Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Why feminists should support Basic Income

This City Eliminated Poverty, And Nearly Everyone Forgot About It:
One woman called to say she remembered the Mincome project. In the early 1970s, she was a single mother raising two girls on welfare – then called Mothers’ Allowance. She said she had always been treated respectfully, but there was one thing case workers said that bothered her.
“She said she wanted to get some job training. They told her to go home and take care of her kids and they would take care of her,” explained Forget.
When the opportunity to transfer from Mothers’ Allowance to Mincome came along, the woman took it. With no restrictions on how she could spend the money she was given, she signed up for training and got a part-time job at the local library which eventually became a full-time career.

Monday, December 29, 2014

James Gunn understands what George Lucas did not

James Gunn Clarifies Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers Crossover Remarks - ComingSoon.net: "And, regarding the bigger picture, we all agreed on one thing, and that was to keep huge chunks of the Guardians separate from the Marvel heroes of earth, because they have a whole galaxy to explore. We wanted to use them as a way to make the MCU bigger, not smaller. "

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Universalist individualism versus identitarian collectivism

@iamcuriousblue got me thinking about universalism, identitarianism, individualism, and collectivism by tweeting this in response to Identitarians versus Universalists:
I replied: "I think the individual/collectivist division cuts across the identitarian/universalist divide." But when @iamcuriousblue responded, "Interesting - please elaborate," I had to reply, "Damn. You would ask about something I haven't thought through. :)"

I'm not claiming to have thought this through yet, but after more twittering with @iamcuriousblue and a night's sleep, I'm ready to try.

Until yesterday, I gave little thought to individualism versus collectivism because fundamentally, humans are collectivists. Armies, sports teams, and businesses fail when their members aren't willing to "take one for the team". Every great human accomplishment has been collectivist: explorers and settlers go in teams, artists and scientists learn in communities. As Donne noted, no man is an island.

So, if we're going to talk sensibly about the role of the individual in society, we should acknowledge that collectivism versus individualism, without adjectives, is a meaningless divide. It's when the adjectives come in that it gets interesting. Maoists and McCarthyites had radically different politics, but they shared a belief that individuals must conform for the good of the community.

In theory, Maoists and McCarthyites were universalists, because, in their purest forms, communism and capitalism are universalist beliefs. The pure communist believes everyone should share the wealth. The pure capitalist believes everyone who is in the position to control capital should be free to use that capital without restrictions. In theory, none of the world's social identities matter to communists or capitalists. And, to be fair to both theories, you can point to examples of people who practiced what they preached. Socialists have a rich history of opposing racism, sexism, and colonialism—feminism got its name from Charles Fourier, a socialist, and Marx observed,"Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded." In the US, the right for gay people to serve openly in the military was won by the Log Cabin Republicans, and Herman Cain was the Republican frontrunner for the presidency until he stumbled over the same thing that has brought down many white politicians, a sex scandal.

So I would happily say the first socialists, like the first Christians, were universalist collectivists, and many contemporary capitalists are universalist individualists.

But identitarianism can creep in anywhere. This isn't the place for a nuanced discussion of whether Nazis were socialists; for now, I'll just say that if they were socialists, they were history's most identitarian socialists, and their full name, National Socialism, should have been reversed, because they were far more nationalist than socialist. Capitalists don't like to do things that limit their profit, yet identitarian capitalists demand the right to turn away people whose social identities they dislike.

Identitarian collectivists believe in limited collectivism: their collectivism does not apply to the people they identify as "other". Identitarians on the right and left believe that punishing their enemies is the proper follow-up to defeating them, and rewarding themselves is a manifestation of their righteousness. At Obama: WTF? A Facebook Roundtable of the Left, Adolph Reed said of Obama, "I’d refrained from saying that he, as well as his various running dogs, haunt me as illustrations of the modal type of Ivy League POC students I’ve been teaching for the last 30 years. That same mastery of performance of a cultivated, yet at the same time empty and pro forma, intellectuality, conviction that one’s career advancement literally embodies the victory of the civil rights movement, and that awe that Bromwich notes of the rich and powerful." (Italics mine.) Identitarian collectivism ends with the social identity that matters most to them.

My favorite people across the political spectrum are universalists. As for a point on the individualist-collectivist spectrum, I'll stay with the people who believe the purpose of a society is to allow individuals to become all they may be. Many capitalists will claim that's where they excel, saying they prefer equality of opportunity to equality of outcome, but only socialists realize that there's no equality of opportunity where there's no equality of means.

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." —Karl Marx

"With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols of things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all." —Oscar Wilde

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Identitarians versus Universalists

Most attempts to divide humanity into two groups come from an assumption that there's an eternal war of us versus them, and the only way to end the war is for us to defeat them by any means necessary. The common grounds for "us" are social identity groups based on race, gender, religion, and, in all its forms, tribe.

I reject identitarianism. I'm with Thomas Paine: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." I think there's one race, the human race. I think there's either no gender or an infinite number of genders. I am a universalist. I agree with St. Paul: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one."

There is an easy way to tell universalists from identitarians: because universalists think we are all one, universalists believe in treating everyone with love and respect. Because identitarians divide the world in two, they feel free to hate and mock.

There's a strong instinct in humans to be identitarians. It gives us a simple way to understand where we fit in the universe. Responding to identitarianism with counter-identitarianism may be equally common. But the world's greatest thinkers have always rejected it.

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." —Eugene V. Debs

"The wise man belongs to all countries, for the home of a great soul is the whole world." —Democritus

"I am not an Athenian, nor a Greek, but a citizen of the world." —Socrates

"The Holy Prophet Mohammed came into this world and taught us: 'That man is a Muslim who never hurts anyone by word or deed, but who works for the benefit and happiness of God's creatures. Belief in God is to love one's fellow men.'" —Abdul Ghaffar Khan

"We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now." — Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Question of the day: Why aren't women's bicycle saddles the default for bicycles?

I've ridden on women's saddles because Emma and I share bikes sometime, and I've never thought a woman's saddle was less comfortable.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

I fear I have a bit of environmentalist in me

Warp! has a bit of dialogue that I've loved for decades. If I remember it correctly, it goes something like this:
Character A: He wants to destroy the universe!
Character B: But where will he live?
I don't think of myself as an environmentalist, but I probably am. I hate science fiction stories where people assume the right or inevitable thing to do is to exhaust the Earth and move on. I really like this planet. I'm happy to be a city guy, but I've hiked and camped and canoed, and I suppose that's part of me.

I'm writing this post for two reasons.

Someone I like retweeted something really sweet: "Please remember that the world has always been this bad, and often much much worse. What has changed is your access to information." —Dan Curtis Johnson ‏@dcurtisj

I think that's a very important message. Yet I replied: "Well, except for the environment."

This morning, there was this:

Might Greenpeace have been more respectful of a historical site? Sure, but draping cloth and leaving a few footprints will do far less damage than capitalism is currently doing. And yet, in fine middle-class fashion, Alex Hern is upset because the protest was insufficiently genteel.

So I guess I'm an environmentalist. I can live with that.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

The recursiveness of "believe the victim"

If you thought it was possible an accuser might be mistaken or lying, you would say, "Trust the accuser." But because you have presumed guilt, you know the accuser is the victim and express yourself accordingly.

ETA: Tweaked this in the hope of clarity.

Monday, December 8, 2014

How "believe the victim" caused Rolling Stone's rape article debacle, or How "believe the victim" = "presume guilt"

When Rolling Stone published A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA by Sabrina Rudin Erdely, people who were familiar with traditional journalism noticed something odd: the other side of the story was entirely absent. When they began investigating, they discovered something else: the most basic fact-checking had been ignored.

The reason comes from the ethics of the internet's social justice warriors (not to be confused with actual social justice workers):

1. You must "believe the victim" if the accusers are female or consider themselves female.

2. You must not link to or allow comments from anyone who has been accused of harming women or who criticizes intersectional feminism.

The second point follows from the first: once you presume guilt, the guilty do not deserve a chance to defend themselves.

Their binary worldview warps SJW logic. For example, Zerlina Maxwell's No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims, begins with an impossible notion: You cannot "generally believe" something happened. Either you believe it or you do not. 
If Maxwell was trying to avoid bias, her title would be something like "No matter what Jackie said, we should support people who say they were raped".

Maxwell's subhead carries her bias further: "Incredulity hurts victims more than it hurts wrongly-accused perps." Because she thinks credulity and incredulity are the only options, she speaks of "wrongly-accused perps". But there's no such thing as a "wrongly-accused perp"; a perpetrator is the person who did something. Good people presume innocence until the perpetrator has been identified beyond reasonable doubt.

What SJWs fail to realize is that rape is a crime like any other crime. Erdely's original article includes this line which she and her editor should have paid more attention to: "studies indicate that false rape reports account for, at most, eight percent of reports." Whether there are more or fewer false reports of other crimes, I don't know, but I do know that only suicidal people would play Russian Roulette if one chance out of twelve was fatal.

The proper attitude toward people who claim to have been raped is not to believe them or disbelieve them; it's to support them while their charge is investigated. To people like Maxwell, investigation equals incredulity, but to those of us who understand statistics, it's only an essential part of establishing truth.


Magazine’s Account of Gang Rape on Virginia Campus Comes Under Scrutiny - NYTimes.com

The College Rape Overcorrection: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.  - Slate.com

Friday, December 5, 2014

Dennis Moore socialism, "money-baiting", fighting for justice by making the ruling class more diverse, and always getting fooled again

Nick Mamatas jumped into my twitter feed yesterday, which is always entertaining, though usually for the wrong reasons, but I'm especially grateful this time, because he made me realize there are a great many Dennis Moore socialists.

Dennis Moore socialists take many forms—and I'm sure there are those who'd say I'm one—but the most obvious ones are identitarian socialists who help the rich in the name of feminism or anti-racism without realizing that making the 1% more diverse does nothing for the 99%. Two kinds of "progressives" believe in female and black superiority, so they want a more diverse ruling class. Some think the superiority's inherent, and some think the experiences of women and black folks make them better people than white men. I was in the second camp until Margaret Thatcher showed me she was Ronald Reagan's equal in every way. That made me realize that if people are just people, something other than social identity must explain why those who have more contentedly exploit those who have less.

Yesterday's twittering was a response to my post about Brianna Wu. Nick Mamatas accused me of "money-baiting" when I pointed to her smugness, which amused me—when last I looked, Nick considered himself a socialist, yet he's quick to defend bourgeois folks based on their social identity. I'll grant that in tweeting to Wu, by the standards of middle class moralists, I was being rude, but I continue to think Wu's sense of entitlement is a fine example of the old saying about people born on third base thinking they're achievers when they run home.

In the twittering, Kari Sperring said, "There's an argument that increased female access to capital is redress for centuries of exploitation"

I replied, "Sure. That's Sheryl Sandberg feminism. I think it's why neoliberals love identitarian feminism."

She said, "I'm thinking in class terms, though: as a class, women are widely exploited to service male capital"

I favorited that and said, "Full Agreement."

That discussion went no further, but if it had, I'd have pointed out that Engels made that point, and that making the exploited the new exploiters does nothing to end exploitation.

The Who's "Wont' Get Fooled Again" includes this:

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Identitarians want the new boss. I want none.

"I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don’t think that it will be based upon the color of the skin." —Malcolm X / El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, January, 1965

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

What privilege looks like: Brianna Wu

I tweeted back:
I love the notion that accepting money from your parents is initiative.

The empty gesture of acknowledging privilege

At A Tale of Two Words | The Dream Café, L. Raymond asked,
How does it help you to deny society treats certain segments better than others? To acknowledge is not to endorse.
I answered,
You’re pointing at the problem without seeing it. To acknowledge is not to change. Identitarians and universalists both want a fair world and both recognize that sexism and racism and so many other isms exist. What identitarians fail to offer is a solution. Or rather, they think acknowledgement of a problem is an answer. But many Confederates acknowledged that slavery was unjust, and acknowledged their privilege as white men, and it still took a war to end slavery.
I was thinking of Robert E. Lee's letter to his wife in 1856 in which he said,
In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.
In the same letter, he went on to rationalize his privilege, much like contemporary graduates of schools for the elite rationalize theirs. Checking privilege makes privilege-checkers feel righteous, but it does not help a single person who has less so the privilege-checkers may have more.

The part of me that loves the Rebel Jesus thinks privilege-checkers are contemporary Pharisees who make great shows of goodness. Jesus's harshest words were for them:

“...you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others." —Matthew 6:5 ESV

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness." —Matthew 23:27 ESV

Friday, November 21, 2014

terms abused online: "straw man" and "goalpost-moving"

Straw man and Moving the goalposts both have useful meanings, but online, the more common definitions are:

Straw man: "I don't have an answer to that, so I'm declaring it irrelevant."

Goalpost moving: "I'm declaring I won, and you changed the terms."

The terms are used wrongly but sincerely by people whose belief systems prevent them from seeing what lies behind a facade and what the actual goals are.

ETA: second definition modified after comments below.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

The best $200 I ever spent? or Fat tire bikes are honey badgers

The Men's 26 Inch Mongoose Dozer Bike is $199.99 at Toys R Us right now. I called them up yesterday, said I wanted it, told them to assemble one, took the bus out there (an hour trip), and they had assembled the wrong one. And because it's the holiday season, they couldn't spare anyone to make up another right away. So I took the bus back.

But I wasn't particularly upset, because I like reading on buses.

This morning I took the bus out again. And they'd assembled the wrong one again. But they were extremely apologetic and put someone right to assembling it, and about twenty minutes later, I began my bicycle ride home.

A nine mile trip. On a 57.4 pound bike. With one gear. In twenty degree Fahrenheit weather, which is what Minnesotans and Canadians call a nice winter day if the sun is shining.

But it was snowing.

And I loved it.

The Mongoose Dozer is shockingly cheap for a fat tire bike. That's because it's a lot heavier than deluxe bikes. There's a version with seven speeds and disc brakes that's around $250 (free shipping at Target), and we'll probably get that for Emma, but I kind of like "one bike, one gear".

Here's the thing: Fat bikes are honey badgers. I rode on the sidewalk wherever there weren't people walking, which was most of the way because of the 20 degrees and snowing. I rode over ice chunks as big as bricks and only had to walk my bike through one stretch where the plows had been throwing snow onto the sidewalk and no one had cleared it since last winter. I had to stand on my pedals to go up hills (something, Emma tells me, rich bikers say only "mashers" do—yes, the class war is everywhere), but I like doing that. Once, the back tire spun on ice. On a regular bike that would be terrifying. On a fat tire bike, I just wondered if it was going to be terrifying, and it wasn't: Honey (Emma named it after I told her fat bikes are honey badgers) and I just kept rolling on.

A heavy single-speed bike is slow. If I was getting one to commute, I'd definitely get the Dolomite. For doing things around the neighborhood, a single-speed will be fine.

These things should be given to poor people. Riding one isn't just faster than walking. It feels safer, because you don't have to worry about slipping. (Yes, you have to worry about braking, just like in a car, but it's like driving a car: notice what's ahead of you, and you'll know whether you need to slow down for an icy stretch and adjust your speed accordingly.)

I felt something like guilt twice, once when I saw a mother with two kids wrestling a cheap baby stroller through a stretch of sidewalk that hadn't been cleared in much too long, and again a little later, when I saw another cheap stroller abandoned on a street corner where someone had probably decided it was easier to just carry a kid or walk slowly beside one. For practical reasons, sidewalks should be kept clear by the local government.

I felt something like class war pride when I passed another fat tire biker whose bicycling clothes probably cost more than my bike. This one's a little tricker to explain, but I think it works like this: if I spend a fifth to a tenth as much for something that's half as good but still good enough, my use of the money is more than twice as effective.

Which isn't to knock Surlys. If I could afford one, I'd very happily get one. But for my budget and needs, Honey's my love.

Emma took pics when I came home:

Maybe I'll paint her black in the spring, but the bright orange is nice on a gray day.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

If you prefer Malcolm X to Martin Luther King...

I love Malcolm, but the FBI knew he was irrelevant. Martin Luther King was "the most dangerous Negro." But I try not to rank my heroes. I love them both.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

"ally" is only another word for "other"

In the '60s and '70s, people didn't talk about allies. We talked about comrades, friends, and brothers and sisters. Since then, the identitarian left has subdivided humanity to the point that some identitarian feminists insist men can't be feminists, but only "feminist allies". I'm pleased to see some reconsideration of "ally" occurring. From kadkadua | From the Beloved Country:
In recent work, I have used the word kadkadua, which is the Ilocano word for comrade and while the word comrade is a loaded word for some, I find myself thinking that it is a more human word than ally.

Where allyship is connected to causes, comradeship (in the sense of kadkadua) means companionship. In the literal translations for comrade, we see the words mate and friend connected, and to me this makes a world of difference.

In fact, if I think of what kadkadua means to me, it means someone who I consider to be the same as myself.
It reminds me of Malcolm X's take on titles. From his interview with Bernice Bass:
MALCOLM X: I never accept the term "honorable. 
BASS: That's a beautiful title. 
MALCOLM X: Well, I'll tell you. Most people I've seen really end up misusing it, and I'd rather just be your Brother Malcolm.

A universalist socialist's response to "Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist"

A couple of posts ago, I shared Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist by Danusha V. Goska "partly for what's objectively true, partly for what people on the right believe is true". But I didn't go into what I thought was true and what I thought wasn't, and I didn't offer any context. So:

Goska abandoned the left in the 1980s when identitarianism was first being promoted by theorists at Ivy League schools. The followers of Derrick Bell's Critical Race Theory and Dworkin-MacKinnon feminism accepted ideas like these:
"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." —Andrea Dworkin,  Our Blood, 1976

"Black people will never gain full equality in this country. Even those Herculean efforts we hail as successful will produce no more than ‘temporary peaks of progress,’ short lived victories that slide into irrelevance as racial patterns adapt in ways that maintain white dominance ... white self-interest will prevail over black rights." —Derrick Bell
Their defenders argue that those beliefs have been unfairly summarized as "all white people are racist" and "all men are rapists"—but their followers make the same arguments more bluntly. Kate Elliott has written that her father taught her "if you grow up in a racist society, you are a racist". A self-identified radical feminist called Witchwind wrote, "Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV [penis in vagina] is always rape, plain and simple."

Goska believes the entire left is like the identitarian left she knew. Which is understandable, because she hears similar ideas from today's identitarians, who have lightly modified the beliefs of Bell, Dworkin, and MacKinnon to cope with inconvenient developments like implicit association tests refuting the notion that everyone's racist. So she became a Republican.

Goska listed ten reasons:

10. Huffiness.

She's right; identitarians are huffy. With notable exceptions, conservatives don't get as huffy because they think they're doing what they're supposed to. Identitarians get very huffy because they think they're being better than everyone else. They get furious at names like "latté liberals" because they hate being reminded that they profit from a system that they criticize in ineffective ways—perhaps because they don't want to lose their place above the people they talk about helping.

9. Selective outrage.

On the one hand, "selective outrage" is natural in humans; we tend to focus on what our group focuses on. But she's entirely right that people who were furious with Bush the Younger's war in Iraq were remarkably indifferent when Obama kept to Bush's plan, and did not protest when Obama tried to extend the war beyond Bush's deadline.

8. It's the thought that counts.

There are plenty of conservatives who deserve the criticism that their words and deeds are at odds—there's a long list of conservative chickenhawks. But she's very right about identitarians. They talk constantly about social privilege, but none of them are interested in ending their own economic privilege.

7. Leftists hate my people.

Identitarians ignore class when possible and treat it as a social identity rather than an economic one when they have to talk about it. But even then, they're often dismissive of the white working class. Terms like "trailer trash", "flyover country", and "rednecks" make their disdain obvious, but it can come out in their obliviousness to the white working class. Poverty offends them because it's disproportionate in terms of race and gender, not because it exists.

Now, this section of Goska's post reveals that she knows less about Marx than she pretends, and if someone was to compare conservative insults of Hillary Clinton with liberal insults of Sarah Palin, both sides would lose. But Goska's broader point is true: the children of the Ivy League have always felt superior to their servants, regardless of their hue. The ideology of identitarianism makes that superiority worse in the case of the poor whites, because once you accept the idea that whiteness is a privilege, poor whites are privileged people who are too incompetent to properly exploit their privilege, and therefore deserve to be thought of as hicks living in flyover country when they're thought of at all.

6. I believe in God.

Goska's completely wrong here: The notion that religious people are on the right and atheists are on the left is just silly. Yes, Marx was an atheist, but there are many kinds of communists, including Christian communists. I could as easily say that if you hang out with Christians, you'll find would-be patriarchs and slavers. Goska's doing what most humans do, characterizing her opponents by the worst people who claim to be part of their group.

5 & 4) Straw men and “In order to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.”

See my previous comment. As for Goska's description of the treatment of Saba Ahmed, I recommend I am Muslim and Republican – and was attacked by people in my party | Saba Ahmed.

2 & 3) It doesn’t work. Other approaches work better.

She's right that liberal capitalism in general and identitarianism in particular don't work. That's why I'm a universalist socialist.

1. Hate.

Would that I could visit her world where there are no conservative haters. Having been to many leftist protests in my life, from marching for integration to protesting the invasion of Iraq, I can say many leftists believe devoutly in the politics of love.

But I've lived through a sea change in leftist rhetoric. In the 'sixties, we defined ourselves by what we were for: racial integration, women's equality, gay rights, and world peace. Identitarians define themselves by what they oppose: they're anti-war and anti-racism and though they still talk about feminism instead of anti-sexism, they've changed feminism's meaning to the point that some identitarian feminists insist a man cannot be a feminist, but at best a feminist ally. (I do wish I could ask one of them what they make of the fact that "feminism" was coined by a man, Charles Fourier.)

I haven't shared Goska's article because I agree with her solutions. I've shared it because conservatives and universalist socialists agree on one thing: the greatest problem is economic inequality. And I share it because if you hope to win more people from the right, you have to understand why they are turning away from you.

ETA: For an early critique of identitarian feminism, see Barbara Ehrenreich. What is Socialist Feminism? She notes, "The trouble with radical feminism, from a socialist feminist point of view, is that it ... remains transfixed with the universality of male supremacy – things have never really changed; all social systems are patriarchies; imperialism, militarism, and capitalism are all simply expressions of innate male aggressiveness. And so on. The problem with this, from a socialist feminist point of view, is not only that it leaves out men (and the possibility of reconciliation with them on a truly human and egalitarian basis) but that it leaves out an awful lot about women."

As for an early rejection of an identitarian approach to race, Martin Luther King said, referring to statistics that are still true today, "In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike."

ETA 2: Identitarianism and the Working Class | MattBruenig

Monday, November 10, 2014

Eugene V. Debs: "If we were actual traitors...."

Why the identitarian left is losing, in national elections and online

That identitarians are doing worse nationally is a simple fact: Six Points on the Midterm Elections notes, "Democrats did a bit worse with its “of color” coalition: 89% with African Americans (vs 93% in 2012), 63% with Latinos (vs 71%), and, most surprisingly, only a split with the small, but fast-growing Asian American cohort (49% vs a whopping 73%)."

A number of articles in 2012 noted that Racial prejudice in US worsened during Obama's first term. The "number of Americans with implicit anti-black sentiments jumped to 56%, up from 49% during the last presidential election "

If you want to understand why, Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist is helpful, partly for what's objectively true, partly for what people on the right believe is true. The writer describes life in the identitarian left fairly well, so I see no reason to doubt her story is sincere.

Because identitarians rely on belief, they avoid studies that show identitarian campaigning makes racism worse. In 1997, a government study in Australia found, "The problem with anti-racism campaigns is that there is no clearly understood or agreed method of changing people's prejudices, values, attitudes or behaviour. What is known is that direct confrontation is likely to be counter-productive.  ... In 1997 the Council of Europe coordinated a year of anti-racism campaigns and activities throughout Europe. A survey at the end of the year, conducted in European Union countries by the polling organisation Eurobarometer, found that rather than a decline in racism, it had been marked by a growing willingness on the part of Europeans to openly declare themselves as racist."

Whether identitarians are doing worse online is a bit harder to tell. The OP at PZ Meyers and other "SJWs" from Atheism Plus have slowly lost popularity... offered this Google Trends chart as evidence of Myers' decrease:

Vox Day regularly makes claims that his readership is growing while John Scalzi's is shrinking. I don't pay much attention to either, so I don't know if Scalzi's denied that, but the quick google suggests he hasn't. In March, VD claimed,
I think the fact that [Scalzi] has stopped his previous practice of divulging his site traffic and his sales numbers, and hidden his previously available blog statistics at Quantcast, is sufficient evidence that shining a light on his web of deceit is also an effective strategy. Here were the last three months of Whatever traffic that were available to the public prior to him shutting it down; contrast them with the year before, when I began exposing his various deceits and con games:

Nov 2013: 407,363 (Nov 2012: 768,725, down 47 percent)
Dec 2013: 475,543 (Dec 2012: 861,912, down 45 percent)
Jan 2014: 542,192 (Jan 2013: 840,874, down 36 percent)

My own monthly traffic went up 36 percent, from 786,956 to 1,076,538, during that same time period. That monthly average is more than Scalzi's all-time peak of 1,027,644 in May 2012, which marked the only time Whatever exceeded one million pageviews.
VD's numbers are available through Quantcast, but Scalzi's no longer are, so I just checked Alexa. It gave this for Scalzi's Whatever:

Global Rank 

Global rank icon87,114 19,805

Rank in United States 

United States Flag17,450 
And for Vox Day's blogspot:

Global Rank 

Global rank icon49,581 17,577

Rank in United States 

United States Flag23,807   

So right now, Scalzi's ahead in the US and behind in the larger world. Without better numbers, we can't have a complete picture, but this seems clear: so long as people feel their choice is between the identitarian left and conservatives, conservatives win.

ETA: As usual, the US offers little class analysis of election results. My suspicion is that more working class people voted in 2012 than in 2014, so much of what appears to be a racial result is actually a class result.  But, of course, I could be wrong.

Related: A universalist socialist's response to "Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist"

A little more about St. Peter's and Malcolm X's "Respect everyone"

St Peter and Malcolm X each said "Respect everyone" as part of broader statements. The King James Version of 1 Peter 2:17 is very clear, so long as you remember that "men" is italicized to indicate it was added by the translators: "Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king." In case there are Christians who think there's wiggle room in St. Peter's "Respect everyone", here's an analysis at The Apostle Peter on Civil Obedience: An Exegesis of 1 Peter 2:13-17 | Bible.org:
The fourfold injunction follows immediately after qeou` douloiv (v. 16). Peter wants his readers, as servants of God, to honor all men. That is, they are to say and do things concomitant with the respect all men are to be shown.143 The verb timavw is used 21 times in the NT and is commonly associated in the Synoptics with the proper attitude a child is to demonstrate to their parents (e.g. Matt 15:4; cf. also Eph 6:2). It is also applied to God in John's gospel (John 5:23; 8:49) as well as the honoring of Paul (Acts 28:10) and widows (1 Tim 5:3). It is also used to refer to money (Matt 27:9). Though Peter does not explicate the idea here, this honor and respect for all men is most likely grounded in the fact that they are creations of God (cf.ktivsei in verse 13).144 And, the fact that pavnta" stands first in the clause emphasizes all men without exception. Peter's readers are not to go about choosing whom they will respect and honor. Such an attitude is forbidden by this verse. They are to honor all men.
Malcolm X's full statement is "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." It's from a speech known as Message to the Grass Roots which he gave on November 10, 1963, while he was still part of the misleadingly named Nation of Islam. He later said,
I totally reject Elijah Muhammad's racist philosophy, which he has labeled 'Islam' only to fool and misuse gullible people as he fooled and misused me. But I blame only myself, and no one else for the fool that I was, and the harm that my evangelical foolishness on his behalf has done to others."
I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then—like all [Black] Muslims—I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years.

That was a bad scene, brother. The sickness and madness of those days—I'm glad to be free of them.
I've never found any evidence that Brother Malcolm changed his mind about being peaceful and courteous and obeying the law and respecting everyone, just as there's no evidence he ever changed his mind about the importance of self-defense. Shortly before he was killed, in a talk titled The oppressed masses of the world cry out for action against the common oppressor, he said:
And when you see the Blacks react, since the people who do this aren’t there, they react against their property. The property is the only thing that’s there. And they destroy it. And you get the impression over here that because they are destroying the property where they live, that they are destroying their own property. No. They can’t get to the man, so they get at what he owns. [Laughter] 
This doesn’t say it’s intelligent. But whoever heard of a sociological explosion that was done intelligently and politely? And this is what you’re trying to make the Black man do. You’re trying to drive him into a ghetto and make him the victim of every kind of unjust condition imaginable. Then when he explodes, you want him to explode politely! [Laughter]
He's talking about the explosion of oppressed people in response to an outrage like the police killing a member of their community, and he's noting that it's not an "intelligent" response, that it's a symptom, not a solution. The first step in bringing about a solution is in his original statement: respect everyone.

Possibly relevant: Googling about this, I came on Respect (part 1 of 3) - The Religion of Islam, which talks about something Malcolm almost certainly knew: You don't just treat people with respect when they're present. You treat them with respect always. I completely agree; I finally instituted a code of conduct for this blog when someone at another insisted on reviling his opponents.

If you wonder why I usually speak of Brother Malcolm, that's respect, too. From his interview with Bernice Bass:
MALCOLM X: I never accept the term "honorable. 
BASS: That's a beautiful title. 
MALCOLM X: Well, I'll tell you. Most people I've seen really end up misusing it, and I'd rather just be your Brother Malcolm.

Sunday, November 9, 2014

And now, this blog has a code of conduct

Respect everyone.

(Okay, it's a sneaky way of doing a rerun, but it's also serious. My space, my rules: treat everyone with respect, no matter how much you disagree with them. Neither Malcolm X nor St. Peter said, "Respect everyone except the people who bug you.")

ETA: Really, everyone. Daryl Davis's attitude toward Klansmen has it right:

You don't make a better world be demonizing anyone.

Saturday, November 8, 2014

here, have a meme

Via Delilah.

Yeah, it's cutesy. Insert a few of your favorite swear words and imagine it drawn in black and blood-red if that helps.

A call for kindness inspired by Requireshate and Racefail 09

Inspired by the comments at A Report on Damage Done by One Individual Under Several Names, I'm writing something that's very hard for me. I'm starting with a few general points for people who aren't familiar with my blogging. Then it gets personal.

Don't mock anyone who claims to have been hurt by the antics of Requireshate and her supporters. If you've never been mobbed, you can't know that the psychological effects are so horrible that some victims kill themselves. I wrote a little about that at Mobbing drives people a little—or a lot—mad.

But when you have sympathy for RH's targets, try to have sympathy for the people who aided her in the belief they were doing the right thing. Five years after the Salem Witch Trials, the jurors signed a letter stating, “…we also pray that we may be considered candidly and aright by the living sufferers as being then under the power of a strong and general delusion, utterly unacquainted with and not experienced in matters of that nature.”

And, if you can, try to have some sympathy for RH, too. She clearly suffers from some mental disorder, and she adopted a belief system that brought out all the worst in her. She was more extreme than her fellows, but her fellows applauded her. Like Barry Goldwater, they believed extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Anyone who has read about the Jacobins should know that's wrong, but people who think their goals are virtuous often excuse the worst tactics. Folk wisdom rejects that: The ends don't justify the means. At some level, most of us know the means and the ends are the same.

Martin Luther King said, "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." I learned that the hard way in Racefail 09, when many good people were accused of being racists. I was silent for days, but then I saw two people in particular being attacked—my wife, whose first novel should be remembered in any history of interracial romance in our genre, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden, who ten years before had published "Racism and Science Fiction" by Samuel R. Delany. So I spoke up.

If you have sympathy for RH's targets, try to have sympathy for all the people on Racefail's blacklists and "shitlists," except me. Some of them, maybe most of them, maybe all of them, are still suffering. They saw themselves becoming pariahs, and saw that the work they had valued all their lives was meaningless, and feared they might never be able to do that work again.

I'm not saying I'm exempt from the suffering caused by mobbing—if anything, I'm an extreme example of the damage it does—but I've lived with this all my life, thanks to the Ku Klux Klan driving my family from our home for our involvement in the civil rights struggle. When Racefail came, most of its targets were good people who had never been hurt by mobs before. Their wounds were fresh and raw. For me, old scars were simply torn open again, so the flight instinct was weaker and the fight instinct stronger.

To mobs, those who fight back deserve what they get, so I bear it. But the rest of the people on those lists? The people who were so smugly judged at this RaceFail Amnesty Post? They deserve every bit of sympathy being given to the people who have been savaged by RH and her allies. Some of them, maybe most of them, maybe all of them, would be grateful for a kind word.

Friday, November 7, 2014

For #requireslove, two quotes by Malcolm X and Jesus

Jesus, from Luke 6:27-35:
But to you who are listening I say:

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.

And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.

And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
Malcolm X, from The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley:
My dearest friends have come to include all kinds -- some Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and even atheists! I have friends who are called capitalists, Socialists, and Communists! Some of my friends are moderates, conservatives, extremists -- some are even Uncle Toms! My friends today are black, brown, red, yellow, and white!

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Movie rec: Whip It

I dunno how we missed this when it was released, but we watched it tonight and thought it fine. It's a sports movie for people who don't like sports (hey, roller derby!) and a coming of age movie for, well, people who like coming of age stories, I guess. IMDB gives it 6.9, but Rotten Tomatoes' tomatometer, which tends to be more in line with my taste, gives it 84%. Ellen Page gave a fine performance, and Drew Barrymore's direction served a script with a number of funny lines.

Monday, November 3, 2014

The finances and organization of Shadow Unit and Liavek

Tl;dr: In seven years, Shadow Unit has made a little over $50,000 for its creators and a little over a million words for its readers. A copy of the Liavek writer's contract is at the end of this in case it might help writers who want to make their own shared world.

The top three things polite Americans don't talk about with strangers are probably religion, politics, and money. Online, the first two are discussed all the time, which means the third is the greater taboo. So if this makes you uncomfortable, my apologies.

I'm sharing this for people who have been wondering about creating their own shared world. Sharing what we've learned is something most writers are happy to do. When Emma and I were part of creating the Liavek shared world anthologies in the '80s, Robert Asprin and Lynn Abbey of Thieves' World sat down with us and talked about what they thought they had done right and wrong. Few of us see our fellow writers as competition. We want them to succeed because they're doing the thing we love. So if sharing this helps anyone else, I'll be very pleased.

Every shared world is set up differently, primarily depending on the editors' needs and instincts. With Liavek, Emma and I had contracts with Ace Books, so we nominally own the world, but we made contracts with the writers that say anyone who writes for us becomes a co-owner. If a major entertainment company takes an interest in Liavek, everyone involved with it will profit equally. Ace gave us advances on the books—$6000 for each of the first two, $7500 for each of the last three—and we paid writers from the advances. My understanding is that a 50/50 split between writers and editors is common with anthologies, but that seemed high to us, so we made it 35/65 in favor of the writers. I don't think any of the anthologies earned out on their advances, so those five anthologies made $34,500 for their writers and editors, of which 10% went to our agent.

Emma discusses the artistic creation of Shadow Unit in "Sanding the Oyster: the Origins of Shadow Unit". For its financial creation, we built on the Liavek model: all the contributors own it jointly. Emma and Elizabeth Bear are effectively the editors, but they don't take an extra cut for doing that. I note this because in a commercial enterprise, good editors deserve every penny they can get, but in a fun enterprise, the editors may work for free in order to give more to the writers.

After much discussion, we set Shadow Unit up as co-op and handled money like this:

• 10% of the profit is divided equally among the co-op members, regardless of how much they contributed.

• 10% of the profit goes into a holding fund for future expenses.

• 80% of the profit goes to the writers based on the percentage of their contribution to the project.

When we started, stories were free online and our only income was from donations. Shadow Unit was a side project for everyone involved in it, so we made decisions based on what would be easiest rather than what might be most profitable, and none of us wanted to deal with ads. I mention this purely as a data point—I understand ads are very profitable for some sites.

While we were running exclusively on donations, the donations varied from a couple of dollars to $500. When we began collecting stories in ebooks, donations went down, but income went up. We made the first volume free, which seems to have helped promote the series, though free ebooks have a price for creators: Give something away, and you'll get bad reviews from some people who never would've tried it otherwise. Still, people tend to be pretty good at finding what they like: At Amazon, Shadow Unit #1 currently has 4.1 stars.

We priced the ebooks at $2.99 to make them impulse buys. Whether we would've done as well at $3.99 or $4.99, I don't know. The nice thing about a cheap ebook is it doesn't have to be long, and if you're collecting stories that are appearing free on the web, you want to be able to release them frequently. The word counts on the first volumes were between 80,000 and 60,000. In order to put them out faster, we went with smaller word counts, 40,000 to 60,000 generally, and no reader has complained.

A writer who is planning a web series sent us these questions:

1) How did you ensure that everyone was working from the same game plan?

We're planning on putting together a series bible like they do on TV, and I assume you put together a similar sort of touchstone document. If so

a) What material was in the document

Both Liavek and Shadow Unit had bibles describing the world and the characters. Because Liavek was an invented world, we included maps.

b) Was there anything that wasn't in the document that you wish was in there now?

No, maybe because we're thorough, maybe because we're lucky. We knew the bible had to answer everyone's questions, but we also knew the bible was only a starting document. With Liavek, we learned one thing: establish something as an exception, and most of the writers will want to deal with the exception. So don't put anything in the bible that you don't want writers to try to bend or break.

c) Was the document written by one person, or was it a collaborative effort?

Our bibles have been collaborative because we want the writers to feel like they own the project. For Liavek, different writers took parts of the bible—I no longer remember who created which country or which religion. For Shadow Unit, Emma and I came up with the rough drafts of most of the core cast, but other writers added some of my favorites.

2) Was there anything else you used to make sure everyone was on the same page as to plot line, characters, etc.?

The internet! For Liavek, we sent out newsletters, but for Shadow Unit, we emailed and LiveJournaled and built a wiki. Fortunately for us, fans took over the wiki once the series got going.

3) How often did you guys get in touch to discuss what was going on?

With Liavek, some writers simply got the bible and a few newsletters and sent us a story. With Shadow Unit, we had a private LJ that was very, very busy in the first months.

4) What did the editorial process for individual stories look like?

With Liavek, Emma and I worked fairly conventionally. With Shadow Unit, we put the stories up on Google Docs, and all the members of the group are able to leave comments. The writer then gives the final draft to the volunteer proofreaders and it goes off to the web ghoul to be published.

I'm not sharing a Shadow Unit writer's contract because I don't have a copy handy, but it's basically what I described earlier. Here's the Liavek writer's contract that we used for each volume:

Letter of Agreement between Will Shetterly, Emma Bull, and X (hereafter referred to as The Author) who lives at ?.
1.  In return for a share of Berkley Publishing Corporation's advance amounting to $ and a prorated share of 65% of all subsequent monies coming due to Will Shetterly and Emma Bull from trade, book club, reprint, foreign language, or any other editions of the Liavek anthology in which The Author's story appears, The Author hereby grants (and warrants having the right to grant) non-exclusive World Anthology Rights to a story entitled Z for inclusion in an anthology of stories centering around the imaginary city of Liavek.
2.  The Author further grants that all cities, countries, races, beasts, historical personages and other such fictional creations created for the Liavek anthology, but specifically excluding any characters of The Author's creation as may be designated in a cover letter accompanying a Liavek story, shall become the shared property of the Liavek Co-op for any and all literary or marketing purposes.  (The Liavek Co-op is defined as all writers who contribute to Liavek anthologies or novels and who indicate their willingness to be a part of that Co-op by checking the appropriate part of Section 9 of this agreement, or who send a future letter of intent to the Liavek editors).  Should The Author become a member of the Liavek Co-op, all use of any of The Author's creations by other Liavek authors will be subject to The Author's written permission.
3.  The Author further grants permission for transcription of Z into Braille, and for its inclusion in tape, talking or large-print books, in the event that the Liavek anthology is selected by a non-profit organization for the disabled.
4.  Emma Bull and Will Shetterly shall pay the advance promptly upon receipt of the full contracted advance from Berkley Publishing Corporation, and shall disburse any of the anthology's subsequent earnings semi-annually.
5.  Emma Bull and Will Shetterly shall have Berkley Publishing Corporation print in the book a proper copyright notice, pursuant to the instructions of The Author.
______(a) ______________________
______(b) Copyright in The Author's name.
6.  The Author shall receive from Berkley Publishing Corporation one free copy of the U.S. edition of the anthology.
7.  All rights not specifically granted in this agreement are reserved to the author.
8.  Until Emma Bull or Will Shetterly are notified in writing to the contrary, all payments under this agreement shall be made to:
______(a) The Author
______(b) _________________________
          _________________________, whose receipt shall be a full discharge of the monies recieved.
9.  In the event of future Liavek anthologies or novels, 5% of the profits from those books will be reserved to be divided equally among the members of the Liavek Co-op.  Further, all rights to the world of Liavek and all characters and concepts used therein not specifically withheld by the creator of a character shall belong to the Liavek Co-op, and all monies from assigning those rights will be divided equally among the members of the Liavek Co-op.
_______The Author is to be considered a member of the Liavek Co-op.  All rights to any characters created and designated by The Author remain The Author's, and any use, in this anthology or in future ones, by other writers will be subject to The Author's approval.  Membership in the Co-op does not impose any obligation to contribute to any future Liavek anthologies, though future Liavek writers may pester The Author for permission to use The Author's Liavek characters.
_______The Author reserves the right to join the Liavek Co-op at a future date.  All rights to any characters created and designated by The Author remain The Author's.  Any use of The Author's characters by other writers in the first Liavek anthology will be subject to The Author's approval.
____________________     ___________________________________
(date)                   (The Author)
                         Author's Social Security #_________
____________________     ___________________________________
(date)                   Emma L. Bull
____________________     ___________________________________
(date)                   Will Shetterly

Saturday, November 1, 2014

About class, catcalling, and that viral video

One of my old posts, class and catcalling, got some love from the internet this week because of this video:

Anti-racists have been saying that video is racist because it's about a white woman walking through neighborhoods with lots of brown men. They don't see that it's about a middle-class woman walking through neighborhoods with lots of working class men. And more significantly, they don't see that it's about a middle-class woman pointedly ignoring working class men.

The video's a template for everyone's projections. An old-school snob could title it "Working-class men don't know their place." An old-school racist could title it, "White women must be protected from dark-skinned races."

What strikes me is it's about a woman on the street who is oblivious to the dynamics of the street. She doesn't want to engage with strangers, especially those of a lower economic class. She doesn't want to acknowledge a greeting or a compliment, so something as simple as "good morning" becomes a "micro aggression".

To the people who agree with the videomakers, the men's reactions to being ignored is evidence of their sexism. But humans don't like being ignored. Feminists who complain about women being erased should see that by refusing to acknowledge the existence of working-class men, the actor is erasing them from her reality.

Which is why it's hard to tell what's going on with the guy who decides to walk beside her. Clearly, he knows something odd is going on. Maybe he's spotted the camera. Whatever he's thinking, he's doing something that he could as easily do with a man who was ignoring him. Speaking as a guy who knows a little more about the street than most middle class people do, I assure you, his decision to walk beside her was not necessarily sexual.

There's not a perfect parallel in this, but I recommend it to put the previous video in perspective:

I relate to it because I was a handsome young guy in New York once. Not as handsome as that guy, but I got hit on by men and women. I've never had great social skills, but I knew one of the basic rules of the street: don't ignore people. It's rude. Smile, say "thank you" if they've complimented you, say "sorry" if they've asked you for something you don't want to give, and keep walking.

There's a very reasonable take on catcalling by Ana Kasparian and Gina Grad in this:

Friday, October 31, 2014

Always blame the writer before you blame the actor

I left this comment at Which Episodes You Must Watch To Catch Up On Agents of SHIELD: "Actors can't be better than their material. Speaking as a writer, I assure you, the first person to blame for a lame character is the writer."

That said, the writers answer to the show runner, and the show runner answers to the producer, and the producer answers to the studio, and the studio answers to the advertisers. So ultimately, blame capitalism.

Uh, that's my sense of humor at work. Really, just know that only the most brilliant actors can make a part better than it is, and even they can't turn the appropriately named Ed Wood into Shakespeare.

Which reminds me that I need to see the Ed Wood movie again.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Gawker makes The Sun look like a bastion of integrity

It's almost worth reading How We Got Rolled by the Dishonest Fascists of Gamergate to watch the art of hypocrisy in action. I can't remember when I first noticed that Gawker was a tabloid rag with a social justice rationalization. Ken White is dead on in Ten Short Rants About #GamerGate | Popehat:
There's also the feculent two-faced pack of scribblers at Gawker Media. Gawker Media, through Kotaku and Gawker and Jezebel, is consistently outraged at the misogyny of #GamerGate, and has retreated into pearl-clutching couch-fainting at the attacks it has recently endured on its own work. But Gawker Media loves feminism like a glutton loves his lunch. Gawker poses as high-minded for the outrage clicks, then returns to its cash cows: self-righteously promoting revenge porn, ridiculing women based on their appearance, paying sociopaths to describe the pubic hair of women they don't like, gleefully outing people, shrugging at systematic harassment of its employees, leering at hacked nude pics, and generally being about as progressive as a late-night advertisement for Schlitz. If you rush to Gawker Media's defense because it's #GamerGate who is attacking them, aren't you being a useful idiot?
I never expected to say anything good about The Sun, but they don't pretend to be anything more than what they are. I stand by what I said a few days ago: "Gawker should be called Mocker. It's designed to appeal to the worst in people who want to think they're the best. "

ETA: Douglas Lain has a phrase I love for people who share many of my goals and few of my tactics: "the Gawker left".

Monday, October 20, 2014

The best Wonder Woman page and cover ever?

Yes, I'm setting the bar high, but how can you beat this?

If I was working for DC, I would pitch the return of Marya the Mexican Giant.

You can read the whole short story at Pappy's Golden Age Comics Blogzine: Number 1646: Wonder Woman’s hot feet. Here's its cover: