Irascible Democrat: There’s something I’ve been dying to ask you, since your view of the current President has softened, while down-home vitriol at him seems to be ever-increasing. Plus, there was his Superman joke during the campaign. So what's your take on his presidency so far?
Superman: I’m a reporter, first and foremost, so I have to take umbrage a bit with your phrasing. There are people who are angry with the President, and some of them even have a point, but if you’re specifically bringing up the Tea Parties, or the people shouting at politicians who try to speak about health care or climate change- they’re in an obstructionist minority.
But again, some of them do have a point. A wide majority of people favor health care reform. When you ask them about any specific plan on any specific timeline, support drops to a little below half. I think the problem, particularly with health care, is that the public like their health circumstances today, and they're scared of things changing. But the reality is their circumstances are constantly changing, evolving. If current trends continue, without reform costs will continue to rise, and that will mean that some people will have to change to cheaper insurance, others will lose coverage entirely. So people want to freeze their insurance as it stands today- but that isn't really possible. The public is just scared, right now, which I think is largely the fault of that obstructionist minority I mentioned, but the administration hasn't effectively countered it, either.
ID: But overall, how do you rate the President?
S: I’m not going to give him a grade, or a thumbs up or down. But I’ll say one thing for the man and the administration he's built, that I think encompasses most of my feelings on the subject: he’s trying. Whatever your political feelings on what he’s attempting to do, whatever your favorite hobby horse, he’s attempting to do something about it. That was always the most damning charge against Bush, and Luthor after him, that they were terribly passive. They wanted to let the market sort things out, let someone else figure out a way to profit when things went wrong, rather than getting in with the resources at their disposal to help. And Obama, and the congressional leadership, they’re trying. They’re fighting the good fight.
Sometimes, with all the pies they have their hands in, things get necessarily back-burnered, but I think it’s unreasonable to think even a great president would be able to address every standing question in the nation at the same time.
Take Darfur. The League came out in a joint statement with President Bush's administration, declaring our belief that what was taking place in Darfur amounted to genocide. We also filed an amicus brief of our research efforts for the ICC. Now under international law, Bush was supposed to act to stop the genocide in Darfur once it was determined to be occurring. But Bush, and Luthor after him, seemed content with that, assuming someone else would deal with it effectively.
ID: Given your own non-interventionist approach, isn't that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?
S: The difference is slight, I'll grant you, but huge. First, the League is a collection of people from different nationalities, and are not signatories nor parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The CPPCG actually states in part that signatory nations have a responsibility to act against a genocide. Where the League lacks the mandate and the infrastructure, the U.S. does not. The U.S. under either Bush or Luthor could have assembled another coalition. Hell, the US could have devoted no resources whatsoever, and just called in Captain Atom, one of the few Captains in our circles who actually holds the rank legitimately- in the Air Force, specifically.
ID: Okay, so what's the difference then in current policy?
S: Admittedly, part of the change is that now there's a UN force in place, there's a warrant for genocide-related crimes out for [Sudanese President Omar al] Bashir from the ICC. But despite the fact that Darfur is at least in the process of making progress, he's still talking about it. And he's dispatched specific envoys tasked with aiding the situation. I think he could do more. I think, in private at least, he should mention Captain Atom, and the fact that one single air raid through the country could destroy upwards of 80% of the military infrastructure, and probably deliver Bashir into the waiting hands of the ICC. I think maybe Obama doesn't want to push that too hard, where he's using fear and threats as a proxy for diplomacy, and I think Darfur is one of those things that has been back-burnered in favor of pressing domestic concerns- but I think it's on his to-do list, whereas with Luthor and Bush I don't think it even registered as something they should think about acting on.
ID: Okay, what about GM?
S: I think, given the lousy set of circumstances, he’s done well enough. After all, it was the previous administration that first loaned GM billions of dollars. So when it came to choosing between letting that “investment” die- and letting all those jobs disappear- or sinking more capital into the company, I don’t think there was a good choice- so I think they tried to be practical.
ID: What about people upset about the lack of movement on “Don't ask, don't tell.”
S: I think it's still on the President's radar- it's just a difficult policy to replace with other things on the table. I think, also, he's a bit gunshy because of what happened to Clinton that originally led to the compromise that is “Don't ask.” I think it's again Obama choosing some priorities over others.
ID: Are you an apologist for the President?
S: I'm not an apologist for anyone, except occasionally myself- and even then, only when I feel I've genuinely erred. Besides which, these are your questions, which means either you were wanting me to fall the way I did, the other way, or, I suppose if you're that rare kind of genuinely curious reporter, then you were just interested in which way I eventually would fall.
ID: Okay, but if the next election were tomorrow, would you vote to reelect him?
S: I don't know- that depends on my options. If all the Republicans are offering is Palin, Romney, Huckabee, then I'd take anyone else with a pulse and a synapse or two- which would definitely include the President. If Al Gore decides to challenge as the father of a new independent party, running on a platform of genuine environmental revolution- things like mandating recyclable containers for all food products- then I don't know. I always really liked the title “man of tomorrow,” so if there were an election then, I hope I'd be looking towards the future, and who was going to get us to the best one possible.
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.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Kryptonian Medicine
Iguana Don: All right, for those of you joining us at home, the office, or wherever you read your internet interviews, this is part deux of our discussion of health care- which began with a “one thing you could fix” kind of question. We spoke for a moment off the record- full disclosure: through a bathroom door, and I’ve learned to never have burritos before an interview- but I’d like you to nutshell everything we talked about.
Superman: I suppose, and I don’t know that I was clear enough, that what I was getting at was putting science into our application of medicine. Science goes into developing all kinds of new understandings and treatments, but for whatever reason, science doesn’t seem to be applied to the administration of medicine. We don’t have good, hard data on what forms of treatment work best, and under what circumstances. For just about any ailment there’s a number of different treatments, and, with the exception of generics, it really isn’t a po-tay-to po-tah-to difference between them.
ID: Let me be clear: are you saying that maybe people aren’t worth what we spend on medication?
S: I’m saying that if a name brand pill will cure a patient in three days instead of four, but costs twice as much, it would be worth asking as a nation if our money’s better spent saving twice as many people a little more slowly. And even that’s probably a bit of a mischaracterization, because most generics are just as effective.
The main issue I see, and the waters are further muddied by lobbying and direct-market advertising of medications, but there’s a whole ocean of pills, and we test them to make sure they’re effective at what they’re aiming to do, and we monitor and label them for side effects. But what we haven’t done previously is comparative studies. Sure, atorvastatin might carry some negative side effects like headache, weakness and chest pain, but if it has twice as good an outcome as another drug, that’s what could make a huge difference. And it isn’t just in savings in unused medicine and procedures, but by getting things right the first time, by getting people the best possible care early, we’re preventing more expensive procedures, like a bypass, later on, and likely helping people live longer, happier lives
ID: Okay, time for you to be a bastard. You’ve told me all the “if I were God of health care,” pie in the sky changes you could bring about, but what’s the one hardest thing about health care?
S: It’s a resource, and no resource is unlimited. There can, should, and must be some form of limits on how we utilize health care. I think effectiveness studies are a good first step- though I can’t honestly believe that the insurance industry hasn’t been doing this all along as a cost-effectiveness measure- that in and of itself is proof of a poorly competitive industry. But I think there are likely tough questions ahead. I think rationing is something that insurers currently do, and who amongst us haven’t heard horror stories of after-the-fact denial of claims? But we may be butting up against the glass ceiling of what we can afford to pay for health insurance.
Premiums have virtually doubled since 2000; they’re predicted to double again by 2020. The average American premiums cost $7900; most people never see that cost, because a lot of that tab is picked up by their employers- and I’m going to ballpark this, since the figure I have is actually for a family- but in the last ten years workers picked up an extra $600 more on their premiums. Most employers say they’re tapped out, so if costs do double by 2020 to $15800 per person, then that whole $7900 increase will fall on the workers.
To put it another way, world per capita GDP per day is about $20. The American premiums per person per day amounts to $21.65- we’re already spending more on our health care than many people in the world have to live on every day- so there’s already rationing- just right now, it’s being rationed to the US and other wealthy nations. And I don’t mean to be playing the fear card, here, but as the US faces more competition from emerging economies like India and China, and if health care costs continue to rise- how much longer do you think we or anybody will be able to afford health care?
To bring back up prevention and healthy diet for just a moment, obesity-related disease costs the American health system about $90 billion dollars a year, of which about half is already covered by Medicare and Medicaid- in part because obesity is more prevalent in the poor and elderly. So if we were able to curb that, we’d be nearly halfway to paying for the admittedly modest reform efforts Obama is pursuing. Closely related to obesity is diabetes. Diabetes costs about $116 billion per year, again, about half of which is covered by the existing government programs. It’s true, diabetes is a bit stickier- since there are other factors including genetics at play, but if we could eliminate a significant portion of new diabetes cases through better diet counseling, just between those two preventative health efforts, we could pay for the Obama plan. And that’s ignoring that diabetes is credited with the loss of $56 billion in lost productivity due to increased usage of sick days- that’s money that would be helping the economy, a portion of which would return to the government in the form of taxes.
Sorry about the barrage of figures- I’ve obviously been researching for a story Perry has me writing. But what I’m trying to illustrate, and hopefully the science geek love of numbers my father gave me doesn’t obscure it too much, is that there has to be some limit. It might come down to the fact that we’ll be forced to decide between paying for a heart transplant for a 40 year old patient versus a 90 year old- but that’s a decision forced on us by higher costs- it’s the same decision private insurers would be forced to make, as well- though personally I think the decision is always best left in the hands of doctors whenever possible. But there is a line- there has to be. The difference is, I’d like to make that decision, since I’ve no profit motive at all, and no ulterior motive save for seeing the people I care about protected. Failing that, I think I’d prefer a nonprofit motive to a profit one, when it comes to making this hard decision.
ID: How much of your stance here is affected by your cancer?
S: That’s a very fair question- though of course I’m sure you know it’s the old journalistic ethics question: how biased are you? And of course, the honest answer to that question is I don’t know. You can never be sure, because it suffers from the observer effect as much as anything, but yes, absolutely, dying makes me realize that, particularly the slow, ponderous death from cancer is not something I’d wish on even my bitterest enemy. I think we can fix our health care system, but I do think the clock is ticking- and even if my prognosis is wrong systemically, the clock is ticking for people out there, whose lives could be saved or made drastically better.
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.
Superman: I suppose, and I don’t know that I was clear enough, that what I was getting at was putting science into our application of medicine. Science goes into developing all kinds of new understandings and treatments, but for whatever reason, science doesn’t seem to be applied to the administration of medicine. We don’t have good, hard data on what forms of treatment work best, and under what circumstances. For just about any ailment there’s a number of different treatments, and, with the exception of generics, it really isn’t a po-tay-to po-tah-to difference between them.
ID: Let me be clear: are you saying that maybe people aren’t worth what we spend on medication?
S: I’m saying that if a name brand pill will cure a patient in three days instead of four, but costs twice as much, it would be worth asking as a nation if our money’s better spent saving twice as many people a little more slowly. And even that’s probably a bit of a mischaracterization, because most generics are just as effective.
The main issue I see, and the waters are further muddied by lobbying and direct-market advertising of medications, but there’s a whole ocean of pills, and we test them to make sure they’re effective at what they’re aiming to do, and we monitor and label them for side effects. But what we haven’t done previously is comparative studies. Sure, atorvastatin might carry some negative side effects like headache, weakness and chest pain, but if it has twice as good an outcome as another drug, that’s what could make a huge difference. And it isn’t just in savings in unused medicine and procedures, but by getting things right the first time, by getting people the best possible care early, we’re preventing more expensive procedures, like a bypass, later on, and likely helping people live longer, happier lives
ID: Okay, time for you to be a bastard. You’ve told me all the “if I were God of health care,” pie in the sky changes you could bring about, but what’s the one hardest thing about health care?
S: It’s a resource, and no resource is unlimited. There can, should, and must be some form of limits on how we utilize health care. I think effectiveness studies are a good first step- though I can’t honestly believe that the insurance industry hasn’t been doing this all along as a cost-effectiveness measure- that in and of itself is proof of a poorly competitive industry. But I think there are likely tough questions ahead. I think rationing is something that insurers currently do, and who amongst us haven’t heard horror stories of after-the-fact denial of claims? But we may be butting up against the glass ceiling of what we can afford to pay for health insurance.
Premiums have virtually doubled since 2000; they’re predicted to double again by 2020. The average American premiums cost $7900; most people never see that cost, because a lot of that tab is picked up by their employers- and I’m going to ballpark this, since the figure I have is actually for a family- but in the last ten years workers picked up an extra $600 more on their premiums. Most employers say they’re tapped out, so if costs do double by 2020 to $15800 per person, then that whole $7900 increase will fall on the workers.
To put it another way, world per capita GDP per day is about $20. The American premiums per person per day amounts to $21.65- we’re already spending more on our health care than many people in the world have to live on every day- so there’s already rationing- just right now, it’s being rationed to the US and other wealthy nations. And I don’t mean to be playing the fear card, here, but as the US faces more competition from emerging economies like India and China, and if health care costs continue to rise- how much longer do you think we or anybody will be able to afford health care?
To bring back up prevention and healthy diet for just a moment, obesity-related disease costs the American health system about $90 billion dollars a year, of which about half is already covered by Medicare and Medicaid- in part because obesity is more prevalent in the poor and elderly. So if we were able to curb that, we’d be nearly halfway to paying for the admittedly modest reform efforts Obama is pursuing. Closely related to obesity is diabetes. Diabetes costs about $116 billion per year, again, about half of which is covered by the existing government programs. It’s true, diabetes is a bit stickier- since there are other factors including genetics at play, but if we could eliminate a significant portion of new diabetes cases through better diet counseling, just between those two preventative health efforts, we could pay for the Obama plan. And that’s ignoring that diabetes is credited with the loss of $56 billion in lost productivity due to increased usage of sick days- that’s money that would be helping the economy, a portion of which would return to the government in the form of taxes.
Sorry about the barrage of figures- I’ve obviously been researching for a story Perry has me writing. But what I’m trying to illustrate, and hopefully the science geek love of numbers my father gave me doesn’t obscure it too much, is that there has to be some limit. It might come down to the fact that we’ll be forced to decide between paying for a heart transplant for a 40 year old patient versus a 90 year old- but that’s a decision forced on us by higher costs- it’s the same decision private insurers would be forced to make, as well- though personally I think the decision is always best left in the hands of doctors whenever possible. But there is a line- there has to be. The difference is, I’d like to make that decision, since I’ve no profit motive at all, and no ulterior motive save for seeing the people I care about protected. Failing that, I think I’d prefer a nonprofit motive to a profit one, when it comes to making this hard decision.
ID: How much of your stance here is affected by your cancer?
S: That’s a very fair question- though of course I’m sure you know it’s the old journalistic ethics question: how biased are you? And of course, the honest answer to that question is I don’t know. You can never be sure, because it suffers from the observer effect as much as anything, but yes, absolutely, dying makes me realize that, particularly the slow, ponderous death from cancer is not something I’d wish on even my bitterest enemy. I think we can fix our health care system, but I do think the clock is ticking- and even if my prognosis is wrong systemically, the clock is ticking for people out there, whose lives could be saved or made drastically better.
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.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Dr. Kent
Icky Dick: I want to bounce off of our discussion last week of the TED conference, and ask you a silly question. If you didn’t have the amazing abilities you have now, but had the ability to fix one thing in the world, big or small, what would it be?
Superman: Hmm. That is a silly question, though it’s kind of TEDish in its myopic grandiosity… but it’s also a sly attempt to keep me within the realm of fickle politics. Do you play chess? You should try playing Bruce sometime…
ID: I’ve been known to lose at chess on more than one occasion. But I’d be happy to play chess with Bruce, so long as our conversation was on the record.
S: I don’t know that I’d hold my breath on that- even if I don’t really technically need to breath.
But to answer your question… I’m tempted to stymie you and say “farm equipment,” which would only partially be a joke. There is something almost spiritual about using your hands to fix something that will help feed people- there’s an uncommon nobility to that, and I think it would send you scrambling for further topics to this discussion. But I have trouble accepting the smallness of that- it would be too selfish, too personally rewarding while bearing limited good for everyone else, the fed people notwithstanding. And I like to think I’m a practical person- a pragmatist. So the real question, then, is what’s the most important problem in the world right now- or perhaps, rather than importance, the one problem in the world that has the best chance of being addressed.
There are a lot of problems mankind’s butting up against: war, pollution, famine, poverty, clean water, disease- to name just a few. So maybe my answer is simply cheating, since it touches on all of them, but I suppose, while we may not often think of it in these terms, it is a pretty basic necessity, and that’s health.
ID: Hmm. So what do you think of Obama’s plan, then?
S: I wasn’t done- but I’ll indulge you for a moment. I think, like most of the public, I can agree that one, our health care system doesn’t work like it should, and two, I have no idea what the impact of Obama’s plan is going to be. I think the truth of it is that neither can he- what he’s doing is tackling the mammoth industry in this country, and the one where all of us stand to lose or gain depending on the outcome. Health reform is necessary and worth attempting- I just hope that politics and the necessary uncertainty of change don’t get too much in the way.
But American health care is really too small- and that’s not to disparage my countrymen, merely pointing out that we’re less than 5% of the world’s population, and not everything revolves around us. Though, I suppose, at the center of this is the fact that Americans are disproportionately disadvantaged as Western nations go, so health reform would disproportionately advantage us, too.
But let me explain first what I mean about health tying into everything. Solid health reform would focus on the really easy things to fix first. As an example, more than enough food is produced in the modern world to feed the population, but it is used in such a way that food produced is more costly, less healthy, and spread less efficiently than it should be. Health reform would include better nutrituional planning in terms of what we put into our bodies and how we get it there. Health reform should also include access to clean drinking water, and some form of sewage system. These are really just part of the foundation of good health reform- and the most basic kind of preventative medicine.
And to bring back TED for a moment, providing research into cheaper eyewear, to the end of eventually supplying eyeglasses to that billion people without them- imagine how many geniuses we might be missing out on simply because they cannot see. Germany at the start of World War Two had about 80 million people, but Hitler’s policies ended up driving out some of the world’s greatest minds, Einstein, Felix Bloch, Max Born, Hans Bethe, and physicists including what would eventually become the core of the Manhattan Project. Imagine if that figure held, that once in every eighty million we got an Einstein, a Bloch and a Born- now imagine there’s a one in six chance that they wouldn’t be able to see well enough to change the world. That’s basic visual care- a pair of eyeglasses, for God’s sake, and the benefits could be incalculable.
Sorry, I was getting tangential for a moment, there. Anyway, I’ve never been one to argue green technology from a karmic standpoint, or even from a global warming one. I remember a conversation I sort of stumbled into between Bruce [Wayne] and Ted Kord, and while they were both arguing the practical and economic reasoning, I just said, “It’s poison- industry is making the planet a little more hostile to human life every single day.” Ironically enough I followed that with, “I don’t know about the two of you, but I plan on living a very long life, and it would be nice if the planet were still pretty and teeming with life for the duration.” And I don’t take any credit, in fact, if anything, I think they were both just trying to figure out how to implement green strategies, but Kord and Wayne Industries are two of the greenest companies on the planet- and just maybe pollution isn’t causing more asthma and other breathing related diseases, but it’s still several birds with one very self-serving stone.
The connection to poverty’s admittedly a little shakier, and I don’t think that health reform will fix bad economies, or even resuscitate good economies going through a bad streak, but it will help. Health costs are strangling virtually every first world nation, and lead to rationing in others. And it’s also possible we could eliminate some of that poverty by spreading out production into other nations where production costs would be lower, which would create some better paying jobs in poorer countries, and as an added side-effect, the carbon-footprint of medicines and equipment would shrink as well.
Conflict- war, violence- is one of the biggest problems on the planet, but what does conflict tie into? Disparity and inequality. Someone believes someone else has something they should, so they’re willing to fight for it- that’s in a nutshell. Of course, that dynamic is distorted by the fact that most of the time the people benefiting in a conflict are no longer those in the line of fire, so there’s really not the same cost-benefit at play. The people who fight wars in the last fifty years have usually been the poor and disadvantaged.
But in a world where people are going to live 70 years, and they’re going to be healthy and relatively happy, that comes into consideration. If I’m twenty and have AIDS in a country I can't find work let alone afford antiretrovirals then I’m more likely to make poorer, rasher decisions than someone looking at another 50 years of life and prosperity. War doesn’t end, but the pool of proxy soldiers available for pennies or vulnerable to idealogic posturing gets shallower- and you start seeing those greedy people who try to manipulate others into fighting for their benefit actually having to risk for what they’re trying to take- it becomes a different game.
The thing is, if you add up the amount of people who are suffering because of war, or even poverty, even if you could address the underlying social and economic issues, you’ll only help them incrementally, because this one issue looms so large- because the cost of healthcare and its subsequent rationing in poorer countries distorts everything else. Even if you increased global wealth per capita to the level of the American middle class, you’d still have a health crisis. But if you can drive down costs- then healthcare becomes cheaper for everyone- and as industrializing nations’ economies develop, they’ll be grandfathered into a more efficient health care system.
ID: Wow, you’ve gotten knee-deep into this and we’re already through our allotted time. Um, we’re going to keep recording, but I’m going to stop it here so I can start transcribing, and we can try and get this thing out sort of on time (since regular on time isn’t in my otherwise robust vocabulary).
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.
Superman: Hmm. That is a silly question, though it’s kind of TEDish in its myopic grandiosity… but it’s also a sly attempt to keep me within the realm of fickle politics. Do you play chess? You should try playing Bruce sometime…
ID: I’ve been known to lose at chess on more than one occasion. But I’d be happy to play chess with Bruce, so long as our conversation was on the record.
S: I don’t know that I’d hold my breath on that- even if I don’t really technically need to breath.
But to answer your question… I’m tempted to stymie you and say “farm equipment,” which would only partially be a joke. There is something almost spiritual about using your hands to fix something that will help feed people- there’s an uncommon nobility to that, and I think it would send you scrambling for further topics to this discussion. But I have trouble accepting the smallness of that- it would be too selfish, too personally rewarding while bearing limited good for everyone else, the fed people notwithstanding. And I like to think I’m a practical person- a pragmatist. So the real question, then, is what’s the most important problem in the world right now- or perhaps, rather than importance, the one problem in the world that has the best chance of being addressed.
There are a lot of problems mankind’s butting up against: war, pollution, famine, poverty, clean water, disease- to name just a few. So maybe my answer is simply cheating, since it touches on all of them, but I suppose, while we may not often think of it in these terms, it is a pretty basic necessity, and that’s health.
ID: Hmm. So what do you think of Obama’s plan, then?
S: I wasn’t done- but I’ll indulge you for a moment. I think, like most of the public, I can agree that one, our health care system doesn’t work like it should, and two, I have no idea what the impact of Obama’s plan is going to be. I think the truth of it is that neither can he- what he’s doing is tackling the mammoth industry in this country, and the one where all of us stand to lose or gain depending on the outcome. Health reform is necessary and worth attempting- I just hope that politics and the necessary uncertainty of change don’t get too much in the way.
But American health care is really too small- and that’s not to disparage my countrymen, merely pointing out that we’re less than 5% of the world’s population, and not everything revolves around us. Though, I suppose, at the center of this is the fact that Americans are disproportionately disadvantaged as Western nations go, so health reform would disproportionately advantage us, too.
But let me explain first what I mean about health tying into everything. Solid health reform would focus on the really easy things to fix first. As an example, more than enough food is produced in the modern world to feed the population, but it is used in such a way that food produced is more costly, less healthy, and spread less efficiently than it should be. Health reform would include better nutrituional planning in terms of what we put into our bodies and how we get it there. Health reform should also include access to clean drinking water, and some form of sewage system. These are really just part of the foundation of good health reform- and the most basic kind of preventative medicine.
And to bring back TED for a moment, providing research into cheaper eyewear, to the end of eventually supplying eyeglasses to that billion people without them- imagine how many geniuses we might be missing out on simply because they cannot see. Germany at the start of World War Two had about 80 million people, but Hitler’s policies ended up driving out some of the world’s greatest minds, Einstein, Felix Bloch, Max Born, Hans Bethe, and physicists including what would eventually become the core of the Manhattan Project. Imagine if that figure held, that once in every eighty million we got an Einstein, a Bloch and a Born- now imagine there’s a one in six chance that they wouldn’t be able to see well enough to change the world. That’s basic visual care- a pair of eyeglasses, for God’s sake, and the benefits could be incalculable.
Sorry, I was getting tangential for a moment, there. Anyway, I’ve never been one to argue green technology from a karmic standpoint, or even from a global warming one. I remember a conversation I sort of stumbled into between Bruce [Wayne] and Ted Kord, and while they were both arguing the practical and economic reasoning, I just said, “It’s poison- industry is making the planet a little more hostile to human life every single day.” Ironically enough I followed that with, “I don’t know about the two of you, but I plan on living a very long life, and it would be nice if the planet were still pretty and teeming with life for the duration.” And I don’t take any credit, in fact, if anything, I think they were both just trying to figure out how to implement green strategies, but Kord and Wayne Industries are two of the greenest companies on the planet- and just maybe pollution isn’t causing more asthma and other breathing related diseases, but it’s still several birds with one very self-serving stone.
The connection to poverty’s admittedly a little shakier, and I don’t think that health reform will fix bad economies, or even resuscitate good economies going through a bad streak, but it will help. Health costs are strangling virtually every first world nation, and lead to rationing in others. And it’s also possible we could eliminate some of that poverty by spreading out production into other nations where production costs would be lower, which would create some better paying jobs in poorer countries, and as an added side-effect, the carbon-footprint of medicines and equipment would shrink as well.
Conflict- war, violence- is one of the biggest problems on the planet, but what does conflict tie into? Disparity and inequality. Someone believes someone else has something they should, so they’re willing to fight for it- that’s in a nutshell. Of course, that dynamic is distorted by the fact that most of the time the people benefiting in a conflict are no longer those in the line of fire, so there’s really not the same cost-benefit at play. The people who fight wars in the last fifty years have usually been the poor and disadvantaged.
But in a world where people are going to live 70 years, and they’re going to be healthy and relatively happy, that comes into consideration. If I’m twenty and have AIDS in a country I can't find work let alone afford antiretrovirals then I’m more likely to make poorer, rasher decisions than someone looking at another 50 years of life and prosperity. War doesn’t end, but the pool of proxy soldiers available for pennies or vulnerable to idealogic posturing gets shallower- and you start seeing those greedy people who try to manipulate others into fighting for their benefit actually having to risk for what they’re trying to take- it becomes a different game.
The thing is, if you add up the amount of people who are suffering because of war, or even poverty, even if you could address the underlying social and economic issues, you’ll only help them incrementally, because this one issue looms so large- because the cost of healthcare and its subsequent rationing in poorer countries distorts everything else. Even if you increased global wealth per capita to the level of the American middle class, you’d still have a health crisis. But if you can drive down costs- then healthcare becomes cheaper for everyone- and as industrializing nations’ economies develop, they’ll be grandfathered into a more efficient health care system.
ID: Wow, you’ve gotten knee-deep into this and we’re already through our allotted time. Um, we’re going to keep recording, but I’m going to stop it here so I can start transcribing, and we can try and get this thing out sort of on time (since regular on time isn’t in my otherwise robust vocabulary).
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.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Man of Tomorrow
Igor Decision: I got a message you wanted to talk to me about Ted. I presume you meant Ted Kord, CEO of Kord Industries, and, I don’t think I’m shoving him out of the closet as the Blue Beetle and a member of your Justice League.
S: Actually, I was talking about the TED conference, Technology, Entertainment, Design- though Ted is usually one of the most eagerly anticipated speakers at every TED.
ID: You did that deliberately to hurt my head, didn’t you?
S: Maybe a little.
ID: So what’s TED?
S: TED is where the future starts, or, to use their own advertising line, it’s the home of “Ideas worth spreading.”
ID: So exactly how much have TED paid you to plug them?
S: Nothing. I wouldn’t accept a penny from them- they’re doing important work, because what the conference is doing is creating a fertile soil for ideas to grow. Aside from the conference itself, which actually took place last week, they put all of the lectures up online for free.
ID: I think I read something about that on the BBC. Wasn’t this TEDGlobal?
S: Yeah, it’s the international companion to the TED conference, and was held this year in Oxford. And it’s run by the nonprofit Sapling Foundation.
ID: It’s sort of rare to see you this excited by something.
S: Rare for you, maybe, but these are the kinds of things I can get passionate about. I’m usually relegated to helping people one at a time with my hands, but I watch people like Ted Kord get up on stage every year- this year he was showing a version of his flying Bug car that runs on 95 percent solar power- the other 5 percent is still jet fuel, but still, it moves at nearly the speed of sound on 95 percent solar power. It’s not just the future of personal conveyance, but shipping and transport- you know, once he figures out how to get the cost of production a bit below 2 billion. But at TED people like Ted (sorry, couldn’t help myself) get to stand up and talk about designs and innovations that will touch thousands if not millions of lives- and not some time off in the near and distant future, but as soon as tomorrow.
ID: Okay. I’m going to take a flying leap and say you weren’t able to see most of the talks live and in person, that you’re probably one of those people downloading the videos and watching when you can, but since it’s been a week, give us your highlights.
S: There were quite a few, but for starters, there was Dan Pink’s talk about incentives, and how incentives are great for mechanical work, but the moment even rudimentary cognitive skills are involved, incentives lead to worse outcomes. Magnus Larsson talked about a way to stop desertification- the fact that the world’s deserts are slowly increasing in size, decreasing the arable land in the world- by using bacteria to turn sand dunes into stone- and the possibility of using the stone dunes for housing. And there was Eric Giler’s WiTricity, which allows wireless electrical transmission.
ID: This is normally the part where I’d interrupt to tease you about being “the Man of Tomorrow,” but honestly, it’s refreshing to see you geeking out this hard over something. But for those of us who aren’t regular TEDites
S: TEDsters.
ID: Whatever, since you’re a reporter, I imagine you’ve got some things scrawled in a notebook, so give us a favorite quote.
S: Uh, I think my favorite quote of the conference was, “The problem with stereotypes isn’t that they’re untrue, it’s that they are incomplete and make one story the only story.” That was from Nigerian storyteller Chimamanda Adichie. It also actually echoes something Alain de Botton said, which, when out of context, parallels Adichie, “A snob is someone who takes a small part of you and uses that to paint a complete picture of who you are.”
ID: Hmm… I think I’m going to interrupt you, there, and turn the conversation from stereotyping to profiling. Obama, who you seem to broadly approve of, seems to have stepped into a cowpie over his comments related to the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, a professor of African American studies at Harvard. Just for those who aren’t Daily Planet RSS feed fiends, Gates was arrested while trying to unjam his front door after proving that it was indeed his home- reportedly for disorderly conduct. The incident was at least partially racially charged, if only because Gates brought it up at the time. As someone who has been an outsider, and someone who really wants to see America live up to its potential, and because I want to, like the President, completely destroy your point for a moment by going off topic onto a racial issue, what’s your take on it?
S: You know, like yourself, I’m a bit of a news junky. I’ve been following Sarah Palin and the Gates affair far more closely than I’d like to admit. But honestly, I think it’s all been blown out of proportion. I think it would be ridiculous not to admit that racial politics come into play whenever a white officer confronts an African American- that’s just a part of the culture and social history of the country. The degree to which it played a role is arguable, but is in this case, at least, unimportant. The officer probably did act stupidly- so did Gates. It’s never a good idea to be confrontational with police officers. And I’m not saying a white officer is never justified in arresting a black man for disorderly conduct- I’m saying the police should have been more careful in their application of the law, because I don’t think the described behavior amounts to disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law. And when the President learned that his friend was arrested by a white officer under less than perfect circumstances, he felt the same sting and stigmas that African Americans have felt going back decades at least; in responding to that understandable personal feeling publicly, in stating that the officer acted stupidly, even though I think it’s pretty clear he did, the President himself acted stupidly. So really, you have three men acting stupidly, and unfortunately it happened in public- but they’re all people, and I think that’s where the story begins and ends.
ID: Okay, unlike the President, I’ll let you finish off on-topic; what was the most important part of the TED conference for you?
S: Thanks, I guess. But I think, for me, the most biggest moment came in the talk by Josh Silver, and for that one I was actually lucky enough to be in attendance, albeit in my more mild-mannered reporting persona. Silver asked the audience how many of us were wearing some kind of corrective lenses- glasses or contacts, and most of the audience raised their hands- including me, since as Clark Kent, and I still do it out of habit, I wear glasses.
And it’s not particularly surprising that most of our hands went up, since 60 percent of the world needs some sort of vision correction, but then he mentioned that, while we at the conference were fortunate enough to have the lenses we need, that a full 1 billion of people in the world don’t. A full billion people in the world can’t see as well as they should be able to- if that doesn’t strike you, then I- I just don’t know. Silver pioneered a pair of $19 eyeglasses that can be assembled by anyone anywhere in the world- but the catch, of course, is that many of the target users are surviving on $1 or less a day- so the price is still a bit steep.
And I remember the first time I ran into one of these issues, granted, not quite on this scale; it might have been antiretrovirals for a country in crisis, something like that, but I flew right to Bruce’s home and told him it was a simple problem he could solve with only a few hundred million dollars. And what struck me was he was aware of the problem, quoted me the figures I’d just found out about, that I’d been so excited to share, and then told me about the depth of the same problem in the country bordering it to the west, and then the same in the country bordering it to the east. “I could help,” he said, “but if I spend the money today, then I can’t put that money towards research and reform, where it will reap ten times the benefits in a few years’ time.”
And I’ll never forget what he said to me: “I envy, you, Clark. All that power, and you can’t fix the world, you can’t even really start. But me- I could solve a dozen problems- but there will always be more. So I can do the most good by damning millions of people to suffer in the short term.” It’s the only time I remember his voice cracking, when he said, “I truly envy your powerlessness.”
I found out later that he managed to help the country secure a loan through some contacts he has at the World Bank, and helped provide some generic antiretrovirals at what was almost certainly below cost. But he was right, and that’s why I wanted to talk about TED. Doing what I do, I could never really save the world. But people, ideas, innovation- that’s how the world changes.
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.
S: Actually, I was talking about the TED conference, Technology, Entertainment, Design- though Ted is usually one of the most eagerly anticipated speakers at every TED.
ID: You did that deliberately to hurt my head, didn’t you?
S: Maybe a little.
ID: So what’s TED?
S: TED is where the future starts, or, to use their own advertising line, it’s the home of “Ideas worth spreading.”
ID: So exactly how much have TED paid you to plug them?
S: Nothing. I wouldn’t accept a penny from them- they’re doing important work, because what the conference is doing is creating a fertile soil for ideas to grow. Aside from the conference itself, which actually took place last week, they put all of the lectures up online for free.
ID: I think I read something about that on the BBC. Wasn’t this TEDGlobal?
S: Yeah, it’s the international companion to the TED conference, and was held this year in Oxford. And it’s run by the nonprofit Sapling Foundation.
ID: It’s sort of rare to see you this excited by something.
S: Rare for you, maybe, but these are the kinds of things I can get passionate about. I’m usually relegated to helping people one at a time with my hands, but I watch people like Ted Kord get up on stage every year- this year he was showing a version of his flying Bug car that runs on 95 percent solar power- the other 5 percent is still jet fuel, but still, it moves at nearly the speed of sound on 95 percent solar power. It’s not just the future of personal conveyance, but shipping and transport- you know, once he figures out how to get the cost of production a bit below 2 billion. But at TED people like Ted (sorry, couldn’t help myself) get to stand up and talk about designs and innovations that will touch thousands if not millions of lives- and not some time off in the near and distant future, but as soon as tomorrow.
ID: Okay. I’m going to take a flying leap and say you weren’t able to see most of the talks live and in person, that you’re probably one of those people downloading the videos and watching when you can, but since it’s been a week, give us your highlights.
S: There were quite a few, but for starters, there was Dan Pink’s talk about incentives, and how incentives are great for mechanical work, but the moment even rudimentary cognitive skills are involved, incentives lead to worse outcomes. Magnus Larsson talked about a way to stop desertification- the fact that the world’s deserts are slowly increasing in size, decreasing the arable land in the world- by using bacteria to turn sand dunes into stone- and the possibility of using the stone dunes for housing. And there was Eric Giler’s WiTricity, which allows wireless electrical transmission.
ID: This is normally the part where I’d interrupt to tease you about being “the Man of Tomorrow,” but honestly, it’s refreshing to see you geeking out this hard over something. But for those of us who aren’t regular TEDites
S: TEDsters.
ID: Whatever, since you’re a reporter, I imagine you’ve got some things scrawled in a notebook, so give us a favorite quote.
S: Uh, I think my favorite quote of the conference was, “The problem with stereotypes isn’t that they’re untrue, it’s that they are incomplete and make one story the only story.” That was from Nigerian storyteller Chimamanda Adichie. It also actually echoes something Alain de Botton said, which, when out of context, parallels Adichie, “A snob is someone who takes a small part of you and uses that to paint a complete picture of who you are.”
ID: Hmm… I think I’m going to interrupt you, there, and turn the conversation from stereotyping to profiling. Obama, who you seem to broadly approve of, seems to have stepped into a cowpie over his comments related to the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, a professor of African American studies at Harvard. Just for those who aren’t Daily Planet RSS feed fiends, Gates was arrested while trying to unjam his front door after proving that it was indeed his home- reportedly for disorderly conduct. The incident was at least partially racially charged, if only because Gates brought it up at the time. As someone who has been an outsider, and someone who really wants to see America live up to its potential, and because I want to, like the President, completely destroy your point for a moment by going off topic onto a racial issue, what’s your take on it?
S: You know, like yourself, I’m a bit of a news junky. I’ve been following Sarah Palin and the Gates affair far more closely than I’d like to admit. But honestly, I think it’s all been blown out of proportion. I think it would be ridiculous not to admit that racial politics come into play whenever a white officer confronts an African American- that’s just a part of the culture and social history of the country. The degree to which it played a role is arguable, but is in this case, at least, unimportant. The officer probably did act stupidly- so did Gates. It’s never a good idea to be confrontational with police officers. And I’m not saying a white officer is never justified in arresting a black man for disorderly conduct- I’m saying the police should have been more careful in their application of the law, because I don’t think the described behavior amounts to disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law. And when the President learned that his friend was arrested by a white officer under less than perfect circumstances, he felt the same sting and stigmas that African Americans have felt going back decades at least; in responding to that understandable personal feeling publicly, in stating that the officer acted stupidly, even though I think it’s pretty clear he did, the President himself acted stupidly. So really, you have three men acting stupidly, and unfortunately it happened in public- but they’re all people, and I think that’s where the story begins and ends.
ID: Okay, unlike the President, I’ll let you finish off on-topic; what was the most important part of the TED conference for you?
S: Thanks, I guess. But I think, for me, the most biggest moment came in the talk by Josh Silver, and for that one I was actually lucky enough to be in attendance, albeit in my more mild-mannered reporting persona. Silver asked the audience how many of us were wearing some kind of corrective lenses- glasses or contacts, and most of the audience raised their hands- including me, since as Clark Kent, and I still do it out of habit, I wear glasses.
And it’s not particularly surprising that most of our hands went up, since 60 percent of the world needs some sort of vision correction, but then he mentioned that, while we at the conference were fortunate enough to have the lenses we need, that a full 1 billion of people in the world don’t. A full billion people in the world can’t see as well as they should be able to- if that doesn’t strike you, then I- I just don’t know. Silver pioneered a pair of $19 eyeglasses that can be assembled by anyone anywhere in the world- but the catch, of course, is that many of the target users are surviving on $1 or less a day- so the price is still a bit steep.
And I remember the first time I ran into one of these issues, granted, not quite on this scale; it might have been antiretrovirals for a country in crisis, something like that, but I flew right to Bruce’s home and told him it was a simple problem he could solve with only a few hundred million dollars. And what struck me was he was aware of the problem, quoted me the figures I’d just found out about, that I’d been so excited to share, and then told me about the depth of the same problem in the country bordering it to the west, and then the same in the country bordering it to the east. “I could help,” he said, “but if I spend the money today, then I can’t put that money towards research and reform, where it will reap ten times the benefits in a few years’ time.”
And I’ll never forget what he said to me: “I envy, you, Clark. All that power, and you can’t fix the world, you can’t even really start. But me- I could solve a dozen problems- but there will always be more. So I can do the most good by damning millions of people to suffer in the short term.” It’s the only time I remember his voice cracking, when he said, “I truly envy your powerlessness.”
I found out later that he managed to help the country secure a loan through some contacts he has at the World Bank, and helped provide some generic antiretrovirals at what was almost certainly below cost. But he was right, and that’s why I wanted to talk about TED. Doing what I do, I could never really save the world. But people, ideas, innovation- that’s how the world changes.
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.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Absent Friends
Insanity Disco: You've given your share of eulogies, which gives you a macabre kind of perspective on it. Who would you like to eulogize you?
S: I'd like Lois to do it- I've asked her to do it- but I don't think she will. She says as a reporter she's too close to it- and that as a wife she's going to be too distraught to do it right. I think Diana would do it if she had to, and that she has an eloquence few people credit her for, but I think the both of them will be enough to force Bruce to give it.
ID: And you smile a little at that; is it because you're happy he'll be giving your send-off, or because you like the idea of him browbeaten by the two strongest women you know.
S: Can't it be both? No, um, I think Bruce will give a fine speech; I think he'll agonize too much over it, but I think in the end him giving the speech will be good for his soul, and good for ours- our community; it'll put him at the head of our table, so to speak, and I can't think of anybody better to be there.
ID: Not Diana?
S: God, I’m treading carefully, here, trying not to sound sexist- Diana’s a fine woman, but she isn’t a leader. She’s more important than that. A leader, really, is just a figurehead, someone to follow into what, under normal circumstances, would be an insane situation. When it comes to joining the fray, there is no one as stalwart or as fierce as Diana- but the fact is that she’s very much a single combatant. In part because she is a woman, really the first superhuman female to come to anyone’s mind, she has always maintained a certain degree of self-reliance. She doesn’t wait to see what a Flash is going to do, or a Green Lantern, or J’onn, or anyone else- not even me or Bruce- she leaps into battle to take care of what she thinks needs to be taken care of. Bruce, by contrast, relies on the rest of us- loathe as he might be to admit that- but when a building’s falling on a crowd, he can’t do more than save a few of the people himself, people he can carry out from under it- so he’s been forced for a long time to rely on the rest of us, which has really helped build him up as a coordinator and as a leader.
ID: But you prefaced that by worrying about sounding sexist. Why?
S: Because I think in a way it is influenced by gender. And I’m not saying the League couldn’t follow a strong woman’s lead, I just think that for some of us it would take an adjustment, perhaps even a revelatory moment. I don’t think I’m one of those people- but I think it would be naïve to think that in such a testosterone heavy community there wouldn’t be some flare-ups.
ID: Hmm. We may come back to that later, but today I want to focus on people you’ve lost. I'm not sure how much you believe in an afterlife beyond the waiting room you've said you met your father in, but could you talk about some of the people who preceded you you'd like to meet again.
S: Obviously, there’s my father; I find myself hoping there is at least some kind of a purgatory, because I’d like to see him again. We didn’t always, see eye to eye isn’t quite right, but I think maybe I stopped being entirely his son when I found out I, well, wasn’t. I think the fact that I was an alien, that I felt like an alien, that I felt like I was alien even to my own parents- I think it pushed him away.
I remember quite clearly one day, I used my abilities in town. I mean, there was a fire, and I did help save this little boy and his dog, but what I didn’t realize at the time was my dad was at the store across the street, and he saw. Truth be told, it wasn’t that he saw that, but that he saw that Lana was there, that she had that aura about her, admiration mixed with a tinge of worry, and he knew me well enough to know I was showing off. And it wasn’t that I saved the boy, but that I didn’t even think about how easy it would have been for the Fire Department to get to him, and beyond that, how stupid I was doing it all just to impress a girl. And he said he knew he’d raised me better than that, that he didn’t recognize his own son at that moment.
And I’ll never forget what I said, because I think it may have been the single most spiteful thing I’ve ever done, but I told him, “Because I’m not.” And I think I hurt him in a way I never intended, I think I caused serious long-term damage to our relationship. I never took into account that, as hard as finding out that I was adopted had been on me, it had had consequences for those I cared about, too. I don’t think he ever looked at me the same way; I don’t know if he ever would have been able to, but I think, dying the way he did, we’ll never get that chance to iron it over.
ID: And what about Connor [Note: Superboy, Superman’s adolescent clone]?
S: I miss him. I always used to, well, I guess I just didn’t understand it, Bruce’s relationship with his second Robin. He was headstrong- maybe even bratty- and he and Bruce were at cross-purposes almost from the moment they met. But when he died, Bruce mourned him as hard as he’d mourned his parents- maybe harder, since that Robin was just a kid, which only increased the tragedy. And it really wasn’t until Connor that I understood.
From the moment I first saw him, Connor was a jackass. I remember he sued me over the use of my name and insignia- and he wore his hair like one of the New Kids on the Block- only this was half a decade after they’d disappeared.
ID: I do remember you sporting an, ahem, party in the back hairstyle about that time, just so you don’t start throwing stones in your glass fortress.
S: I’d just come back from the dead. I think it’s safe to say I wasn’t entirely in my right mind in those days.
ID: Fair enough. But you mentioned something that’s always been kind of rumored, something that’s delicate so I’ll try and be gentle, but, one of the Robin’s was killed. Do you think Batman bears any responsibility for that, perhaps in the form of criminal negligence?
S: Criminally, I don’t know. I tend not to pay too much attention to the word criminal, since vigilantism, which, frankly, is what a large part of what I do is, is technically criminal in the eyes of the law. But a better way to look at it would be is he morally negligent.
I don’t want to go too much into that particular Robin’s life, because I don’t have the right to reveal it, but I’ll say this: he was headed for a bad life, a hard life, and in all likelihood a violent end. What Bruce did, what he tried to do, was give him structure, and discipline, and an outlet for all the things that were going to get him into trouble. Morally, I think Bruce’s intentions were good ones, but at the end of the day that doesn't matter, because Jason died.
But if you’re asking if Bruce bear’s responsibility for his Robin’s death- no, I don’t think he does, but at the same time, I know he disagrees. And I think every single day for the rest of his life Bruce is going to bear responsibility for his death; I don’t know if that’s right or not, but it’s a cross he won’t ever even attempt to set down.
ID: Do you think, given the death at least of one Robin, that using minors as vigilantes is a practice that should be discontinued?
S: I sincerely believe that what we do is a calling. Some people have the skills and the drive and desire to do what we do. What we do can also be, unfortunately, very dangerous. I just hope we continue to train and protect the next generation as best we can- it’s a standard I think we’ve tried to stick to, and one I hope we can live up to.
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.
S: I'd like Lois to do it- I've asked her to do it- but I don't think she will. She says as a reporter she's too close to it- and that as a wife she's going to be too distraught to do it right. I think Diana would do it if she had to, and that she has an eloquence few people credit her for, but I think the both of them will be enough to force Bruce to give it.
ID: And you smile a little at that; is it because you're happy he'll be giving your send-off, or because you like the idea of him browbeaten by the two strongest women you know.
S: Can't it be both? No, um, I think Bruce will give a fine speech; I think he'll agonize too much over it, but I think in the end him giving the speech will be good for his soul, and good for ours- our community; it'll put him at the head of our table, so to speak, and I can't think of anybody better to be there.
ID: Not Diana?
S: God, I’m treading carefully, here, trying not to sound sexist- Diana’s a fine woman, but she isn’t a leader. She’s more important than that. A leader, really, is just a figurehead, someone to follow into what, under normal circumstances, would be an insane situation. When it comes to joining the fray, there is no one as stalwart or as fierce as Diana- but the fact is that she’s very much a single combatant. In part because she is a woman, really the first superhuman female to come to anyone’s mind, she has always maintained a certain degree of self-reliance. She doesn’t wait to see what a Flash is going to do, or a Green Lantern, or J’onn, or anyone else- not even me or Bruce- she leaps into battle to take care of what she thinks needs to be taken care of. Bruce, by contrast, relies on the rest of us- loathe as he might be to admit that- but when a building’s falling on a crowd, he can’t do more than save a few of the people himself, people he can carry out from under it- so he’s been forced for a long time to rely on the rest of us, which has really helped build him up as a coordinator and as a leader.
ID: But you prefaced that by worrying about sounding sexist. Why?
S: Because I think in a way it is influenced by gender. And I’m not saying the League couldn’t follow a strong woman’s lead, I just think that for some of us it would take an adjustment, perhaps even a revelatory moment. I don’t think I’m one of those people- but I think it would be naïve to think that in such a testosterone heavy community there wouldn’t be some flare-ups.
ID: Hmm. We may come back to that later, but today I want to focus on people you’ve lost. I'm not sure how much you believe in an afterlife beyond the waiting room you've said you met your father in, but could you talk about some of the people who preceded you you'd like to meet again.
S: Obviously, there’s my father; I find myself hoping there is at least some kind of a purgatory, because I’d like to see him again. We didn’t always, see eye to eye isn’t quite right, but I think maybe I stopped being entirely his son when I found out I, well, wasn’t. I think the fact that I was an alien, that I felt like an alien, that I felt like I was alien even to my own parents- I think it pushed him away.
I remember quite clearly one day, I used my abilities in town. I mean, there was a fire, and I did help save this little boy and his dog, but what I didn’t realize at the time was my dad was at the store across the street, and he saw. Truth be told, it wasn’t that he saw that, but that he saw that Lana was there, that she had that aura about her, admiration mixed with a tinge of worry, and he knew me well enough to know I was showing off. And it wasn’t that I saved the boy, but that I didn’t even think about how easy it would have been for the Fire Department to get to him, and beyond that, how stupid I was doing it all just to impress a girl. And he said he knew he’d raised me better than that, that he didn’t recognize his own son at that moment.
And I’ll never forget what I said, because I think it may have been the single most spiteful thing I’ve ever done, but I told him, “Because I’m not.” And I think I hurt him in a way I never intended, I think I caused serious long-term damage to our relationship. I never took into account that, as hard as finding out that I was adopted had been on me, it had had consequences for those I cared about, too. I don’t think he ever looked at me the same way; I don’t know if he ever would have been able to, but I think, dying the way he did, we’ll never get that chance to iron it over.
ID: And what about Connor [Note: Superboy, Superman’s adolescent clone]?
S: I miss him. I always used to, well, I guess I just didn’t understand it, Bruce’s relationship with his second Robin. He was headstrong- maybe even bratty- and he and Bruce were at cross-purposes almost from the moment they met. But when he died, Bruce mourned him as hard as he’d mourned his parents- maybe harder, since that Robin was just a kid, which only increased the tragedy. And it really wasn’t until Connor that I understood.
From the moment I first saw him, Connor was a jackass. I remember he sued me over the use of my name and insignia- and he wore his hair like one of the New Kids on the Block- only this was half a decade after they’d disappeared.
ID: I do remember you sporting an, ahem, party in the back hairstyle about that time, just so you don’t start throwing stones in your glass fortress.
S: I’d just come back from the dead. I think it’s safe to say I wasn’t entirely in my right mind in those days.
ID: Fair enough. But you mentioned something that’s always been kind of rumored, something that’s delicate so I’ll try and be gentle, but, one of the Robin’s was killed. Do you think Batman bears any responsibility for that, perhaps in the form of criminal negligence?
S: Criminally, I don’t know. I tend not to pay too much attention to the word criminal, since vigilantism, which, frankly, is what a large part of what I do is, is technically criminal in the eyes of the law. But a better way to look at it would be is he morally negligent.
I don’t want to go too much into that particular Robin’s life, because I don’t have the right to reveal it, but I’ll say this: he was headed for a bad life, a hard life, and in all likelihood a violent end. What Bruce did, what he tried to do, was give him structure, and discipline, and an outlet for all the things that were going to get him into trouble. Morally, I think Bruce’s intentions were good ones, but at the end of the day that doesn't matter, because Jason died.
But if you’re asking if Bruce bear’s responsibility for his Robin’s death- no, I don’t think he does, but at the same time, I know he disagrees. And I think every single day for the rest of his life Bruce is going to bear responsibility for his death; I don’t know if that’s right or not, but it’s a cross he won’t ever even attempt to set down.
ID: Do you think, given the death at least of one Robin, that using minors as vigilantes is a practice that should be discontinued?
S: I sincerely believe that what we do is a calling. Some people have the skills and the drive and desire to do what we do. What we do can also be, unfortunately, very dangerous. I just hope we continue to train and protect the next generation as best we can- it’s a standard I think we’ve tried to stick to, and one I hope we can live up to.
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.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Cruelty Free
Indigent Diatribe: Given the tenor of last week’s topic, I want to return. With what you said about hunting, are you a vegetarian, and if not, how, given your own sentiments, can you justify it?
Superman: I’m not strictly a vegetarian. I think you’re right, that there is an inherent hypocrisy to it- and it’s no excuse that “everybody” does it. But like most people, there’s a purposeful disconnect, between the living animals and the meat I eat.
ID: You’ve said you’re not even certain you need to eat, so why, when you have obvious ethical concerns, do you continue to eat meat?
S: Because it tastes good; sorry if that sounds glib, but I don’t really have a good reason. Sometimes I crave an angus steak, or a big juicy burger, a pepperoni pizza, or, and just the thought of it makes my mouth water, but some of my mom’s bacon.
ID: But they have vegetarian substitutes for all of those things.
S: Very true, but you know all those subtle imperfections, the little things that keep carnivores from switching to meat-substitutes- well, they’re a thousand times more noticeable with super senses.
ID: So you prefer to go against your own ethical constraints because meat tastes a little better?
S: Let me ask you something: are you a vegetarian?
ID: Nope. Girlfriend is- but I try to tempt her every chance I get (though it usually just makes her nauseous). But if your next question is how can I stand in judgment- I don’t. Personally, I’d be happy to go get a burger from the Ace O Clubs after we finish taping tonight. But I’m not asking the question for me- I’m acting as the proxy for all the vegan hippies out there- just like last week I was standing in for all the NRA faithful who are missing tonight’s installment because they’re home gunsterbating. .
S: Fair enough. But there is an important aspect that tends not to get talked about- one that I think is, while perhaps less important, will probably be the deciding factor in the debate- and that’s the incredible cost of meat. And that’s not just in the price at the supermarket, which consumers already see, but the cost in terms of resources. It takes at least three times as much water to produce a pound of beef as a pound of grains; and it takes at least three pounds of grains to produce a single pound of beef. As the population climbs, and resources become even more limited, I think it’s purely unsustainable to continue eating meat the way we have.
So I try. For reasons related to sustainability and the cost and impact on the environment and economy, for reasons related to the well-being of the animals, I try to abstain as often as possible. Lois has even found a decent vegetarian Chinese restaurant, where they can season their tofu to taste like just about anything- well, close to, anyway.
ID: I assume that if you want to eat the cow, you don’t mind people using the hide for leather, but what about non-food animals, like minks? Do you agree with people who say that fur is murder?
S: I don’t, actually. Fur isn’t murder. Nor is consuming meat. I think both of those go to human health and comfort, which I think is important to place above animal rights (if only just). But hunting is different- and I’m not saying hunting for food, but “sport” hunting. It’s based on the premise that a few moments of human amusement are worth the killing of an animal in an uncontrolled and less-humane way.
ID: Since the interview is running about half as long as I want, let’s beat this horse a little deader: do you and your wife use cruelty-free products?
S: I honestly have no idea- though I usually go pretty light on the products, actually- and Lois, Lois hardly needs any make-up at all- except for lipstick, because nobody’s lips are naturally that color.
ID: So you’re saying your hair does that s-curl thing naturally? I suppose it’s plausible, since judging from Smallville you’ve had excellent hair going back to at least high school.
S: Yeah, I wish I looked like Tom Welling when I was that age- especially that hair. When I was a kid I had- well, it was before we figured out how to tame my hair.
ID: Okay, I’ll bite, how do you tame your hair?
S: Well, I started using heat, because it was easier to find a source of intense heat and some metal wiring- but the best I could ever do was give myself a really horrific perm- which really wouldn’t even completely take, because flying as fast as I do it would get tousled.
And it was actually Bruce, one of the first couple of times we worked together, who figured out how to do something about it. I was complaining about not being able to keep my hair off my face, and a few days later a package arrived at my doorstep. It was an experimental industrial adhesive, quick-drying, and a solvent. There was a note, “for your hair.” And at first I thought, “God, Lex, this is the lamest thing you’ve ever done.” Not only was it a lame set-up, but the goal, ostensibly attempting to make me bald like him, was also lame- but then, and I know this will sound weird but remember that I have heightened senses, but I smelled Bruce in the package, and I realized that it was okay.
ID: Ew. So you’re saying you have an industrial adhesive in your hair right now?
S: Actually, right this second it’s a fruit-based hair gel. But I keep a tube of adhesive with my “suit.” If I’m just walking around town, I don’t need the “designed to keep a fighter plane wing on” hold, but if I’m well, flying several times the speed of a fighter plane, then I do.
ID: Okay, that covers half my ew, but you’re saying that you can smell people.
S: Of course. There’s a layer of hygiene smells, your shampoo, laundry soap, deodorant, toothpaste, then there’s whatever sweat and secretions you’ve produced since your last bathing, and beyond that, everybody has a base smell. In part, it’s because nobody really gets completely clean in a shower, and in part it’s because everything has a smell. So yeah, there was a distinctive collection of odors that was Bruce- it’s not quite snowflake unique, but pretty much everybody I know has a recognizable scent. Of course, there was one time Bruce was testing out a chemical smell camouflage device, and he snuck up behind me smelling exactly like Lois- that was bizarre.
ID: And, given your, well, super crush on Lois, is it safe to assume you found Batman’s presence, uh, arousing?
S: No comment.
ID: Stop looking at me like that. I know, I know, new journalistic low. But that’s the kind of unasked question that would keep me up at night.
S: You do realize the kinds of slash fiction that’s going to inspire, right? Lois likes to read it, just so she can point out the cruder, more compromising passages.
ID: Well, you heard it here, first, folks, Lois Lane reads slash fiction.
S: You really almost make me wish you were the one with cancer.
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.
Superman: I’m not strictly a vegetarian. I think you’re right, that there is an inherent hypocrisy to it- and it’s no excuse that “everybody” does it. But like most people, there’s a purposeful disconnect, between the living animals and the meat I eat.
ID: You’ve said you’re not even certain you need to eat, so why, when you have obvious ethical concerns, do you continue to eat meat?
S: Because it tastes good; sorry if that sounds glib, but I don’t really have a good reason. Sometimes I crave an angus steak, or a big juicy burger, a pepperoni pizza, or, and just the thought of it makes my mouth water, but some of my mom’s bacon.
ID: But they have vegetarian substitutes for all of those things.
S: Very true, but you know all those subtle imperfections, the little things that keep carnivores from switching to meat-substitutes- well, they’re a thousand times more noticeable with super senses.
ID: So you prefer to go against your own ethical constraints because meat tastes a little better?
S: Let me ask you something: are you a vegetarian?
ID: Nope. Girlfriend is- but I try to tempt her every chance I get (though it usually just makes her nauseous). But if your next question is how can I stand in judgment- I don’t. Personally, I’d be happy to go get a burger from the Ace O Clubs after we finish taping tonight. But I’m not asking the question for me- I’m acting as the proxy for all the vegan hippies out there- just like last week I was standing in for all the NRA faithful who are missing tonight’s installment because they’re home gunsterbating. .
S: Fair enough. But there is an important aspect that tends not to get talked about- one that I think is, while perhaps less important, will probably be the deciding factor in the debate- and that’s the incredible cost of meat. And that’s not just in the price at the supermarket, which consumers already see, but the cost in terms of resources. It takes at least three times as much water to produce a pound of beef as a pound of grains; and it takes at least three pounds of grains to produce a single pound of beef. As the population climbs, and resources become even more limited, I think it’s purely unsustainable to continue eating meat the way we have.
So I try. For reasons related to sustainability and the cost and impact on the environment and economy, for reasons related to the well-being of the animals, I try to abstain as often as possible. Lois has even found a decent vegetarian Chinese restaurant, where they can season their tofu to taste like just about anything- well, close to, anyway.
ID: I assume that if you want to eat the cow, you don’t mind people using the hide for leather, but what about non-food animals, like minks? Do you agree with people who say that fur is murder?
S: I don’t, actually. Fur isn’t murder. Nor is consuming meat. I think both of those go to human health and comfort, which I think is important to place above animal rights (if only just). But hunting is different- and I’m not saying hunting for food, but “sport” hunting. It’s based on the premise that a few moments of human amusement are worth the killing of an animal in an uncontrolled and less-humane way.
ID: Since the interview is running about half as long as I want, let’s beat this horse a little deader: do you and your wife use cruelty-free products?
S: I honestly have no idea- though I usually go pretty light on the products, actually- and Lois, Lois hardly needs any make-up at all- except for lipstick, because nobody’s lips are naturally that color.
ID: So you’re saying your hair does that s-curl thing naturally? I suppose it’s plausible, since judging from Smallville you’ve had excellent hair going back to at least high school.
S: Yeah, I wish I looked like Tom Welling when I was that age- especially that hair. When I was a kid I had- well, it was before we figured out how to tame my hair.
ID: Okay, I’ll bite, how do you tame your hair?
S: Well, I started using heat, because it was easier to find a source of intense heat and some metal wiring- but the best I could ever do was give myself a really horrific perm- which really wouldn’t even completely take, because flying as fast as I do it would get tousled.
And it was actually Bruce, one of the first couple of times we worked together, who figured out how to do something about it. I was complaining about not being able to keep my hair off my face, and a few days later a package arrived at my doorstep. It was an experimental industrial adhesive, quick-drying, and a solvent. There was a note, “for your hair.” And at first I thought, “God, Lex, this is the lamest thing you’ve ever done.” Not only was it a lame set-up, but the goal, ostensibly attempting to make me bald like him, was also lame- but then, and I know this will sound weird but remember that I have heightened senses, but I smelled Bruce in the package, and I realized that it was okay.
ID: Ew. So you’re saying you have an industrial adhesive in your hair right now?
S: Actually, right this second it’s a fruit-based hair gel. But I keep a tube of adhesive with my “suit.” If I’m just walking around town, I don’t need the “designed to keep a fighter plane wing on” hold, but if I’m well, flying several times the speed of a fighter plane, then I do.
ID: Okay, that covers half my ew, but you’re saying that you can smell people.
S: Of course. There’s a layer of hygiene smells, your shampoo, laundry soap, deodorant, toothpaste, then there’s whatever sweat and secretions you’ve produced since your last bathing, and beyond that, everybody has a base smell. In part, it’s because nobody really gets completely clean in a shower, and in part it’s because everything has a smell. So yeah, there was a distinctive collection of odors that was Bruce- it’s not quite snowflake unique, but pretty much everybody I know has a recognizable scent. Of course, there was one time Bruce was testing out a chemical smell camouflage device, and he snuck up behind me smelling exactly like Lois- that was bizarre.
ID: And, given your, well, super crush on Lois, is it safe to assume you found Batman’s presence, uh, arousing?
S: No comment.
ID: Stop looking at me like that. I know, I know, new journalistic low. But that’s the kind of unasked question that would keep me up at night.
S: You do realize the kinds of slash fiction that’s going to inspire, right? Lois likes to read it, just so she can point out the cruder, more compromising passages.
ID: Well, you heard it here, first, folks, Lois Lane reads slash fiction.
S: You really almost make me wish you were the one with cancer.
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.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Speeding Bullet
Incomprehensible Dianetics: I want to ask you a divisive question, one which, as a man who's impervious to injury personally but deals in a very hands-on way with the criminal element might be perfectly positioned to respond to. What's your stance on gun control?
Superman: I’m not against it. Now let me admit, before we even look at the merits, that I'm biased. Weapons and war had a part in destroying my home.
ID: Uh, could you explain that in a bit more detail, for those of us who don’t buy and feverishly reread the trading cards.
S: Sure. During what was, essentially, a civil rights movement on Krypton, a terrorist breakaway group used what was basically a nuclear gun on the planet. The weapon slowly destabilized the planet, to the point where it basically exploded.
ID: It doesn’t sound like your arguing gun control, but weapons control, which I don’t think anyone would
S: Sure they would- and that’s the thing. You have to draw a line somewhere, don’t you? If I have a right to bear arms to resist the government, but the government has a fighter jet, well then to properly resist, I need a Stinger missile. Or, in all honesty, I could probably use a fighter jet of my own.
ID: So you see a problem with civilian-owned fighter jets?
S: As a concept, maybe not, assuming they became like automobiles, where everyone had one in the garage- and from there you can always make the argument that “an armed society is a polite society.” But in reality, fighter jets are expensive. The only people who would be able to afford them would be the superrich. And while it might not be a horrible thing if Bill Gates or Bruce Wayne owned and operated fighter jets, what about the Lex Luthors of the world? And speaking of Lex, I know for a fact he’s had access to fissile material through LexCorp.’s energy division. Obviously we don’t want him to be able to legally make and keep nuclear weapons.
But really, to take a plane out of the sky, you don’t really need anything too advanced. Barrett is making a 25 mm rifle, right now. 25 mm is a grenade round, usually, but they’re using it for a next-gen anti-materiel weapon. A 25 mm round would punch a hole in an airplane bigger than my fist. Against a fighter jet, well, it’s hard to hit something moving that fast, but against a commercial airliner…
ID: I think we can agree that some level of arms control is necessary.
S: And I suppose there’s a second component to my bias. There’s the destruction of my home world, but on Earth I’ve seen a lot of loss that can be attributed to weapons, too. To pick a specific example, an unlicensed firearm killed the parents of one of my greatest friends- and even though that gave the world the Batman, and even though without that event, he and I likely would never have met, I love him enough that I would gladly lose him to spare him their loss.
ID: You love Batman?
S: The one thing dying really brings you is clarity. I could be stoic, puff my chest out like my dad, and die without admitting who I am to the people I care about- but I don't want to be like that. I'd rather be able to stand, with grace and with dignity, and say how I feel. Bruce is my friend, and I truly, dearly love him.
ID: Okay, but do you believe that more stringent gun laws would have prevented the Wayne’s mugging (and subsequent murder)?
S: On that specific occasion? I have no idea. But generally speaking, tighter gun control laws could make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, and more dangerous for them to use guns against innocent people.
ID: I don’t know if it’s a fair argument you make, because you are, for all intents and purposes, a superweapon- guns do nothing but bring the average person a little closer to your level of potential resistance from the government (or a threat).
S: First, a gun doesn’t give you anything close to enhanced ability- it’s a tool with a very specific purpose. And second, you’re wrong about me- at least me personally. Yes, I do have a lot of power at my disposal, but I’ve always considered it necessary to remain a normal member of human society. So it wouldn’t be right of me to use my abilities to, say, destabilize the American government. I have just as much revolutionary power as any citizen- voting. And if that fails, I have the same right as every other American- the right to leave. To your third, somewhat veiled point, I am a little safer from muggers or people who would try to do me harm, but I think you’re exaggerating my position to make it more contentious. I’m not against guns generally- I’m just for the idea that we control them tightly, that we do everything a responsible but free society can to keep our fellow citizens safe.
ID: Hmm. I’m going to take a flying leap here, but have you ever fired a gun?
Yes. But a lot of my opinions were shaped by the first time I carried one. My father took me hunting when I was little- still too young even to use the .22 he bought me to learn on. But he taught me how to make sure it wasn’t loaded, how to treat it, and respect it- and he made me carry it. And what we found out that day was, with my senses, I made for an excellent tracker. Following just the faintest of smells and tiniest of clues, we stalked a deer for the better part of a day.
When we got close enough, I could hear its heart, and as we closed the distance its metronome thump-thump got louder and louder. The deer was stopped by a small creek, drinking, but even though we had to be too far away for it to hear us, it knew something was wrong. Its head came up, ears alert, eyes scanning. Its heartbeat increased, pounding in my ears as my father raised his rifle. Something primal in me reacted; the deer’s heartbeat in my ears became my own, its fear became my own. I was young, not so fast or strong, and I wasn’t even fast enough to say, “Dad,” before he took the shot.
I ran, reaching through the blurred landscape for the bullet as it spun in slow motion through the air. I was fast enough to grab it, but the impact burst the skin in my palm. But the deer was terrified, first of the gunshot, then of the small boy suddenly rushing at it, and it stumbled as its heartbeat became increasingly erratic, and I watched in horror as it’s heart went from too fast to too slow, then stopped entirely. I didn’t know CPR, but I was going to try and resuscitate it when my dad finally caught up, put a hand on my shoulder and said, “Son.” And I fell to my knees, crying, and then he noticed the blood and said, “Your hand.”
Of course, I didn’t even really notice the pain, and it wasn’t why I was upset. I said, “Dad, we killed it.” And my dad took me in his arms and he said, “No, son, we didn’t. I did. You tried to save it.” But even at that age I knew he never would have gotten anywhere near the deer if it hadn’t been for me.
I didn’t ask him to stop, but my dad never hunted again. He’d still go shooting- he took me to the range a couple of times- but I think he understood, seeing my reaction, the truth that hunters have to sort of bypass on an ethical level- that they’re killing something, and not just that it’s dying, but that it’s dying alone and afraid- that there’s nothing fun or sporting about that.
We’ll be trying to bring you a new section of the interview every Monday. 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.
Superman: I’m not against it. Now let me admit, before we even look at the merits, that I'm biased. Weapons and war had a part in destroying my home.
ID: Uh, could you explain that in a bit more detail, for those of us who don’t buy and feverishly reread the trading cards.
S: Sure. During what was, essentially, a civil rights movement on Krypton, a terrorist breakaway group used what was basically a nuclear gun on the planet. The weapon slowly destabilized the planet, to the point where it basically exploded.
ID: It doesn’t sound like your arguing gun control, but weapons control, which I don’t think anyone would
S: Sure they would- and that’s the thing. You have to draw a line somewhere, don’t you? If I have a right to bear arms to resist the government, but the government has a fighter jet, well then to properly resist, I need a Stinger missile. Or, in all honesty, I could probably use a fighter jet of my own.
ID: So you see a problem with civilian-owned fighter jets?
S: As a concept, maybe not, assuming they became like automobiles, where everyone had one in the garage- and from there you can always make the argument that “an armed society is a polite society.” But in reality, fighter jets are expensive. The only people who would be able to afford them would be the superrich. And while it might not be a horrible thing if Bill Gates or Bruce Wayne owned and operated fighter jets, what about the Lex Luthors of the world? And speaking of Lex, I know for a fact he’s had access to fissile material through LexCorp.’s energy division. Obviously we don’t want him to be able to legally make and keep nuclear weapons.
But really, to take a plane out of the sky, you don’t really need anything too advanced. Barrett is making a 25 mm rifle, right now. 25 mm is a grenade round, usually, but they’re using it for a next-gen anti-materiel weapon. A 25 mm round would punch a hole in an airplane bigger than my fist. Against a fighter jet, well, it’s hard to hit something moving that fast, but against a commercial airliner…
ID: I think we can agree that some level of arms control is necessary.
S: And I suppose there’s a second component to my bias. There’s the destruction of my home world, but on Earth I’ve seen a lot of loss that can be attributed to weapons, too. To pick a specific example, an unlicensed firearm killed the parents of one of my greatest friends- and even though that gave the world the Batman, and even though without that event, he and I likely would never have met, I love him enough that I would gladly lose him to spare him their loss.
ID: You love Batman?
S: The one thing dying really brings you is clarity. I could be stoic, puff my chest out like my dad, and die without admitting who I am to the people I care about- but I don't want to be like that. I'd rather be able to stand, with grace and with dignity, and say how I feel. Bruce is my friend, and I truly, dearly love him.
ID: Okay, but do you believe that more stringent gun laws would have prevented the Wayne’s mugging (and subsequent murder)?
S: On that specific occasion? I have no idea. But generally speaking, tighter gun control laws could make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, and more dangerous for them to use guns against innocent people.
ID: I don’t know if it’s a fair argument you make, because you are, for all intents and purposes, a superweapon- guns do nothing but bring the average person a little closer to your level of potential resistance from the government (or a threat).
S: First, a gun doesn’t give you anything close to enhanced ability- it’s a tool with a very specific purpose. And second, you’re wrong about me- at least me personally. Yes, I do have a lot of power at my disposal, but I’ve always considered it necessary to remain a normal member of human society. So it wouldn’t be right of me to use my abilities to, say, destabilize the American government. I have just as much revolutionary power as any citizen- voting. And if that fails, I have the same right as every other American- the right to leave. To your third, somewhat veiled point, I am a little safer from muggers or people who would try to do me harm, but I think you’re exaggerating my position to make it more contentious. I’m not against guns generally- I’m just for the idea that we control them tightly, that we do everything a responsible but free society can to keep our fellow citizens safe.
ID: Hmm. I’m going to take a flying leap here, but have you ever fired a gun?
Yes. But a lot of my opinions were shaped by the first time I carried one. My father took me hunting when I was little- still too young even to use the .22 he bought me to learn on. But he taught me how to make sure it wasn’t loaded, how to treat it, and respect it- and he made me carry it. And what we found out that day was, with my senses, I made for an excellent tracker. Following just the faintest of smells and tiniest of clues, we stalked a deer for the better part of a day.
When we got close enough, I could hear its heart, and as we closed the distance its metronome thump-thump got louder and louder. The deer was stopped by a small creek, drinking, but even though we had to be too far away for it to hear us, it knew something was wrong. Its head came up, ears alert, eyes scanning. Its heartbeat increased, pounding in my ears as my father raised his rifle. Something primal in me reacted; the deer’s heartbeat in my ears became my own, its fear became my own. I was young, not so fast or strong, and I wasn’t even fast enough to say, “Dad,” before he took the shot.
I ran, reaching through the blurred landscape for the bullet as it spun in slow motion through the air. I was fast enough to grab it, but the impact burst the skin in my palm. But the deer was terrified, first of the gunshot, then of the small boy suddenly rushing at it, and it stumbled as its heartbeat became increasingly erratic, and I watched in horror as it’s heart went from too fast to too slow, then stopped entirely. I didn’t know CPR, but I was going to try and resuscitate it when my dad finally caught up, put a hand on my shoulder and said, “Son.” And I fell to my knees, crying, and then he noticed the blood and said, “Your hand.”
Of course, I didn’t even really notice the pain, and it wasn’t why I was upset. I said, “Dad, we killed it.” And my dad took me in his arms and he said, “No, son, we didn’t. I did. You tried to save it.” But even at that age I knew he never would have gotten anywhere near the deer if it hadn’t been for me.
I didn’t ask him to stop, but my dad never hunted again. He’d still go shooting- he took me to the range a couple of times- but I think he understood, seeing my reaction, the truth that hunters have to sort of bypass on an ethical level- that they’re killing something, and not just that it’s dying, but that it’s dying alone and afraid- that there’s nothing fun or sporting about that.
We’ll be trying to bring you a new section of the interview every Monday. 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)