Tea Party dips Marvel Comics into controversy
Image via Wikipedia
First, I must go somewhere I rarely go here on True/Slant.
A few of you know that I spent many years as the president of the Marvel Character Group, a fact I raise only because it might make me uniquely qualified to comment on this story. And while I never discuss my history in the cartoon and comic character business here -except to answer the occasional comment from a disapproving fan boy who hated my television version of The X-Men or wants to cleverly point out that I should stick to my comics rather than engage in political commentary – when my two worlds collide, the opportunity to shed light is both irresistible and an obligation.
For those who may not have followed the brouhaha, Marvel got in trouble with the Tea Party this week as a result of a Captain America episode where Cap and his sidekick, The Falcon, are investigating a right wing, anti-government militia group called “The Watchdogs.”
In the offending scene, the two heroes are watching an all-white, anti-tax rally taking place below their vantage point high above the crowd. Captain America wants to send The Falcon, who is African American, into the crowd by posing as an IRS agent. Falcon isn’t too keen on the idea, saying “I don’t exactly see a black man from Harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks.”
Meanwhile, a panel revealing the crowd shows them holding signs very much like those we see at Tea Party rallies.
The Tea Party was not amused by the suggestion that an African American would not be welcomed at their gatherings just as they were offended by messages placarded on the signs. An uproar ensued – so much so that Marvel Comics editor-in-chief, Joe Quesada, issued an apology and indicated that the offending panels would be changed in future printings of the edition in question.
So, it turns out that the Tea Party is all over the First Amendment rights thing – until they are offended by someone else availing themselves of their own speech rights at the perceived expense of the Tea Party.
I wonder if the Tea Party crew can spell ‘h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e’?
Here’s the funny part. To say that the senior management at Marvel has always been ‘conservative’ would truly be a dramatic understatement – so much so that during my time at Marvel, and to this day, I take a lot of good natured ribbing from my old colleagues about my liberal leaning point of view. Indeed, I daresay that those at the top of the company would find far more in common with the Tea Party beliefs than the liberal perspective. This is so much the case that when I want to get the ultra-conservative perspective on an issue, I often turn to my friend who comes from the highest ranks of Marvel management as he is politically somewhere to the right of Attila The Hun.
Yet, to Marvel’s credit, the company has a far stronger commitment to the First Amendment than the Tea Party leaders who are condemning the Captain America episode in question. Marvel has allowed Captain America to evolve over the past few years to keep it current with the issues facing the nation. Occasionally, the book tells stories that would likely grate on senior management – but that is what free speech is all about.
Marvel has no reason whatsoever to apologize.
What’s more, I just cannot understand where a political organization whose stock in trade is the use of outrageous accusations and highly offensive comments about the president of the United States has the unmitigated gall to criticize a comic book that offends them – whether it was intended or not.
Listen up, teabaggers — it’s tough out there. If you’re going to dish it out, you better learn how to take it.
Until next time—
Excelsior!
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Steve Ditko would probably have resigned over this.
I saw this on Countdown last night and thought about you and was wondering you took naivechild’s recent advice and went back to Marvel.
I think the hypocritical way in which the teabaggers took this proves even further how much they are attached to the brains of the current GOP.
Nope. Despite nativechild’s advice, there’s no going home!
In response to another comment. See in context »I didn’t know that you wrote some comics. That must have been fun and maddening.
Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse) started writing comics years ago. He had no idea what he was doing at first (Of course now he’s won a bunch of awards for his comics), so his editors gave him a copy of an Alan Moore script, which probably just made him more confused. By chance he ran into Warren Ellis who was signing books in a comics store, and Ellis gave him some scripts to show him “how little [he could] get away with.”
This hilarious controversy points out one of the cool things about comics, though. Depending on the writer, the artist, the title, and the editors, a comic can go from idea to print in pretty little time compared to a TV drama, movie, or novel, so comics as an art form can quickly tap into the zeitgeist like this.
I just hope a few more people were introduced to Ed Brubaker’s other comics after this. Brubaker is the current Captain America scribe, and I like his Captain America stuff a lot, but his creator-owned books like “Criminal” are insanely good.
In response to another comment. See in context »They better quit messin with the Captain! Seriously though, some of the statements out of the groups leaders are on the evening news as shock jock type statements- never an answer, just wishes.
This incident and the Sarah Palin retard incident are cut from the same cloth. The “satire exclusion” only applies if in your heart you know you’re right.
But you would know far better than I, does the average Marvel buyer skew right? If that’s the case, you can’t blame Quesada for not wanting to piss off his customers.
I think it’s safe to say that the average Marvel customer isn’t all that focused on politics. It’s more about the writers and what they want to say.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s such a shame that Marvel buckled on this. Otherwise, this story would be hilarious. At the moment it’s still funny, but with the added detriment of being a little frustrating because these crybabies got their way in the end just because they bothered to complain about it.
One has to wonder which (if any) bunch of sensitive spurned groupthinkers wouldn’t get their way with Marvel.
[...] — Rick Ungar, former president of Marvel Characters Group, on the Captain America-Tea Party controversy [...]
The Tea Parties started officially in 2007, unofficially as early as 2003 and 1996. The Tea Party in 2007 was part of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty and there are plenty of clips on Youtube showing raw footage from this event to prove it. At this time, Ron Paul was being blocked out of most of the media exposure, pundits on left and right (Fox News and MSNBC) were critisizing him openly and often, however, he still managed to net in the most money in donations from both the active military and individuals than any other candidate.
The Tea Parties picked up steam throughout 2007 and 2008 and were becoming a major entity of distrust with the federal government. They focused primarily on financial issues and the abolishing of the Federal Reserve, but also protested our foreign policy, expanded government, and privacy concerns such as the Real ID act, the Patriot Act, and warrant less wiretapping. They were opposed to Bush as much as they were opposed to Clinton.
After Obama became president and started pushing bigger government, expanding wars, promoting the Patriot Act, praising the Federal Reserve, and making a big deal of ‘domestic terrorism’, the Tea Parties started protesting him as well. That was not a bi-partisan movement, it was a NO-partisan movement. At the same time, multiple states and the Department of Homeland Security started issuing reports to state and federal police to be on the look out for ‘right wing extremism’, citing those who support third party candidates and the constitution as potential terrorist threats against the government. With these documents came a seemingly seperate push in the media talking about these right wing extremist groups on the rise and right wing violence increases, yet there aren’t actually any news reports of specific events or groups that are supposedly causing this violence. This media push ushered in the meme and convinced confused people into thinking that the people who used to support Bush are angry and want to take over the country violently, as well as painting them as racist and ignorant.
And then came the linking of the social manipulation.
People like Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, and the Fox News crew started hi-jacking the message of the grassroots and then eventually the Tea Parties themselves. They talk as if they’re libertarians, but they’re most obviously not.
Now, they turn Ron Paul being away from speaking at these rallies while Sarah Palin blathers on about how Obama needs to attack Iran and infringe on more of our liberties in order to keep America safe. If this was insulting enough, she even pretends to offer a hand out to the Libertarians to join the movement!
And now, there is a huge group of people and bloggers who were not watching this movement or these memes grow in popularity and evolve who think that the Tea Parties are a bunch of ex-Bushies who want to kill the president because he’s black. Its ridiculous, and this is why the true Tea Party members are upset at this comic because this comic, as well as articles like this one, only propagate the idea that the Tea Parties are nothing but a right wing extremist Fox News Movement. Additionally, look at raw footage from the early tea parties and you’ll see plenty of people who aren’t white.
This is a wonderful history of Tea Party movement – but what does it have to do with the post? You can’t be a movement dedicated to the fundamentals of the Constitution and then turn around and freak out because someone exercises their own. Further, the comic book in question was not written back in a time when there may have been African American supporters for the movement – it was released this past week. And, as you say, the movement has changed.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m sorry that you are disappointed with how the movement developed, and I don’t necessarily blame you, but you can’t engage in calling the president some incredibly awful names and then be indignant because a comic book paints you in a light you find unfavorable. Their rights are every bit as good as your own.
I didn’t have any notion of Rick’s connection to the comic world. I was a DC and Gold Key fan back in my youth, but my best friend Paul swore by his Marvel comics. We spent more time arguing the superiority of our rival brands than reading the books, I think. I had a complete collection of the original Metal Men, but my parents gave away all my comics while I was away at college. I would really love to have a chance to peruse them once again.
Anyway, nothing the Tea Party did in any way, shape, or form offended the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects citizens from control of speech by the government. In this case, neither group was attempting to enforce some government power to stop one group’s expression of their ideas. The Tea Baggers expressed an opinion (one I think a little weird and hyper-sensitive, but that’s MY opinion) to a corporation. The corporation decided to make changes. I don’t see anything wrong with people or groups making their opinions known and other people or groups changing their behavior to accommodate the first group.
If I don’t support the Tea Baggers right to protest to Marvel, how can I support gay people’s right to express their displeasure to the Catholic Church about the church’s position on Prop 8? If I don’t support the right of people to challenge global warming, how can I expect to be allowed to protest the use of the “that” to restrict verbs (as in “I certify that the foregoing…” One just “certifies the foregoing…” That restricts nouns, not verbs). We all have our thing. The solution to inaccurate or bad speech is more speech, not less.
Expressing contrary opinions is what we are supposed to do. I don’t agree with the Tea Bag position on this or just about anything else, but I most certainly defend their right to express that opinion. Ha-rah for the protest. Ha-rah for Marvel for listening. Ha-rah for Captain America and his investigation of crazy, rightwing groups.
I agree that the Tea Party has every right to express their dissenting opinion. However, you can’t expect the hypocrisy of the same to go unnoticed. Tell me, if President Obama asked the Tea Party to ask some of their members to chill out on the Hitler references, would they be so willing to accomodate him? I’m not saying those members who get into the Hitler thing don’t have a right – and I’m not saying that all Tea Party folks do this – I’m just saying that an expectation on their part that nobody should take any shots at them is disingenuous and, frankly, pretty crazy.
In response to another comment. See in context »While I don’t give Marvel kudos for apologizing and accomodating them, maybe the Tea Party will learn something about being willing to be civil in their own rhetoric – but I doubt it.
The problem is that while comparing Obama to Hitler is an expression of fact, comparing the Tea Party to the KKK is an expression of opinion as if it were fact.
There are plenty of comparisons we can make between Hitler and Obama, such as their stances on expanded government, political messages being taught to young students, youth corpse, a ‘civilian defense force every bit as strong as the military’, domestic spying and wiretapping, nationalization of industry, and so on. The point is, comparing Obama and Hitler is an attempt to warn the country of what could happen when the government promotes these things. You could disagree with the comparison, but the facts remain: Obama’s administration is continuing the Bush Doctrine and its eerily similar to the path that almost every military dictatorship that has ever existed took.
When Marvel comes out and claims that the entire movement are racist bigots, thats something totally different. Its only an expression of opinion, but theyre trying to pass it off as fact. Yeah, there are some racists in the Tea Party crows, but there are also racists in the liberal crows (Chris Mathews, anyone?). To compare, imagine if instead of asking Marvel to apologize, the Tea Partiers starting touting signs of Marvel characters clubbing baby seals and chanting how Marvel is bad because of it.
In response to another comment. See in context »“The problem is that while comparing Obama to Hitler is an expression of fact, comparing the Tea Party to the KKK is an expression of opinion as if it were fact.”
Take it somewhere else. This page is sensitive on the whole Hitler thing as I have relatives who actually experienced Hitler. You’re welcome to make any sensible, if disagreeable, comments you like here, but we don’t tolerate the Hitler crap.
“When Marvel comes out and claims that the entire movement are racist bigots, thats something totally different.”
Marvel never once mentioned The Tea Party Movement . Go back and read the post. Although, given your earlier comment about the comparison between Obama and Hitler being a fact, I have reason to question whether you can read at all.
While I appreciate your visiting this post, we are into sensible and intelligent discussion and disagreement. This is not the place for you.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well if you’re so sensitive about it, then maybe you should crack open some history books and learn about what lead to Nazi Germany. Ironically, one of the major factors that lead to it was the ignorance citizenry hiding their heads in the sand while condemning anyone who disagrees with the party based on some faulty string of logic.
You hit the wall and you cant deny what I’m talking about and so you insult my intelligence as being nonsensical.
Two legs good, four legs bad.
Enjoy your bondage, mind-slave.
In response to another comment. See in context »And by the way, garmichael, here’s a little nugget of information you can share with your fellow gun-tottin’ haters -
If you want to present yourself as a Hitler expert, it might be worth your while to understand what Hitler was about. The philosophical underpinnings of the Third Reich were all about eugenics – breeding out the infirm from the human species in order to create a master race. That meant that Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, etc. had to go.
Call me crazy, but its a bit tough to envision that Obama has the Hitler vibe given that his children are, indeed, a member of a race that he would be condemning to death were he to be an exponent of the Third Reich.
Be a trendsetter. The man you really want to compare the president to is Mussolini. True, you’ll still be completely full of shit, but you can impress all your friends with the difference between Fascism and the objectives of the Reich.
In response to another comment. See in context »gun-tottin’ haters?
You’re assuming quite a bit here, but you’re also criticizing the use of the Second Amendment while criticizing someone else’s criticizing of the First Amendment. You’re selective about the constitution? That’s kind of ironic considering your article is mostly about hypocrisy.
The Third Reich involved a lot of eugenics, but that wasn’t the entire bit and its not what Obama is being protested about. The important thing to look at is HOW Hitler got into power and HOW he managed to fool an entire population. And the way he did is very similar to how Stallin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, and almost every other dictator did it. We aren’t talking about the objectives of the dictatorship, since they’re usually different. We’re talking about how a population can be fooled into allowing it to happen.
In response to another comment. See in context »To make a comment like comparing Hitler to Obama not only shows how incredibly ignorant and racist you are, but it also shows a great deal of self-loathing on your part. Grow up!
In response to another comment. See in context »well put, liberaljesus.
In response to another comment. See in context »In what way?
In response to another comment. See in context »garmichael, you’re either paranoid, or you’re making stuff up. Either way, when people laugh at you, it isn’t because you’re funny.
In response to another comment. See in context »Again, another opinionated insult made with absolutely no factual information to back it up. ALL it is is an insult. Thats it. Back it up. What is it you think that I’m making up? Ill respond to each bit of it with video or writings of Obama, Rahm Emanuel, or any of his administration backing up what I’ve said.
You guys call me a racist without explaining what I’ve said that was racist. You say I need to grow up without telling me what it is that is immature about what I’m saying. I’m self loathing, but with no evidence as to what spawned that conclusion. I’m a biggot, I’m stupid, and on and on and on, but I don’t see what is backing up these claims. All I see are the insults. And somehow, through all of that, you’re the enlightened ones? You’re the mature ones? You’re the informed ones? SHOW IT.
In response to another comment. See in context »Excuse me, but did you say that they were going to infiltrate the Tea Party by posing as a member of the IRS?
Uh..no. I said,
“In the offending scene, the two heroes are watching an all-white, anti-tax rally taking place below their vantage point high above the crowd. Captain America wants to send The Falcon, who is African American, into the crowd by posing as an IRS agent.”
You note there is no mention in the comic of the Tea Party.
What’s the matter? Too much work to go back and re-read the post on your own to answer your question?
In response to another comment. See in context »I think JCalton was being sarcastic. I’ll translate:
“Isn’t Captain America supposed to be a tactical genius, and isn’t Brubaker’s book supposed to be an excellently written espionage yarn? Why would Captain America think that ANYONE could infiltrate the generic anti-tax/anti-gummint movement (which is CLEARLY the Tea Party movement; I mean, don’t even try to tell me it’s not) by posing as an IRS agent? Perhaps Cap should have stayed dead if he was going to come back an idiot.
Now the X-Men Saturday morning cartoon of the 90’s, there was a well-written piece of comics fiction. I was a little annoyed at first when they created that Morph character, but tell me another children’s cartoon that juxtaposed concepts like civil disobedience, vigilantism, and fascism. Whatever happened to the guy who created that show?”
In response to another comment. See in context »Maybe he was being sarcastic. I was still ticked off about the Hitler tossing guy I had just responded to.
As for what happened to the guy who did the X-men, he lost his mind and went into political commentary!
In response to another comment. See in context »I was being sarcastic, but my implied question was real: Why would you ever (hope to) infiltrate an “anti-tax rally” posing as an IRS agent? This question still hasn’t been answered.
Does this strike anyone else as a scene where Tonto (rightfully) turns to The Lone Ranger and says “What do you mean ‘we’ Kemosabe?” Maybe it’s just me.
It’s obviously a Tea Party rally. If it’s not obvious, why are the Tea Party followers so upset? If you don’t like my allegorical short-hand, fine. Don’t call it a Tea Party…except that your whole story is about the Tea Party reacting to how it is portrayed in this comic. Odd to yell at me for implying that it was a Tea Party.
Pretty sure I didn’t bring up Jews or Stalin or anything, but maybe there was some subtext in my post that I wasn’t aware of. I don’t want to be rude, I really do want an answer to my question.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah…I did kind of snap at you. I apologize for that. The Hitler guy got me very cranky at that moment
In response to another comment. See in context »The only answer I can give you is that it’s a comic book. I think the character was trying to get the protestors in the storyline riled up. To be honest, I don’t even remember. If you’re curious, pick up the Captain America book and have a look. It might explain it better.
Thanks, Rick, I’d love to, although it sounds like they won’t be printing any more and I assume the back-issue price will be up in a hurry.
In response to another comment. See in context »When I sold my comic book collection in 2001, it was 10,000 books, about 90% Marvel. I really haven’t bought any since then, except for the odd graphic novel.
Even my 1 share of Marvel stock from 1992 has converted to Disney shares.
[...] original here: Tea Party dips Marvel Comics into controversy – Rick Ungar – The … Share and [...]
garmichael-
I attack your intelligence because, while you work around the edges of truth, you don’t appear to have much interest in ‘closing in’ on actual truth. And while I’m accused of many things- burying my head in the sand is rarely one of them. Could it be that it is you who needs to pay a bit more attention to the history books? For example, Stalin did not come to power by ‘fooling’ the citizens – as you suggest he did. Stalin was not elected by the citizens. He was empowered by the Central Committee. Indeed, very few of Stalin’s fellow countrymen were ‘fooled’ by him – they knew exactly who he was and didn’t like it. They just couldn’t do anything about it.
You shouldn’t flatter yourself. You aren’t even within 100 miles of pushing me to an intellectual wall. Argue with me about history when you actually understand it. And using revisionist history to make your points will convince no one.
Tell me something – nations have been ‘fooled’ into picking leaders who go in a different direction than anticipated ever since people were given the right to vote. Why is it that you choose to focus on Hitler, generally regarded as the most evil man in modern history? As you apparently agree, the Third Reich was, in large part, based on the philosophy of eugenics. You appear not to think that Obama is pursuing an agenda of purification of the race – and yet, despite all the other leaders in modern history you could choose for comparison, you choose Hitler. Odd.
Finally, the fact that I take note of the Tea Party propensity to love their guns – and don’t particulary like it – does not mean that I deny their constitutional right to have one or as many as the law permits. Hell, I think people who compare the president to Adolf Hitler are absolutely disgusting and childishly misinformed, but I don’t deny their right to do so.
So, who is making assumptions now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSW2sRKgLwo&feature=related
Do your homework.
In response to another comment. See in context »Perfect! History via…YouTube?
Not sure what your point is. I watched the video. Nowhere does it suggest that Stalin fooled people to be elected. I could point you to any number of books that report that the Soviet society played along with the whole “Uncle Joe” thing in order to stay off the execution lists. As was said in your YouTube video, almost every family was touched by a murder at the hands of Stalin. Do you imagine this endeared him to the population?
In response to another comment. See in context »Not much point in sending along book references as I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t read — only videos for you.
Were there some that believed that Stalin was a good guy? Of course. Just like there are people in America who believe Obama is preparing a security force made up of high school students who are to become his personal security and storm trooper force. What can I say? There are idiots in every society.
Feel free to have the last word. I’ve spent more than enough time on you today.
OBVIOUSLY, you didn’t watch the video, especially considering its a 50 minute documentary and there was only 10 minutes between our posts. And if all you did was watch the first ten minutes,you must have missed the countless times it talked about how he fooled the country into loving him. Your lie about watching this video is clear.
On top of that, and I’m not surprised you did it, you insulted the notion of watching a video on Youtube for information, ignoring the History Channel watermark. This is another reason I doubt you watched it. But look, you can try to insult Youtube as a source, but thats because it ISNT a source. It is a DIRECTORY of sources. Some are credible, and some are not. But to condemn the whole thing is ignorant and shows your inability to understand basic research techniques, which of course implies how unlikely it is that you actually have a clue what you’re talking about.
Then you try to insult me for not reading right after you tried to make an argument that you weren’t making assumptions. I’ve read many, many, many books ranging from history to economics to philosophy to critical thinking. I’ll bet your brain just quickly fired with “Hah! this guy has no critical thinking skills, and I can tell because he disagrees with me!”
About the actual topic: Getting a government job isn’t the same thing as a rise to power. I’m not talking about his non-election, I’m talking about how he fooled the country into being taken for an abusive ride. WATCH. THE. VIDEO.
And back to the topic of you: I think its pretty ridiculous how you haven’t made many points that weren’t just insults. You made the point about the hypocrisy of the tea party condemning someone’s free speech while also protesting in favor of (only to show your own hypocrisy by later telling me that I have no business talking here because Im not smart enough and that I leave the site), and you made the point that Stalin wasn’t elected. Other than that, you have done nothing but call me stupid, an idiot, a racist, a biggot, and so on and so forth, and then you try to walk away like you’re the bigger man.
In response to another comment. See in context »oookkkayyy…. I believe this is the YouTube URL you gave me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSW2sRKgLwo&feature=
if you click on it, and watch the video, you will find that it is 9:58 long. If there was more you wanted me to see, I apologize for not being a mind reader. We’re done now. Bye bye
In response to another comment. See in context »You are an idiot. I have been to Auschwitz, and I have been to Dachau. I have stood in a nazi gas chamber. Therefor, I am keenly aware that there are people still walking this earth with numbers tattood on their arms. How can you not be respectful of that fact? Substituting Stalin for Hitler is hardly something to pat yourself on the back over.
There are similarities in all governments, so your comparisons to Hitler and Stalin are not only offensive, but they are in no way illuminative of any rational thought on your point. Consider the argument that there were traffic laws in Germany, and we enforce traffic laws in the US. Therefore, we are clearly like Nazis.
Why are you just thowing offensive ad hominem bullshit instead of attempting a rational thought? Is it because you are unable to?
Let me give you some advice. Form a sentence like “I disagree with Obama’s —— policy because I fear that it will concentrate too much power in the executive branch, thus upsetting the current system of checks and balances in this country.” Do you see how that worked? Is it not far superior to calling someone a dictatorial Hitler or Stalin?
Of course, I should warn you- using sentences like the one I just gave you is how grown ups converse. If you choose to follow my advice, people may actually confuse you with a sensible human being.
6 Million people died. Show some respect.
In response to another comment. See in context »I suppose I should add, in defense of those who comment here, it’s really pretty simple — people tend not to appreciate their president begin compared to the greatest monster in history. If you take insult from their reaction, that’s the way it goes. Obama is not Hitler any more than George Bush was Hitler or any other president in American history. You may disagree with him, his policies, whatever. That’s certainly fine. But you really cannot expect to toss around this comparison and have it welcomed by anyone rational, no matter what their political bend. If you want to be taken seriously – and clearly you do – it just ain’t going to happen this way. When Obama finishes his term, be it at the end of 4 years or 8 years – the country will not be a totalitarian national socialist society. It may be better off because of Obama – or it may be worse off because of Obama. We’ll see. But hysterical suggestions will gain you neither respect nor the attention of reasonable people.
In response to another comment. See in context »You need to settle down some Garmichael, as to the video, I watched it, and your link is almost 10 minutes long, click it yourself and check- by the way 10 minutes is the limit of youtube. Your the one that needs to support your opinions, you started on a dark and erie road of comparing our President (who I did not vote for but he is my President whom I respect) to Hitler- just change that channel, it is no way to expect people to take you seriously- you can say whatever about HOW it happened, I get it, but its not selling here OK, it is a silly thing to say. That stuff happened, those people were real, and you and other professional commentators dilute history to a different meaning when you do that, it is disgraceful to history OK? This is a friendly place, I take you to task for questioning Rick’s integrity- if he said he watched the video, he did- he sure enough ruined a good Saturday trying to persuade you but your myopic, just seeing what you like to see that aligns with this view of past and present. I am not going to try to persuade you- however I will take you to task for crossing the line on Ricks integrity- please know what your doing before you do that as you wrong. I am conservative and love to read this man precisely because he is FAIR. This is a fun place, we mix it up and get along trying to find answers here, those other guys can spew the poison, it doe not wash here- here it is serious and entertaining but this comment section has a life of its own here, unlike anywhere, and I have noticed kind of 2 unwritten rules here and I want to pass them to you 1) act like ladies and gentleman, politics can get heated but here we get along good with each other, joking and “bustin balls” is good in a friendly way- but enough is enough 2)any jackass can kick down a door but it takes a carpenter to build a door-here it is about building, finding solutions, thinking, the country belongs to all of us.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Rick Ungar at True/Slant tells the story: [...]
Craig – I surely do appreciate your feelings. I suspect, sadly, that someone that makes this connection between Obama and Hitler is not particularly capable of understanding how intensely offensive it is or why is so painfully wrong. As you say, there are so many comparisons that can be made but these folks leap right to Hitler, without any sense of what they are actually saying. Or, worse, they do have a sense of it and believe it anyway.
ebizjoey- thanks for the nice words. I appreciate it! But, admit it…this is about we Northeastern Ohio boys sticking together!
Well those comments were a fun read…lots of thin skins out there. I had read that the signs in the comic were accurate representations of tea party posters, such as the one that linked the watchdogs to tea baggers…check out:
http://www.eyesonobama.com/blog/content/id_51507/title_The-50-Most-Ridiculous-Tea-Party-Slogans/
I used to have the first copies of all the Marvel heroes starting in 1961 with the Fantastic Four…but I never considered the stories or context conservative…as a kid they seemed radical compared to DC.
X-Men spoke to being different…a constant theme…First black heroes…strong women leads…they were both iconic and topical…this incident and social comment is pretty much what they have done for fifty years.
However business and artists tend to be a right/left marriage of convenience.
As for your grasp of history…facts are facts and you have them right as far as this history buff is aware. I don’t quite understand the right’s fascination with Hitler other than finding some comfort in an uncomplicated example of evil. Perhaps it comes from watching way too much of the History Channel, once known as the Hitler channel for the unending documentaries on the man and the war.
Good points.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think when the Hitler thing comes up, skins do get thin. There is such an offensive quality to it all.
Marvel was always way ahead of DC. I agree that X-Men, in particular, is special. Beyond just being about being different, as you point out, there was always the subtext of who has the right way to go forward, Professor X or Magneto. It was about the choice between Martin Luther King’s message of change through non-violence or the more strident approach of Malcolm X.
You might want to pick up Taibbi’s last book The Great Derangement, wherein he hangs out with Pastor John Hagee’s church and also spends some time with the 9/11 Truthers. The thesis of the book is that some people, feeling powerless and ignored by The System, retreat to these fantasy lands that provide the “easy” explanations they crave.
“Feeling stressed and put upon by secular society and unruly kids? We can fix that. You’ll be delighted to know that it has nothing to do with your own inadequacies. They’re demons! Here, throw them up into this bag.”
“Want to know why your antiwar protests are ignored by the government? It’s simple, and you’ll be delighted to find out that it has nothing to do with the fact that none among you is interested in doing the hard work of building enduring grassroots organizations. The corporate media is in cahoots with a secret cabal of Old Money bankers and American elites…”
Now, we have a group of people who witnessed the election of a Democrat who made vague promises of change and went on to increase government spending a little bit, and they feel so powerless and disenfranchised that they’ve come up with their own conspiracy theories. Take your pick: He’s a secret Muslim (Who drinks beer, eats cheeseburgers, and baptized his kids), a secret communist (Who is merely returning some taxes to pre-2002 levels), a terrorist sympathizer (Who sits young men in arcade cockpits and has them bomb weddings in Pakistan), etc.
It has nothing to do with his policies or actions or any other aspect of reality and everything to do with their sense of powerlessness.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ill only read Matt’s book if he sends me a free copy!
In response to another comment. See in context »Clearly, Ungar can’t distinguish between the first amendment and the first-aid liniment.
The first amendment is a prohibition against censorship by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (later extended by the 14th amendment to state governments.) Censorship implies the use of force, to prevent somebody from printing or saying something they would otherwise be free to print or say. Only the government can legally initiate force.
First off, the government is not even involved here. Second, the complainers used no force whatsoever. The published was not “forced” in any way to respond to complaints. The publisher decided to respond to complaints because of public displeasure. He could easily have told the Tea Party to get lost — he chose not to.
Secondly, “slander” defines a legal limit to freedom of speech. What of the Captain and Falcon staked out a synagogue to catch those dastardrly Jews in the act of drinking the blood of Christian infants? Would that be freedom of speech? Sure. Would it be slander? Sure. Would it be wise? No. Would there be a storm of disapproval? You bet. Would the publisher back down? If he knew what was good for him. But would it be CENSORSHIP? Not by the wildest interpretation of the term.
Anon101-
I gotta tell you…the whole anger and indignation thing works so much better when you are not completely and utterly wrong.
While I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you constitutional law, suffice it to say that your understanding of the First Amendment is not even close.
Let me explain it this way —read what you wrote in your second paragraph and what you wrote in your last paragraph.
If ’slander’ defines the legal limit of freedom of speech, maybe you’ll tell us how federal governmental action is involved in a slander? If you tell someone else that Joe Blow is a child molester and he is, in fact, not a child molester, then Joe Blow can sue you for libel. Any federal, state or local government involved in that situation? And since one is not thrown in jail for a slander or libel – one is subjected to money damages- how in the world do you square the two paragraphs?
The first amendment rights certainly extend to protection from improper censorship by anyone, including the federal government, as you have correctly stated in your slander example, it goes well beyond.
And by the way, the 14th Amendment did not extend these rights to States! The Bill of Rights applied to every American – and even foreigners on American soil – right from the outset. Where do you get this stuff?
This is one of those examples where you can say the ball is red when the entire world knows it is orange -but there is no chance you are going to be convinced otherwise. But that doesn’t make the ball any less orange.
You are actually serving as an excellent example of how all the anger is formed without any understanding of what it is you’re angry at.
In response to another comment. See in context »Godwin’s law states that whoever brings up Hitler in an argument, loses. By that measure, the Mad Hatters and the March Hares lose before they start.
Personally, I think that ebizjoey gets it exactly right – if you focus on solving problems rather than insults, Hitler never comes up.
We don’t need no stinking Tea Party….Obama just signed the bill to raise the national debt by $2 trillion to $987 quadrillion dollars…let’s celebrate…(actually he raised it to $14 trillion, but what’s the difference…it’s only numbers)
You’re responsible for the cartoon X-Men show? I grew up with that and loved it. Good work. Though in all honesty nothing beats Batman Beyond.
Batman who?
In response to another comment. See in context »JCarlton-
Given all the publicity the Cap. America book got, I think there’s an excellent chance there will be another printing and you should be able to pick one up.
“Listen up, teabaggers — it’s tough out there. If you’re going to dish it out, you better learn how to take it.” While the Marvel connection is fascinating, I fail to see what the the organization did to qualify as a racist group. They seem to have more in common with your fan base with their penchant for wearing ridiculous costumes,discussing fantasies and national conventions.
Having read the comic book in question I can say that Cap was asking Falcon to pose as an IRS agent in order to attack and chastise him so Cap himself could infiltrate the group posing as a like minded individual. That being said I have read numerous comments and articles written about this very comic and I think the real question is why can the protestors not represent an actual group. Why can’t Cap (Not Steve Rogers by the way) and the Falcon not agree with the Tea Party agenda? Why can’t they express their opinions to the contrary? Why can’t a black man, from New York, feel threatened by an all white, midwestern, group of protestors? Being a white male I would feel out of place at the million man march even though I have no feelings of fear or anger toward black men. It is just a natural feeling when one is presented with a group wholly composed of unlike individuals. I would also feel out of place at an all women’s function. I think the real question is why shouldn’t characters from such a diverse place as the Marvel Universe (which is meant to mirror our world with an added supspension of disbelief) have their own opinions. Why must everything said by every character be meant to represent Marvel’s views, it shouldn’t. If Doctor Doom or a character established as a definitive villain said something subversive no one would question it. Are we supposed to take our cues from Captain America (which again isn’t the Captain America everyone assumes he is)? How are we supposed to function as a society of individuals when we can’t even respect individuality in fictitious characters.
Why can no one seperate “art” (I use quotations because some people will inevitably dismiss comics as true art, and I respect that view) from the “artist” anymore. Sure Ed Brubaker is funneling himself into the character so attack his views, don’t attack Marvel. Marvel should never apologize for something like this. Even if it was completely intentional, it isn’t a mistake. People get offended, that is also in our nature. How we deal with it is what makes up who we are. Comic book characters are not role models. Marvel can’t just write anything they want of course, they have a social obligation but I think their characters should have their own voices.
To be fair though I’m sure Steve Rogers would have handled the situation with infinitely more finesse and even if he didn’t it would have seemed that way. Steve Rogers will always be right and when he isn’t he has a good reason, that is the nature of his character. James Barnes isn’t Steve Rogers and he is allowed to make mistakes. Also the group in question is a gateway to a heavly armed militia/fringe group. After the issue in question any comparison of the fictitious group to any real group is laughable. Any rational person waits to hear how the story ends before they express their dislike of something.
Wow, Ungar, you sure are a piece of work. Maybe you need to just zip it for as long as it takes you to consider that maybe somebody somewhere in the world knows something you don’t. Clearly, I’ve forgotten more about constitutional law than you apparently ever knew.
Everything I said is accurate, if you bother to take the time to read and understand it. First off, “freedom of speech” is NOT the same thing as “the first amendment.” Freedom of speech is a freedom a person has towards other people regardless of whether or not government is involved. The first amendment is solely a limitation on the government guaranteeing that the government cannot penalize non-injurious speech. Censorship is solely a government action. Do you get it yet?
“One is not thrown in jail for slander or libel?” More “facts” you are pulling out of your backside? Check out firstamendmentcenter.org’s page on “Criminal libel statutes, state by state”: misdemeanors at six months to one year, class-six felonies, even imprisonment at hard labor. Your self-declared expertise is obviously overrated.
And yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Bill of Rights is not automatically binding upon the states. Google the Slaughterhouse Cases and Cruikshank and get yourself a much-needed legal education. For heaven’s sake, there’s a groundbreaking case in the Court right now (McDonald v. Chicago) deciding whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Do you even read newspapers?
Anger, indignation, and ACCURACY trumps liberal “make up your facts” idiocy any day of the week.
Since this really is not how I care to spend my Sunday night, I’ll make this as quick as possible -
1. Text of the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So, you know, I can’t imagine why anyone might come to the conclusion that the First Amendment bears some relationship to the freedom of speech. I suppose it might be that section that reads”or abridging the freedom of speech” that is throwing me off.
2. I think the case you’re looking for is Barron v. Baltimore, the landmark 1833 caae that held that the Bill of rights only applied to the federal government. What you may have missed that day you skipped con. law in law school (you did go to law school, n?) is that Barron was discredited virtually from the day it came down. I believe it was “Gitlow”, in the 1920’s that finally put it to rest by using the due process clause as the justification for making it clear that the First Amendment rights extended to the States. From that time forth, there is a long line of cases that have long ago made clear that the First Amendment freedom of speech extends to virtually ly all protected speech with the exception of the limitations, ie obscenity, clear and present danger, etc.
2. I am well aware of the Slaugtherhouse cases (which, as I expect you know) were heard in the 1800’s. I wonder if you know that Slaughterhouse has long since been discredited by any number of cases that have come since and by virtually all modern constitutional scholars- to the point where the cases are considered an aberation of court history rather than a ruling that ever had much impact beyond the specific matters.
3. Yes, there are some states that continue to have criminal libel statutes on their books. However if you had read your reference material a bit more carefully – or even taken the trouble to read some actual cases – I think you would find that the concept is (a) pretty much antiquated (b0 never used and (c)when they have been used, as most recently in South Carolina, they end up being struck down by the State Supreme Courts as unconstitutional.
4. I don’t quite understand why you would focus on McDonald as it only seeks to affirm the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Heller whereby the District of Columbia handgun restrictions were ruled unconstitutional. And why were they ruled unconstitutional?
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT INTIMATELY TiED to the NATURAL RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE.
The operative words there would be ‘individual right” – ie. a Bill of Rights Amendment that the Court held was NOT a limited restriction on the federal government, and was specifically not a right that had to be extended to the states by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. It is a direct right granted to individuals by the Second Amendment. In other words, Heller completely makes my point.
So..to sum up…
1. It’s Mr. Ungar to you.
In response to another comment. See in context »2. While the debate is fine, I still could do without the anger and indignation.
Dear Mr. Ungar,
I think you are a wonder. To spend all this time attempting a logical, informed conversation with people who so clearly desire to exchange insults is, well…awesome.
I totally want to check out the comic, even though the only ‘graphic novel’ I’ve read to date is “The Watchmen”. I only hope that the signs displayed in the comic are as tragically (and comically) misspelled as some at actual Tea Party rallies.
Don’t get worked up by the haters…you are wonderful!!!
whit
[...] easily conflate “loudest” with “best,” and that’s how you end up with spoiled-brat Tea Partiers forcing Marvel to apologize. Simply having freedom of expression does not automatically connote value in your expression. If [...]
[...] True/Slant’s Rick Ungar explains: For those who may not have followed the brouhaha, Marvel got in trouble with the Tea Party this week as a result of a Captain America episode where Cap and his sidekick, The Falcon, are investigating a right wing, anti-government militia group called “The Watchdogs.” [...]
So far, this is the classic argument with a weaselly liberal — he makes an indefensible claim, then when called on it, defends a different one, all the while twitting his opponent for being too “stupid” to concede the claim he never actually made.
“So, you know, I can’t imagine why anyone might come to the conclusion that the First Amendment bears some relationship to the freedom of speech.”
I explained exactly how far that relationship went. But that’s not the claim you originally made. It was: “And by the way, the 14th Amendment did not extend these rights to States! The Bill of Rights applied to every American – and even foreigners on American soil – right from the outset. Where do you get this stuff?” I assumed it was too obvious to tell you that the “Bill of Rights” isn’t the same thing as “the First Amendment,” either. Your claim is still false.
“Barron was discredited virtually from the day it came down. I believe it was “Gitlow”, in the 1920’s that finally put it to rest by using the due process clause as the justification for making it clear that the First Amendment rights extended to the States.”
That’s one way of looking at it (the wrong way). The fact is, that after Barron, the Supreme Court was stuck with a precedent that caused it to have to rule individually on which portions of the Bill of Rights were enforceable against the states. (It’s called “fourteenth amendment selective incorporation” — Google it.) Gitlow was in fact the case that did it for the First Amendment ONLY, but the rest of the Bill of Rights was still standing outside in the rain. More on this below.
“I don’t quite understand why you would focus on McDonald as it only seeks to affirm the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Heller whereby the District of Columbia handgun restrictions were ruled unconstitutional… The operative words there would be ‘individual right” – ie. a Bill of Rights Amendment that the Court held was NOT a limited restriction on the federal government, and was specifically not a right that had to be extended to the states by the due process clause of the 14th amendment.”
You’re so wrong here it’s incredible. If what you claim is true, there would have been NO REASON even to BRING this lawsuit. Court rulings don’t have to be “reaffirmed.” Clearly you don’t understand the concept of incorporation. Miller ruled only that individual ownership of arms outside the militia purview was an individual right according to the second amendment. It was purposely raised in DC expressly so that the ruling could be decided on federal terms as applied to federal territory, without any complications introduced by state governments. Once won, McDonald was brought SOLELY to decide the additional question of fourteenth amendment incorporation of the second amendment against state governments. If that were not an issue, the NRA would just have demanded that the feds sweep into Chicago and enforce the second amendment, as they are demanding in DC now. But that’s not the way the system works. And it’s all because of the Slaughterhouse cases (and sure, Barron).
“I wonder if you know that Slaughterhouse has long since been discredited…”
You know, just because you can STATE something doesn’t mean it is true. Slaughterhouse is a Supreme Court PRECEDENT. There are a lot of people who DON’T LIKE IT (I’m one). But it’s OPERATIVE. McDonald may actually be the case to discredit it permanently, due to Gura’s insistence on resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities clause instead of the tired old Due Process clause. But that hasn’t happened yet.
In fact, the states are STILL not obliged to honor several portions of the federal Bill of Rights, including the entire second, third, and seventh amendments; the fifth’s guarantee to a grand jury; the eighth’s protection against excessive bail and fines; and a few other “emanations and penumbras” of the rights we think cover us all (but don’t). So that’s the scorecard, MISTER Unger, whether you say so or not.
And if you want to avoid the anger and indignation, here are a few ways you can do it:
1) Don’t start the ball rolling by calling people you don’t understand “hypocrites” for violating “rights,” just because you don’t understand the difference between CENSORSHIP (a forbidden violation of rights, but one only a government can commit) and COMPLAINT AND CRITICISM (allowable free speech).
2) Don’t you dare try to paint your opposition as a racist (all-white) movement. MSNBC stooped so low as to film Chris Broughton (the guy with the AR-15 at the Phoenix Obama rally) from the shirt down and pretended hi was white (http://tinyurl.com/ntgazj). We didn’t let them get away with it, we won’t let Marvel get away with it, and we won’t let their apologists get away with it, either.
3) Stop insulting your opponents with sexual epithets (“teabaggers”).
4) Stop trying to silence your opponents with phony statements of “fact,” like “Slaughterhouse has been discredited,” “Marvel never once mentioned the Tea Party movement,” and “one is not thrown in jail for slander or libel.” Because (oddly enough) we’re not all knuckle-dragging brew-swillers who think that preserving our civil and economic liberties from the greed of an ever expanding authoritarian state is a better way to spend our afternoon than stayin’ in the trailer and watchin’ Judge Judy. No, some of us have got not just a good edjumacation, but also finely tuned BS detectors.
In short, if you want a debate without acrimony, don’t start with the acrimony in your columns. Otherwise, MISTER Unger, we’ll give you the same respect you give us. There’s plenty to go around.
That’s me, alright. A ‘weasly’ liberal. I think I’ve given this enough time. I did notice you didn’t answer a question I asked – are you a lawyer? You may well be, but I ask only because you keep telling me to look things up via Google. I tend to do legal research by reading cases, treatises, etc. I’ve never found Google to be a particularly good source for building a legal argument. This is why I wonder if you are a lawyer. I think we’d all love an answer. And, if you’re not, you can, in good conscious,add ’sleazy lawyer’ to your descriptions of me. That’s something you should enjoy.
In response to another comment. See in context »Completely off-topic, when did you work for Marvel? I worked at EA Chicago up until 2007 on a video game for Marvel that ultimately got canned when EA decided it was too expensive to have a studio in the Loop. Captain America was one of better characters we had developed for the game, and it was a sad day for us all when we got shut down because we had something good going. Curious if you were at Marvel during the same time.
I left in 2003. I actually did two stints there. I ran Marvel Animation when it was a part of New World Entertainment. Then, after Marvel Ent. came out of bankruptcy in 1998, I went to work at Marvel Entertainment.
In response to another comment. See in context »Personally, I think that Joe Q is slapping a good half of his readership in the face.
There’s a great many sermons that a good comic book character might be able to give. “Never give up”, “Do what’s right”, “Protect the innocent”, “with great power comes something something”, and so on… but to come out and tell the story that they told in Civil War, for example… or this particular story… (AND DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON BRAND NEW DAY!!!) strikes me as a good way to lose readers.
X-Men, to give a great example, started as a spectacular analogy to the argument between Martin and Malcolm. What made Magneto such a compelling character is that he wasn’t a strawman to be kicked around. He had a point.
More importantly, readership picked up.
How are Marvel’s readership numbers doing currently?
If they’re down, is it illogical to come to the conclusion that, maybe, they’ve been alienating readers?
[...] Premièrement, je dois aller quelque part je vais rarement ici de la vraie / Slant. Quelques-uns d'entre vous savent que j'ai passé de nombreuses années comme le président du groupe de personnages de Marvel, un fait que j'élève seule raison qu'elle pourrait me faire les seuls qualifiés pour commenter cette histoire. Et bien que je ne parle jamais de mon histoire dans le dessin animé [. . . ] URL article original: http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/02/13/tea-party-dips-marvel-comics-into-controversy/ [...]
Turns out, Cap does go to those rallies:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Anthem-Blue-Cross-insurance-premium/photo//100223/480/23c4089fefe64f75b63fa8467d5beee7//s:/ap/20100224/ap_on_bi_ge/us_anthem_blue_cross_rate_hike
Ha! Go Cap!
In response to another comment. See in context »Looks like someone is auditioning for Joe Johnston’s Captain America movie. Rick, if I solve the healthcare reform crisis, can you get me a speaking role in The First Avenger?
In response to another comment. See in context »Probably not…but if you solve the health care crisis I’m sure I can come up with some appropriate reward!
In response to another comment. See in context »For what it’s worth, I like Dylan Bruno for Captain America. He plays Agent Granger on Numb3rs.
Before he got into acting, Bruno was enough of an athlete to compete on American Gladiators in the 90s, and he got a degree in environmental engineering from MIT. I like to think that’s the sort of stuff a modern day Steve Rogers would have been up to before joining the military.
In response to another comment. See in context »