Impending Demise: You’re in a hospital room, one your doctors don’t seem optimistic you’ll walk out of.
Superman: Yes.
ID: What happened? A few weeks ago you didn’t look- you’re a shell of the man you were even a month ago.
S: The League. We did what we always do, stepped up to a challenge with everything we had, with sometimes unorthodox methodology.
ID: Care to elaborate?
S: Kryptonite radiation therapy. The thinking was, if normal radiation didn’t work on the cancer cells, maybe the kind of radiation I’m vulnerable to would work like normal radiation on a human being. Apparently Bruce has been trying to set it up for six months, now, tracking down anyone with even a passing experience with kryptonite, Metallo, the Kryptonite Man. The missing link, though, the one they needed to piece everything together was Conduit. He is able to project kryptonite radiation, so he was the one who really held the key. But from what we gather Lex Luthor had the same notion, and had taken Conduit and put him into a kind of supervillian witness protection program. Bruce has been harrowing Lex and his interests ever since, including a few hostile takeovers of his assets- he’d been hoping to make revenge too expensive for Lex. But he was also coordinating one of the most sophisticated man-hunts in the history of the League, involving the Birds of Prey as they like to be called, and the Martian Manhunter, to name only a few.
Eventually Bruce tracked Conduit back to Kansas. And I hope I’m not uh talking out of school, but I say back to Kansas because he and I grew up in the same home town. His real name is Ken Braverman. His parents were actually driving to the hospital for his birth when my rocket from Krypton arrived. A chunk of the ship broke off entering the atmosphere and landed in the road in front of the Braverman’s car, and caused his dad to put the car into a ditch. Ken was born in the backseat, and their proximity to the piece of the rocket meant that he absorbed a lot of kryptonite radiation.
We were both pretty close to the same age. Because of the radiation Ken had a lot of health problems growing up: he was small, and frail, got sick a lot. Because of that people picked on him. I tried to stand up for him, but, sometimes when you don’t feel strong enough the last thing in the world you want is for someone else to fight your battles. I think if Ken hadn’t been dosed with radiation, if he hadn’t been sick, I think we probably would have been friends.
Anyway, by high school, Ken’s health had reversed track, and rather than being weaker than most everybody, he was stronger, and faster. But he had a hell of a chip on his shoulder, too. He remembered every single person who put him down, every single person who ever laughed at his frailty. And he remembered every perceived slight, every time he felt I’d put him down trying to stand up for him.
Only he was still having side effects from the radiation, and he was in an increasing amount of pain. He got into contact with the CIA, who were interested in studying him and the positive effects of the radiation, in exchange for curing the negative side effects. Well, cure can be a relative term. Somehow, Ken’s body had become wholly radioactive, and was in a constant state of decay. Growing up that wasn’t much of an issue, since there was a steady creation of new cells, but as he was reaching adulthood, his body was producing fewer and fewer cells, but the rate of decay was the same, and the only thing they could do was mitigate his suffering. They designed a suit to contain the radiation, with a built in pain-relief system.
When he wasn't of any scientific interest anymore, his abilities became his only bargaining chip, so he started working as an operative. But pain makes people do stupid things. On a mission in France, Ken nearly killed a government attaché when his cover was blown, and the CIA decided to cut him loose.
Ken needed expertise to keep his containment suit operational, but since he didn’t have any money, he had to pay his way in trade. And the only people with the expertise to work on that kind of tech who wanted the services of a spook in trade were not the kinds of people you wanted to be indebted to. But for Ken it was a godsend, because one of them had enough experience with nuclear reactors that he recognized that a partial solution to Ken’s problem might be venting. For me, and people who ran into Conduit, however, it was a little less pleasant.
But over the years Ken and I had developed a bit of a rivalry. Once he got healthy we competed in sports. He asked Lana to prom, though she eventually went with me. It was a lot of little things that built up, like his verbally abusive father, who for some damn reason would talk me up in the same breath he’d talk his own son down. And once he was operating in the open as Conduit, often out of Metropolis, we came into conflict again. And because we knew each other, he figured out who I was, where I’d come from, and even made a half-hearted attempt at killing people he knew I was close with. I’m not absolving him of responsibility, but really, I think pain makes you do stupid things, emotional pain doubly so.
That was the beauty and simplicity of Lex’s plan, hiding him in plain sight, as it were, in my home town, but nothing stays hidden from Bruce forever, and eventually he found him. But then there was the issue of convincing Ken to help, and I have to give credit where it’s due. Bruce has a lot of speeds, philanthropist, entrepreneur, the bad cop that is Batman, a lot of ways to convince or threaten or bribe someone to do what he wants. But he’d figured enough out about Ken to know he wouldn’t cave to any of those. So he told him I was dying, that he was my last hope, that at the very least he should look me in the eye and tell me his decision face to face. It was one last chance to gloat, if he wanted it, or a chance to be the better man if he chose that instead. And Ken took him up on it, and to my surprise, once Ken was in the room with me, he couldn’t be angry any more. He actually, actually hugged me. I think, that, there are some times when you think you have forever to let something play out, that the fight you had with your parents or your friend or whoever, will be resolved at some point. But being faced with a definite conclusion, I don’t think Ken wanted me to die, all these years, because when it came down to it, Ken Braverman tried to save my life. It wasn’t something I saw coming.
ID: Tried?
S: Yeah. It didn’t work. The cancer’s more resistant to kryptonite radiation than the rest of my cells. It actually did a fair amount of damage to me, while the cancer was hardly touched.
ID: I’m sorry.
S: Thank you.
ID: The prognosis isn't good.
S: No. But that symbol I wore on my chest all these years, my family crest, it represents hope. I don't think at this point that I'm hoping for my own survival, but I do hope that the world will still thrive when I'm gone.
We’ll be trying to bring you a new section of the interview every Tuesday. Some of the questions have already been prepared by the interviewer, but to ask Superman a question, leave a comment or send an email to DeathofSuperman@gmail.com.
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Monday, December 21, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Liberal Bias
Superman: I’ve taken some flack after last week’s interview.
Ignoble Dignitary: Of course. Please tell me that doesn’t surprise you.
S: No, but what did surprise me is how many people seemed to think I crossed a line, when after rereading my comments I think I struck a good balance, frankly. I was pissed off, and it certainly showed, but I don’t think I said anything I’d regret saying to an elected official of either stripe. Republicans have been relying on fear-based politics since at least September 11th; Democrats seem to adhere to the idea of politics as a gentleman’s game that effectively castrates their ability to govern barring supermajorities.
To put it into terms I’m perhaps more expert in: I’ve read a lot of speculation about what motivates a vigilante. And I’ll admit it can all be hard to reconcile. The idea of going it your own way, bucking the system, including the government-operated police force, that’s a very conservative action; especially when you’re protecting the status quo. But when you then take that and do it for a large swath of people, sharing with people the strengths and abilities you possess when they may not have been able to help themselves out of the situation, that’s a very progressive action. Personally, I’ve never had any problem with these two sometimes contradictory, sometimes complementary ideas, because I’m a moderate. But I also know liberal and conservative vigilantes as well, and I don’t think very many of them struggle with what is a background ideological question: they want to make a difference, and everything else is secondary.
But I think it also underscores an important dichotomy in this country, something that in the current polarized climate we lose. The struggle between certain aspects of our political poles is good. Our government and our nation works best when there’s a tug-of-war between big ideas and fiscal responsibility.
One of the big issues I take with the modern Republican party is they’re no longer for fiscal responsibility. They’ve become the party of tax cuts. If we want to pay less in taxes and have a smaller government, that’s a conversation we as a nation can have, but their plan lately has been to cut taxes without cutting expenses and let future generations pick up the tab. That’s why when they complain about a bailout they helped engineer, and a stimulus package they refused to participate in, both of which economists of all political stripes agree have helped soften the current economic crisis, I have trouble taking them seriously.
I have legitimate concerns about the way that the bailout and stimulus were carried out, but if Republicans wanted things done differently, they could have- no, they should have, participated in the process and done what they could to steer either in a direction they wanted.
ID: Like they’re doing with the health reform debate now?
S: No. I don’t mean screaming at the top of their lungs about half-truths and made-up concerns, nor making a half-hearted offer at an alternative bill, I mean actually legislating. Republicans say they’d rather have an incremental bill rather than the one Reid has written. If they were willing to bargain in good faith, they could very well get concessions from the Democratic majority; realistically, the Democrats don’t want to be hung out on a limb for this: it’s already slow to implement, and half of them could very well be out of office by the time Americans feel the effects of the bill. Of course, assuming the Republicans were willing to play ball, the problem with incrementalism is that tomorrow never comes.
ID: That was either deep or you were speaking like a politician.
S: Somewhere in between, I think. But just like cuts to Medicare doctors that are postponed every year by Congress without fail, painful but necessary reforms to the rest of healthcare could just be postponed indefinitely.
Um, on the subject of things I got chewed out over, there were also some women, my wife included, who took issue with me on the revised mammogram and pap smear guidelines. I wasn’t endorsing the findings, and I might even say we should get a second opinion, because I understand, as someone whose mother was diagnosed early with cervical cancer and survived, how important early screening can be; all I was trying to say is we don’t want politicians deciding who gets what treatment based on what criteria. That decision should be left to doctors and scientists who are experts in their fields, and use the best of their professional judgment to set guidelines; I don’t want to make that call any more than I think politicians should.
And I hate to turn this interview into a blog, but I have a quote I’d like to throw in there, from somebody who’s actually read the bill: “This year’s health reform legislation has often been criticized for being health insurance reform rather than health care reform, and for not doing enough to control the cost of health care. Those who offer these criticisms have obviously not read the bills or even tried to understand them.” And that’s my problem with the current Republican party in a nutshell: they criticize without understanding, to the sole purpose of elevating themselves.
And I want to clarify that I mean the Republican party leadership, and those who claim to speak for conservatives in the country. I don’t doubt the good will of a third of the American people, more if you count conservative-leaning independents; but their leadership have lost their way, or as I suspect, have forsaken their way for a road more politically advantageous.
I have no real love for the Democratic Party; the Democrats fail me as often as they make me happy, but at least sometimes they have the courage to stand up and say, often to people who would buy and pay for them, that there is an injustice that they want to right. I think healthcare reform is one of those fights, and I’m not endorsing every action they’ve taken, I’m not endorsing their outcome, but just the fact that they stood up to do something that matters for the American people, at the quite real cost of their power- that takes a kind of bravery. My disgust with some of the opposition’s rhetoric notwithstanding, supporting and applauding that bravery was the point I was trying to make.
ID: You claim to be a moderate, but everyone knows you’re a reporter. That makes you a socialist, by definition.
I assume you’re talking about the supposed liberal bias in the media. Look, I’ll admit I have a slight liberal leaning, and most reporters I know do, too. But we also have journalistic ethics, and believe in trying to tell the story the truest way possible. We take our role in society, that of informing our fellow citizens, very seriously. But for all of the talk of liberal bias, the fact of the matter is, most media owners and management have a conservative bias. The end result isn’t a perfect balance, but rather a mish-mash of competing biases and influences, self-censorship and subjects that never get fully fleshed out. But it’s wholly dishonest to say the media is liberally biased, because it’s much, much more complicated than that.
Besides, the most pervasive bias in the media has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with that other “P” word: profit. Media outlets usually have parent companies, and those parent companies don’t want their affiliates, or companies they work for, shown in a bad light. And since most of their competitors own media outlets, there’s the added worry of starting a media shooting war. And that says nothing of the dread of offending advertisers and sponsors. Bias in our media by reporters acting in good faith has much more to do with removing potentially offending reportage than adding controversial material.
Care to note any of those journalists not acting in good faith?
I wasn’t looking to, actually; I don’t want this to become a partisan eye-poking match. But the most recent example, and I don’t want to claim Sean Hannity is a journalist, because I think it’s fairly clear that he’s a commentator, but that’s the distinction. True bias usually comes from commentators, not journalists. But Hannity used several month old footage of a rally spliced in with footage of a rally that took place a few weeks ago, and claimed that 40,000 rather than 10,000 people showed up. That’s certainly an extreme example, but partisan reporting is very destructive, because it undermines trust, not just in the media, but in our fellow man. When we start doubting each other, we start devolving into paranoia.
That’s one of the reasons I really like NPR and Public Broadcasting. NPR is one of the more unbiased places to find information in the country. One of their smartest political analysts is Juan Williams, who also comments for Fox News, but you’d hardly know that from his reporting, because he’s a pretty consummate professional. I’m sure everyone at NPR has their own ideas, but NPR really does the best job I’ve seen of keeping its allegiances close to the vest.
Another useful news source is the BBC. They’re certainly a bit more liberally-biased than, say, CNN, but they’re also less US-biased, so you really get to see how the rest of the world looks at us. Not in the “Death to America” fanatical circles, but how steadfast but honest allies view the actions we take. I think it’s an important, indispensable perspective.
So you’re saying we should export all of our reporting jobs oversees, then?
Of course not. I’m saying that independent voices are invaluable. And in the current climate it’s difficult to have truly independent voices in a professional context. That’s why we’re on the internet now, and on an independent blog, because no matter where we went, whether it was Fox News or the Huggington Post, there were going to be editorial and advertising concerns trying to dictate content, and format, maybe even deciding what we could say and where.
We’ll be trying to bring you a new section of the interview every Tuesday. Some of the questions have already been prepared by the interviewer, but to ask Superman a question, leave a comment or send an email to DeathofSuperman@gmail.com.
Ignoble Dignitary: Of course. Please tell me that doesn’t surprise you.
S: No, but what did surprise me is how many people seemed to think I crossed a line, when after rereading my comments I think I struck a good balance, frankly. I was pissed off, and it certainly showed, but I don’t think I said anything I’d regret saying to an elected official of either stripe. Republicans have been relying on fear-based politics since at least September 11th; Democrats seem to adhere to the idea of politics as a gentleman’s game that effectively castrates their ability to govern barring supermajorities.
To put it into terms I’m perhaps more expert in: I’ve read a lot of speculation about what motivates a vigilante. And I’ll admit it can all be hard to reconcile. The idea of going it your own way, bucking the system, including the government-operated police force, that’s a very conservative action; especially when you’re protecting the status quo. But when you then take that and do it for a large swath of people, sharing with people the strengths and abilities you possess when they may not have been able to help themselves out of the situation, that’s a very progressive action. Personally, I’ve never had any problem with these two sometimes contradictory, sometimes complementary ideas, because I’m a moderate. But I also know liberal and conservative vigilantes as well, and I don’t think very many of them struggle with what is a background ideological question: they want to make a difference, and everything else is secondary.
But I think it also underscores an important dichotomy in this country, something that in the current polarized climate we lose. The struggle between certain aspects of our political poles is good. Our government and our nation works best when there’s a tug-of-war between big ideas and fiscal responsibility.
One of the big issues I take with the modern Republican party is they’re no longer for fiscal responsibility. They’ve become the party of tax cuts. If we want to pay less in taxes and have a smaller government, that’s a conversation we as a nation can have, but their plan lately has been to cut taxes without cutting expenses and let future generations pick up the tab. That’s why when they complain about a bailout they helped engineer, and a stimulus package they refused to participate in, both of which economists of all political stripes agree have helped soften the current economic crisis, I have trouble taking them seriously.
I have legitimate concerns about the way that the bailout and stimulus were carried out, but if Republicans wanted things done differently, they could have- no, they should have, participated in the process and done what they could to steer either in a direction they wanted.
ID: Like they’re doing with the health reform debate now?
S: No. I don’t mean screaming at the top of their lungs about half-truths and made-up concerns, nor making a half-hearted offer at an alternative bill, I mean actually legislating. Republicans say they’d rather have an incremental bill rather than the one Reid has written. If they were willing to bargain in good faith, they could very well get concessions from the Democratic majority; realistically, the Democrats don’t want to be hung out on a limb for this: it’s already slow to implement, and half of them could very well be out of office by the time Americans feel the effects of the bill. Of course, assuming the Republicans were willing to play ball, the problem with incrementalism is that tomorrow never comes.
ID: That was either deep or you were speaking like a politician.
S: Somewhere in between, I think. But just like cuts to Medicare doctors that are postponed every year by Congress without fail, painful but necessary reforms to the rest of healthcare could just be postponed indefinitely.
Um, on the subject of things I got chewed out over, there were also some women, my wife included, who took issue with me on the revised mammogram and pap smear guidelines. I wasn’t endorsing the findings, and I might even say we should get a second opinion, because I understand, as someone whose mother was diagnosed early with cervical cancer and survived, how important early screening can be; all I was trying to say is we don’t want politicians deciding who gets what treatment based on what criteria. That decision should be left to doctors and scientists who are experts in their fields, and use the best of their professional judgment to set guidelines; I don’t want to make that call any more than I think politicians should.
And I hate to turn this interview into a blog, but I have a quote I’d like to throw in there, from somebody who’s actually read the bill: “This year’s health reform legislation has often been criticized for being health insurance reform rather than health care reform, and for not doing enough to control the cost of health care. Those who offer these criticisms have obviously not read the bills or even tried to understand them.” And that’s my problem with the current Republican party in a nutshell: they criticize without understanding, to the sole purpose of elevating themselves.
And I want to clarify that I mean the Republican party leadership, and those who claim to speak for conservatives in the country. I don’t doubt the good will of a third of the American people, more if you count conservative-leaning independents; but their leadership have lost their way, or as I suspect, have forsaken their way for a road more politically advantageous.
I have no real love for the Democratic Party; the Democrats fail me as often as they make me happy, but at least sometimes they have the courage to stand up and say, often to people who would buy and pay for them, that there is an injustice that they want to right. I think healthcare reform is one of those fights, and I’m not endorsing every action they’ve taken, I’m not endorsing their outcome, but just the fact that they stood up to do something that matters for the American people, at the quite real cost of their power- that takes a kind of bravery. My disgust with some of the opposition’s rhetoric notwithstanding, supporting and applauding that bravery was the point I was trying to make.
ID: You claim to be a moderate, but everyone knows you’re a reporter. That makes you a socialist, by definition.
I assume you’re talking about the supposed liberal bias in the media. Look, I’ll admit I have a slight liberal leaning, and most reporters I know do, too. But we also have journalistic ethics, and believe in trying to tell the story the truest way possible. We take our role in society, that of informing our fellow citizens, very seriously. But for all of the talk of liberal bias, the fact of the matter is, most media owners and management have a conservative bias. The end result isn’t a perfect balance, but rather a mish-mash of competing biases and influences, self-censorship and subjects that never get fully fleshed out. But it’s wholly dishonest to say the media is liberally biased, because it’s much, much more complicated than that.
Besides, the most pervasive bias in the media has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with that other “P” word: profit. Media outlets usually have parent companies, and those parent companies don’t want their affiliates, or companies they work for, shown in a bad light. And since most of their competitors own media outlets, there’s the added worry of starting a media shooting war. And that says nothing of the dread of offending advertisers and sponsors. Bias in our media by reporters acting in good faith has much more to do with removing potentially offending reportage than adding controversial material.
Care to note any of those journalists not acting in good faith?
I wasn’t looking to, actually; I don’t want this to become a partisan eye-poking match. But the most recent example, and I don’t want to claim Sean Hannity is a journalist, because I think it’s fairly clear that he’s a commentator, but that’s the distinction. True bias usually comes from commentators, not journalists. But Hannity used several month old footage of a rally spliced in with footage of a rally that took place a few weeks ago, and claimed that 40,000 rather than 10,000 people showed up. That’s certainly an extreme example, but partisan reporting is very destructive, because it undermines trust, not just in the media, but in our fellow man. When we start doubting each other, we start devolving into paranoia.
That’s one of the reasons I really like NPR and Public Broadcasting. NPR is one of the more unbiased places to find information in the country. One of their smartest political analysts is Juan Williams, who also comments for Fox News, but you’d hardly know that from his reporting, because he’s a pretty consummate professional. I’m sure everyone at NPR has their own ideas, but NPR really does the best job I’ve seen of keeping its allegiances close to the vest.
Another useful news source is the BBC. They’re certainly a bit more liberally-biased than, say, CNN, but they’re also less US-biased, so you really get to see how the rest of the world looks at us. Not in the “Death to America” fanatical circles, but how steadfast but honest allies view the actions we take. I think it’s an important, indispensable perspective.
So you’re saying we should export all of our reporting jobs oversees, then?
Of course not. I’m saying that independent voices are invaluable. And in the current climate it’s difficult to have truly independent voices in a professional context. That’s why we’re on the internet now, and on an independent blog, because no matter where we went, whether it was Fox News or the Huggington Post, there were going to be editorial and advertising concerns trying to dictate content, and format, maybe even deciding what we could say and where.
We’ll be trying to bring you a new section of the interview every Tuesday. Some of the questions have already been prepared by the interviewer, but to ask Superman a question, leave a comment or send an email to DeathofSuperman@gmail.com.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Boobs
Superman: I’m a Democrat.
Impractical Dirigibles: Usually I have to poke you with questions, badger and threaten and once blackmail, to get you to reveal potentially aliening information. What gives?
S: I’ve always tried to retain a balanced, independent view of American politics; even when that failed, I always tried not to let my own thoughts or even leanings leak out. I know that certain people respect me, but I didn’t want to try to capitalize on that. I think, and maybe this comes from my parents, but that America is at its strongest when all of its citizens are thinking clearly for themselves.
ID: Pretty. But might I point out that that’s never actually happened.
S: Maybe not. But I didn’t want to become a part of the noise that’s corrupting independent thought, that parrots talking points as if they actually meant anything, that misuses statistics and science and weaves together misinformation and lies to manipulate people.
ID: So you were afraid of being somebody’s Sammy Davis, Jr.
S: In a nutshell, yeah. He voted democrat most of his life, but one back-scratching endorsement of Nixon later and he’s suddenly the poster-child for the Republican’s minority constituency.
ID: So you were worried about being the Democrat’s token alien, part of their big-tent strategy to go after extraterrestrials? Or were you just worried about them parlaying that into all aliens, such as illegal Mexican immigrants?
S: All joking aside, I don’t like politicking. I think politics is supremely important, but I don’t like how either party panders, how fast and loose they play with the truth. Even when I fully agree with a politician I often find myself disgusted with their methods.
ID: So why are you disgusted but fully agreeing with the Democrats now?
S: This particular week, you mean? Because of two cancer-screening suggestions that have come out recently. First, the United States Preventive Services Task Force revised guidelines for mammography, saying regular checks should begin at 50 rather than 40y, and should be done biannually rather than annually. Second, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed the recommendation for pap smears from annually to biannually.
The appropriate response for both parties should have been that they welcome any scientific evidence that will help American healthcare become more efficient and positively effect their constituents’ health and well-being. That’s it. They don’t need to endorse or deny the suggestions, because we do not want politicians battling scientists and doctors over control of our healthcare.
Instead, the fear-based, eternally-campaigning Republicans went on the offensive, and I mean that in both senses of the word, and used the nonbinding advice to drum up more fear about “rationing.” The embattled Democrats were of course forced to respond by saying that they disagree with the science, and won’t let it affect healthcare coverage. Both sides are acting like children, but in this case, the Republicans started it.
And they usually start it. The Republicans are consummate politicians, constantly on the attack, constantly fighting to preserve party unity and stamp out independent thought.
But rationing healthcare is a special case. Because healthcare is a limited commodity, it will always be rationed. We’ve been fortunate, in that our relative economic plenty has meant that the rationing isn’t always visible, but it exists, and at current it is controlled by insurance companies. It’s flatly stupid to complain about government rationing when corporate rationing is the status quo. If that’s the only opposition you have, then you effectively have no grounds for opposition at all; you’re simply obstructing for the sake of political posturing.
Now if my choices are between Democrats who don’t always have the courage of their convictions, or Republicans whose only convictions seem to be the preservation of their own power, well, that’s a pretty easy choice to make.
ID: This all reminds me a bit of Jon Stewart’s interview with Lou Dobbs on the Daily Show.
S: I love Lou Dobbs. He’s Wrong, with a capital “W” on many if not most things, but he’s reasonable, rational. He’ll discuss with you why he’s Wrong, and why he thinks you’re wrong. I think his ideas are at this point coming from a slightly bent to the right curve, and thus don’t always conform to the strict by the facts ideology he sets out for himself, but at least you can follow his line of reasoning.
And it’s a shame to see him leaving CNN. I sincerely hope he doesn’t end up some place like Fox News, because while I think he’s sort of left the reservation, I think Fox, rather than letting him be the voice of reason, would encourage his fringer leanings, and we’d lose what’s useful of his voice in the national conversation.
ID: Could I get you to agree that Republicans are acting like boobs? It would actually help synthesize the two subjects under one title.
S: (sigh). Yes. Republicans are acting like boobs. So that would make you a Republican, right?
ID: Ooh, soiled by my own hubris.
We’ll be trying to bring you a new section of the interview every Tuesday. Some of the questions have already been prepared by the interviewer, but to ask Superman a question, leave a comment or send an email to DeathofSuperman@gmail.com.
Impractical Dirigibles: Usually I have to poke you with questions, badger and threaten and once blackmail, to get you to reveal potentially aliening information. What gives?
S: I’ve always tried to retain a balanced, independent view of American politics; even when that failed, I always tried not to let my own thoughts or even leanings leak out. I know that certain people respect me, but I didn’t want to try to capitalize on that. I think, and maybe this comes from my parents, but that America is at its strongest when all of its citizens are thinking clearly for themselves.
ID: Pretty. But might I point out that that’s never actually happened.
S: Maybe not. But I didn’t want to become a part of the noise that’s corrupting independent thought, that parrots talking points as if they actually meant anything, that misuses statistics and science and weaves together misinformation and lies to manipulate people.
ID: So you were afraid of being somebody’s Sammy Davis, Jr.
S: In a nutshell, yeah. He voted democrat most of his life, but one back-scratching endorsement of Nixon later and he’s suddenly the poster-child for the Republican’s minority constituency.
ID: So you were worried about being the Democrat’s token alien, part of their big-tent strategy to go after extraterrestrials? Or were you just worried about them parlaying that into all aliens, such as illegal Mexican immigrants?
S: All joking aside, I don’t like politicking. I think politics is supremely important, but I don’t like how either party panders, how fast and loose they play with the truth. Even when I fully agree with a politician I often find myself disgusted with their methods.
ID: So why are you disgusted but fully agreeing with the Democrats now?
S: This particular week, you mean? Because of two cancer-screening suggestions that have come out recently. First, the United States Preventive Services Task Force revised guidelines for mammography, saying regular checks should begin at 50 rather than 40y, and should be done biannually rather than annually. Second, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed the recommendation for pap smears from annually to biannually.
The appropriate response for both parties should have been that they welcome any scientific evidence that will help American healthcare become more efficient and positively effect their constituents’ health and well-being. That’s it. They don’t need to endorse or deny the suggestions, because we do not want politicians battling scientists and doctors over control of our healthcare.
Instead, the fear-based, eternally-campaigning Republicans went on the offensive, and I mean that in both senses of the word, and used the nonbinding advice to drum up more fear about “rationing.” The embattled Democrats were of course forced to respond by saying that they disagree with the science, and won’t let it affect healthcare coverage. Both sides are acting like children, but in this case, the Republicans started it.
And they usually start it. The Republicans are consummate politicians, constantly on the attack, constantly fighting to preserve party unity and stamp out independent thought.
But rationing healthcare is a special case. Because healthcare is a limited commodity, it will always be rationed. We’ve been fortunate, in that our relative economic plenty has meant that the rationing isn’t always visible, but it exists, and at current it is controlled by insurance companies. It’s flatly stupid to complain about government rationing when corporate rationing is the status quo. If that’s the only opposition you have, then you effectively have no grounds for opposition at all; you’re simply obstructing for the sake of political posturing.
Now if my choices are between Democrats who don’t always have the courage of their convictions, or Republicans whose only convictions seem to be the preservation of their own power, well, that’s a pretty easy choice to make.
ID: This all reminds me a bit of Jon Stewart’s interview with Lou Dobbs on the Daily Show.
S: I love Lou Dobbs. He’s Wrong, with a capital “W” on many if not most things, but he’s reasonable, rational. He’ll discuss with you why he’s Wrong, and why he thinks you’re wrong. I think his ideas are at this point coming from a slightly bent to the right curve, and thus don’t always conform to the strict by the facts ideology he sets out for himself, but at least you can follow his line of reasoning.
And it’s a shame to see him leaving CNN. I sincerely hope he doesn’t end up some place like Fox News, because while I think he’s sort of left the reservation, I think Fox, rather than letting him be the voice of reason, would encourage his fringer leanings, and we’d lose what’s useful of his voice in the national conversation.
ID: Could I get you to agree that Republicans are acting like boobs? It would actually help synthesize the two subjects under one title.
S: (sigh). Yes. Republicans are acting like boobs. So that would make you a Republican, right?
ID: Ooh, soiled by my own hubris.
We’ll be trying to bring you a new section of the interview every Tuesday. Some of the questions have already been prepared by the interviewer, but to ask Superman a question, leave a comment or send an email to DeathofSuperman@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)