Sunday, May 17, 2009

Comics in America

Comic books are a part of the media that are not discussed as much as other sources, such as television or movies. This needs to be changed considering that most directors when asked about their childhood will tell you they loved Batman, Superman, Captain America and many others. When we discuss how the media suppresses or supports certain depictions of class and race, we need to look at the inspiration that the creators of our media world had. Being that a white male is the most visible social group in our culture, it is no surprise that white men are the most represented in comic books. Nearly every comic book features a white man as the hero. First, one must understand the appeal of comic books to understand why they are important to media analysis. A 17 year old male comic enthusiast stated, “comic books let the reader escape into a world, where the reader can get the girl and save the world,” (Ryan). The recipe to a successful comic book is an underdog that miraculously receives some sort of extraordinary power. After this power is acquired and learned, the girl of our hero’s dreams needs to be rescued and a villain must be defeated. By successfully completing these missions, our hero’s world is saved.
Another appeal of comic books is their ability to include contemporary problems that society is dealing with, “comics also made reference to current social issues such as drug use, the counterculture, the different social movements, and racism. The heroes of these comics included Spiderman, the Incredible Hulk, X-Men, and the Fantastic Four,” (Williams).
One must understand that the comic book world is divided into different categories such as graphic novel and manga;
[t]he term graphic novel became popular beginning in the late 1970s. Initially, the term was used to distinguish artistic or novelistic comics from mainstream, superhero comics. Some early examples include Contract with God by Will Eisner, First Kingdom by Jack Katz, and Sabre by Don McGregor and Paul Gulacy. Later, the term was used exclusively as a marketing tool and applied to hardback or paperback “drawn novels,” collected superhero story-arcs, longer book-length comics, and anthologized comic strips (for example, The Far Side and Calvin and Hobbes).
Importation of European and Japanese comics (manga) saw a marked increase in the 1980s (and the importance of manga in the U.S. market continued through 2006). Finally, the 1989 film release of Tim Burton’s Batman spawned other comics-related films and video and computer games. These trends grew exponentially during the first half-decade into the 2000s. Superhero stories accounted for most of the films’ adaptations, but there were also adaptations of novelistic and slice-of-life comics (e.g., American Splendor, Ghost World, and Road to Perdition). Major book publishers such as Random House began publishing “drawn novels,” and more book-length comics appeared without prior serialization; examples include Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis, Craig Thompson’s Blankets, and Chris Ware’s Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth, (Williams).
The problem with comic books is that they are written by predominately white men from the perspective of white men. Captain America is the best example to describe this perspective. “Steve Rogers was a scrawny fine art student specializing in industrialization in the 1940’s before America entered World War II. He attempted to enlist in the army only to be turned away due to his poor constitution,” (Shmidt). This explicitly demonstrates the idea that scrawny, sickly men are not valuable and are not accepted in our society. We as a society consider these men weak and unfit. They are unable to be the hero America craves; they do not satisfy our need to feel safe at night. This idea has been prevalent in our culture for as long as mankind can remember.
The next step in the creation of Captain America was the following: “A U.S. officer offered Rodgers an alternative way to serve his country by being a test subject in project, Operation: Rebirth, a top secret defense research project designed to create a physically superior soldiers,” (Shmidt). From this we see that like every other hero we can imagine, Rodgers had to fit the ideal constitution of what we as a society view as fit. Even though he is smart and able, he has to match a body image that is impossible for a real human to achieve. With imagery like this, we tell our boys and men that to be successful and loved they have to match this ideal. If they cannot, they are viewed as worthless. The fact that Captain America is turned down by the military makes it even more ridiculous, considering that the army accepts everyone who enlists. So boys all over the world who could not live up to the sensational image of Captain America were shown that they are too weak, even for the army.
What does this tell us? We should not be surprised by the anger and frustration that is being exhausted in our society. We are the ones who created these sensational and sometimes obscene images and sold them as the “norm”. Society as a whole is to blame for giving these examples and the dissatisfaction caused when boys realize they will never actualize these goals.
After extreme body alterations, Rodgers turned in to a super soldier, “[t]he process successfully altered his physiology from its frail state to the maximum of human efficiency, including greatly enhanced musculature and reflexes,” (Shmidt). The comic description even declares Rodgers as frail, a word used most often to describe the sickly or feminine. The following are the abilities of Captain America:
Captain America had mastered the martial arts of American-style boxing and judo, and had combined these disciplines with his own unique hand-to-hand style of combat. He had also shown skill and knowledge of a number of other martial arts. He engaged in a daily regimen of rigorous exercise (including aerobics, weight lifting, gymnastics, and simulated combat) to keep himself in peak condition. Captain America was one of the finest human combatants Earth had ever known, (Shmidt).
This description shows us that an average man would have to give up every social obligation and dedicate his life to a gruesome regiment of physical activity to achieve and maintain the perfect American hero body. We expect our youth to follow this extreme method of living because they are given examples like Captain America. However, we also expect our youth to be social animals that get perfect grades and behave as perfect little men and women. Society wants children to stay away from violence. But how can our youth avoid violence if their heroes use it to obtain what they need and want. Of course some will argue that Captain America is a bad example because the age of the comic, however the people who read this comic as adolescents are the ones creating the comics youth read today. They are the ones that write the scripts for our movies and TV shows. They are our politicians and run our world.
The comic book world tried to do justice to women by incorporating some female superheroes. One of them is Wonder Woman who is described as the following:
I have given Wonder Woman this dominant force but have kept her loving, tender, maternal and feminine in every other way. Her bracelet’s, with which she repels bullets and other murderous weapons, represents the Amazon Princess’ submission to Aphrodite, Goddess of love and Beauty. Her magic lasso, which compels anyone bound by it to obey Wonder Woman and which was given to her by Aphrodite herself, represents woman’s love, charm and allure by which she compels men and woman to do her bidding, (23 Daniels and Kidd).
This description of Wonder Woman shows us the ideal image of a woman according to our society. Her entire persona is one that would easily be defeated by Captain America. Children across the world expected women to be like this perfect super woman. Boys want their girlfriends to be like her and girls are convinced to try to be like her. Wonder Woman was not encouraged to be physically fit, nor smart. However, she was always miraculously good looking.
One must consider these comics where created in the 1940’s. This explains why Captain America and Wonder Woman are overtly crass in their male and female persona. However, the problem is that the people who read these comics growing up are the ones that are creating everything that we are watching today. Comic books should be discussed more in American pop culture because they are the source of inspiration for many a director and writer. By not discussing them we allow the biases that where demonstrated in earlier comics to continue into contemporary pop culture.  

Comic Books." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William Darity, Jr. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 23-25. 9 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Anne Arundel Community College. 11 May. 2009
.
Daniels, Kidd, Les, Chip. Wonder Woman : the complete history ; the life and times of the amazon princess. San Francisco, Calif.: Chronicle Books, 2004. Print. http://books.google.com/books?id=p4pvTVBmKK8C&pg=PA18&dq=%22wonder+woman%22+DC+comics&as_brr=3&ei=JJ8ISvn1O5jSzATl9NH7BA#PPA82,M1.
Sinthia Shmidt http://www.marvel.com/universe/Captain_America_(Steve_Rogers).
Ryan, Thomas. Personal INTERWIEV. 10 May 2009.

‘I’m in the Business of Ticking People Off’

Amid Criticism, RNC Chair Steele Says He’ll Stay Focused on Remaking Party
This article deals with the continuing problems of the Republican Party. After a month of “leading” the party Michael Steel has not been able to connect to his base. He has been criticized for “‘trying to be some talking-head media star,’ in Rush Limbaugh’s words, instead of on rebuilding the GOP from the RNC headquarters near the Capitol.” (Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr.) The Fact that Rush Limbaugh is mentioned shows in what state the Republican Party is. If the word of a radio host is worth mentioning when it comes to the head of the RNC then there is a problem. This is not only the media that is playing the Rush card but also Republican members “I think he would choose his words more carefully [about Limbaugh],” (Gary Jones, chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party)
The article makes it clear that Steel is not the real party leader since he had to declare himself the “de facto leader” in a run against house speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.). Since Steel is the “official” Party leader, he hopes that it will become clear to everyone that he is the one who has the last word “‘at the end of the day, all roads are going to lead to this desk,’ said Steel” (Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr.)
Michael Steel plans to remake the party is seen as a nice idea; however, some believe that the way he is doing it is naïve. Curly Haugland a member from the RNC in North Dakota believes that Steel’s plan to reach out to the African Community–is at the moment—a waste of time. One should not be fooled in believing that the Republican Party will pull a lot of votes from Harlem. One should concentrate on building a believable and respectable party again. Steels plans sound noble at best but unrealistic. Even though I am a Democrat myself I do believe for a Democracy to function we need at least two valid parties. Right now our country is down to one.

‘I’m in the Business of Ticking People Off’

Amid Criticism, RNC Chair Steele Says He’ll Stay Focused on Remaking Party
This article deals with the continuing problems of the Republican Party. After a month of “leading” the party Michael Steel has not been able to connect to his base. He has been criticized for “‘trying to be some talking-head media star,’ in Rush Limbaugh’s words, instead of on rebuilding the GOP from the RNC headquarters near the Capitol.” (Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr.) The Fact that Rush Limbaugh is mentioned shows in what state the Republican Party is. If the word of a radio host is worth mentioning when it comes to the head of the RNC then there is a problem. This is not only the media that is playing the Rush card but also Republican members “I think he would choose his words more carefully [about Limbaugh],” (Gary Jones, chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party)
The article makes it clear that Steel is not the real party leader since he had to declare himself the “de facto leader” in a run against house speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.). Since Steel is the “official” Party leader, he hopes that it will become clear to everyone that he is the one who has the last word “‘at the end of the day, all roads are going to lead to this desk,’ said Steel” (Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr.)
Michael Steel plans to remake the party is seen as a nice idea; however, some believe that the way he is doing it is naïve. Curly Haugland a member from the RNC in North Dakota believes that Steel’s plan to reach out to the African Community–is at the moment—a waste of time. One should not be fooled in believing that the Republican Party will pull a lot of votes from Harlem. One should concentrate on building a believable and respectable party again. Steels plans sound noble at best but unrealistic. Even though I am a Democrat myself I do believe for a Democracy to function we need at least two valid parties. Right now our country is down to one.

Obama, Gates at Odds Over New Whistleblower Protections

Obama, Gates at Odds Over New Whistleblower Protections
Even before President Obama took office, he made it clear, that he “endorsed new protections for national security officers who blow the whistle on abusive, corrupt or illegal behavior, by offering them the right to sue for damages and challenge denials of their security clearances.” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3) However, defense secretary Robert M. Gates believes that the bill would threaten national security and violate the constitution. Gates is not the only one who is against this bill, he is joined by “then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3)
Under the law as it stands now, members of the CIA, FBI and other federal agencies are not allowed to “appeal adverse administrative decisions outside their agencies, either to a special civil service board or a federal court.” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3)
They are also, not permitted to sue for compensation nor for regaining of clearances.
The problem with this bill is that in theory it is very supportable, however, when one is in office as President Obama is now, he will have to stand for the defense of these cases in court and possibly for their losses. As President of the US, he will have to defend these people throughout the world and deal with the loss of respect for the government agencies that would be brought to court. The support and trust towards these agencies might be at risk.
In 1995 a case came up that had exactly these consequences; “Rep. Robert G. Torricelli’s public disclosure in 1995 of CIA payments to a Guatemalan colonel accused of murdering an American citizen and the husband of an American citizen” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3) this had lead to the firing of two CIA officials, eight where disciplined. Due to this case, 100 informants accused of abuse or other criminal acts were laid off the CIA pay roll. After this, it became quite hard to become an informant for the CIA since every case was reviewed thoroughly.
The agencies seemed to be on a way of bettering themselves, hiring only trustworthy informants, until 9/11. George J. Tenet quietly overturned the rules as they stood and started to take into service informants with shady background, if a background check took place at all.
Under the new bill, whistleblowers will have the right to “tell” on inner workings of the federal agencies and be protected. Gates fears that this may lead to disgruntled workers suing simply because they can. He also fears that top-secret information would be given to people without clearances. This fear should have been lessened by the fact that the people judging these cases and working on these cases would have the proper clearance. It seems that he is not afraid of losing secrets but of losing control.
In cases of top-secret information “[t]he government would retain its right to respond by invoking a ‘state secret’ privilege to block a trial,” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3) however, the government would be forced for the first time to inform lawmakers of the case. This means that no more cruelties and inhuman behaviors could be swept under the carpet anymore.

GOP Stakes It’s Claim with Stimulus Vote. Small Government Returns as Maxim

GOP Stakes It’s Claim with Stimulus Vote
Small Government Returns as Maxim
This article discusses the unanimous vote of the Republicans against president Obama’s stimulus plan, and their reason for doing such.
The Republicans are facing an identity crisis, which needs to be addressed if they ever want to become a Party of the country again. As of now, the Republicans are a Party of a couple of states and counties.
With this demonstration of unity, the GOP hopes to show they are the party of small government and tax payers. But on the other hand it is a clear demonstration they do not have the countries best interest at heart. If they would, then Republicans would understand that fixing the country’s economic, national, and international status is more significant than fixing the popularity of one’s party.
It has been clear that president Obama wishes to have a bipartisan plan that would help the country in its moment of dire need. The Republicans say that they want the same thing; however, their actions speak louder than their words. “But on the day of the vote, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was on Limbaugh’s show, laughing as the host referred to the “porkulus” bill” (Washington Post Perry Bacon Jr. and Paul Kane, 4A). This quote clearly demonstrates that the Republicans have no intention of turning this legislation in to a bipartisan one.
The article further more discuses, that Republicans state they find President Obama “gracious and sincere” (Washington Post Perry Bacon Jr. and Paul Kane, 4A), and that the entire problem lies with the house Democrats, not being open enough toward the Republicans.
Yet, not all on the side of the Democrats agree with the bill and that is all right. The beautiful thing about a democracy is that everybody can have their voice heard. This makes me wonder if the Republicans believe in democracy since it seemed more important to them to appear as one and not as freethinking individuals.
Not all Republicans stayed quiet, senator Olympia J. Snow (R-Maine) spoke out to support the bill, and some Republicans acknowledge that their party is in trouble. The party has not been able to decide what would be the best way to internally fix them. This in effect reflects when it comes to fixing the country.

Think about your life today and in the future. Do you think that that globalization will make you life in the future better or worse? Why?

I think that it is a double edged sword. Globalization does have a lot of benefits; however it can have some bad aspects. The saying “you win some, you lose some” Has never fit better. Every time I am able to access new things online I wonder how many stores just closed. When I go to Wal-Mart and buy my nice and cheap items I wonder how many mom and pop shops died because of they could not keep up with the competition.
But over all if I think about it in a selfish way globalization will benefit me. I am a person who likes to travel, so I will enjoy the fact that half the word speaks English to some degree. Also it is beneficial because that means my degree will be accepted in more countries so I can work where ever I want I am not limited to one country. The process of sending my application is easier. But that is now.
As a smoker I will most likely have some sort of lung problem in my life and most likely this will be cancer. If more countries work together and more money poured into one project, then maybe there will be better cancer treatment in the future.
More and more countries are connected to the internet so I will be able to learn about more cultures if I want to.
Also back to my traveling if more countries work together then we can find an oil alternative and then flying will become cheaper, this means I can travel the world for a lot less money than now.
I believe that once the entire world is connected efficiently we will have better medication, cheaper travel. Their also be less extremists, since there will be no “one country” to fight for. We will have to work together since we will all depend on each other. This will be benefice for me since my husband is in the military, meaning he will have to go to fewer wars to participate in. But not only will globalization prevent us from going to war, on our way to getting their mechanics (robots) that are created, through combined powers, will mean less dead soldiers.
So all in all I believe globalization is good thing, which will make my future a better place. However I may be wrong only the future will tell.

The Impact of Globalization on Developing Nations

Based on the text globalization seems like double edged sword. The problem with the text is that it does not consider the future. The question should be: what is the impact of globalization going to be in the future, based on the past?
I would like to explain based on North Korea and India. In North Korea a protectionist system is at large. They do not import nor export anything. They rely solely on their own production. In the last 60 years they have made little-to-no progress in just about every field. Their People are starving; their people are shrinking; their people are dying at younger ages. This is a government, which is denying globalization, entry in to their country.
As it looks now they do not plan on changing these things. So their people will be worse off in the future than they are now based on the decline that we have observed in the past.
India on the other hand has made progress in the last 60 years. The text refers to people being without drinking water, because of the Hyundai plant. That is one village with problems now, and I do understand that it must be horrible. However, one needs to consider the future. Right now India seems to be a place where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer but that is how it always is. That is how it always starts. As cars were invented only the rich could afford them. Should we have stopped making cars? No we researched developed and figured out how to make them so that everybody could afford them. Globalization takes time, and on the way of getting their people will be hurt. Globalization follows the principle “for the greater good”.
So I believe in a long run globalization is better for developing countries. Regardless how hard it is at the time it is better then the alternative; protectionism.