This is for everyone who wonders what the idea of superheroes can possibly have to do with positive social change.

I was actually thinking of writing fiction about superheroes disillusioned with traditional ideas of “fighting crime” who actually hunker down and become activists — but truth, it seems, has got a run on fiction.

From a paper I just finished:

Maggie is a five-year old cartoon character who imagines a space called Nowhere Land. At one point she organizes her imaginary friends and they collectively dig a big hole; even Rudy the Mouse (whose hat doesn’t come off) is given a spoon so as to help. When they’ve finished digging the hole, her friends inquire as to its purpose. Maggie is temporarily perplexed, but responds by asking if her friends had fun digging the hole, to which they respond in the affirmative. The point of digging the hole, Maggie explains, was to have fun.

We see that Nowhere Land is a utopia, it is the space from which Maggie articulates and imagines her desires, and the content of her utopia is a critique of capitalist society: the idea that labour should be undertaken for personal fulfillment echoes Marx’s critique of the alienation of the labourer from his or her labour, and offers a critique of a capitalist society where labour is a means to an “end” as a perpetually unfulfilled consumer.

In the next vignette of that episode, Maggie and her friends go to rebuild the home of Sidestep (the crab) whose sand house has been washed away by a wave. After they build the house they put a red star(fish?) above the entrance.

Whoever wrote that episode was clearly a socialist.

When I first saw this Indian commercial for Happydent White Chewing Gum I was horrified:

But we can also look at this ad as a critical allegory for — you guessed it — capitalism. What’s horrifying about this ad isn’t the bald exploitation of humans for the pleasure of a rich, spoiled, elite few — that happens everyday — what’s horrifying is that the ad lays it bare in front of our eyes so that we can’t turn away from it and pretend it doesn’t exist.

I was walking through the mall and looking around at all the people happily spending to buy shiny, wonderful, beautiful, classy products, and I was wondering why I even bother criticizing a society that can make so many people happy (note, I was looking at in-store displays of happy babies and smiling, emaciated models). I was in one of those “what the hell am I complaining about” moods. That’s when I realized that all these displays mask exploitation — the very simple exploitation of those in the Third World, yes, but also the exploitation of those buying these products, on credit, or on whatever meagre earnings they have. Many more, of course, weren’t there to buy, but to window shop or to eat cheap fast food.

How wonderful would it be, after all, if the next time we went to a GAP store, we also managed to see how how those products were made? Would we be horrified, just like this ad makes us react? I don’t know. Mark Andrejevic talks about how even though many of us know that this kind of exploitation exists, we see no alternatives to it. We are shown no alternatives to it, capitalism is naturalized such that we accept it implicitly — we buy from malls — though we may criticize it explicitly.

More often, what we end up doing is criticizing the discursive representations, such as this Happydent ad, rather than criticizing the phenomenon itself. And then, even when we do criticize the phenomenon itself, we have no means to materially change it. At least, that’s what we think.

[On another note, if I do a few more, I could probably write a paper on television ads as symptoms of and allegories for capitalism.]

Here is an analysis of Y: The Last Man and Ex Machina, both ongoing comics series by writer Brian K. Vaughan. My criticisms deal with his portrayal of Arabs and Muslims. I am focusing specifically on Y: The Last Man #48 (hereon referred to as “Y”) and Ex Machina #19 and #20. If you haven’t read those, you will have no idea what’s going on. And I’m too lazy to cut and paste images. I might tighten this up into a proper essay sometime in the future.

The problem in Y #48 — and Y in general is that the Israelis speak for the Arabs. Literally no Arabs speak in the entire series, except at one point early on where two assassins communicate with each other in Arabic (“qaf” — i.e., stop) — and I don’t even know if they were actually Arabs. While I agree that Vaughan’s presentation is more sophisticated than a lot of other portrayals and media sources, it’s still lacking, sorely. Can the Palestinians speak? Not for Vaughan, they don’t. Palestine is a place for Alter to prove her tenacity, intelligence, bravery and just fury — and to explain her subsequent obsessions. It’s not a place for the Palestinians to speak, not a place for Palestinians to live and to be Palestinian (maybe this is a reproduction of the occupation itself?).

I believe Vaughan reflects the widely distributed view, “Yes, Israelis engage in some oppression of Palestinians, but if only the Palestinians would stop their terrorism, then the Israelis wouldn’t have to do this.” Here, we’ve got Alter blaming the Palestinians for the death of her sister, Rachel (definitely an allusion to Rachel Corrie) who dies standing in front of an IDF bulldozer. When Sadie questions her about this, Alter responds, and ends at how the IDF is forced to take such action because Egyptians and Palestinians build arms-smuggling tunnels beneath houses.

Again, two things, first Rachel is the peaceful defender of Palestinians — Palestinians, whenever shown as resisting, are violent (whether they shoot, bomb or throw stones). Second, none of them engage in any kind of rational explanation for why they do what they do, Rachel explains it, and then takes the “rational” ( i.e., nonviolent) step in their defense.

We can see this view (“if only the Palestinians would stop with their mindless terrorism”), again, in Ex Machina #19. Mayor Hundred calls for a meeting of religious leaders to inform them about something. We have a relatively belligerent (and African-American) imam talking about racial and ethnic profiling. Rabbi Levy interrupts to say “I’m sorry to interrupt the obligatory reminder about Islam being synonymous with peace, but I find it difficult to listen to speeches on morality from a man whose organization provides material support to Hamas.”

Hundred pulls Levy out of the meeting, and Levy then says, “Forgive me, Mr. Mayor, but my nephew was killed in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, and I have very little patience for–” before Hundred interrupts him and tells him that that’s not why he pulled him out of the meeting.

But let’s see what’s happening here. Neither in Y nor Ex Machina do any Israelis kill any Palestinians — we don’t see or hear it (even when we first see Alter in Y #1, she’s shooting rubber bullets above the heads of the Palestinians) — but Palestinians do kill (or engage in violence) against Israelis. And then we’ve got this allegation left floating in the air, that this imam, who ostensibly represents all the Muslims in New York City and by extension all Muslims in America (and I’m assuming that’s a lot of Muslims), materially funds Hamas. (Who materially funds the IDF?)

Let’s move on, Hundred asks Levy for some kind of favour. Levy asks if he’ll boost security around synagogues the way it is around mosques, Hundred says that there are actual bomb threats to mosques, and besides, the Jewish community will do it because it’s the right thing to do. The negative here is what concerns me, Jews do things because it’s the right thing to do. Muslims … ? They materially fund Hamas. (Who materially funds the IDF?)

addendum: Moreover, Vaughan’s summary dismissal (via Rabbi Levy) of the imam’s statement that he will condemn terrorist Muslims, if so proven, reflects another widely distributed view, “Muslims talk a good game about how their religion means peace, but why can’t they control/act against all these terrorists?” This view, of course, is quite racist and ignores historical and social realities, as if a Muslim in North America is responsible for the actions or politics of Muslims in some other part of the world. But that’s precisely what Vaughan thinks — because apparently this imam’s organizaton materially funds Hamas. (Who materially funds the IDF?) /addendum

In Ex Machina #20, Hundred and the police commissioner find and arrest the culprit (of the recent terrorist attack at an anti-war rally). Yes, it is an Arab (his name is Samir Hallouda), complete with mole and unibrow. However, he’s an atheist. While he identifies himself as an “American citizen … like you”, he also points out that “Believing that this is about religion is why you people are going to lose your ‘War on Terror.'”

Vaughan is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Not only is this man a rational, scientist, atheist Arab, he’s also an American citizen. Yet, he’s just as easily one of “them” (whoever “they” are), who define themselves in opposition to “you people” (whoever “you people” are – ostensibly Americans, with whom he identified earlier). Are you confused? Yeah, so am I.

We never do find out why the man did what he did. Here, at least, the man refuses to speak (as opposed to being spoken for). But he still doesn’t speak. He refuses to explain why he supports the attacks of 9/11 or why he attacked and killed several people at the anti-war rally. Something to do with the “War on Terror” – about which, we can tell, Vaughan feels very ambiguously.

Aside from these depictions, Vaughan’s works (in Y and Ex Machina) are virtually devoid of Muslims or Arabs. Certainly devoid of any positive representations of them (that is, when they’re not being feisty black men, or violent Arabs). I haven’t included his use of the burqa as a disguise both for Yorick and for assassins, nor his shallow recap of Saudi Arabian society in my analysis. Nor am I referring to his latest work, Pride of Baghdad, which is a whole other ballgame (the lions are Africans, and there’s a lot to read into that).

My point is not that Vaughan is blatantly anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, or that he deliberately engages in that kind of imagery. However, curious aspects, as noted above, abound in his work.

Funniest stuff I’ve seen since Arrested Development:

God, Inc. Episode 1 (3:38)

God, Inc. Episode 2 (6:31)

Salaam-e-Ishq music is excellent. The film looks like a take off of Love Actually.

This VISA ad, I think, is a really direct allegory for capitalism:

It shows that what we take for individualism, or freedom of choice (i.e., of consumption), is actually highly regulated and highly limited (the appearance of post-modernism?). And on top of that, it’s entirely mechanized, and that’s what it expects of us — to be cogs in a well-oiled machine of consumption and credit, and little more. This ad seems to celebrate that. Any actual individualism or actual break from the status quo and order of things is severely frowned upon.

The thing about this ad is that it just comes out and shows it for everyone to see. What’s really fun is looking for all of that where it isn’t apparent.

I don’t know what’s more disturbing: that I can relate to a poorly-written villain from Marvel’s second mainstream universe after Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) thwarts her plans, or that I’m seriously entertaining the thought in the first place.

I don’t think God doesn’t hate. What I’ve learned about God, growing up, is that he has some kind of love-hate thing going on. God loves (more often “has mercy on”) the believers, but severely dislikes the disbelievers. He puts curtains over their hearts and turns them into stone so that they may never see the correct way, and they will burn in hell forever the fuel of which is men and stones. Stuff like that, perfect empathy? I think that’s possible for a human being — one who grafts on another half brain to her own to think faster and tries to destroy the Fantastic Four and X-Men because she has unresolved psychotic issues, yes — but not for the God I learned about growing up. If God was truly perfectly empathetic the concept of hell wouldn’t exist.

I never denied it.

Israeli logic is great. They can bomb indiscriminately, they argue, because they warned civilians to evacuate the areas. (Nevermind that they destroyed roads, bomb civilian refugee convoys, aid workers, and fuel storage sites.)

By this token, Hizbullah should be able to bomb where ever it wants in central Israel now that it has warned them in advance. Besides, people in Haifa have been warned for far too long. Therefore, any Hizbullah strike in Northern or Central Israel is a-okay, by Israeli standards, that is.

edit: Later saw this on Norman Finkelstein’s web site:

The Transformers movie is coming out next July. It’s great to see all these cartoons of my boyhood come to the big screen. Next, I suppose, is G.I.JOE where, of course, the racially diverse and morally upright American soldiers triumph over irrationally evil terrorists (who hate peace and freedom) from the al-Coibra organization. Perfect.

And in an intelligence breakthrough in America’s War on Terror, al-Coibra’s dreaded Cobra Commander’s secret identity was recently revealed:

(I actually do have a life, I just spend most of my time trying to avoid it.)