#they destroy anything and everything from the socialist era and have created nothing

[prussianmemes]

The Ukrainian authorities gave official permission for the decommunization of the sculpture "Motherland" in Kyiv. A trident will appear on the shield, which is raised over the Ukrainian capital by a giant female figure, instead of the coat of arms of the Soviet Union." - BBC Russia

i was hoping this would escape the recent wave of iconoclasm, but evidently post-soviets can't create anything of their own, they know only how to destroy.

[hellyeahheroes]

Cleansing the Crimes of Old Krypton: Comparisons Between Superman #1-6 and Supergirl #1-6

Ever since the rise of the comic-book anti-heroes, Superman and his family were positioned by writers in the opposition to them. This is a natural progression for those who understand the character’s roots as the hero of the little folk. Such qualities are resonating with the liberal and socialist ideals. Meanwhile, antiheroes often voice ideas that would be very terrifying if said by real-life politicians. The efficiency being presented as more important than human rights or collateral damage. The idea that the justice system only stops the protagonist from doing what’s necessary. An approach where stopping the bad guys is more important than protecting the innocent. These ideas can easily be applied to politics. And as a result, lead to authoritarian or outright fascist thinking. Don’t get me wrong. Some people claim if Batman won’t kill the Joker, he has the blood of Joker’s future victims on his hands. I’m not saying they’re cheering Donald Trump saying federal judges who overruled his ban on Muslim Immigrants are to blame if a terrorist attack happens. But we need to recognize the parallels.

Many successful antihero stories were built on exploring the consequences of this approach. You can find those themes everywhere from The Authority and V for Vendetta to Code Geass. Sadly, lately, we have a continuous increase of those problems being glossed over. And not only for actual antiheroes but even more upstanding characters. Especially in movies. Once paragons of virtue on big screen become terrifying. And yet we're supposed to cheer when they commit atrocities. Violating borders of a foreign country, intruding on people’s privacy, destroying an entire city in battle, murdering people. It all becomes not only justified but even glorified. They say it’s okay for “good guys” to do those things. Because otherwise, we’re all going to die. Because they’ll stop once the danger is gone, pinky swear. Because only the bad guys get hurt and killed. So relax and handle all the power and no accountability to those guys, they need it to protect you.

Superman stories often tackled this issue. Sometimes results is a compelling, meaningful voice in the discussion. Other times we get an awful, hypocritical story. That is given praise regardless because it sticks it up to the other side. “What’s So Funny About Truth, Justice And American Way” and it’s adaptation “Superman vs the Elite” are a prime example. There Superman proves wrong the Authority knockoffs who claim that might makes right. By beating the living shit out of them, thus proving that might do indeed makes right…. if you’re Superman. Thankfully, two stories I want to talk about do not have this problem.

For inspirations, both stories reach back. To a tale of 4 individuals that tried to replace Superman after his supposed death - Reign of Supermen. Superman books under Rebirth banner, in general, try to recreate the feel of that era. Superman is dead and his replacements start showing up. Kenan Kong in the New Super-Man, Lana Lang in Superwoman, even Lex Luthor dons the cape. But DC managed to have their cake and eat it too. The main Superman book still has it's Man of Steel. It's Superman from another Universe, with wife and son. He is more in line with old DC Continuity, compared to Superman that died. Meanwhile, Supergirl reaches to feel more like beloved TV Series, even if Kara is still a teenager. To connect with Reign of Supermen both books use a different way. They reach for its “bad” Supermen - Eradicator and Cyborg Superman. They also revamp them to have them fit a specific purpose.

Or use earlier revamps, as is the case with Cyborg Superman. Before Flashpoint this name was held by Hank Henshaw, a scientist with a grudge. In New 52 he is the man who had sent Kara to Earth from Argo, last surviving city of Krypton. Her father, Zor-El. He failed to save the whole colony and is desperate to undo past failures. He turns dead corpses of his citizens and even wife into cyborgs like him. But to regain sentience the need to consume life force of intelligent beings. Then Zor-El hears Kara cry in her moment of doubt. She question she’ll even be able to fit on Earth and how strange and, well, alien, our customs are for her. Her father doesn’t hesitate. He decides to invade Earth, harvest humanity to resurrect Argo and take his daughter back.

Eradicator was absent from New 52 era of DC, to resurface in Rebirth, with a simplified origin. Before Flashpoint it was an alien A.I. obsessed over Krypton. In Rebirth Eradicators were created by General Zod. It was a mechanical police force used against both criminals and political rivals. This one came back to life through contact with the blood of Superman’s son, Jonathan. And then vowed to protect and restore Krypton’s legacy. Starting with the last heir of House of El, Superman himself. Clark is reluctant to trust the robot when it offers to examine Jon’s health and fluctuating powers. Turns out it was a good call. Eradicator decides that being half-human half-Kryptonian, Jon is impure. And that the best way to heal him is to eradicate human part of his DNA. Jon would become fully Kryptonian, but also cease to exist as a person he was up to this point.

Both those villains have a history of representing darker shades of Krypton. In old continuity, Eradicator was a go-to explanation for every Krypton-related bad thing. Villainous interpretation of Zor-El is nothing new either. Before Flashpoint his whole motivation was "He hates his brother, Jor-El". He didn't send Kara away to save her, but to make her kill Kal-El. He had brainwashed his own daughter to make her a weapon against her cousin.

If anything, this version of him comes off as, if not sympathetic, then at least pitiable. Flashbacks show us he was a caring, loving father, who sent Kara away to protect her. It makes it much more tragic to see how far he has fallen. Even Kara starts to feel bad for him over the course of the story. She recognizes in him a man haunted by his failures, whose actions are a desperate try to fix everything. But Supergirl still calls him out. She points out that he doesn't care about anything but himself anymore. If he did, he’d see how twisted his “solution” actually is and try to find a better one. The results were more important than how he achieved them. And things like mass murder became merely means to an end. It doesn't matter how many he has to kill. It doesn't matter he turned his wife and friends into mechanical monsters. Once he gets them back, everything will be back to normal, he tells himself. He expects his wife and daughter to go back to their old life and ignore all the blood on his hands. He is delusional. When his wife regains part of her mind, she sacrifices herself to save Kara's adoptive mother. She'd rather be dead than part of this. Does it get to him? No. because for Zor-El it doesn't matter how appalling his methods are. Only that he wins.

Both Zor-El and Eradicator are operating on racist and xenophobic assumptions. They see everyone who is not Kryptonian as inferior and disposable. The whole idea of a Kryptonian living with human family is appalling to them. Zor-El several times states he never meant for Kara to stay on Earth forever. He expects her to simply abandon her new home, now that it served its purpose. He also mentions in passing wars betweenKrypton and other races. It's implied they were as horrible as what he is doing now. Meanwhile, what is Eradicator? A Kryptonian version of police brutality and law-enforcement being used for political reasons. All these factors make the reader ask a question neither of the villains bothered with. Should you bring old Krypton back? If Kryptonians were warmongering xenophobes, then why should they return? Who is to say if they do, they won’t go down the same path again? Neither Eradicator nor Zor-El makes a strong case against this argument. Not when they’re willing to stomp into the ground anyone who stands in their way.

We live in times when people in power tell us we need to give up parts of our freedoms for our own protection. That we need to do whatever it takes, no matter how unethical, to protect our way of life from “the enemy”. Even if it means crushing rights of those different from us. This is no different from many anti-heroes in comics. How often do we see one accusing more restrained superheroes of not having what it takes to “get the job done”? Or claim not only are they too weak, but people they protect are dumb masses easy to sway and control? Those themes are still being explored by creators of both books. Peter Tomasi and Patrick Gleason do it through later Superman villain, the Prophecy. Lord Havok and the Extremists serve this role in Steve Orlando’s JLA. But it isn’t enough to have heroes beat this type of villains. What is even more important is how they beat them. As I mentioned above, in that kind of stories it’s easy to come off as a hypocrite, if you play your hand wrong.

Luckily, even on that ground, the stories are on point. Neither Superman nor Supergirl can defeat their enemies alone. It is the strength of family, friends, and allies that allow them to overcome this threat. As Kara says, she isn’t on Earth to inspire humans – they inspire each other. Threat Eradicator and Zor-El present cannot be defeated by an individual. It needs the united effort of everyone it threatens. Even average people like Cat Grant or Bibbo Bibbowski have their part to play. It’s love, family, and unity that save the day.

And in true classic fashion, they are both shown mercy. While Eradicator’s physical form is destroyed, Superman’s very aware that’s not enough to kill him. Meanwhile, Cyborg Superman ends immobilized and imprisoned. The story ends with Kara hoping to find a way to save her father. If you follow solicits you know they’ll both be back in May’s Action Comics. Some might complain about the never-ending nature of superhero comics. How no victory is ever meaningful because the villain will come back. It’s one of the major problems raised by supporters of the antiheroes. But looking at those villains a metaphor for fascist tendencies, it works. Fascism can be beaten, but it cannot be killed. It will always find a way to creep back under a different name. The weakness of anti-hero stories lies in them giving the reader a fake sense of finality. They tell us we have to do whatever it takes, even if it’s immoral and unethical, to win against the evil. That once we beat it, it’s gone and we can go back to normal. But that’s not true. Evil is forever and it will keep coming at you in new forms. We can see it in today’s world as well. Not so long ago many folks would say fascism died when WWII was over. Allies victory over this evil was final and definite. The questionable choices made by them like bombing civilian cities, were justified because fascism is now dead. Once put down it will never rise to power again. And then Richard Spencer and Steve Bannon started making the news…..

The purpose of this text is not to bash on fans of the antihero characters. But when working with them it's important to show their questionable aspects. Otherwise, they can become propaganda tools for the worst kind of people.

[anthonybialy]

Character for Sale

Taking a stretch limousine to someplace clad in marble is the best way to let everyone know you won. Show how impressed you are by waving with one finger. Even the president can't arrest you for such political speech. Donald Trump embodies every loathsome cliché about rich people. We're just jealous like the seething commies we are. Or maybe we just hate those who think they have to convince the rest of us they made it big.

Playing a character is a sure sign of confidence. It's not that Trump’s ahead of the curve in making us question who people really are. This isn’t Andy Kaufman provoking reactions; nobody finds the president's Twitter feed as funny as Taxi. Mimicking a supposedly charismatic personality is all there is. The executive is chasing after what he thinks others find admirable the same way he decided a few years ago being a Republican who likes border walls was his core value.

Those who think Trump is a new kind of leader should note his style was created when nothing was cooler than a car phone antenna. That aerodynamic shape made limousines go even faster. Speed conceals how a guy covering for insecurity puts on a show that's decades old. This forward-thinking innovator in his eighth decade picked up the image in the ‘80s. Putting his name in gold would be a garish touch you'd have to invent if it didn't exist. The caricature extends to his taste for impossibly tacky black glass, which blessedly isn't covering the White House. Yet.

Sticking with one woman is too much to ask for a titan of a commerce stud. Trump had a classy way of disrespecting marriage vows. His lawyers should've blamed the character. Our president thinks hot models like rich guys, and he couldn't help but play the role. How can he help it if plastic is naturally attracted to orange?

Wear an NBA jersey to a pickup basketball game to make friends. Not everything has to feature keeping score. Trump's worst business distortion is treating business like a competition. Demanding there be winners and losers is how both socialists and fake-ass capitalists see commerce. In calmer truth, both parties benefit from exchange. The president still acts like he hasn't made it unless the other side feels ripped off.

Trump, who you'll remember is the greatest businessman in the universe's history, doesn’t understand a trade deficit means that we got stuff for the money we sent. Amazon isn't winning because I sent them a hundred bucks of my money, as I got beef jerky and Star Wars figures in return. Ripping off vendors in his business life was practice for thinking other countries hoodwink us by making what we use for a bargain. He simply has to win a game that's not being played. It's not like he’s compensating for insecurity or anything. And his followers aren’t copying, either, as they're total alpha dogs sniffing whoever's hind is in front.

It's hard to believe trillions more have been added to the stupidly staggering debt under a president who's still arguing that he's worth precisely 10 billion dollars. The guy who appoints the IRS commissioner sure thinks saying he has more than he actually does is wise. Who does your taxes?

The president is not as rich as he claims, which seems like the sort of thing to figure out before voting for someone. To be fair, it's hard to be wealthy when your output is only ego. Listing what he’s actually created would fit in a tweet, even if he had to add a handful of trademark insults. A thin employment history padded by endless boasts is the perfect embodiment of everything he's done including be president. Trump sells himself as the product. It's rather flimsy, but no retailer will honor your gift receipt.

Portraying a sleaze juggling pyramid schemes as a commercial genius is particularly bad for anyone who wants you to be able to earn at will. Spare a thought for executives who quietly offer something useful while employing people. Instead, we face a few more decades dealing with the lame stereotype of a heartless alpha male who sees commerce as a chance to destroy others in order to flaunt virility. Why do you think his preposterously contentious trade negotiations revolve around trying to conquer other countries? His vision of making a deal necessarily means coming out on top even when there's no competition.

Trump revolutionized politics by taking us back a few decades. He's the villain in every Reagan-era movie. Steven Spielberg can gesture at the White House if anyone asks him why businessmen always have nefarious motives in his films. The president has set back the tycoon more than Rich Uncle Pennybags. If Trump wants to prove he's really in charge, he better start putting out cigars on the foreheads of staffers.

[theblacktivity-blog]

The Vanity Bill

The scene was a giddy one in the Rose Garden of the White House as congressmen and congresswomen (nearly all of them White and financially privileged) smiled, took selfies, and in a gross and grandiose self- congratulatory posture, assembled themselves behind President Trump like acknowledged children. Some could be seen laughing, slapping one another on the back, chatting it up with one another, villainously grinning through teeth more than likely covered by their insurance providers. The great “overseer” of rights and wrongs of himself, Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah was photographed happily and smugly flying in to the chambers of Congress on a medical scooter to assist in passing the AHCA (American Healthcare Act: “Ryancare” or “Trumpcare” depending on the day of the week) fresh off a surgery for his foot, the surgery required ironically as the result of a pre-existing condition. It was reported that within the chambers, cases of Bud Light were rolled in, some members lit cigars, while a phone booth was created for the ‘yea’ voting members to receive calls from the president himself as a token of appreciation.  As the passage of the act was finalized on the floor, the democratic members of Congress sang “nah nah nah nah/nah nah nah nah/hey hey hey/goodbye”. Not only are the democrats against the bill itself given the myriad of flaws and people it will hurt, they know what’s up, the bill will be the political death of many of those congressmen and congresswomen. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi chided her right-wing colleagues on the floor warning them that they were “walking the plank” and that provision cuts to the ACA would be but a tattoo about the forehead for all of them, one that would “glow” alluding particularly to the obvious political suicide committed by the congressional right. It matters not that this bill will eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions, couch rape as a “pre-existing condition”, decimate maternal care, defund Medicaid, and all but eradicate care for mental health and addiction (all provisions covered under Obamacare), this was cause for “celebration” for the congressional GOP. It matters not that this bill has only passed in the House of Representatives and will now have to pass in the Senate where it will most likely die anyway. For the house GOP just the sheer thought of having passed a bill no matter how raggedy seemed to put a twinkle in the eye. Yes, this bill will absolutely crush the most vulnerable of American citizens of which minorities, i.e. Black and Brown folk are a major part, but let us be perfectly clear, this will also crush women, the elderly, the mentally ill, and the lower middle class to poor whites in rural America, many of whom (God bless their misguided souls) voted for these congressmen and this president with the belief that somehow, they “identified” with them. Their loyalty to these congressmen and this president is now being repaid with a fresh boot up the ass, and it’s not as much funny, as it is unfortunate. Again, this bill may very well fail in the Senate, yet the sheer determination of the GOP in passing this legislation through the House of Representatives despite the potential damage it will do and despite the campaign promises of Trump to protect pre-existing conditions, is it seems, indicative of not only the worst in the game of politics but something deeper. For many of the GOP members particularly those on the far right, President Obama represented and affront to all they believed to be “American”. In fact, the House Freedom Caucus made up of members propelled by the Tea Party insurgency of the Obama era, came to power on the back of those who reviled the 44th president as everything from a socialist, to a Muslim terrorist, to a non-citizen (the current president’s most famous shtick).  It was not only the economic downturn, terrorism, and economic globalization gave rise to the far right, it was the stoking of these racial flames that in part created the working class and rural white voting bloc that has so characterized most of the right’s base in recent years. As such, if President Obama was the person who embodied all that the right and it’s base resented, then what better way to do away with a twice elected president than to destroy the signature bill of his legacy. When the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare was passed, it was viewed by many on the far right as a referendum on the “free” market, but couched in terms that eluded to welfare (a typical dog whistle to racial politics…remember they called him the “cell phone president” and “food stamp president”). This was manipulated enough to convince those within the right’s grassroots, many of whom given their low-income levels benefit from the provisions in ACA, that nothing short of a repeal would acceptable in “moving the country forward” on healthcare. To this those on the frenzied right agreed, so much so that after the ACA’s passage it became cannon fodder in republican stomp speeches and soundbites, “repeal and replace” became a permanent part of the political lexicon. It was repeated by everyone from the once republican golden boy Speaker Paul Ryan to Donald Trump himself and everyone in between. As insurance companies and medical practitioners began to come out against the suggesting of repealing the ACA altogether, the rumblings from those on the right only swelled and one was left to wonder: why would folks, many of whom have healthcare in part due to the act, be so against it? While it was true that the ACA in some cases caused premiums to increase as well as deductibles (the result of private insurers attempting to adjust to the fact that they were in competition with a government intent on bringing quality care to least of us), it was also true that President Obama admitted future development could be necessary. Let’s be clear that it was essentially a single payer model of healthcare like that found in Europe which President Obama and a progressive congress would’ve wanted. Yet given right wing America’s historical aversion to anything deemed to be “centralized” or “socialized”, the cost for the ACA was passed on to the insurance industry, a sector once infamous for covering as little as possible while charging as much as possible. The over 1000-page complex bill was written with the intent of giving power back to the policy holder no matter the income level or condition, or in the words of Jay-Z, President Obama was “overcharging niggas for what they did to the Cold Crush”. Undoubtedly, this had the consequences in the beginning of insurance companies raising premiums to adjust, yet as the cost began to even out many a folk who were once detractors began to find that the ACA was a godsend compared to what health care in America previously was. Further it was the icing on a cake that was at that time still beginning to bake in the former president’s legacy. This brings me to my point. If the ACA is by some miracle of the gods of Mt. Reagan and Mt. Goldwater able to pass in the senate (and it would have to be a miracle given the suspicion that republican moderates in districts benefiting from Obamacare provisions have to this “repeal”) then it would leave 24 million and counting uninsured. It would cut Medicaid funding by $883 billion dollars leaving the elderly walking the health care tightrope at best, and at worst, being deemed “uninsurable” by insurance companies who will once again cease to cover preexisting conditions. As for women, they can essentially nix the degree to which maternal care will continue to be covered and on an even more sinister note that has been conveniently been avoided, trauma from incidents such as rape may well be classified as a “preexisting condition”. If you are a minority and poor, you may very find yourself among the many seated once again in overcrowded emergency rooms and community clinics across the country, since the AHCA will also include cuts to subsidies for public hospitals and clinics leaving such institutions under-funded and understaffed. To those in rural white America, the ones who in large part helped to usher in the rise of not only the Tea Party but the election of an ill prepared and governance-ignorant populist president, you too will not only have to bear the burden of much of these potential cuts, you will have to do so with the knowledge that you helped. Blocs such as the rust belt whose frustration with the rise of globalization (in part) in eliminating manufacturing jobs will find that it’s even worse when you have a lower paying job AND very little to no healthcare. The coal miners in states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio will more than likely find that Black Lung Disease is a lot harder to treat when your provider (if you still have one) categorizes it as a preexisting condition as well. But oh, how pride comes before the fall (well let’s hope not) because let’s be honest, the calls to repeal Obamacare were never really about the bill being damaging to average citizens. Institutions such as the AARP and even the one-time foe of any form of “socialized medicine” the American Medical Association have admitted that while the bill has some improvement that could be made, repealing the law could be damaging beyond belief. The cry of “repeal and replace” and the rush to push through any bill along those lines is and was about something much deeper. Its part politics, as these congressmen and women want desperately to save face given the first attempt of the Trump era to pass such a horrendous bill, as well as pander to their still uninformed constituents. However, it’s just as much about the vainglorious feeling that those on the right have long been seeking ever since an African American president not long after winning the highest office in the land achieved what scores of those before him couldn’t by bringing about true healthcare reform. For many of those on the far right, the mere existence of a President Obama was itself often alluded to as an affront (this in part drove the Tea Party to prominence) to the “real America”. But, to have a Black president with a legacy…oh hell no! Thus, the push to dismantle his signature achievement…no matter the cost to anyone. In all, this is a sordid political vanity act that as more light is shed, will be the date by which we will be able to mark the beginning of the 2018 democratic sweep of congress, and maybe…just maybe, the moment when those who’ve blindly supported “repeal and replace” ask themselves: “what in the fuck were we thinking?”. If not, many of us will be asking the other question: “what in the fuck have we done?”.