the plague

a tale set in the far-flung year 2000 from marvel comics' tales to astonish #44, june 1963:

(story by stan lee & art by steve ditko)

*** warning: spoiler alert below ***

for some historical perspective, in 1964 guns killed 5,473 victims, a homicide rate of 2.9 per 100,000. by 2010 guns killed twice as many: 11,078 at a rate of 3.6. a decade and a half past the once-imaginary future, the "plague" is thriving. that open-carry is at least starting to look like a disease may be one prediction marvel got right.

stan "the man" lee, never one for subtlety in storytelling, seems to have pulled his punch in this twilight zone inspired tale; his unnamed "plague-carrier" not once inflicted his disease upon his apparently defenseless pursuers. while shooting unarmed police would have effectively demonstrated the terror of firearms, it's clear lee didn't want to give up any element of surprise before the final panel.

certainly the terror of firearms has been long self-evident, making demonstrations unnecessary, but perhaps the sacrifice of some drama was also unnecessary, since the reader, already inured to countless gun chases, would be unlikely to guess too soon that the gun itself was this parable's "mcguffin" and not merely the protagonist's means of escape.

scenes from an interrogation

where: not a dark, cold, clammy fetid hold deep in the bowels of a former soviet gulag. nor, for that matter, the bright, panelled, spacious chambers of the hague's international criminal court:

tom:	this story was made public by abc a few weeks ago. it claims that you, rice, tenet and others met in the white house to discuss different methods of "enhanced interrogation," is that correct?
ashcroft:	[angrily] correct? is what correct? is it correct that this story ran on abc? i don't know that. i don't know anything about it! is it a real story? when was this story, huh? huh?
tom:	um, early april, april 9th, i think ...
ashcroft:	[interrupting] you think? you think? you don't even know! next question!
tom:	the article says that you discussed "whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning"...
ashcroft:	i said, next question!

ashcroft:	no. no, [my position on torture] doesn't violate the geneva conventions. as for other laws, well, the u.s. is a party to the united nations convention against torture. and that convention, well, when we join a treaty like that we send it to the senate to be ratified, and when the senate ratifies they often add qualifiers, reservations, to the treaty which affect what exactly we follow. now, i don't have a copy of the convention in front of me ...
me:	[holding up my copy] i do! [boisterous applause and whistling from the audience] would you like to borrow it?
ashcroft:	[after a pause] uh, you keep a hold of it. now, as i was saying, i don't have it with me but i'm pretty sure it defines torture as something that leaves lasting scars or physical damage ...
student:	liar! you liar! [the student is shushed by the audience]
ashcroft:	so no, waterboarding does not violate international law.

me:	first off, mr. ashcroft, i'd like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students. it was uncalled for — we can disagree civilly, we don't need that. [round of applause from the audience, and ashcroft smiles] i have here in my hand two documents. one of them, you know, is the text of the united nations convention against torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about "lasting physical damage" ...
ashcroft:	[interrupting] do you have the senate reservations to it?
me:	no, i don't. do you happen to know what they are?
ashcroft:	[angrily] i don't have them memorized, no. i don't have time to go around memorizing random legal facts. i just don't want these people in the audience to go away saying, "he was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!" because that's not true. it's a lie. if you don't have the reservations, you don't have anything. now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but ...
me:	actually, mr. ashcroft, my question was about this other document. [laughter and applause] this other document is a section from the judgment of the tokyo war tribunal. after wwii, the tokyo tribunal was basically the nuremberg trials for japan. many japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture. and among the tortures listed was the "water treatment," which we nowadays call waterboarding...
ashcroft:	[interrupting] this is a speech, not a question. i don't mind, but it's not a question.
me:	it will be, sir, just give me a moment. the judgment describes this water treatment, and i quote, "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach." one man, yukio asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding american troops to obtain information. since yukio asano was trying to get information to help defend his country — exactly what you, mr. ashcroft, say is acceptible for americans to do — do you believe that his sentence was unjust? [boisterous applause and shouts of "good question!"]
ashcroft:	[angrily] now, listen here. you're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. we don't do anything like what you described.
me:	i'm sorry, i was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat ...
ashcroft:	[interrupting, red-faced, shouting] pouring! pouring! did you hear what she said? "putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them." that's not what you said before! read that again, what you said before!
me:	sir, other reports of the time say ...
ashcroft:	[shouting] read what you said before! [cries of "answer her fucking question!" from the audience] read it!
me:	[firmly] mr. ashcroft, please answer the question.
ashcroft:	[shouting] read it back!
me:	"the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach."
ashcroft:	[shouting] you hear that? you hear it? "forced!" if you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring ... does this college have an anatomy class? if you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring ...
me:	[firmly and loudly] mr. ashcroft, do you believe that yukio asano's sentence was unjust? answer the question. [pause]
ashcroft:	[more restrained] it's not a fair question; there's no comparison. next question! [loud chorus of boos from the audience]

quote of the day

born-again democrat john cole @ balloon juice:

my iraq war retrospective i see that andrew sullivan was asked to list what he got wrong about iraq for the five year anniversary of the invasion, and since i was as big a war booster as anyone, i thought i would list what i got wrong: everything. and i don’t say that to provide people with an easy way to beat up on me, but i do sort of have to face facts. i was wrong about everything. i was wrong about the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. i was wrong about iraq possessing wmd. i was wrong about scott ritter and the inspections. i was wrong about the un involvement in weapons inspections. i was wrong about the containment sanctions. i was wrong about the broader impact of the war on the middle east. i was wrong about this making us more safe. i was wrong about the number of troops needed to stabilize iraq. i was wrong when i stated this administration had a clear plan for the aftermath. i was wrong about securing the ammunition dumps. i was wrong about the ease of bringing democracy to the middle east. i was wrong about dissolving the iraqi army. i was wrong about the looting being unimportant. i was wrong that bush/cheney were competent. i was wrong that we would be greeted as liberators. i was wrong to make fun of the anti-war protestors. i was wrong not to trust the dirty smelly hippies. i mean, i could go down the list and continue on, but you get the point. i was wrong about EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. THING. it is amazing i could tie my shoes in 2001-2004. if you took all the wrongness i generated, put it together and compacted it and processed it, there would be enough concentrated stupid to fuel three hundred years of weekly standard journals. i am not sure how i snapped out of it, but i think abu ghraib and the negative impact of the insurgency did sober me up a bit. war should always be an absolute last resort, not just another option. i will never make the same mistakes again.

the queen of denial

fox news' alan colmes interviews corporal matt sanchez, the latest in a never-ending line of fallen conservative heros, who was toppled from his poignantly brief pedestal after being outed as a former porn film actor and male prostitute:

alan: ... as a great american, and embraced by conservatives because you were taking on those anti-war protestors — matt: i dunno about that. i would say i was just doing, i spoke out against something that — alan: you spoke out and they embraced you and invited you to the conservative political action conference over the weekend and you — matt: had me on fox news, several people did. alan: that's right, and thank you for coming here tonight. matt: my pleasure to be here. alan: and then it just comes out over the weekend that you, uh, you were outed as, uh, having done gay porn ... ? matt: outing is one thing ... i wouldn't call it that ... uh ... yeah, it came out — alan: it's not an outing? matt: i was very straightforward — well, how can you out something that's already out there. there's nothing more [ public? ] than that. alan: right, but i mean they, in general, but the people who were embracing you, and calling you, telling everyone how great you were because you were doing all these wonderful things for the troops didn't know about your past.

... because matt, and i'm just guessing here, maybe if they did know, they wouldn't have put you up on stage with them ...

matt: that's true, i've never walked around with a "scarlet p" on my forehead. alan: right, but — go ahead. matt: in no way did i try to hide it, so when it did come out — and it came out rather viciously — i felt i had to defend myself right away, and that's what i did. alan: well, you defended yourself and you acquited yourself well in that you were honest about it. you didn't duck it — matt: absolutely. alan: — you didn't deny it, you didn't say it never happened — matt: sure. alan: — you didn't say those pictures on the internet are not me — matt: absolutely not! alan: — as some people have done.

... because lying is not an option when you're so totally, totally busted that pants have been known to burst into flame ...

matt: look, i wrote an op-ed piece for salon.com and a couple of other people have picked up on it as well. the conservatives that i've met, really, have been the most warm people and i mean they haven't walked away from me at all. it really has been the liberal people that have been really the harshest with me. alan: how are they harsh with you? matt: harsh with everything. i've been called everything today and the past few days i gotten over 3,000 emails from people with this, just invective that you wouldn't believe. alan: well, uh — matt: you get that stuff ... alan: i do get it, and i get it from both sides, but — matt: [ laughs ] alan: but tell us what happened? first of all a number of years ago, and how many years ago was it you did gay porn? matt: it was 15 years ago, and it just wasn't gay porn, by the way, uh, but it was 15 years ago. alan: what else did it ... what else was it? matt: it was more than that, it was, but it was more than porn. alan: did you work as a male prostitute? matt: that as well, yeah. alan: a male prostitute. matt: this was one of the worst periods in my life. alan: now when you say "15 years ago" — matt: 15-plus years ago. alan: "-plus years ago," and i did a little web — matt: sure. alan: i had to go to gay porn sites to do my homework for the show! matt: yeah, those are some of the worst sites, they've been really harsh on me. alan: but it turns out that you had an adver — you advertised in the advocate here in new york city for your massage services as recently as three years ago. matt: no ... there's no such thing as an advocate here in new york city.

... cap'n, evasive maneuver number one!

alan: yeah. there's a, there's a magazine called the advocate, your phone number's on it ... your picture ... matt: the number you contacted me on?

... evasive maneuver number two!

alan: yes. matt: no. alan: and it says that you're available for, uh, massage. matt: massage, yeah. yeah, no, sorry — alan: and it was in november of, ah, 2003. matt: no — yeah, i hear you, uh, no. alan: well, i can show you the link — matt: sure. alan: — it's there. matt: give it to me. send it over, that's — that's fine. i mean, anything, i'll admit, i'll own up to it. that's not what the issue at hand is.

ow, a hit! um, let's try evasive maneuver number three ... retreat!

alan: but i understand. i, i — matt: but those movies were — alan: you've been — you've been very candid so far — matt: yes, yes, i want to be as candid as possible. alan: you've been saying that it's been "15-plus years ago," and it seems it was a lot less than that. matt: 1990 up through — throughout the mid-90s, 1993-94. alan: so that's how long ago it was? matt: yeah — well, we're talking about the films. alan: what about gay, y'know, out — massage stuff. matt: anything else, gay, massage stuff — i am a licensed massage therapist.

... evasive maneuver number four ...

alan: and you cater to gay men. matt: no — not exclusively. alan: are you gay? matt: no. absolutely not. alan: you're not gay? matt: and i'll be very candid about that.

... because, y'know, someone less candid and upstanding would actually lie about being heterosexual ...

matt: but again, this is a, this is a losing, it's a losing argument. and i say one thing and the other side says another — alan: well, i'm not arguing — matt: fine. alan: — i'm just trying to establish, y'know, a, i mean why would you — now i don't care whether you're gay or not — i mean, i pro- gay rights — matt: i, i agree, i don't care who's gay either by the way — alan: — and, and i'm just trying to get to the truth — matt: absolutely. alan: you were ... marketing yourself as a masseur for gay men and doing gay films and you said you were a prostitute for gay men, so, i mean ... how, why would you — matt: yeah, there's a different word for that today, but i ...

... because "gay" after all is just another label ...

alan: hustler, whatever ...

... um, that wasn't the label i had in mind ...

matt: i own up to all that stuff. alan: why would you do that if you're not gay? matt: i think if you ... people listening probably don't realize it, but those who are in the know, know that this isn't as cut and dry as black and white. there are lots of shades in between, and lots — especially a lot of the clients — alan: right. matt: — weren't, wouldn't have considered themselves gay. i dunno if this conversation is what you wanna have but — alan: yeah — no, no, i definitely want to have this conversation.

... no, dammit! you're not supposed to want this conversation!

matt: oh great. well, in that case, the majority of the clients weren't openly gay. a lot of them were married and had, i mean, really wasn't, it really wasn't as cut and dry as, people who came to me at that time really wouldn't have considered themselves as gay. alan: right, but you were not servicing women, you were servicing men. matt: um, there were those as well ...

... hmmm, did that last answer not come out strong enough ... ?

matt: uh, absolutely! i mean there were definitely tons of women!

... ok, much, much better ... whew, that was close!

alan: and you took ads in gay publications — matt: as well as, as well as — alan: — in order to appeal to gay men. matt: — as well as other publications. alan: right. but you've never been gay, you never personally — matt: yeah, it's not something, it's not how i would describe myself, frankly, and i understand that some people have a problem with that. alan: i don't have a problem, i, i have a problem — matt: no, not you — alan: — i'm, i'm just trying to establish the truth — matt: — members of the audience. alan: well, i'm sure that there are — look, here's what, one of the things i think you've been criticized for is that, uh — in fact i'm trying to go there right now, something called — matt: one of those blogs? alan: no, i'm trying to see, there's this ad, there's something called "masseur-finder" with your picture on it ... matt: yeah, i've seen that. i've seen that. i've been getting calls in the past couple of weeks on that and i am not running that ad.

... because someone less upstanding would deny that that was their picture ...

alan: right. and there's an ad in the advocate and i'm trying to come up with a date for that which is a new york publication ... matt: great. alan: i'm sorry, it's the new york blade, forgive me. matt: the new york blade. alan: the new york blade. matt: another one ... alan: and that ad was from november 19th, 2004. matt: sure. lemme tell — alan: an ad for you. matt: lemme tell you something really interesting — alan: not the — let me correct myself, it was the new york blade, which is the gay publication, but not the advocate. matt: ok, the new york blade. great. fair enough. alan: all right. matt: um, i've seen, i was in australia one time, and i saw someone advertising ... using my picture. alan: right. matt: anyone who knows that whole — alan: but it's got your phone number on it, too.

... retreat! retreat! retreat!

matt: any, uh, that's which — alan: your current phone number. matt: that's not my current phone number. alan: ok, well, i'll show it to you — matt: i mean i've had, i've had my current phone number for about, a year. alan: ok, well, i'll, i'll show you — matt: ok, no problem. look, i own up to all that stuff. i just want to make that straight. i've been, for the past week i've had, i've had people calling me about this, and apparently someone has placed an ad, just recently. alan: alright. well, this was three years ago. well, i'll show you the link when, during the commercial — matt: i'm talking about just yesterday.

... oh please, god: tell me he hasn't checked up on that one, too ...

alan: really. matt: yeah, just yesterday. i mean, this isn't, this isn't, there's something going on —

... now ain't that the truth?

it won't be much longer now

because something tells me dubya's war doesn't have two years of steam left in it ...

for three years after the invasion of iraq, it was difficult to drive more than a few miles through middle america without seeing a car displaying a magnetic yellow ribbon. the magnets, bearing the slogan "support our troops", became a symbol of patriotism for millions of us motorists. but as support for the war fades, demand for yellow ribbons has collapsed. magnet america, the largest manufacturer of the product, has seen sales fall from a peak of 1.2m in august 2004 to about 4,000 a month and now has an unsold stockpile of about 1m magnets. "we have enough supplies to meet demand for years to come," said micah pattisall, director of operations. "every product has a lifespan and this one has run its course." at its peak, the north carolina-based company employed 180 people to handle sales, marketing and distribution. today, it employs 11 people. mr pattisall said declining support for the war was not the only reason for the slump. a flood of cheap imports from china also hurt the company, which has refused to shift production overseas even though it costs three times as much to manufacture in the us. only about half a dozen companies are still supplying the magnets compared with up to 200 at the height of the fad, according to mr pattisall. when the company was founded in april 2003, during the initial invasion of iraq, nearly all its revenues came from yellow ribbons. today, patriotic products account for only 6 per cent of sales. the yellow ribbon has been overtaken as the company's best-selling product by a wristband promoting chastity before marriage with the slogan "true love waits". "we are growing again and looking to hire additional staff," mr pattisall said. yellow ribbons were first displayed widely in support of kidnapped us diplomats during the iranian hostage crisis in 1979. some critics have condemned the magnets as a cheap and superficial way to honour the armed forces and highlighted the irony of placing them on gas-guzzling vehicles that deepen the us's dependence on middle eastern oil. resentful that the yellow ribbon has become associated with support for the president, george w. bush, opponents of the war have introduced their own car magnets emblazoned with anti-war statements. on ebay, the internet auction site, on thursday, a black and white ribbon bearing the slogan "out of iraq, bring 'em back" was priced at $5. traditional yellow ribbon magnets, in contrast, could be bought for one cent. "yellow ribbons dwindle with war support" andrew ward, the financial times

what's your sign?

because my camera decided to poop out on me last weekend, i came back with just a single shot of my entire trip to washington last weekend. it was taken the night before the march, as i was checking the camera at a friend's house in philadelphia. the picture shows the sign i would carry throughout the next day. the camera pooped out after taking the shot.

but what the flying spaghetti monster takes away with one noodly appendage, he/she/it gives back with another.

during the march, someone liked the sign so much that he offered me 50 dollars for it right on the spot. since the sign was double-sided (in fact it was two complete signs taped back-to-back), and since i didn't want to go without it, i separated the two halves and gave one to the guy for 20 dollars.

photo by dave hill © 2007.