card Thing

I've weighed in on this elsewhere, but I keep seeing people who otherwise should know better saying utterly stupid things about this fiasco. Nothing I'm about to say here hasn't been said better by Dave or Siskoid or Brett White, but I felt like it was important to put all my thoughts on the subject in one place.

Orson Scott Card has been tapped to write the first (digital) issue of a new digital-first Superman ongoing series, "Adventures of Superman." Card's story is to be illustrated by the immensely talented Chris Sprouse, and in the print edition, will appear alongside a story by Jeff Parker and Chris Samnee, who are great.

Orson Scott Card's comics work has been rather limited. He's worked primarily at Marvel where, as far as I can see from the Wiki page, the only thing he's done that wasn't an adaptation of his prose works was a run of "Ultimate Iron Man" that has been widely panned and retconned as a not-very-accurate cartoon or something.

But his name is recognizable outside of comics fandom, and so DC placed him on the first issue of their new digital series, presumably hoping it would go as well as the last time they hired a big-name sci-fi author to write Superman. Scoff if you want (I certainly did) but Straczynski's presence gave the books a big sales boost, at least until he got distracted by something shiny and let better writers clean up his messes.

There's been a backlash, for good reason, because Orson Scott Card is an enormous bigot. I've seen people framing this as a "difference of opinion" or a "belief" or a "personal political position." It's certainly the latter two, but I think calling this a "difference of opinion" is an insulting trivialization. It's easy for the privileged to suggest that other people's basic rights and humanity of are matters of opinion, but such opinions affect actual people's actual lives. At best, Card's opinions are reprehensible, ignorant, often based on blatant falsehoods, and in some cases borderline treasonous.

But if you frame this as a "difference of opinion" and a matter of "personal beliefs," then it makes the people suggesting Card should be pulled from the issue, fired, or otherwise penalized, look like unreasonable, irrational censors. Doing so allows DC to distance themselves from Card's views while also trying to shrug off the controversy without actually doing anything.

We can ignore, I suppose, that this is a company that has fired at least one writer for expressing his opinion that their dealings with creators and their heirs have been unethical. So, for the record, believing that a corporation should treat creators with respect is a firing offense; believing that people should overthrow the government if certain groups of unnatural sinners obtain equality under the law, that's "steadfastly support[ed] freedom of expression" and "personal views."

But Card's bigotry goes well beyond beliefs or views or even odious essays filled with the typical clichés of homophobes. He has been actively campaigning against LGBT causes for several years, and serves on the board of the anti-LGBT National Organization for Marriage, which works to prevent equality by trying to force a particular religious definition of marriage on public policy and a civil, legal institution. I can't decide which is worse: that they hypocritically couch their discrimination in terms of others trying to force their beliefs on the nation, or that a group opposed to "redefining marriage" has strong ties to the Mormon church.

In short, calling the boycotts and protests and petitions a matter of Card's views and opinions is dismissive not only to the people affected by Card's activism, but also to the magnitude of his bigotry and the actions he's taken on behalf of those beliefs.

One would think that a corporation that just a month ago seemed so proud to announce their GLAAD award nominees would be more aware of Card's views, actions, and how the hire would be received, but I'm increasingly convinced that DC has absolutely no idea how their actions and stories might be received by anyone outside of mainstream comic fandom.

I'm not sure what DC can do at this point. I mean, this is a company that pulled a Superman comic because it might cause controversy for Superman to have a Muslim superhero friend (and replaced it with a story pulled years before because a Krypto-centric tale didn't fit with the current tone of the series), so if they're standing behind this story, they must have some serious investment in it (more on that later). But I'd certainly be happier if they pulled the story and led off with the Parker/Samnee joint.

I've bought every regular Superman-starring comic for years (the last one I missed, near as I can tell, was "Superman/Batman" #77 or #78). I'm not sure what the last Superman #1 I didn't buy was, outside of maybe a few one-shots or miniseries. But I'm not buying this one. I'll get Parker's story digitally, and I might eventually check the issue out when I can get it on the secondary market and not put any money into DC or Card's pockets. Or Hell, I might pirate it. It's unethical, but then, so was hiring Card, so I think it pans out. My local comic shop has said that they won't stock it on the shelf, joining at least a few others around the country, and that continues to convince me that I'm shopping at the right place.

Orson Scott Card shouldn't be writing Superman. He really shouldn't be working for any company that promotes diversity, justice, and equality, but I'd settle for him working only on his own creations and adaptations. DC has dropped writers and issues for reasons that didn't involve making a group of people into second-class citizens or inciting armed rebellion, so they must have a reason for trying to keep him around and happy.

My suspicion? They wouldn't snag a big-name sci-fi writer for one short digital-first story. But they might snag one to headline a sci-fi series where the long-time writer is leaving an epic run. I'd lay odds that we'll see at least one arc on a Green Lantern book by Card, and I imagine we'll see at least part of one by JMS. And, well, you wouldn't want to drive away the guy who you hope is going to keep one of your tent pole lines from collapsing come June. I hope that's not the case. I hope that this hoopla makes DC rethink whether or not they want to associate with Card and his toxic hate. I hope a lot of comic fans and professionals who should know better learn that a boycott is different from a ban or censorship, and that the right to free speech doesn't mean "free from consequences" or "the right to a paid platform and audience."

And I think those all have about equal chance of happening.

Tempest in a Steel Teapot

I hope I have some time this weekend to talk at some length about "Action Comics #900," since there's plenty to say, but I think I ought to weigh in on the citizenship brouhaha.

It's silly.

It's not just silly because Superman is a fictional character and therefore no more an American citizen than Popeye or Mickey Mouse. It's silly because it's a non-issue.

This kind of story has been done before (he's eighty years old; what hasn't?), where Superman is conflicted about entering into politically tense situations because he's seen as an American and as a de facto agent of the American government. It was a component of "Superman: Peace on Earth," as I recall, and it figured into some of the Bialya/Qurac stuff in the '80s, and into a plotline in Rucka's "Adventures of Superman" a few years back. The point that Superman is a citizen of the world, belonging to the world, a hero to the world, has been made many, many times. Renouncing his citizenship (heck, the guy's home is already in the Arctic Circle, and presumably not Alaska) is simply a way of freeing him from being hampered by his apparent ties to the American government and freeing the American government from having to account for Superman's actions. One would think that would be a welcome relief, considering how often the guy seems to go crazy/evil/megalomaniacal. Global politics and the American government should not be a limitation on the good that Superman can do, and they shouldn't want to be.

The other side of this is the idea that Superman is somehow leaving behind or repudiating "Truth, Justice, and the American Way," and I really don't get that impression. He says "'Truth, Justice, and the American Way'--it's not enough anymore," but that doesn't suggest that it's wrong--just limiting, or limited. I hardly imagine that Superman is going to stop fighting for truth and justice; heck, this story is about Superman seeking the liberty to dedicate his life to the pursuit of happiness for all people, equally. He's declaring his independence from American politics. Put another way:

When in the Course of [super]human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I don't know; it sounds like the American Way to me.

I'm slowly working my way through Elliot S! Maggin's Superman: Last Son of Krypton, and one thing I like is how he presented the Ethics of Sonnabend, the basic principles that have somehow found their way to every civilized corner of the universe in one fashion or another.

Loosely translated into English, some of Sonnabend's ethical standards could be stated like this:
Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In other words: Truth, Justice, and the American Way. The problem is not in the principles, but in how others interpret Superman as a tool of American political power or imperialist intent. And with at least one writer on the Superman books (the inestimable Chris Roberson) explicitly influenced by Maggin and the novels, I suspect that this point won't go unnoticed.

The final point is this: Superman is a citizen of the world, and frankly, that's how it should be. But I guarantee you that Clark Kent is still registered as a citizen of Metropolis, USA. Not only would it be pretty damn obvious for Clark Kent to renounce his citizenship at the same time as Superman, but there's no reason for it. Superman will still be the hero of Metropolis, Clark Kent will still report for the Daily Planet, and the status quo will remain basically in place as it has for decades. Not even Superman could budge that.

When you can hover above the world, you don't see political boundaries.

And that's the way it should be.

Comics I'd Write for Free: Green Arrow

I recently sold off my collection of Green Arrow comics, which, to be honest, wasn't all that many. I started reading the series because I was a teenager and Kevin Smith was teh awesome, and frankly, I think his two arcs--plus the Meltzer follow-up--were pretty good comics. They certainly paved the way for Ollie to become a powerhouse character with a fairly consistently-running series, which is more than can be said for a lot of otherwise good characters.

I liked Green Arrow as a kid, though I didn't have many comics with him. I've mentioned a few times that I grew up reading a stack of my mom's old World's Finests and Adventure Comics and so forth, and Green Arrow featured occasionally in those. Mostly it was the full-on Batman ripoff era, pre-beard, when he drove the Arrowcar and had an Arrowcave (and led me to think that every superhero except Superman had their own eponymous car and cave hideout). I know there was a Neal Adams-era Ollie in one of the Super-Sons issues, so I was definitely exposed to both. Admittedly, while I prefer the Adams costume, I'm an awfully big fan of the trick arrows. I don't care that they're not aerodynamic; they're awesome.

I don't often talk politics on this blog; I have another space for that. Suffice it to say that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool left-wing liberal hippie whatever. Recent less-than-stellar political events, like the one I thrust Superman and Green Arrow into a few days back have got me thinking about politics and comics, though, and have given me a revelation about Oliver Queen.

Green Arrow should be the liberal Punisher.

Now, when I say this, I don't mean that he should be going around killing Tea Partiers and polluters. I mean it in a more abstract way: the Punisher is a 'swift justice' wish fulfillment character, who goes after the sort of everyday criminals that we all occasionally think ought to just be weeded out entirely, and he does that. He skips the whole due process and fair trial issues and, with a pure certainty, plays judge, jury, and executioner. It's the same kind of wish fulfillment that we look for in shows like "Dexter;" we want someone to do the dirty work that we're unwilling to do ourselves.

Of course, there are good reasons that we're unwilling to do that dirty work, all centered around certainties that exist only in fictional settings and complications that don't. We can accept the Punisher's actions because we know he's right about the people he dispatches, because that's how the stories are written. Real life is messier. So, while the Punisher goes after mob bosses and drug dealers and arms dealers, there's really no one exerting that same swift justice on the corrupt business owners or cronyist politicians or dirty lobbyists or any of the other standard villains of a liberal tirade. And that's what I'd like to see from Green Arrow.

Here's the pitch: Ollie realizes that, after years of being involved in politics and living as a billionaire again, he's grown distant from the causes he used to champion. Realizing that voting and speaking out simply aren't enough these days, not when one side refuses to play fair and the other side rolls over at the slightest pressure, he sets out on a one-man cross-country campaign to set things right. Between his skills and his resources, he decides to become a real-life Robin Hood once more, a nobleman by birth who sides with the common man, fighting the battles that they can't, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. He sets up a social networking page where fans and followers can suggest what problems are affecting them, and he'll put his brand of non-lethal justice to bear on those who would oppress and exploit the powerless. And so he rides his Arrowcycle out from Star City, driving where the Internet and his sense of justice take him, with his sights ultimately set on Washington, DC.

I think, given that, the rest of the story writes itself. The philosophical complications are obvious: Ollie is not perfect by any means, and his brash, hot-headed approach may result in complications he hasn't foreseen. Besides that, he has to deal with the ramifications that his actions will have after he leaves, and he's going to find that there are lots of problems that can't be solved with boxing glove arrows. He's also going to make a lot of powerful enemies, not to mention his normal cadre of enemies who would be all too willing to seek him out--or to use his new web presence to lure him into traps. Meanwhile, a lot of his allies aren't exactly thrilled with his newfound political crusade, and while they may confront him, he's perfectly willing to take them to task for their own apparent moral failings.

Is it a bit like "Grounded"? Sure. But the problem with "Grounded" isn't in the idea of a superhero going walkabout, isn't in the idea of an out-of-touch superhero getting back to his roots and ideals, and isn't necessarily in the idea of a superhero dealing with real-world issues. The "Hard-Traveling Heroes" arc of Green Lantern/Green Arrow did all that, to varying degrees of success, and is fondly remembered because of it. The problem with "Grounded" is in the idea that Superman fits into that mold, and in the smug, self-assured way that it was executed. The story I'm proposing would be exactly as tedious if it had the self-assured self-righteousness that "Grounded" exuded in those early issues, where even though Superman was an asshole, we knew that the writer wanted us to think he was totally right and profound. Of course, the flipside point is that Ollie thinks he's absolutely right, and has to be confronted with the reality that he often isn't. And Ollie has the kind of smug self-assured attitude that can work in that sort of story; not so much with Superman.

There's also the point to be made that, what with executing Prometheus, hiding out in the woods, and allowing his allies to torture supervillains, he kind of has lost his idealistic principles. There would be an actual in-story justification for his need to reacquaint himself with his politics.

So Ollie Queen finally lives up to his Robin Hood-style costume, finds a way to reconcile his wealth and his politics, and sets off on a cross-country tour that can weave in and out of the mainstream DCU seamlessly, dealing both with relevant social commentary and over-the-top superhero action. It can function as an ongoing overarching theme, as a finite story (with Washington, DC as the endpoint), or some combination of both.

And I'd write it for free.

Ending Douchebag Welfare

By now you all know about Travis Corcoran, the colossal asshat at Heavy Ink who thinks the proper response to the attempted assassination of a Congresswoman is to endorse the assassinations of the rest of Congress. Notable people are boycotting him, and that's fantastic. Some people are decrying the boycotts, usually on a complete misunderstanding of what is meant by "freedom of speech" (here's a hint: it means that you are free to say whatever stupid crap you want, within limits. It does not mean that there will not be consequences for saying stupid crap). But one argument sticks out to me, and I think it's worth responding to. Cartoonist Ted Rall said:

If I only bought from companies and individuals whose political beliefs I agreed with, I wouldn’t be buying much.

This guy is entitled to his beliefs. Personally, I think anyone who supports America’s illegal wars is far worse than the Heavy Ink guy is. After all, our wars kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people for no good reason. But people are entitled to support whatever murderous wars they want. I wouldn’t boycott someone because of their disgusting politics. Hell, if I did that, I wouldn’t buy much.

Boycotting or trying to drive someone out of business due to their political beliefs is vile, hypocritical behavior on the part of creative types who depend on the right to free expression to market and sell their ideas. The fact that you disagree with those beliefs does not change that.

(And please spare me the right-wing libertarian pablum about how only the government can censor. Look up the word “censorship” in the dictionary.)

Funny how people react to violent intolerance with violent intolerance.

Ted Rall is an idiot.

Let's start with where he's right: yes, Corcoran is entitled to his beliefs. And everyone else is entitled to think that his beliefs make him a colossal asshat (see above). Said people are also entitled to decide which colossal asshats they are willing to do business with.

And I'll even agree that people who support our illegal wars are bad, because war is bad, and lots of innocent people die in war. On the other hand, people who support said wars aren't directly calling for the specific murders of particular individuals, unlike Corcoran, and I think that puts them in a slightly different category. But where does this war bit come from? It is, as the Latins say, a non sequitur. It's not an either-or proposition--"either you support assassinating Congress or you support killing Muslims"--there's a whole spectrum of vile opinions and vile people. Only one of those people is involved in this situation.

And yet, that's where Rall goes right. Where he goes wrong is by saying that boycotts are "vile, hypocritical behavior" for artists to engage in. The reason he's wrong is in his next clause: because those creative types "depend on the right to free expression to market and sell their ideas." It is most assuredly not hypocrisy for creative types who market and sell their freely-expressed ideas to recognize a freely-expressed idea that is poorly-marketed and not buy it.

Allow me to elaborate: Corcoran had an idea. He expressed it, as is his right. Upon expressing that idea, it turned out that there's not much of a market for calls for Congressional assassinations. He finds himself now desperately trying to sell these ideas that almost no one wants. If he were a political cartoonist, for instance, it would seem that his cartoons would not be picked up by many newspapers.

But he's not a cartoonist. He's the president of a distribution company. He has apparently taken it upon himself to be a public face for said company. In those capacities, he is not selling ideas (except inasmuch as he is selling other people's ideas, printed and bound); he is selling his services as a distributor. He is essentially marketing his own sales skills, promoting himself and his company as the organization you should choose, out of all the other comic distributors, to sell and ship comics to you.

So I ask you: where is the hypocrisy in looking at that situation, seeing a salesman who is so bad at marketing his own ideas that he can't get people to buy them when they are free and extrapolating his marketing skills in arenas where money is at stake? That's not hypocrisy. That's not censorship. That's business. He is the public face of his company, and his thoughtless actions have made it clear that Heavy Ink's public face is a horse's ass. If he's not business-savvy enough to recognize that his public statements reflect on his company and carry potential financial consequences, if he's not business-savvy enough to recognize when to cut his losses and save face rather than continuing to dig a hole when it's just a matter of ideas, then why would anyone think he's savvy enough to do those things when money and business decisions are involved?

Two last things: there is nothing "violent" (or even really intolerant) about boycotting a business due to things done by the owner of the business. As long as Rall is telling people to look words up in the dictionary, perhaps he should turn to the "V" section.

But he's right about censorship. It would be wrong to say that only the government can censor. Lots of people can censor. Private editors can cut objectionable words or phrases out of articles or stories or whatever; heck, when I was a DJ at my college radio station, I did a whole lot of censoring. It's how I managed to play certain songs by Ben Folds and Tenacious D over the airwaves. I even censor myself, here on the blog, restricting what words I use to describe people like Corcoran.

Where Rall runs wrong again is in thinking, apparently, that anything in the Corcoran situation constitutes "censorship." No one is telling Corcoran that he can't say what he likes, where he likes. No one is cutting words out of his blog posts or blocking access to his website or otherwise forcibly limiting his freedom of speech. He has the Constitutionally-protected right to say any asinine thing that crosses his mind. But he is not guaranteed the right to have his words exist free of consequence. He is not guaranteed the right to have a customer base. I would think that "creative types" who "depend on the right to free expression to market and sell their ideas" like Rall would understand: your right to voice and market your ideas does not guarantee that someone will pay for them. And just as Ted Rall isn't guaranteed a Constitutional right to have any random napkin-scribbling picked up by the Tribune, Travis Corcoran is not guaranteed to have people patronize a business that would have such a giant boob as its president.

So, needless to say, I won't be shopping at Heavy Ink. But my decision not to shop there is not because I "disagree with his political beliefs" (assuming, of course, that "kill Congress" constitutes a "political belief"). My decision not to shop at Heavy Ink is based on the same reason(s) as my decision never to buy comics from Larry Doherty. First, there's just the matter of convenience; I don't live anywhere near Larry's Comics, and when I was doing a lot of online comic ordering, I hadn't heard of Heavy Ink. But the more principled reason is that, whenever possible, I like to not directly support douchebags. "Vote with your dollar" seems to be the mantra of comics fandom of late, and more than individual titles, I think that applies to retailers. There's a lot of bad behavior and bad business among comics retailers, and whenever possible, I try not to reward or reinforce it. That means not patronizing shops where the owner is a dim-witted misogynistic asshole who feels the need to vent vehement dislike for folks on the Internet. That means not patronizing shops where the owner is a contemptible ghoul who thinks the proper response to a tragedy is to call for more and again. That means recognizing what kind of atmosphere you want from a comic shop, and patronizing shops which provide that atmosphere. It means not settling for dank dungeons run by misanthropic jackasses.

So, to summarize: Travis Corcoran is a douchebag, and I hope this experience teaches him something about how to run a business. Ted Rall is an idiot, and I hope he takes the opportunity to learn how to argue a coherent point. Larry Doherty is just a dumbass, and I hope the people of Lowell, MA take advantage of their many alternatives. And vote with your dollar, because that's the American Way.

Walking with Superman: Day 105

The President is holding a patriotic rally in Charleston, West Virginia, and he's invited Superman to share the stage with him. But when an attempted assassination nearly cuts down the Commander in Chief, suspicion falls on reporter Clark Kent, who was mysteriously absent from his place in the Press Box at the time of the shooting. Superman's caught between his duty to assist the Secret Service in their investigation, his need to keep his secrets safe, and his quest to find the real killer! And when the would-be assassin learns of the primary suspect, Clark Kent's life suddenly becomes a lot more dangerous!

Walking with Superman: Day 103

Clark Kent's Metropolis University classmate Loretta York is running for the U.S. Senate in Delaware, and Superman must stop her at all costs! What strange circumstances would cause Superman to subvert the political process? The answer lies in the Secret Treaty of Oblivion, signed by President Martin Van Buren in 1838. Van Buren was the last President descended from Homo Magi, and during his political career helped defend the Union from three separate attempts to overthrow it through dark magic. Meeting at the Oblivion Public House on mystically neutral ground, he signed a treaty with leaders from all the ancient orders of magic, ensuring that the government would be protected from magical influences, and only the consensual will of the people could remove such a protection. Nearly two centuries later, and Loretta York is campaigning on her history as the Yellow Peri, and promising to use her magical powers to end the gridlock in Washington. What she doesn't realize--and what Superman has just learned--is that her election might open the floodgates to any warlock or wizard with aspirations of national conquest! Can the Man of Steel change the course of a mighty electorate? Will Loretta York bow out gracefully? And why does Superman have the strangest feeling that things might be even worse if her opponent, media mogul Colin Thornton, takes the office?