Stupid Osama, knocking this out of the news cycle.
Nonono, because it’s so REWARDING.
You know, for rich people. Who are the only ones Jesus loves.
Makes sense. I mean, their being rich obviously means that God favours them, right?
Calvinism built this city…
When he said “blessed the poor” he was just messing with us. What a kidder!
Today’s strip brought to you by Gary Trudeau.
Who Would Jesus Downsize?
In case anyone cares: I think Jesus was probably a good guy… It’s those “followers” with the branding irons and burning people alive vibe that I’m not real fond of.
I work with like four of this guy.
Needless to say, I DON’T stay for the people.
I don’t like fake Christians like that. They’re total hypocrites. Gives those of us Christians that care about the people and out there trying to provide and working our tails off at work and for the work of God at church, a real bad name. It’s obvious he’s under the influence of many of the T.V. preachers and Feel Good preachers.
What he’s spouting is pretty close to one of the beliefs of Calvinism. That God will show his disfavor by inflicting disease and poverty on sinners.
Yeah, that’s a twisted belief. The judgment on the unrighteous will come when he deems necessary, but saying that God favors only the rich is completely wrong.
Actually, Calvinism is even weirder than that. It teaches that God, to show his absolute power, decides who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell before they are even born. It’s not based on anything they may or may not do in the future, because that would mean God wasn’t acting with absolute sovereignty. Although you are supposed to lead a good life and all that, you’ll only find at your death whether God picked you before you were born to be one of “the saved” or not. So, theoretically, Mother Teresa might be burning in hell right now, while Osama bin Ladin might be in heaven. Not because of anything they did on earth, mind you, but because God arbitrarily decided the fate of each of them at the beginning of the world.
Another strain of Calvinism holds that, while you can’t tell a person’s ultimate fate based on their actions, you can tell it based on whether God has “blessed” them in their earthly life. Thus, being rich is a sign that you have God’s favor and will make it to heaven, while being poor, or sick, or homeless…well, you get the picture.
Like I said, Calvinism is weirder than you could possibly believe.
You have the right basic idea, but you’re incorrect about the part that Mother Teresa could be in hell and Osama could be in heaven. The core belief of Calvinism is that God chooses us first, yes. But that doesn’t mean He chooses people regardless of whether they’re Christians. I means He chooses which people will become Christians.
From a certain logical point of view, this is actually a strictly necessary result of God’s omnipotence. If God is omnipotent, then He cannot base His actions on the actions of others – that implies that they have power over Him. So the “He decides what we will choose” thing is a (poor) attempt to reconcile human free will with God’s omnipotence. The end result is that free will does not truly exist in a fully Calvinist viewpoint (though there are partial viewpoints also referred to as Calvinism that don’t go quite as far).
I am not a Calvinist and am not defending the point of view. I find it an extremely cruel theology. But I can understand where it comes from, from a purely logical perspective.
Oh, and your second paragraph about God never being mean to his chosen is total rubbish and has nothing to do with any accepted branch of Christianity. Though I’m sure I’ve heard of some tiny cults using it.
Both of you are pretty close on Calvin’s Predestination ideas, except Calvins view only covered the elect for those saved and never said anything about damnation. That is called double-predestination and was only implied by others. The key thing here is that Predestination is a small part of Calvin’s theology and hardly constitutes all that is “Calvinism”. Historically, Calvin only mentioned it once or twice and was not very important to his overall Theology; it would be those who carried on in his footsteps that took the idea and brought it to the front of his theology. I come from the reformed tradition (Presbyterian), which has roots to Calvin and John Knox, but I think Karl Barth is the one who took Calvins salvation ideas and made it better. Essentially it states that if God is the Sovereign God of Love made evident by God in relationship to God of the Holy Trinity and Christ sacrifice as a revelation of God’s love for humanity, then God has elected all of creation for salvation and not just the some.
It’s a classic Hobbsian value; people need to retain the fruit of their labors or all incentive to be a fat-cat executive vanishes. Ironically this was considered a liberal belief in comparison.
When Hobbsians and Calvinists get together, well… it can be rather entertaining.
Hobbes? What does Hobbes have to do with a discussion of Calvin?
…don’t answer that.
Actually, the Calvin & Hobbes is all about the two philosophers……yeah, my name is Calvin…..hyperactive as a child…..sad about no self aware tiger companions…see link
The Hypocrisy… The air is rife with it’s stench.
My name is Stephen Bierce, and I approve this distressage.
I’m with that guy, why would superman want to leave a country with witty social commentators such as him everywhere?
Insanity is the answer to so many questions
and the solution to a good number of problems
Why does nobody ever just say they do it for the money? Paying bills just isn’t viewed as a legitimate reason for employment I guess…
Originally the punchline was “Adequate pay,” but 1) it doesn’t seem true, and 2) this was funnier.
Ah, that makes sense. Who am I to argue with the rule of funny?
Well, Lord knows if you don’t give a patron/customer what they want and in any way seem unhappy or irritated AT ANY TIME, the patron who is making your life suck won’t hesitate to tell you: “Maybe you just shouldn’t have a job working with the public!”
Thanks, lady. It never before occurred to me that I hate the people who come in here. I’ll get started on that dream job where I sit in a solitary room and draw all day right now.
Oh, wait. I like eating and having a place to sleep more than I hate you.
(Sorry, rough couple of days. I shattered a small girl’s dream when she told me how much she wanted to work in a library one day, but apparently, I’ve still got a smidgeon of vitriol left.)
Because no one gets rewarded for admitting they’re doing it for the money…
Even if that’s why most people do the jobs they do.
I worked for a large Federal contractor in a previous job life. Morale was horrible (40+% turnover.) They sent a VP of HR to talk with those willing to share an opinion on why. When he asked “Why does anyone stay then?” he was temporarily struck mute when I explained that the checks didn’t bounce.
The sad thing is you can pretty much see some do that exact same thing at least once on dozens of forums.
I keep thinking it would be funny that if in the comic themselves, this whole thing turned out to be an act of Super-Dickery, and Clark was bored one day, and said he was renouncing his citizenship, just to watch the media shit a brick.
The Daily Planet’s readership is down, so he’s helping boost the numbers by making news and giving Lois the interview.
…Did this actually happen?
Yep. Last week’s issues of Superman 900: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/superman-citizenship-renounced-in-new-comic.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef014e8824ade8970d
My god, those comments.
Here is more of the comic itself: http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/2939770.html
The funny thing is, by US Law, as long as Ma and Pa Kent never presented evidence that Clark was born outside the US before he turned 21, then SUperman is de facto a “natural-born” citizen – there’s a law covering found orphans with no birth record.
sort of. that only works if the general public knows that clark kent and superman are the same person. but i think superman established his kryptonian heritage with the general public a long time ago. if “superman” was ever a u.s. citizen, it would be because he applied for it.
Nope. Bill Clinton declared Superman to be an American citizen in 1993.
I wonder which congresscritter introduced that bill.
But even though his sret identity is “unknown,” that identity certainly grew up in the US without any extraterrestrial evidence coming into public knowledge.
I don’t really get the outrage. I mean, isn’t the whole idea that he’s renouncing his citizenship so that he can act on a world stage without being seen as acting on behalf of the US?
Also: not real. But that’s a slippery slope.
People with basic reading comprehension skills need not apply to be right wing pundits.
Well, that’s the thing; Superman has always been the iconic American Super-hero. More so in fact that almost any other hero, including Captain America. Superman’s slogan is “Truth, Justice & the AMERICAN Way”. A lot of people are pissed because they feel that the writer is saying Superman is “too good” for America.
The funny thing is, during the 1950′s (I think) there was a comic where every country in the world naturalized Superman as a citizen during a ceremony at the United Nations, in order to allow him the help on behalf of the entire world, instead of just the US.
Oh, it was 1974 when Superman was made a citizen of all countries as shown here: http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/2941226.html
See, this is an author fail. JMS is writing Superman, somebody else is writing Action Comics.
JMS would have KNOWN about Superman’s pan-citizenship.
But isn’t the 1974 story pre-Crisis? And even so, it’s not like anything that was published more than six months ago these days matters anyway.
Oh, Willis. You don’t know how true that’s about to become.
Or do you? How far in advance was the New 52 announced?
the author of the story in question is David S. Goyer, and even if a 35 year old comic covered this topic before, in light of recent international events and wanting to keep the stories topical, it makes sense to remove your public persona (Superman) from the equation regarding international incidents, Clark Kent is still an American, but Superman is stateless, clearing him to act on behalf of the people wherever he is needed without either embarrassing the US, or worsening a conflict because of his ties.
@David Willis: Yeah, this story was pre-Crisis, as was Superman’s childhood as a member of the Legion of Super-Heroes, and him being Superboy as a teen. All of which Geoff Johns and numerous other rights have re-introduced following the events of the Infinite Crisis and the new “Secret Origins” story. So arguably, the events of Superman being Pan-National could have also been re-introduced into comic continuity if they had wanted.
They’ve re-introduced some pre-Crisis elements, but not all of them, so you can’t really assume they’re all there.
For one thing, we haven’t seen any evidence yet that Supes can once again produce another tinier Superman from his hand, which he will proceed to become jealous of because it’s better at everything than he is. At least not until Grant Morrison gets to write him again.
Um, yeah… if you take a look at my previous post again, you’ll that I said “If they wanted”.
That means, “I know they didn’t introduce it (obviously), but that if they had wanted to help make Superman globally approved, they could have easily re-introduced that storyline into continuity, rather than go for an obviously provocative plot”
I’m an American and that line always bugged me.
I mean he’s an alien that operates internationally, even if he does spend most of his time in Metropolis. And what the heck is the “American Way” anyway? I want to know what that blanket statement means before I decide to endorse it. It’s clearly something separate from Truth and Justice. Democracy? Capitalism? Individualism? Separation of Church and State? Checks and Balances? Not that most of those apply to Superman but that just highlights how poorly worded it is.
Still, I’d rather live in America than most other countries and renouncing his citizenship when his base of operations is clearly an American city seems rather strange if not outright dumb.
And something of a publicity ploy. How many people knew “Superman” was a recognized American citizen independent of his “Clark Kent” identity? Probably a lot less before anyone made a fuss about it.
Renouncing his citizenship shouldn’t accomplish anything since he didn’t actually answer to the US government anyway (ever see Superman get drafted or go to Jury duty? How about file a flight plan with the FAA? No, because he’s a vigilante.).
The problem with that logic being he already DOES do that. I could name at least five times in comic books where he (and frankly, OTHER American superheroes) working outside the USA because people needed help. His citizenship status is irrelevant if there’s a giant robot rampaging through a country.
Which is why this pretty a silly plot. It seems more like a move to drum up sales and controversy then anything else. Storywise, the only thing that will change is that Superman isn’t considered a US citizen. Superman has helped other nations before, and nothing bad has come from it.
Some people claim this could lead to interesting plots with Superman fighting evil around the entire world, but he already did that every now and then anyway. And, like I said, when he did he never had to deal with it being viewed as an act of war. He’s helping people, not killing them. It’s a just such a worthless plot and DC needs to learn that these shock-plots don’t raise sales enough to warrant the controversy…
The thing is it DID cause trouble right there in the issue himself. Presedent NotObaba actaully asked Superman NOT to do things outside the US without asking him first. Frankly, in his position I would have done the same.
In Superman’s position, in case that wasn’t clear.
Agreed Linkara. And wasn’t there already an established UN charter involving the Justice League and its members that already gives them international allowances, freeing them of the need of government permission, passports and all that stuff, thus allowing them to do there jobs without issue? I seem to recall mention of that in other JL comics.
The thing is, story-wise this isn’t about Superman no longer considering himself American, but rather that others the world over, like the Iranian government, are treating his actions as acts on behalf of the US government, and are considering his participation in a PEACEFUL protest in Tehran as an act of war from the US President.
In a nutshell, he’s renouncing his citizenship not out of shame for his country’s policies but rather so his actions cannot be used as political crutches for ANYONE.
Superman taking part in a peaceful protest is a massive act of provocation in the first place. It’s an implicit threat against any attempt to stop the protest.
What ever happened to the oft-quoted ‘Superheroes don’t get involved in politics’ moral stance?
But if the Justice League is a deputized UN peacekeeping force and he’s a member of that organization wouldn’t that still allow people to point fingers (just at the UN rather than the USA)?
And since it is such an organization, isn’t he already assumed to be acting in more than just the interests of his nation of origin?
Eh, it’s just a poorly thought out plotline, much like his preceding “walk around lecturing people” story.
Is the Justice League UN-deputized though? I thought they were back to being the Justice League of America.
Isn’t the point that this doesnt change supermans actions, but rather that the US government isn’t assumed to have the same position he does?
I dont think the point was that superman would be more free to do stuff, more that the US government wouldn’t get “blamed” for it.
Frankly, the only irrational enitys in this scenario are the countries blamming the US for supermans actions – holding a country responsible for a citizen.
I am totally in favor… I would have written that happening as well. Superman’s activity is not limited to the US, or even the Earth for that matter. He should just be a universal citizen.
Damn superchristians! Overzealous retards who give real Christians a bad name.
I also agree with Dave on the “adequate pay” front.
“Blessed are the noney-makers: for they shall inherit the earth” Right-Wing Bible
That guy is so wrong on so many levels. Blessed are the meek (meaning, those who endure the storms of this life and follow him), for they shall inherit the earth. This guy obviously doesn’t get that people don’t go to Heaven from being rich. Bible says, don’t store your treasures on earth, where Moths and Rust will take hold, but store up treasures in Heaven. It is better to be poor and have treasures stored in Heaven than to have treasures on earth that won’t go with one when they die.
Jesus talked about this to the disciples and people when the woman gave all she had to the offering of God, while the rich, despite their willingness to give, did it all for the wrong reasons just because they had money to give. The woman who gave that only gold piece she had, showed she feared God more than money and man.
It used to be that being a pastor was not the greatest job in the world. The pastor had to rely on the church for help to feed his family and so on. Nowadays, a self proclaimed pastor can write a book, be on T.V., etc and make loads of money. The pastors like my pastor, and many of the pastors i listen to on the radio most of the money they goes into the ministry and paying for the radio broadcasts. (Mine can’t do any of that because our church is too small for that.)
It’s most of the T.V. pastors that preach, but they’ve falsified the word, preaching what people want to hear instead of what’s in the Bible. Those are the ones that have cults, scandals and what not.
my dad is a pastor, and believe me, its not a well paying gig, he never wrote a book, or got a tv show, but he has always served the community, and genuinely likes helping those in need. also my favorite line in the bible about wealth, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven”
I don’t get churches that do it that way. Our bishop sells cars monday through saturday. Preacher shouldn’t be an occupation, it should be a calling I would think. At the very least even if you’re gonna pay your preacher, I don’t see why he can’t have an actual job as well if the money’s insufficient. There must be some piece of the puzzle I’m missing here.
new testament model is Paul….he made tents….as a vocation….paid his way as a missionary
What you’re missing is that it’s a full time job. You are at the office eight hours a day (and constantly getting calls at 10:30 PM to visit dying members in the hospital) and doing work the whole time. You are the CEO and business manager, responsible for overseeing everything that happens that’s related to the church, from weddings, to outreach (aka evangelism aka marketing), to weekly bible studies, to finding people to handle preschoolers during events, to staff budgets, to lawn care. In a larger church, there’s a ton of stuff to do, and some event is probably going on at the church almost every day. In a smaller church, there’s a lot less of that, but you’re probably helping with things like food, decorations, bus driving and janitorial work yourself.
Ah that makes sense. Basically they’re not delegating, so they have to carry the entire church on their shoulders. It lives and dies by their efforts. That sounds like it would be way too much work for one person. I can certainly see why it wouldn’t allow for a secondary job.
Thanks for helping me out there
All very true points. My pastor actually works one day a week at the Chick-Fil-A I work at because of today’s economy. Now, for most of that work, is why there are secretaries that are hired/volunteers to help oversee much of those things as well as people who volunteer to clean up the church and property and why our church and other churches have visitation groups to visit someone sick in the hospital, etc.
I gotta agree with Leslie. No matter how mean, nice, or batshit insane, I love all people in fandom. Sometimes for the entertainment value though…
I know this is entirely the wrong interpretation, but I don’t care: I’m totally reading Leslie’s line in the last panel as an admission that she still loves Robin.
I considered that interpretation too.
Wait, wut? Just looked it up and this is actually happening. I gotta grab these comics and see what’s going on.
I don’t really pay attention to mainstream superhero comics, but as a Canadian I’ve always found it funny that Superman, the iconic American hero that even surpasses Captain America, was created partly by a Canadian. I know Joe Shuster had American citizenship, but he was born in Toronto and all. Just like Sydney Newman.
Not to mention Clark Kent originally worked at the Daily Star which was the Toronto Star
When you think about it, wasn’t Superman always an illegal alien?
(I also think the whole renouncing-U.S.-citizenship thing is pretty stupid… though I guess that makes me a poor-hating hypocritical zealot or something. Wasn’t one of the things he stood for “the American Way”?)
But what really makes me scratch my head is the story leading up to this. I admit I haven’t actually read the comic itself, but apparently this was spurred by Superman participating in a non-violent Iranian protest. Think about that for a moment. SUPERMAN participating in a NON-VIOLENT protest. What’s even the point? He’s Superman. If he doesn’t like the Ayatolla, shouldn’t he just go punch the guy in the face?
he was showing solidarity to the people and while he was there, he was a symbol of hope, and his presence greatly aided their cause and none of the protestors got hurt while he was there. some battles have to be fought be the people, you can’t just hand over control of the government from one person to another when the whole thing needs restructuring, and besides, its up to the people how their government should function, nobody asked Supes to intervene, so he didn’t. the crux of the problem was that after participating in the protest the US government had a chat with him regarding public image, so he decided he would solve the problem his own way.
I think the term is, “Anchor Baby.”
Kal-El’s mom didn’t come to Earth to have him, though, so that isn’t the right term.
(Yeah, I realize it was a joke)
Do you think he bought Superman 900 there (does Shortpacked sell comics?) or did he haul his copy into the store just in case somebody was like, “There’s NO WAY that’s true!”?
Either way, you have the right of it Willis. In the scale of bad plots DC’s run lately, this doesn’t even rate. I would say it’s fine (not great, but acceptable). The main thing is it won’t make a difference to the storyline and it’s dumb because Clark will still have citizenship, so it’s like he’s really just pulling yet another fast one on people.
its hardly a storyline, it was a backup story along with five other short stories while the main story was Superman fighting a group of cloned Doomsday’s
I’m not a comic fan so this might already have been taken care of but… what happens with Clark Kent if Superman renounces his citizenship? Does Clark keep the citizenship and Superman uses the identity to hide, or does Superman renounce and go live somewhere else, and everyone says “Hey, where’s Clark?”
as far as i know, the government doesn’t know that clark kent and superman are the same person, so it’s a non-issue. superman can get around the world pretty quickly, so he doesn’t necessarily have to live anywhere new if he wants to take on some international threat.
Legally, citizenship is attached to a person, not a name, so either they’re both still citizens or neither is. Renouncing citizenship is actually a bit more complicated than just saying “Fuck all y’all, I’m outta here. Sit on it and spin.” to some random government agent. So AFAICT they both still are.
Superman (and Steve Rodgers in marvel) has been the embodiment of not what America is but what it is supposed to be. Heck look at his origins (expect for Byrne’s since he was technically born in the America) he was an immigrant. In his homeland he was nothing special, but here he became important and unique. ( as a descendent’s of immigrants many people can relate to this) So now we see the icon of our dream renouncing us to be a citizen of the world. but what they failed to realized that most of us left that world to access the self evident truths of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ar we Prefect? God, no. That’s why we created symbols like Superman and captain America to show us what the dream looks like if personified.
Superman’s cutting edge, man. Sure, Captain America gets pissy like this all the time, but never when a Democrat’s in office. This is amazing new territory for national symbols!
too bad Cap already did it Three times before.
That’s…what he said…
Let’s be fair, Nixon was the head of the Secret Empire.
Superman shouldn’t have to renounce his citizenship in order to act on the world stage. I’m not saying that the person depicted in this comic is at all intelligent, but it does feel like many Marvel writers have a left leaning political view that shows through in their stories.
Superman is DC
I am aware of that. I was referring more to the death of Captain America and other instances referred to by those who commented above me. But I guess you’re right and that DC and Marvel have both pushed leftist opinions through their comic.
Could be worse. Supes’ could’ve offered his marriage to the devil.
You mean getting tricked by his wife’s acting ability. so she could get out guilt free?
Public welfare is like, communism, man!
I see this as a matter of individuality more than it any kind of renouncement over American politics. As it’s been said, Superman has always been seen as a mascot and emblem of American values. And it’s wearing on him. Is Superman, the person, not allowed to have his own opinions? If Superman likes vanilla over chocolate, does America favor vanilla? If Superman dislikes the color green, does America dislike the color green?
In the comic Superman went to support the Iranian protests, and both friend and foe alike took his actions as America’s support of the protests. What Superman is doing is an overblown way of telling the world that he’s his own person.
First Superman walks across America to find himself the he renounces his U.S. Citizenship.
I thought crappy gimmicks like this went out with the 90′s and Rob Lifeld.
Can’t anyone write a good Superman story where he stops some bank robbers or something? Guess no one knows how to write stories about truth justice and the american way.
2010 Supes reminds me of how crappy late 80′s-early 90′s Hal Jordan was. Dude was softer than a box of vanilla ice cream left out in the sun.
DC has been a total mess lately. I’d have to say the company jumped the shark starting with Identity Crisis and has been going downhill since.
I actually am I kinda sick of liberals using their comic strips to promote their political point of view (*AHEM*)…..
But only liberals! As long as you’re conservative, you can promote your point of view in comic strips all you want!
If you don’t like his comic then don’t read it. I strongly disagree with most of Willis’ political views myself (including this strip) but I read his comic because I find it entertaining. No one is forcing you to read it.
I think its the gratuitous poke in the eye as we follow willis’ lead that hurtzzzzzzzzz
So not only do you post something stupid under the name of one of America’s greatest intellectuals (who was a leftie, thank you very much), you also make your username a link to a freaking commercial website? Barf.
Meanwhile in Download City…
You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity. Farewell.
But I don’t want any spam!
I wish DC still knew how to do a simple super hero story. This kind of stunty attention grabbing nonsense is all they know how to do these days aside from turning Mary Marvel ‘raver grrl’ evil.
For the record, it’s not hypocritical to say “I dislike when people express views I disagree with, but it’s okay when I do it because mine are right”
…on Bizarro Planet.
My question is: considering the events of the Destruction of New Krypton happened only a few “months” ago in comic book time, the invasion of General Zod and his soldiers (who Superman used to be a part of) and the world has been rather xenophobic against Kryptonians, wouldn’t Superman renouncing his citizenship of America make people even more distrustful of him. Particularly the American people?
I mean, yeah, he says doing this will allow him to help the world better, but just look at the comments regarding this from people in the REAL world. Now imagine what all the people in Superman’s comic world would be saying about this. I highly doubt it’s universal support.
When I think about it, this plot just seems to complicate Superman’s job than help it. Honestly, this just seems like a story idea that wasn’t necessary.
The most nonsensical thing is why Superman didn’t renounce his citizenship after and because of the destruction of new krypton, since America literally carried out genocide against his species.
Why he would feel he needs to regain America’s trust I have no idea.
Silly americans! I doubt wolverine would renounce his canadian citizenship! score one for canada!
Let’s forget this controversy and get back to the important topics, like making every single character in your comic gay.
Really bothers you, huh.
It would appear as though your “random” button is broken. It just takes you to the latest strip.
My mom was one of the teachers for younger (than 10) kids at our church. On one of the days when she was just a helper, the teacher told a story about the rich man and the poor man. However, she told it like this,”And so, the poor man won virtue with Jesus, and He hates rich people.” Most of the kids went home that day, and probably asked their parents if they were rich. You want to know what most of these religiously active, praying before meals, Republicans (that part has nothing to do with religion, but we don’t get put in a good light here at Shortpacked!) said? They said, “Yes”
hmm. I’m Donatello now. Cool.
Hmmm, let’s see: uses slut as a pejorative, uses ableist language, I am praying we never see Malaya again. I’d like to be Free of Malaya if possible :/
Oh for fuck’s sake.
Nobody uses “lame” to refer to a physical disability anymore. It’s archaic. Semantic drift happened. Do you also get mad when people use the word “dumb” to mean “not intelligent”, because it used to mean somebody who was unable to speak?
True story. A gal came up to my booth at Wondercon, asking me “DO YOU REALIZE WHAT DUMB(ing of Age) MEANS?” and I told her, immediately realizing her angle, that it used to be a word for folks who couldn’t speak. Anyway, she tried very hard to be offended. Mostly she was dumbfounded (aheh) that I actually knew the history of the word, as if holding over a stranger an archaic definition that they weren’t aware of would have been a huge moral victory for her.
I just realized after reading this that Superman is an illegal alien. Clark Kent was born outside the USA and therefore not a citizen his adoptive parents falsified papers to say he was born in Kansas. Thus Clark Kent has fraudulant citizenship. But as Superman he may have been given honourary citizenship since the world knows he is from Krypton (or at least did in the 90′s) making him naturalized as Superman but not as Clark.
This means Superman is the Worlds most famous illegal alien.
Didn’t Leisie start working there because of Robin?
NAME — Get a Gravatar
NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
©2005-2013 David Willis | Powered by WordPress with ComicPress
| Subscribe: RSS
| Back to Top ↑