Red Hood and the Outlaws #1

Ok, let’s get the whole Starfire thing out of the way first.

Some people have been freaking out about how Starfire looks and behaves in this comic. The basic complaint is that they slutted her up (like they definitely did with Harley Quinn), giving her a very revealing costume and making her promiscuous.

First, this is what she looks like in this comic:

Ok, that’s pretty risqué. But let’s take a look at her previous costumes. This is how she appears in 52 (2006):

There’s almost no difference! Granted, there’s less material covering her…uh…large orange cantaloupes… but there’s actually more material covering her shoulders. The costume is slightly more sexualized, but there are plenty of other costumes in the New 52 – for the females and the males – that have received the same treatment.

And just for fun, let’s look at one of her very first appearances, from 1982:

It’s the same thing! Her costume has barely changed in the past 30 years.

A lot of people have gotten up in arms about some parts of the comic that show her in a bikini. Fine. Here’s a part of one of those pages:

Funny how I haven’t seen anyone complaining about how the male characters are shown in skin-tight muscle shirts, or not wearing a shirt at all.

What about her promiscuity? Complaints have been made about how she hops into bed with a guy she barely knows, but I haven’t seen anyone complain about how that guy jumps into bed with a woman he barely knows. It’s that sort of double-standard that invalidates whatever claims of sexism these complainers are making. After all, if I man likes sex, he’s a stud, and if a woman likes sex, she’s a slut.

Look, maybe her costume is too objectifying, but it’s always been that way. There’s nothing new to see here. This is not the Teen Titans children’s cartoon version, and never has been.

Getting on with the review

With all that said, how is the comic itself?

I really like what’s here so far. I don’t know much about the Red Hood/Jason Todd, except that he used to be Robin and ran with Batman, but was killed by the Joker and raised from the dead by Ra’s Al Ghul (I think). I know even less about Speedy/Red Arrow/Arsenal/Roy Harper, except that he used to be Green Arrow’s sidekick and used to be a druggie. I don’t know why Red Hood is putting together this new team, why he wants Roy on it, or what Roy was doing in prison in the first place.

But anyway, this is a great start to the series. It does a great job of introducing the characters, and shows you what you’ll be getting: lots of crazy vigilante action. It’s a fun collection of characters, and it’ll be interesting to see who else they add to the team over time.

Verdict: A big orange surprise

capital punishment…

I’m sure this one won’t be controversial at all.

We’re reading The Last Day of a Condemned Man, by Victor Hugo, for my monthly book club. It’s the journal of a man in 1820s France who has been sentenced to execution. Needless to say, we will be talking at great length about capital punishment at our next book club meeting, because this book is very much against it. I suggested that everyone in the club write down what their current opinions on capital punishment are, to see if/how they change after reading the book. I’ll probably be the only one to actually do that.

I know this is a rather volatile topic, so only read on if you’re open to considering opinions that may be different from your own. And that’s really all this is – opinion – and I’ll try to avoid using any biased information. As always, if you disagree, please let me know – nicely.

Continue reading

A day at the (woodtick) races

I was up in Cuyuna Country State Recreation Area in Minnesota’s Iron Range last weekend, on a yearly camping trip with several friends: Ty, Garret, Kevin, Maggie, Val, Dan, and and Dan’s almost-one-year-old daughter Sammy. Kev and Mags noticed the local newspaper at a gas station, and had to buy one when they saw the front page. Above stories about and a mountain bike festival and an especially friendly grouse, the main headline was about the annual Woodtick Race, which has been going for 32 years as a fundraiser for the local fire department.

Well, we had to go.

Continue reading

Determining our fates
with cold, apathetic,
wonderful math


Minnesota is currently debating how to redraw our state district borders, as we do every 10 years, with new census data to guide us. Creating fair, impartial boundaries seems impossible, because it’s always tempting for the party in power to gerrymander everything to give themselves more power. I’ve long been critical of the shape of our 6th district, home of state shame Michele Bachmann. It conveniently bends around liberally-leaning downtown areas and grabs many of the richer, fiscally-conservative parts of the state and merges them with rural, socially-conservative parts of the state.

But how the hell do you draw fair, unbiased district boundaries? On the one hand, people don’t want their communities split down the middle. On the other, it’s really easy to lump certain communities together to create districts that are easy for one party or the other to control.

Here’s one way that’s pretty interesting: math.

Continue reading

Our #1 priority: change the way our leaders are elected

If you’re anything like me, you’re racked with anxiety, fear, frustration and rage over the state of modern US politics. News story after soul-crushing news story, I feel like I’m being mentally beaten with hammers, and I want to just shut it all out and pretend that everything is ok. I used to look down on the people who were oblivious to the goings-on of the world; now I envy them.

We seem to be stuck in a never-ending cycle between a party of high-order incompetents (the Democrats) and a party of angry, hateful zealots (the Republicans). Both are only interested in power. Both are firmly entrenched. Both are crooked to the bone. Neither represents what America needs or even wants.

I ask myself, how can we fix our political system? I come up with some answers I think are pretty good: term limits; public funding of elections; more oversight and transparency. Simple solutions like these could go a long way toward fixing what’s wrong with America. There’s just one problem: none of it will ever happen. Not in any meaningful way.

Continue reading

What’s so bad about living forever?


I just read a very interesting article about a girl who hasn’t aged in 16 years (which isn’t exactly an accurate statement, but fits well enough). The story briefly talks about how studying the girl’s bizarre condition could potentially teach us a lot about human aging, and perhaps even how to prevent it.

But I was a bit troubled when I read this:

In the long term, the idea that the aging process might somehow be manipulated raises serious questions about what human beings might do with that knowledge.

“Clearly, that’s the science fiction aspect of it,” said Walker, describing the social and ethical dilemmas that would arise. “We can’t have continued reproduction and people who don’t age.”

This confuses me, and makes me wonder why a doctor would say such a thing. Surely he has no problem with treating people medically to prolong their lives. Aging is a natural process, but so are cancer and seizures and disease. Thanks to medical science, the average human lifespan has doubled over the past 2000 years or so (I didn’t bother to look up that number, by the way). In a way, aging is just another problem with our bodies for scientists to fix.

Continue reading

Dexter: Moral ambiguity and cognitive dissonance in television (and why I love it)

Ok, let’s take a break from all the politics and talk about TV.

One of my favorite shows right now is a Showtime series called Dexter. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who’s familiar with it, which is a shame, because it’s one of the most interesting and gutsy shows on TV right now.

On its surface, Dexter seems like yet another crime show. It takes place is perpetually-sunny Miami, it has a cast of interesting characters, and it focuses on Dexter (shockingly enough) who is an easy-to-like blood-spatter analyst working for the Miami police department. But the thing that sets this show apart is that Dexter is also a serial killer.

The story is told primarily from Dexter’s perspective, and you hear his inner monologue. On the outside, he’s the quirky guy who brings a box of doughnuts to work every day to share with his co-workers. But he’s driven to murder people, and does so quite frequently. He makes sure that his victims are criminals, but he’s not doing it to get bad guys off the streets. He does it because he enjoys killing; because he has a need for it. He even collects a drop of blood from each victim on a microscope slide, which helps him (and the audience) keep track of exactly how long he’s been doing it, and how often. Beyond that, he’s pretty much a normal person who deals with normal problems, who has a normal life, and a pretty normal job.

The thing I find most fascinating about the show is that it’s not trying to tell you what to think about what Dexter does. It’s a constant festival of cognitive dissonance, with your mind and morality constantly flipping between what you perceive as good and evil, and usually coming up with something in between. It raises far more questions than it answers. Is it ok for Dexter to kill a serial rapist? How are you supposed to feel when that same rapist begs for his life before Dexter plunges a knife into his chest? Is Dexter any better than the people he’s killing? Does Dexter’s difficult past make what he’s doing understandable?

Dexter isn’t the one-dimensional serial killer character you typically see opposite the “good guys” on the standard procedural cop show. He’s a very likeable character. You want to see him succeed in life. You don’t want to see him caught and sent to jail, even though it seems like he deserves it.

Dexter isn’t a show for people who view the world in black & white. This isn’t about the good guys catching the bad guys. It’s about a good guy who’s also a bad guy, and it’s not telling you how to think. It’s showing you that the real world is shades of gray, and that you have to weigh each situation as it comes.

Funding for what?

I was just reading the newspaper (it’s like a web site without links) and there was a story about McCain’s insane new VP choice, Sarah Palin. The story mentioned something about how Palin thinks that abstinence-only education needs more funding.

FOR WHAT? What could they possibly be spending the existing abstinence-only budget on? Books? Here, let me write you an abstinence textbook:

Abstinence is Fun! (No, Really)
by Bevans

Chapter 1:
Don’t have sex until you’re married, because God says so.

The End.

Maybe they’re spending all the money on little action figures with extremely well-articulated hands, so they can teach kids how to hold hands instead of doing what every single other source of information in the world (including their own bodies) is telling them they should do. The high cost could come from the fact that the figures are rigged to explode if two of the same gender get too close to each other.