Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the pussification-of-the-modern-male dept.

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?"

50 of 548 comments (clear)

  1. In other news.... by MonorailCat · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:In other news.... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    2. Re:In other news.... by famicommie · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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).
    3. Re:In other news.... by thegsusfreek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:In other news.... by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!

    5. Re:In other news.... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:In other news.... by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:In other news.... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    8. Re:In other news.... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Damn It! by rossz · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:Damn It! by rossz · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    2. Re:Damn It! by arivanov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:Damn It! by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Damn It! by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    5. Re:Damn It! by Reapman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Damn It! by iamacat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    8. Re:Damn It! by ricegf · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.

    9. Re:Damn It! by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    10. Re:Damn It! by enrevanche · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
  3. Money Talks by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. No... by Omnedon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?)

    1. Re:No... by poopdeville · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  5. Old News by sakusha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Old News by mr_tenor · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Old News by the_humeister · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  6. Holy cow. by Valar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --

    ====
    Crudely Drawn Games
  7. Jesus Fucking Christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. This is comforting by victim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:This is comforting by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."

    2. Re:This is comforting by Wordsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Mmm, bias by ameyer17 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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
  11. Don't these rightwing bozos understand .... by taniwha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    G.I Joe is a doll

    1. Re:Don't these rightwing bozos understand .... by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Funny
      Incorrect, gripping hands make him an action figure. Looks at Ken's hands then look at Joe's.

      So Joe grips Ken?

  12. It's about freaking time! by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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!
    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  13. modern times call for it by hob42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:modern times call for it by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  14. Re:Jesus Fucking Anonymous Coward by Nymz · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  15. Grammatical error! by Bieeanda · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  16. "Without me, my rifle is nothing." by 6Yankee · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  17. be fair now.. by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:be fair now.. by iamacat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:be fair now.. by SLi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:be fair now.. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:be fair now.. by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  18. From Fox News by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  19. Jesus Christ by dcollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  20. ScuttleMonkey's a Sissy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  21. And Jordan Carlos, as "Alan" by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...