G.I. Joe No Longer the Real American Hero?

Advocate123 writes "Clearly, Hollywood has forgotten the, 'Real American Hero.' G.I. Joe originally symbolized the American WWII soldier and a great generation. Now Hollywood celebrities are going to turn him into a international multicultural coed task force with no government affiliations. Isn't anything sacred to these people?"

Comments

In other news....

[MonorailCat]

President Bush has signed a $100 million appropriations bill to supply soldiers in Iraq with red lasers.

Re:In other news....

[MagusSlurpy]

Well, now, that's good news, but when is he going to send them the sharks?

Re:In other news....

[famicommie]

In other news... ? I would sincerely like to know who qualifies a blog with the following mission statement as news:

This political blog is dedicated to informed citizens who understand the benefits of limited government, capitalism, private property rights, and plain common sense. If you disagree with any or all of the political satire on this blog, we apologize for the intellectual abuse inflicted upon you by your university professors." So, what? If I feel that capitalism allowed to be unrestrained by a hampered limited government is bad news, then I have clearly been tainted by university professors? Whatever. I'll just pass on reading your blog and instead ask the moderators why the Hell this article was accepted at all (let alone promoted to front page material).

Re:In other news....

[thegsusfreek]

So if I believe that having a small, limited government is good (as the founding fathers did) and that capitalism (not unrestrained, but not heavily restricted either; just minimal intervention) is a good thing, just because you believe in Socialism or some other such system means that this article (having little to do with either of these beliefs) should not be accepted?

Wow.

Re:In other news....

[hoppo]

All I want is sharks with frickin laser beams, and you have to bog me down with all these details.

Re:In other news....

[I(rispee_I(reme]

G.I. Joe came in two flavors:

1) Older, barbie-doll size toys, with clothes you could change and such. These are probably what the antediluvians at Fox News are witnessing the corruption of. This toy line was produced from 1942-1982. While this toy line was a success, it predated the tendency of toy manufacturers to sell a storyline with their products, which began in earnest with He-man and the Masters of the Universe, circa 1981. As such, this version of G.I. Joe had no villains to contend against until around 1976, when a line of alien invaders villains, called "Intruders" was introduced in a tacked-on fashion. Since almost no one knows about the Intruders, I submit that a "G.I. Joe vs. The Intruders from Space Movie" would be rather unpopular.

Which leaves us with...

2) A line of toys produced from 1982 until the present day, with a few pauses. This toy line, unlike the original, was based upon the marvel comic book, and utilized a wide array of science-fiction and fantasy devices, such as mad scientists (Dr. Mindbender), masked villains (Cobra and Destro), and even went so far as to integrate Robert E. Howard's myth of a prehuman, reptilian civilization in the animated movie.

The second incarnation of G.I. Joe was inclusive by design (including both the token black and the token female in the original roster), and fought a war on terror that could never end, because Cobra was an undying hydra of a terrorist organization (sound familiar?)

The multiculturalization of G.I. Joe that the article complains about actually took place over 20 years ago. Why were there no protests then? Perhaps because we were in the midst of a cold war, and people had something better to do than piss and moan about a toy line/cartoon/movie. Or perhaps because we as a culture realized that if we made certain classes of citizens feel unwelcome in our military, we would:

a) Weaken the military.
b) Look like the "unfree", "antidemocratic" culture we were nominally opposing.

Just an idea. I rather lean towards the "better things to do" theory.

I probably got some trivial detail re: G.I. Joe incorrect. I feel I can reliably depend upon the legions of their fandom to correct me. For the most part, though, the above information is accurate, and the linked-to article is a bunch of jingoist hysteria.

Next week on slashdot: The global Zionist conspiracy forces Microsoft to keep its products closed-source!

Re:In other news....

[colmore]

Yeah, if these guys are holding G. I. Frikkin' Joe to be "sacred" then I really have to ask how sacred they're holding the idea of sacredness.

Re:In other news....

[theAtomicFireball]

Having a small government for the sake of a small government is no better than more government for the sake of more government.

Perhaps, but it sure is a lot less expensive. Not that I agree with this nutjob who wrote TFA in the slightest, but I have to say that in general, I'm in favor of much smaller government than we have now. The massive bureaucracy is rife with waste and that doesn't help anyone.

Re:In other news....

[caseydk]

Having a small government for the sake of a small government is no better than more government for the sake of more government.

A small government with less power/budget should be less effective at taking our rights.

Re:In other news....

[Mr. Slippery]

I'm in favor of much smaller government than we have now.

Unfortuantely, those who make the most noise about "smaller government" usually mean taking the regulators and governors off the engine of the state, not shrinking the engine.

Smaller government? Start by reducing the amount we spend on military dominance of the planet for the benefit of American business. We could halve our "defense" spending and still outspend any potential adversary about five to one. That leaves plenty to defend our nation - while being less of a temptation to foreign adventures and wars of choice.

Then let's go about reducing government powers to issue corporate charters, land and resource deeds, copyright and patents, and to run a federal reserve system that lets banks suck in wealth and that bails out speculator markets. (Yes, some of these are federal, some are state; as a practical matter, though, it matters little which level of government employs the guy with the gun who backs up government's demands.) Shrink the engine that creates economic injustice, and there's less need for the (relatively small) regulators of social welfare programs.

Re:In other news....

[BakaHoushi]

I pretty much agree with everything you said. But I can't help but shudder at the thought of complaints from minority groups if there weren't any token blacks/Hispanics/etc. Personally, I find characters whose sole purpose is to stand up and scream "look at me, I'm not white!" to be rather annoying. But I digress.

Of course, I wouldn't expect feminist groups to speak up about a lack of women in the line: I mean, I'm sure most of them would rather keep OUT of the draft, should one ever return (I can't blame them, there, either. It's gone, and likely to never return, but if it did, I'd do all I could to avoid it, too.)

Of course, I doubt they didn't complain back then because we had "better things to do." I mostly lay the blame on:
1) Lack of national communication (With the Internet, we now have the capability of rounding up a group of irate people who hate just about everything that doesn't conform to their ideal for protests. Back then, you'd need to have essentially an entire town who was outraged by a toyline)
2) We were too busy accusing each other of being a communist. "So, when the Rooskies are gonna nuke us any minute, you want to discuss the RACE of a toyline? Sounds like you're just trying to divert attention, COMRADE."
3) Racists. Let's face it, in the 1940's through... well, to about 1970 I'd say, you could stand right out in the open and be as racist or sexist as you wanted. HOW long did it take the Civil Rights movement to get rights for blacks to use the same BATHROOM as whites? Not to mention how many people, not unlike the anti-gay rights movement of today, claimed that "interracial marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage?" (Fortunately, many of those people are now dead.)

Blowing things out of proportion... while ignoring actual problems... is a tradition as old as man himself, though America has certainly done a lot of it in a disproportionate amount of time.

Re:In other news....

[pimpimpim]

I like your point b. For some reason, somewhere between the 80s and now, avoiding to look like the "unfree", "antidemocratic" culture the 'west' is supposed to oppose, got completely removed from the political agenda. These days, it is perfectly acceptable to introduce measures that are antidemocratic or removing the liberties of citizens. One just wonders when that change happened.

Re:In other news....

[hedwards]

Unfortuantely, those who make the most noise about "smaller government" usually mean taking the regulators and governors off the engine of the state, not shrinking the engine.

Sigh, I really wish this weren't the case. It kind of bugs me that if that weren't bad enough most of the people the propose a smaller government have been voting for a regime that has moved all the regulators over to spy agencies.

Personally, I like the idea of a small efficient government. But I know better than to assume that less regulation will bring that, mostly what it brings is higher bills. Texans ought to know that better than anybody as they presently pay some of the highest electricity bills, while the producers have polluted their air to a degree worse than LA in its heyday.

The issue tends to be that a smaller government can't adequately police morality. And that tends to be a deal breaker. You really can't have a government that has the resources to spy in people's bedrooms and still have it be small.

Re:In other news....

[Dun Malg]

Or perhaps because we as a culture realized that if we made certain classes of citizens feel unwelcome in our military, we would:

a) Weaken the military.
b) Look like the "unfree", "antidemocratic" culture we were nominally opposing.
Yeah, this theory is in the "not likely at all" category. The "GI Joe, Mk 2" creation was totally non-representative of the US military. The characters had no discipline, no uniforms in the sense of uniformity, no clearly delineated rank, and never planned anything beyond "you guys go this way, and we'll go thataway". No thinking person saw the military when they saw GI Joe the comic/cartoon. They saw the Superfriends, 80's edition.

Re:In other news....

[Lemmy Caution]

The "hegemony machine" part is the important aspect.

Look, not only do I know that the military does some good work at times, I know that a lot of the kids in the military are well-intentioned and responsible people (I was a service brat, I got a pretty close look at the military psyche in action.) But the same can be said of the military of just about any country, as well. And, conversely, it can also be said of the non-military governmental bodies, and just about anything else.

The truth is that there isn't much that's defensive about the present-day US military - most of the security work is now being done by the "Department of Homeland Security" (just what the hell is "Defense" supposed to be, then? Maybe it should go back to being called the Department of War, like it used to be.) The de-facto purpose of the US military is to project force overseas. That occasionally it performs relief and rescue services doesn't change that.

Re:In other news....

[bladesjester]

These days, it is perfectly acceptable to introduce measures that are antidemocratic or removing the liberties of citizens. One just wonders when that change happened.

It's been happening for quite a while, but if you want to point at one event that really started taking away constitutional rights, I'd say it was probably when people started taking shots at Regan.

It caused Brady to get shot instead, and eventually (after a number of years of lobbying), the Brady Bill was passed. Instead of blaming the person who did the shooting, they started blaming the guns.

It's been sort of downhill from there.

Re:In other news....

[pimpimpim]

Hmm, as a non-US-ian, I am not so much in favor of the right to carry arms, but since it is historically important to the US I won't discuss that now.

What I do find interesting is that similar things are happening in Germany nowadays. The minister of interior Schüable got partially crippled 17 years ago when he was shot in an attack on him (he was then also minister of interior). Now, he is introducing a shitload of freedom-limiting laws, as you have read on slashdot this year (e.g. forbidding possession of 'hacking' tools). Strangely enough, he is actually in favor of the loosening of the right to carry arms, probably because he wants to carry arms himself, I have no real clue. For both your example as the current, one can say: for any political measure, fear should not be the reason behind it.

Re:In other news....

[Xonstantine]

"Smaller government" and "smaller Federal government" are two very different things. Simply shuffling powers around matters little. I don't disagree that the Fed has gotten too big, but all too many "state's rights" advocates either naively believe that the states are more friendly to liberty than the federal government, or actively want the states to be able to oppress the minority groups they don't like. I'm not making the argument that states or local municipalities are any less prone to corruption than the Federal government, but at least with states and municipalities you have the option of moving to a better, friendlier environment that is more conducive to one's values. Do you really want the Federal government mandating creationism being taught side-by-side (or instead of) evolution? How about the Federal government mandating books like "Bobby Has Two Dads"? Point is, if I don't like the way Greenville, Kansas or San Fransisco, California runs their education system I can move...in many cases it's as easy as moving the next town or school district over. It's a lot harder to emigrate out of the US entirely.

Furthermore, there is a very real reason to shuffle powers around. It's called Federalism. Basically, the Federal government today runs roughshod over the Constitution primarily because the idea of Federalism and enumerated powers has been abandoned. Like many of the Framers originally feared, the Bill of Rights has become the basis for an exclusionary policy (that which is not explicitly permitted is explicitly forbidden). The imperial ambitions of people like Alexander Hamilton have won out. And one of the end results of a powerful Federal government is exactly the adventurism and foreign interventionism which a lot of big government proponents decry.

Piracy still accounts for hundreds of incidents each year, with $13 to $16 billion in annual losses. Which isn't all that much considering that the world economy is some $40 trillion per year, and a significant fraction of that is transported via waterways. Piracy is gone in most areas, a nuisance in others, but it used to be a real scourge all over the world.

My point is that the very existence of "big business" is only made possible by government action I disagree. Big business was alive and well during the Gilded Age, when the US Federal government was tiny compared to today. As a percentage of national GDP, people like Rockefeller dwarfed today's billionaires.

Shrinking the parts that provide some oversight of "big business" is foolhardy - like lightening your car by installing light-duty brakes instead of replacing the engine with a smaller one. I'm not really advocating the shrinking of regulatory agencies (although I think in some respects, the EPA is a rogue agency but that's a topic for another day). My main concern is non-discretionary entitlement spending, which we have (as a nation) overpromised and have no way to pay for in 20 years. If the government had stayed within it's enumerated powers or even managed to maintain fiscal discipline, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are today. And don't blame Bush for all of this. He at least tried to initiate Social Security reform, which was promptly shot down by Democrats and the AARP (taxing tomorrow's generation for today's seniors). But, Bush and the Republican Congress certainly haven't helped. Which is why a lot of people stayed home during the 2006 elections.

And I'm not advocating abandoning the social safety net either, I just think it should be shuffled lower, down to the individual states, with Federal oversight with respect to benefits. That way, money in New York stays in New York, and we don't have a welfare system where well over half of the money spent goes to paying the bureaucratic staff rather than actually giving benefits to people mired in poverty.

Re:In other news....

[skam240]

True, and perhaps with a smaller military, Saddam Hussein would've kept his tanks rolling into Saudi Arabia in 1991 because there would've been no one in a position to oppose him. And lets be clear...Iraq was "stable" because of tyranny and brutal oppression, ethnic and religious. The US "broke" Iraq, but it's not like we invaded Canada. Iraq was already a teapot about to boil over.

First off it could very easily have been an international coalition that stopped Saddam in 1991 and you can bet that if he had dared to enter Saudi Arabia it definitively would have been.

Second, as of right now most of the Iraqi people are far worse off than they were under Saddam (who I will agree was a horrible dictator) and given the effectiveness of their current government it looks like this is unlikely to change anytime soon.

As for the teapot bit, I have never heard of any evidence that there was any kind of boiling over eminent for the country. In fact that's half the reason we invaded Iraq, because our sanctions had failed to unseat Saddam. Of course it's possible I'm missing something so feel free to correct me on that last part.

Re:In other news....

[Mr. Slippery]

I disagree. Big business was alive and well during the Gilded Age, when the US Federal government was tiny...

You miss the point. I'm talking about something much more fundamental. No government issued corporate charters, no Big Business. No government issued land deeds for speculators, no Big Business. Eliminate government issued copyrights and patents as we know them, no Big Business. And on this point it makes no difference that some of these are done by the federal government and some by states.

I'm not hostile to your points about Federalism, it's a question I go back and forth on. Certainly the contemporary Federal government is leaps and bounds beyond its Constitutional mandate, we're in agreement there. But the point I want to raise is the dependance of Big Business on state action.

Libertarian capitalists are fond of talking about "smaller government", but capitalism can't exist without a whole lot of government action on behalf of the owning class. Which is why the original - and the only true - libertarians were and are liberatarian socialists, a.k.a. anarchists.

Re:In other news....

[ArwynH]

The 1st Gulf War was not a US waged war. It was called for by the UN and supported by the US, UK and most UN member countries.

The 2nd Gulf War was/is a US waged war with the support of whatever countries it could bully into supporting it.

Either way, the grandparent is wrong about the military being to blame for the current mess. The US military is under the direct control of the civilian government and follows their orders. If you're going to blame someone, do not blame the gun, blame the person who pulled the trigger.

On a different note: sometimes tyrannical despotism works better than an elected democratic government would. In order for a government to function it requires control over the people it governs, this can either be obtained via force (military, police, militia) or via trust. 1st world governments use trust and supplement it with a strictly limited amount of force to keep the unruly elements at bay. In Iraq's case, there are too many unruly elements to be kept back by a limited force and so it's a case of 'He who has more guns: wins'. Unfortunately, the Iraq government does not have more guns and thus cannot effectively govern it's people. Historically despots are far more likely to be able to obtain more guns in such situations, hence installing a despot might have been a better choice, than installing a democratic government.

Re:In other news....

[KudyardRipling]

Please forgive the pedantry.

The idea of the state policing morality arises from the evangelical Christian view that God judges any nation that refuses to enforce those standards of morality as expounded by the evangelical Christian community's interpretation of the Bible. Therefore it would be possible to view that Al-Qa'ida is America's Nebuchadnetzar. This is the chain of thought. Some time in the past, a covenant was made between America and G-d similar in spirit to the one made with Israel at Mount Sinai. There are problems with this view.

1. This covenant was made with a specific people. Techncally this covenant is contained in a document named Deuteronomy. The structure of this document is based on second millenium BCE suzerainty treaties. I am aware that some may try to weasel in America in the verses in parshat Netzavim (Deuteronomy 29:9-30:20) where it says "I make this covenant with its sanctions not with you alone, but both with those who are standing here with us today before the L-RD our G-d and with those who are not with us here this day" (TANAKH JPS 1985 Deut. 29:13-14). The context is that those yet to be born of those present were included in that covenant.

2. It was ratified with accompanying signs and wonders. The mountain called Sinai on the eponymous peninsula is not the real Mount Sinai. The real Mount Sinai is in Arabia. The rocks atop of that mountain is charred in a manner not reproduced outside of ground level nuclear tests. No miraculous/supernatural events of the sort recorded or any other were manifested at the founding of the American republic.

3. This sort of thinking arises from a pernicious doctrine that had infected Christendom since the early second century called supersessionism or 'replacement theology'. However, discussion of this in detail is way beyond the scope of this post.

I do not dismiss with prejudice the character of the founders of the American republic. Neither do I the same with the fact that apart from a few problems, America has been perhaps the most noble experiment in human history. However, as with any nation, they do rise and fall. What could happen to America would be more of the 'Sin of Sodom' scenario (Ezekiel 16:49-50). This is an attitude of arrogance and haughtyness and that the poor deserve to die and to assist such would be a crime, all in the name of prosperity-- socioeconomic darwinism. That is a more immanent danger. How big should government be to protect us from enemies, foreign, domestic, and Divine?

As for the G.I. Joe issue, all that Hollywood is doing is showing their true colors. What they do not realize is that the only reason why they have what they have is because the stereotypcal armed forces member: european, african, latino with smaller percentages from elsewhere. Again it raises the spectre (I have spoken on this before on /.) that when one accumulates a threshold of wealth and power, that wealth and power become their nationality. For these, a passport is a mere identity document for which one shops to obtain the best bargain (lowest income taxes).

5H4L0M

Damn It!

[rossz]

Now those bastards are turning him into a euro-pussie. They already have Ken, what more do they want?

Re:Damn It!

[wamerocity]

Are you suggesting that a Greenpeace Soldier action figure would not be manly?!

Re:Damn It!

[rossz]

A greenpeace action figure would eat tofu, wear earth shoes, and run screaming like a school girl at the first sign of any real danger.

Re:Damn It!

[gwaawg]

lol! first Jesus Christ and now G.I. Joe.... Those darned Europeans.

Re:Damn It!

[arivanov]

Really,

Wanna try to picket a UK naval base and not let the whole fleet group out to go and kick some Iraqis for a week? Want to stand in the way of a frigate coming out of harbour?

Wanna run the gauntlet of Japanese whaling boats and stand between them and a whale? Each harpoon has at least one pound of TNT in it by the way. Granted, it is not a cannon shell, but it can do some hefty damage...

Wanna stand in the way of French towboats towing an asbestous ladden ship to India for disassembly? We all very well know how much they value protestors life...

Re:Damn It!

[Seumas]

What is it exactly that makes the WWII generation better than every other generation that has ever existed? Is it that they spent themselves into an enormous debt habit? Is it that they gave themselves Social Security so they'd always be taken care of? Is it that they fought in a popular war?

What makes them better than today's generation? Today's generation is the one PAYING their self-given Social Security. What about the interment camps? What about the massive racism? Sure, racism still exists today, but we scorn it as a society wherever it creeps up. Were they a better generation than the current generation and the one before us, because they died fighting the Japanese and Germans while the generation after them merely fought a bunch of Vietnamese in an unpopular war and the current generation is fighting an extremely unpopular war? Is my death any less valiant and my sacrifice any less, because those in power send me to fight for different things in a different place than they sent YOU?! In fact, isn't it exactly THAT generation that sent the Vietnam generation to Vietnam and the current generation to... everywhere?

Just because Tom Brokaw tells them that they're the saving grace of an entire nation doesn't mean they are.

As for GI Joe... Who fucking cares?! It's a god damned half hour long advertisement that used to run on Saturdays. Who the hell is dumb enough to sit and actively watch a commercial for a toy? (And yes, the toy company that puts out GI Joe used to slot GI JOE as an advertisement; not a "show").

The WWII generation is the "greatest generation" the way that Guliani is "America's Greatest Mayor". Not so much because of doing anything great, but just happening to be alive during a period that certain events happened in the world.

Re:Damn It!

[Carewolf]

Hey!! Ken is an all-american pussy. You made him, he is your responsibility.

Re:Damn It!

[Reapman]

You realize GI Joe wasn't about a cartoon, and existed before yours (and my) generation cared about GI Joe? I don't think that their generation was better, per say, but being in an extraordinary situation, lead to extraordinary people standing out. What their generation did should not be taken lightly, however. The "wars" we do now, honestly, pale compare to the wars of WW1 and WW2.

Re:Damn It!

[iamacat]

Perhaps those later wars would be more popular - in US and abroad - if people remembered that prior to WWII americans didn't want any part of world politics or being a global policeman. It's too bad that Japanese attacked Perl Harbor and Hitler had stupidity to declare unnecessary for him war on US. After the war it became apparent that Stalin's regime was as bad as Hitler's. Thus the cold war to deny any turf to the Soviet block.

Now we are attacked again - this time by muslims rather than soviets (let's separate communism as an economic decision possibly made democratically from totalitarian government and military aggression). Perhaps american support of Israel was foolhardy, but becoming neutral in respect to Israel vs Palestine will not stop all terrorists attacks now. And Muslims clearly believe in imposing their Sharia law on the rest of the world by force. Well, not everyone who calls himself a muslim, but the more "devote" one is, the more he is likely to advocate violence. To preserve ourselves, we have to fight another cold war aimed to sabotage existing muslim governments and prevent emergence of new ones.

Obviously Bush is an idiot. Saddam Hussein was preventing Iraq from being a Muslim state. Now it's an insanity to support a government based on Islamic laws. But all the same, the new cold war needs to be fought. The last one involved many unethical actions such as atomic bomb tests that harmed many civilians. At the same time, it protected freedom of many countries, including ones that hate US now, to determine their own future. It's naive to expect that the new war will be bloodless.

Re:Damn It!

[Baumi]

You know, I have lots of issues with Grenpeace, namely their tendency to concentrate on issues that'll get them media exposure instead of those which may be more pressing, but exactly that tendency has driven them to do anything but run away from danger. For better or worse, this chase from the G8 summit e.g. doesn't look like running away to me. (It's debatable whether it serves any purpose besides grabbing headlines, but that's another issue.)

Re:Damn It!

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, really easy to do all of those things because you know those you do them against won't take any action to harm you.

how about you go head to head against the Chinese government or maybe the Russians. oh and do it in an out of the way place without a lot of cameras pointed at you.

get back to me and let me know how it goes.

I won't hold my breath waiting on your reply. wouldn't be healthy

Turing Word: forfeit
In a sentence: Go up against the wrong government hippie and your life is forfeit.

Re:Damn It!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because western governments would never resort to violence against Greenpeace, right?

Re:Damn It!

[ricegf]

"The Greatest Generation" did much more that just show up in the right place at the right time. It's easy to look back now and say how easy it was to make so many right decisions at such a critical time in history, but back then they struggled with overwhelming issues and yet managed to be united and purposeful - and therefore overcame.

Among other accomplishments, they:

• Fought and won a two front war against two powerful, highly immoral military dictatorships that not only sought to conquer the world (in reality, not Hollywood-ese) but to murder entire races and classes of people;
• Rebuilt both defeated countries into modern economic, republican powers and allies (the allies helped, of course, but I'm drawing a distinction with the punative post-WWI "reparations" laws that proved so foolish);
• Laid a working foundation for international dispute resolution (as opposed to the worthless League of Nations) that has survived to this day without become irrelevant (for the most part);
• Generated a huge post-war economic boom that dramatically improved the quality of life for a large percentage of the population; and
• Laid the foundations upon which the Cold War could be won without WWIII and (especially) the use of nuclear weapons.

All in all, not a bad days work IMHO.

(The "enormous debt habit" was not a product of The Greatest Generation, who were a uniformly thrifty and cash-based society except during WWII itself. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hi st.pdf (PDF file, starting pp 126) for the data - but national debt relative to GDP declined every year from 1946 (end of WWII) until 1981. The "enormous debt habit" was my generation, Bucky - show a little respect! :-/)

I don't propose TGG were perfect by any means. Discrimination against certain classes of people were not eradicated (though they certainly didn't invent the concept!), although some of the worst abuses were indeed addressed (lynchings, for example, dropped out of popular acceptance, and the accomplishments of some Blacks were finally acknowledged and recognized, if only out of embarrassment for how much had gone unrecognized in the past). And the foundations for defeat were also laid, resulting most notably in the Vietnam war (where allied soldiers were required to bomb empty jungles lest we hurt any Russian advisors - idiots!).

But compared to the moral confusion and lack of clear and unified purpose in the current generation, I think they did pretty darned good against overwhelming odds, and are worthy of the title bestowed by the popular media. YMMV, of course.

Re:Damn It!

[dbcad7]

I find the term euro-pussie amusing, only because it is coming from someone complaining about what they are doing to the image of their doll. Funny stuff really. Don't know why it has to be "euro-pussie" though, but I'll just let that go, I am not European and I am sure they can defend their own honour.

Re:Damn It!

[Mr. Slippery]

Perhaps those later wars would be more popular - in US and abroad - if people remembered that prior to WWII americans didn't want any part of world politics or being a global policeman.

...provided one forgets about WWI, the Spanish-American War, Philippine-American war, the Monroe Doctrine, et cetera. And the amazingly little-known U.S. and allied invasion of communist Russia, one of my favorite little-known but vitally important historical events. (Kind of relevant to the Cold War, eh? Not so paranoid for the Russians to fear an American attack if we'd already done it once.)

Oh, and just how did we come to have a naval base in Hawaii in the first place? Or our presence in Guam? The Philippines? The Pacific conflict was a straight-up fight between expansionist colonial powers. Yes, the U.S. was somewhat less vicious, though American atrocities were not unknown.

The idea of the U.S. quietly minding it's own business when suddenly attacked by those sneaky Japanese and then reluctantly rising to save the world, is great nationalist mythology. But it's lousy history. Sure, we'd toned down the foreign meddling for a few years - because we ran out of money.

And Muslims clearly believe in imposing their Sharia law on the rest of the world by force. Well, not everyone who calls himself a muslim, but the more "devote" one is, the more he is likely to advocate violence.

That's odd. I don't think my Muslim veternarian, or his kids who used to take my karate class, want to impose Sharia law on me. Nor did the Muslim karate teacher who visited my dojo and stayed at my house for a few days a few years back. I don't think the woman in the chador who bagged my groceries yesterday (yes, that was odd) bore me any ill will. Nor did the nice folks from South Africa with whom I sat at dinner at an event last summer (we were all at the vegetarian table). But I think they all counted themselves as devout.

So how's about you ease off the prejudice, friend?

Now we are attacked again - this time by muslims rather than soviets

You seem to be confused. The Soviets never attacked us, and the Muslims who did were part of a criminal ring, not agents of a state. 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war. Treating it as war was the first mistake.

Re:Damn It!

[Scrameustache]

A greenpeace action figure would eat tofu, wear earth shoes, and run screaming like a school girl at the first sign of any real danger. Let's see you get between an explosive harpoon and the whale it's meant for, internet tough guy.

Re:Damn It!

[enrevanche]

What a bunch of crap. This is just a bunch of neocon myths. But lets go through your BS.

• The U.S. already knew what was happening in the Soviet Union before WWII
• The U.S. has been interfering in Middle East politics forever causing orders of magnitude more harm than 9/11 ever caused. We were "attacked" by dissidents from our "allies".
• Support of Israel (not in as that it has a right to exist but in the way it deals with its neighbors) has been to US advantage (or at least in power). The neocons hated Nixon and Kissinger because they were pragmatists. They pushed Israel and Egypt to peace. (they've also done their share of war crimes).
• Your view on Muslims is totally jingoistic, you place all of them in the same bag. Most of them just want us to stop interfering in their lives.
• Bush (actually those behind him, he is a figurehead) want Iraq to be a mess. They want there to be an increase in terrorism because they want you to be scared and angry so that they can pursue their policy against you and those abroad. They use this to keep you under control. So that you don't question what they're doing. So that you don't ask for a better life.
• This "cold war" like the last one, is just an invention. It will become real only if they get you to believe it is.

Re:Damn It!

[GPL Apostate]

The only scenario where it could not happen is if Islam curls up and dies before it mobilizes itself massively for war.

Another interpretation could be that Islam as it presently stands (at least 'political Islam' and those who use it) is backwards facing. There's no real way that they can 'wage war' against modern societies in an effective fashion without an infusion of cash and resources from said modern societies. The 'improvised roadside devices' are as technologically advanced as those folks can get, and even those bombs are fabricated from materials that have to be imported in from 'the modern' and/or fabricated from cast-off or surplus munitions which again are from 'the modern.'

The loud and rather destructive impact of modern 'Radical Islam' comes out of the fact that those folks have soaked up a huge amount of oil money. There were angry xenophobic people in that part of the world 100 years ago who would curse at the 'modern' outsiders, but they were mired in the backwardness inherent in their culture.

Cut off their oil money and let their culture settle down. It will happen. The 'energy model' we presently live under has to subside and be replaced. And it will, long before a bunch of angry zealots can rein over the world.

Re:Damn It!

[hollywoodb]

Dude, it was called the "Rainbow Warrior". Everyone knew it was going to go down.

Re:Damn It!

[hawk]

Oh, c'mon.

France was *desperate* for a military victory after 900 years . . . :)

hawk

Money Talks

[Derling Whirvish]

Isn't anything sacred to these people?" Yes, there is something sacred to them. Money.
U.S. branded GI Joe's may not sell as well outside the US as a multinational task force would.

Re:Money Talks

[Propaganda13]

Cobra as a terrorist organization founded in Springfield has been a hit worldwide though.

God have mercy on the souls on anyone mentioning the retarded money grab of an organization ending in -la.

Re:Money Talks

[PCM2]

U.S. branded GI Joe's may not sell as well outside the US as a multinational task force would.

Random trivia for U.S. readers: G.I. Joe sold reasonably well in the UK, where he was known as Action Man.

No...

[Omnedon]

Nothing is ever "sacred" to Hollywood.

Legends are "re-imaged" (and usually ruined).

History is "re-imaged" (and usually ruined).

Classic movies are "re-..."... (Notice a trend?)

Re:No...

[poopdeville]

I've got a bad feeling that Jerry Bruckheimer, Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, or W.S. Anderson is going to direct. This has the potential to make Team America: World Police the world's first parody of a chronologically later film.

Old News

[sakusha]

Apparently the author of that incredibly lame blog article missed the 1980s, when GI Joe cartoons were full of multicultural characters and fought abstract non-national enemies like COBRA.

Re:Old News

[mr_tenor]

I scanned that as "and fought abstract non-national enemies like CORBA" and even though my mind registered the mistake, i thought "Oh yeah!"

Re:Old News

[the_humeister]

Wait, you mean Cobra-La wasn't a real nation???

Holy cow.

[Valar]

I think my hosts file might have been tampered with... I typed in slashdot, but somehow I ended up at free republic. This looks kind of like slashdot though. Hmm...

Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, really, Slashdot. I understand the need to compete with Digg, and the whole firehose thing, but, really, shit like this is ridiculous and it only works to drive people like me away.

This is comforting

[victim]

It is comforting to know that if I ever receive a debilitating head injury, lose most of my faculties and embrace the victim complex wing of the libertarians I will still be slashdot-worthy.

Oh no! Maybe I'm out to get the libertarians! Quick! Pen a screed!

Re:This is comforting

[Harmonious Botch]

Anyone who holds the opinions that he does, and calls himself a libertarian, is clearly brain damaged. Any sane libertarian would look at the GIJoe issue and say 'The producers bought the rights, they can do anything they please with it. They're consenting adults, it's none of my business."

Re:This is comforting

[Wordsmith]

Not really. Libertarianism isn't all about "live and let live." It's more like "live and don't let the government interfere with your or anyone else's living."

Libertarians who fondly remember GI Joe wouldn't be hyopcrites if they, say, actively boycotted this movie and encouraged others to do so. They could still be upset over what's happening. They just wouldn't see any reason why the government should get involved.

And I, for one, welcome. . .

[MagusSlurpy]

Our new international multicultural coed overlords!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Mmm, bias

[ameyer17]

I don't even know where to start here...
Headline from TFA:

Hollywood Seeks to Change "G.I. Joe" into an International Feminazi: Disgraces our Greatest Generation

from the first paragraph:

Yes, Hollywood limousine liberal idiots are exceeding my patience. I can handle their unabashed socialism, even their global warming insanity, but when they attack G.I. Joe, enough is enough.

From the second paragraph:

Well, if we look at the facts, the rest of the world would be controlled by Nazis if it were not for the G. I. Joe.

From the final paragraph:

Now Hollywood celebrities are going to turn him into a politically correct Feminazi.

Seems to be a bit biased to be "news". Also, someone needs to introduce the guy who wrote this to Godwin's Law

Re:Mmm, bias

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Hollywood limousine liberal idiots are exceeding my patience. I can handle their unabashed socialism, even their global warming insanity, but when they attack G.I. Joe, enough is enough. If GI Joe can't fight off a bunch of 'limousine liberals' then he is already a pussy.

Don't these rightwing bozos understand ....

[taniwha]

G.I Joe is a doll

Re:Don't these rightwing bozos understand ....

[1u3hr]

Incorrect, gripping hands make him an action figure. Looks at Ken's hands then look at Joe's.

So Joe grips Ken?

the hurt . . .

[LiquidHAL]

i'm rolling my eyes as hard as i can. it hurts, but i dare not stop.

Nothing sacred

[TaleSpinner]

> Isn't anything sacred to these [Hollywood] people?"

Umm...in a word, no. Is this something you just noticed?

It's about freaking time!

[Black Copter Control]

1. My understanding was that GI stood for General Infantry.
2. It wasn't just Arayan gay model types that fought against Hitler and his crew.
3. The one unit type that the germans really hated being thrown against was the Russian Female reserves. Those babes took and gave no quarter! (and they really knew what to do when they had their their enemy by the balls.)
4. Canada, Australia, Britain, India ... and even Russia (once Hitler turned on Stalin).
5. It's the 21st Century buddy -- Get with the program!

Re:It's about freaking time!

[xs650]

"1. My understanding was that GI stood for General Infantry."

It stands for Government Issue.

Re:It's about freaking time!

[eimerkopf]

Apparently, GI originally stood for "Galvanized Iron" and was then later extended, based on the misunderstnading that it stood for "Government Issue." See the the current version of the wikipedia page and references therein.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is nearly incoherent. It looks as if you've been cutting and pasting random quotes from some sort of badly translated alternate history comic book.

modern times call for it

[hob42]

Maybe, perhaps, some of us would rather live in a less self-centered world than our ancestors?

Maybe there are a few other souls out there that don't think the American military is the right answer to all of the world's problems? That perhaps cooperation with our fellow beings on this small little planet, not unilateralism, would be a good idea?

Then again, I thought we were only one of several allied nations who won World War II, and don't believe that France should forever worship us for liberating them from Germany. I might just be crazy.

Re:modern times call for it

[The One and Only]

I don't see anywhere the parent post mentioned the UN--NATO actions in Yugoslavia were indeed taken in concert with fellow nations.

If you haven't noticed, cooperation means that other people must want the same thing too and there are all kinds of nasty people, illogical people, indifferent people, and so on out there.

Yes, and the first part is to not be those people. Until the Americans have mastered the fine art of not being nasty, illogical, and indifferent to the rest of the world, they're in no position to defend it.

Re:Jesus Fucking Anonymous Coward

[Nymz]

I for one welcome the mass exodus of our cursing, pointless, threatening, whining-for-attention, anonymous coward overlords!!!

Re:A novel idea

[poopdeville]

Google for "Project Bojinka." The intelligence community had known about a plan to fly passenger planes into buildings since the early 90s.

Grammatical error!

[Bieeanda]

Some random person's screechy blog is news by nerds, not news for nerds.

Re:Didn't it stand for...

[Digital Vomit]

No, G.I. stands for Government Issue.

Fuck GI Joe!

[coaxial]

He's no hero. He always let Cobra Commander -- the leader of a ruthless terrorist orgainization determined to rule the world -- get away. A real leader like George W. Bush would never let that happen.

"Without me, my rifle is nothing."

[6Yankee]

"Without my rifle, I am nothing." GI Joe stopped being a hero the day he surrendered his rifle to airport security.

I Don't Know...

[Comatose51]

"Isn't anything sacred to these people"

I don't know... maybe a sense of morality, compassion for other human beings, a desire for learning? Those are pretty important values to me. But more importantly, the freedom to choose my own values and believes are among my most cherished "things". So I guess if plastic dolls is your thing, go for it.

Just don't expect the rest of the grown adults to care about it.

G.I. Joe as he should be remembered

[commodoresloat]

WTF is up with this article? Some wingnut freeper whining in his blog about the demise of G.I. Joe? Get a grip (yeah, like the GI Joe with the Kung Fu Grip). I present you GI Joe's real finest moments:

• cooking
• singing
• protecting intellectual property

Chuck

[chiller2]

So they emasculated GI Joe? We still have Chuck Norris. Balls of steel!

Ha! Now the boot's on the other foot...

[Goth Biker Babe]

For decades Hollywood has been changing European history or having the US taking claim for discoveries, victories and so on (capturing the Enigma machine, changing a brave member of crew on the Titanic in to a villain, etc). Where was the outcry. Now this is happening and you're all up in arms...

Tough. It's just the movies. Stop crying in your weak chemical beer and live with it.

be fair now..

[rucs_hack]

So what about the fundamentalists Christians who want to impose their religion on the rest of the world?

You can't criticize Muslim extremism without realizing that it's just their build of a tool we also employ, and have so employed for many centuries. Only in the past we had no competition that mattered (to those doing the conversions by force anyhow).

They're using bombs and stuff (we've done that), killing themselves to kill others (ok, we haven't usually done that one), but that's because they believe that this is a proper way to die, and their god approves. Odd then that the Koran makes no such claim.

Re:be fair now..

[iamacat]

So what about the fundamentalists Christians who want to impose their religion on the rest of the world?

They should be likewise contained. Fortunately, if there are US christians who openly advocated violence against other countries in order to convert their population, they are not in positions of power. I understand that things were different during crusades.

As for Koran, it advocates killing people who commit adultery weather or not they want to follow Islam. While I also consider the Bible to be a work of fiction, any reasonable reading implies that since coming of Jesus killing is questionable even as a self defense. Bush and any proponents of death penalty or abortion doctor killing should be immediately expelled from their Church. From a civilian standpoint though, war, even a strategic war rather than straightforward self-defense, is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater evil.

Re:be fair now..

[BobTheLawyer]

Is that right? Plenty of people have read the bible to show that Jesus permits killing in a wide range of circumstances, and plenty of other people have read the bible to show that Jesus forbids killing, even in self defence...

Re:be fair now..

[MysteriousPreacher]

Definitely. Timothy 6:1 is very relevant to me, assuming that slavery is permitted and I find myself serving another. I find the advice on the handling of demonic possession to be pretty useful as long as there happens to be a nearby herd of pigs.

You'll find similar relevence if read Homer's Odyssey or The Epic of Gilgamesh. Simple reason is because they are all stories about men that were written by men (I use the term men to refer to the species, not the gender). Also, you may be inspired by the text, particularly if you can convince yourself that Homer was the son of Zeus or that The Epic of Gilgamesh was written by followers of Kumarbi.

Re:be fair now..

[SLi]

While I also consider the Bible to be a work of fiction, any reasonable reading implies that since coming of Jesus killing is questionable even as a self defense. Bush and any proponents of death penalty or abortion doctor killing should be immediately expelled from their Church.

Really? I'm a pacifist Christian who opposes the death penalty and Bush, so let me respond from my point of view.

I do not believe the Bible condemns fighting in a war, at least not clearly. The New Testament talks a lot about (Roman) soldiers, and neither Jesus or the Apostles had anything bad to say about them. A centurion even converted to Christianity, and there's nothing there about him having to leave his job. As much as I consider myself pacifist, I do not attribute that to Christianity.

Death penalty is a punishment for a wide variety of crimes in the Old Testament. That's where it says, "Thou shalt not kill". From what is told in the OT, it seems obvious to me that the alternative rendering of "Thou shalt not murder" captures the intent better. All sides in the Old Testament fight lots of wars and kill a lot, there are even death penalties, and no bad words about that by any profets or anyone else.

In one sense you might be right. You talk about self defense, and that's an issue that's not so clear in Bible. It would be, in my opinion, a fair reading that you should not resort to killing even for self defense. But when commanded by your legitimate king (who got his authority from God, as did all authorities), I believe the Bible tells you to follow the orders of your king unless the orders are in direct contradiction with the Bible - and that would be the Bible as it stands, and you have to weigh what it is credible it means instead of reading into it stuff you'd like to be there, like in my case pacifism and opposition to death penalty.

As much as I'd like to say the Bible condemns wars and the death penalty, I cannot.

Re:be fair now..

[Attila Dimedici]

evil is a relative term, it varies according to culture. Some people for example believe it is evil for a woman to express a desire for independence. This is nonsensical for other people, but usually accepted as fact by religious groups.

The term evil is most often used as a means to differentiate one group from another, most often when the groups involved want what the other has.

The gospels are fine if what you want is a rigidly controlled society. History has shown us that such cultures rarely thrive. Sorry, but the gospels do not promote a rigidly controlled society. In order to promote a rigidly controlled society from the Bible you must place greater emphasis on other parts of the Bible than the Gospels. As for evil being relative, C.S. Lewis did a great job of demonstrating that, if you look closely, while one culture may view an act as evil and another view it as good, that is a result of different understandings of what that act means and what motivates it. If one looks at what the two cultures view as evil in a more abstract sense, one discovers that it is the same. If I remembered which of his books it was in, I would go pull it off the shelf and give a better summation of the argument.

Re:be fair now..

[Scrameustache]

Fortunately, if there are US christians who openly advocated violence against other countries in order to convert their population, they are not in positions of power. "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact which brings him much support in middle America.

Re:be fair now..

[Descalzo]

so why do these same people assume he was being sincere here?

Well, it definitely suits them to believe it in this case.

Re:be fair now..

[Descalzo]

evil is a relative term, it varies according to culture. Some people for example believe it is evil for a woman to express a desire for independence. This is nonsensical for other people, but usually accepted as fact by religious groups.

It depends on what you mean. Evil is decidedly not relative. Slavery was always evil, especially the way it was practiced in the US. It just took the world a long time to discover that it was evil.

Where I think that you are correct is that cultures have different understandings of what constitutes evil. Some cultures recognize it, others don't. People disagree about what is evil all the time. But to insist that there is no such thing as evil, independent of what you or I believe constitutes evil, is a terrible thing. Such insistence may not be evil, but it certainly assists evil.

There IS a moral high ground, and we should all try to occupy it. We absolutely must judge other cultures and societies (not to mention our own!) on how well they adhere to good and reject evil. Otherwise, if I want to belong to a culture in which, say, murder is acceptable, all I need to do is find one or start one. Then murder would not be evil.

Judging from the rest of your post, I doubt you were really saying that there was no such thing as evil. I also agree with what you seemed to be saying: just because a religion says it is good doesn't make it good.

From Fox News

[mr100percent]

It's source is a Fox News piece. You remember them, they're the ones who claimed beloved children's television host "Mr Rogers destroyed an entire generation of children's lives."

Once I got to "Hollywood limousine liberals" in the article, my eyes started to glaze over. The blogger is like The Rude Pundit, only not being as sarcastic.

To the merits of the discussion: Hollywood does not like to get too mired in political controversies. Show me a pro-Palestine movie from Hollywood. They may be socially liberal, but know that certain things won't make them money and will only bring trouble. Still, they support the troops, and get outraged when someone tries to blame the troops. Maybe the fact that the troops have changed in demographics, becoming more black and hispanic and female, means that the G.I. Joe is no longer that representative?

Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!!

[rts008]

If you are going to base your argument on made up parameters, then what's to stop the other side from doing the same?....Where does it stop? (I know, in this case it stops at your opinion).

Here, let me spell it out for you:

The basic formula (long ago established) is:
1. Rape
2. Pillage (modern def.:loot,physical destruction/vandalize, derisive graffiti,lewd gestures, etc.)
3. Burn
4. ????
5. Profit (hey!, this is /.!)

So, to correct your post:

'At least the greenpeace protesters would have pimped the fourteen year old girl(and her mom- I've seen those web sites!), pissed in their well, spray-painted gang signs on their front door, and then kill and burn her entire family, and invent a story that they were under attack when it all happened...self-made film at 11!'

I had a run in with you people once. I was a Vet Tech at a major Mid-West Veterinary college.
The tree-huggers (yes, Greenpeace and PETA- a joint effort) decided that we would NOT perform euthanasia on the research sheep!!!!!
(sports medicine research-basically the doctor surgically 'hole-punched'[yes, an actual office type hole punch I had sterilized!] the Achilles' Heel(hock)on the sheep, and tried different healing protocols to determine the best treatment method for torn tendons/ligaments.

Before you and your ilk made their unwelcome presence, we used to use the (appropriate!) research animals as the centerpiece of a big cook-out/party, or, if more PRACTICAL, we would 'donate' the critter to a seemingly worthy person(donate-meaning a 'warranty' on the critter-free health care). Thanks to you, now all that can be done is to rely on euthanasia.

Back to the story....PETA and Greenpeace marching in the doors as I am clocking in at 0800...
Dr. H:
What are we going to do? I have to euthanise the research sheep today or get crosswise with the terms!

Me: How quick can you get the 'blue juice'? (VERY concentrated barbituate used to put critters 'to sleep')

Dr. H.: They're coming in the front door!

Me: How quick can you get me the blue juice?

Dr. H. I have it in my pocket, why?

Me: GIVE! *fills 6 syringes- 6 sheep(Yeah I know..say this 6 times fast...), enters pen holding sheep- grabs sheep #1...injects in jugular....rinse and repeat 5 more times- in 55 seconds*

Dr. H. *meets delegation of tree-huggers, and falls back to my position in defense*

FW's (short for Fsck Wads, ie:tree huggers and their ilk): We will not allow the murder of these research animals...they are only poor sheep!

Dr. H.: Hhmm, errhh, it seems my assistant has already sent these poor sheep to heaven while we were heading this way.

Me:*coming out of pen, stuffing syringes in pockets, give a two thumbs up to Dr. H., and attempt to go on my way*

FW's: Hey! Wait a minute! Those sheep are already dead! We just got here!

Me: Yes, they were scheduled to be euthanised at 0805 today.

FW's: Yes, but it's only 8:06!!??!

Me: Yes, 6 sheep means: "Gone In 60 Seconds" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187078/)

    All joking aside, it was very easy to catch, expose jugular vein, and inject blue juice into all 6 sheep in less than a minute. (10 ft.x 10 ft. pen, and the sheep still a bit groggy from the last surgery to evaluate the treatment protocols)....And yes, I am a wolf!

Remember kiddies: if it bleeds, you can kill it! (props to the movie 'Predator' for this gem)

Re:Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!!

[meta-monkey]

Here's an amazing insight for you: some individuals, despite group identification, are, in fact, bad. I know, crazy stuff. I should write a book.

'Action Force' in the UK

[DocTee]

Or at least, that's what they were when I grew up playing with them in the 80s!

Action Force.

I find it amusing that the "coordination facility of the government of the United Kingdom [..] activated in cases of national or regional emergency or crisis" is called... COBRA.

Jesus Christ

[dcollins]

What a fucking idiotic fruitcake. The G.I. Joe toyline was only U.S. military-specific for an extremely brief time in the 1960's.

By 1970, when I had my own G.I. Joe, they'd translated him to -- get this -- an international "adventure team" of explorers. Anyone who's ever mentioned "Kung Fu Grip" is talking about this line of G.I. Joe's. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Joe_Adventure_Te am ).

This editorial is almost 40 full years out of date! Excellent case study on the fact-challenged neanderthal-ism of the right wing psychos who've stolen our country. And thanks for the sidebar offer to sign up for super-cunty Anne Coulter's email newsletter, I'll pass, thanks.

ScuttleMonkey's a Sissy

[Doc Ruby]

Who is ScuttleMonkey? A Slashdot editor who will post a story about "feminazis" from a site featuring a Climate Change denier "cartoon" charging _The Weather Channel_ with some kind of paranoid conspiracy. A weekend Midnight shift Slashdot drudge.

Sure ScuttleMonkey's in love with GI Joe, and the myth of the "Greatest Generation". Why does he think the rest of us share their fetish?

Really Old News, its been that way since 1966

[arthurpaliden]

GIJoe has always been multi-national and multi-gender.

In 1966's you could get the 12" G.I. Joe SOLDIERS OF THE WORLD SERIES which included:German, Japanees, Russian, British , Australian, Canadian and French

In 1967 you could get the Action Nurse (Female)

In 1967 he was also a race car driver and state trooper.

In 1967 he was also a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Sigh.

[stonecypher]

GI Joe was just the American branch of the Joes, has been since the 1970s. They're not dropping the Americanism, they're just aiming the camera higher up the tree. We got a dozen Joes (and Viper the matching villains) from other countries, including every eight year olds' favorite opponents, Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. If you're going to be nationalistic about the history of a toy series, at least know the history of the toy series. (Indeed, in the 1980s cartoon block about the energy pyramids, several people comment that there aren't that many Americans on the group, and ask Duke why he's still calling them GIs.)

If you think calling GI Joe an American is "sacred," you really need to read some books.

And Jordan Carlos, as "Alan"

[Scrameustache]

I can't help but shudder at the thought of complaints from minority groups if there weren't any token blacks/Hispanics/etc. Personally, I find characters whose sole purpose is to stand up and scream "look at me, I'm not white!" to be rather annoying. That's why the black guy always dies first: they didn't want him in the first place.

On the flipside, Lando WAS awesome, as a space pimp ought to be.

hy is this even on slashdot?

[Jeremy_Bee]

What happens to our favorite childhood toys is definitely "stuff that matters" to any (male) nerd, but one look at the front page of the site this story comes from immediately begs the question as to why this inflammatory, hate site should be taken seriously by anyone at all and why it's posted on slashdot.

Unless it's satire (that I missed because I left in disgust too soon), the author of this piece is a raving loon and the site seems angled towards the gun-toting, "bunker in the basement" crowd. I mean he (and I feel 100% safe in assuming this is a "he"), manages to refer to Hollywood liberals, Socialists, and "Femi-Nazi's" before he even gets out of the first paragraph. Do you think he might have a bit of a bias there?

I would expect to find a link to such a site as backup to a Digg story, but as entertaining as the raving might be to some, it doesn't belong here. Free speech is a great thing, but allowing crazy people to have their own web-site, and promoting that craziness as "news" and trying to engage the lunatics in a debate on a science related news site are two totally different things. I wouldn't ban it, but the very fact that this kind of tripe can be posted to slashdot and commented on as if it's just another web site is distasteful at best.

Kudos for the (aprox. 20% of) posters that recognise this hate-speech drivel for what it is and a big thumbs down for the other 80% that think this garbage is worthy of engaging in a debate.

Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

[Ticklemonster]

Negative one, flamebait? That's one of the best posts I've seen here in ages. Directly to the point. That person ought to get a freaking award. The little bit of news that Fox broadcasts is right on the money, and non biased. It's the opinion shows that Fox broadcasts that make people on the left direct so much hatred towards Fox news. Funny thing is, it's not the news portion of Fox news that they are complaining about. So their complaints are basically nutty. America was built on the right to an opinion, why does the left try so hard to silence any opinion they don't agree with, then say that the right is unAmerican?

Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

[Homr Zodyssey]

why does the left try so hard to silence any opinion they don't agree with, then say that the right is unAmerican? ...For the same reason that the right does.

Re:The mormon game

[swalker42]

I used to own a mormon bible

Interesting...
The 'mormon bible' that I own is the King James version - the one that most of the Christian world accepts as canon
Not that you accept that as canon either - not that I think you should - to each his own

Even those that aren't seem to hold the seeds for violence if they got real power.

You find what you are looking for in anything you read or watch - if you're looking for violence you will find it.
I think what you've discovered is that people are violent and they will use whatever means they can to justify it.