"Fred 2:

Everything you say about big, controlling government being a defining, intrinsic aspect of liberalism is a plain, out and out lie."

Isn't welfare a liberal idea in which the government replaces fathers as providers for their kids?

That sounds like government control to me.

"Also, the blob-people of Wall-E are an extreme example of the results of corporatist control, so that’s another non-point on your part."

Liberals don't own corporations? Since when. A great example is Oprah, a liberal who owns a massive corporation that has great influence over aspects of American society. Like book sales, beef sales, and presidential campaigns.

As for Wall-E, Buy N Large and the global government had became synonymous in that futuristic world. So, the blob humans are living under-and dependent on-a "big goverment" system.

Wall-E's director,Andrew Stanton, further delves into this topic in an interview with WORLD magazine:

WORLD: The depiction of humanity is pretty stark in this movie.

STANTON: Well, when I started outlining humanity in the story, I asked myself: What if everything you needed to survive—health care, food—was taken care of and you had nothing but a perpetual vacation to fill your time? What if the result of all that convenience was that all your relationships became indirect—nobody's reaching out to each other? A lot of people have suggested that I was making a comment on obesity. But that wasn't it, I was trying to make humanity big babies because there was no reason for them to grow up anymore.

Read the full interview here:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14127?CFID=9866289&CFTOKEN=11233462

I agree that torture is never an option. Ever.

I totally see your point there. I'm sorry if I came across as endorsing those methods. You have given me alot to think about there, and I do think Io should reassess how I present my argument.

I'm not saying that I disagree at all and I'm also not saying that I think that V is right. I'm saying that he's moral. As my later point about the Punisher was suggesting, morality can be the very basis for very violent and heinous actions, and I also used this point to talk about Willingham's argument that superheroes needed a more moral outlook, involving a more obvious difference between good and evil.

I guess I was just trying to argue that moral purpose can be discovered through struggle and hardship, and combat (at least in the figurative sense). I don't think that behaviour like V's would work to offer someone the space to make sane, reasoned decisions and would rather result in mental and physical pain that would stay with the victim for a lifetime.

At the same time, I do take the torture scene as an analogy, not as a literal depiction of how to engage someone in a real, lived manner. I feel like Moore uses the scene as a way of individualising a collective process. It is for an extreme projection of the kind of ubiquitous violence that goes on at an everyday level, and that part of the process of finding freedom is to accept one's status as being un-free. That identification of the forces and processes that define, or seek to define, the limits of one's field of action are only overcome through accepting them in an act of self-consciousness, before they can be overcome. I'm not saying that I don't think this is a brutal process, or that V is a villain, as I also see these conditions as a fundamental condition of life. Not a desirable or warranted condition, and by no means distributed universally, or equally, but in some ways an inescapable fact. As I don't believe in the actual manifestation of divine forces upon the world, I can only see the pain and hardship that exists in the world as a product of human actions, and human interventions. In this sense I see torture scene as depiction of how people behave when brutalised. In the story it is individualised, but I was just trying to argue that a certain kind of brutality exists at an social level, and that it can produce the response of extremism, not as an aberration, but as a reasoned through response for defending oneself, or as a way of fighting against the broader forces that resulted in the founding brutality.

I'm not saying I fully endorse this, but I see it as less of a product of indoctrination, and more of a response to a situation. More of an internal product of a person than as an idea forced upon them from the outside. I'm not saying this justifies any of these outcomes. I also think that V is meant to be viewed as an idea or ideal, much like Batman is presented in 'Batman Begins'. V is like a totem, or spirit that haunts the real world of the story. He's the spirit of extremism that exists as a product of the everyday violence, much like Batman is supposed to be an embodiment of justice in a corrupt world. That's why Evey decides against taking of his mask, as it would negate his embodiment of the idea she she's him as representing. I'm not saying I think this is a good model for basing political action on, but I interpret Moore as crafting a story that deals with the origin of extremism in a brutal, but poetic way. Whether it works effectively...? After reading what you've said I see your point and am now more inclined to think maybe not.

Your real world example is a very good complication of this matter.

There is no excuse for the CIA torture. Torture should only be performed if there is a reasonable belief of an imminent threat and a reasonable belief that the subject has information that could prevent it. Jack Bauer type situations.

However, Jack Bauer situations simply do not exist in the real world, no matter how much conservative whackos want to believe otherwise. Even then, the torturers should be prepared to stand trial and not weasel their way out of responsibility just like Jack is on the show.

Rounding up Arabs who resent you blowing up their town and calling them insurgents and terrorists does not justify torture.

So, I agree entirely that left and right should get behind heroic heroes, but the context of the stated idea is offputting.

i'm not sure why anyone would reflexively object to his wish to associate a brighter and more positive flavor of superheroism with 'the american way' than has been the norm, lately. seems like whichever side of the left/right fence or the america's-great-just-as-she-is/america-could-stand-some-improvement fence you happen to be on, you could see that as being a positive or hopeful thing. while you're waiting to see what kind of stories the man's actually going to write.

personally, i'm up for seeing a broader resurgence of, uhm, well...actual heroic values and struggles, internal and external, in superhero comics. just seems like it's about time.

just my two cents.

Let's say that they WERE Al Qaeda, and the CIA had them tortured not in order gain information but to teach them that freedom and democracy were preferable to blowing up innocent civilians -- that is to say, that (like Evey) they were unthinking participants in an evil system and that a little old-fashioned "dunking the head in water until they almost drown" (REAL drowning, not the simulated version produced by waterboarding) was seen as the perfect way to make them see the light. That would have been okay, then? Because that's where your argument seems to lead.

I don't buy it for a second. There's no "moral ambiguity" whatsoever in the situation scripted by Moore. V uses physical and (Moore hints) sexual assault to brainwash an innocent civilian. Period, full stop. Hell, V was LESS justified than the CIA, insofar as the Agency at least thought (wrongly) that these guys might have knowledge that could prevent a terrorist attack, whereas V simply knew that his worldview was right and that psychologically and physically torturing a young girl was therefore justified in order to make her see the light that only he possessed. Is tortured justified if you know you're right, then, even in the absence of any potential physical threat from the subject being tortured? If Dick Cheney had tried such logic out in public, how many minutes do you think it would have taken for Congress to file articles of impeachment?

Damn, that's one messed-up argument you have there.

2) I stopped reading most mainstream comics because the characters were so miserable that I didn't want to spend any time with them.

3) I don't think the country is falling apart. The idea that there was ever one, true, monolithic "America" is an historical illusion.

4) Belgians make okay comics but great beer.

Now everybody get back to work.