Today, I came across this infographic at Information is Beautiful showing the astounding success Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales had with his own personal appeal:
Think I should put my classy mug on the Air Quality Appeal before it goes out? Maybe one showing me about to pass out on an Ozone Action Day?
The important thing about my appeal is that I’m making it very clear that Air Quality Partnership is not asking for money. We’re asking for social capital across interactive networking platforms and in real life. You’d think a like on Facebook is easier to give than money, but there’s a lot more to it than that.
The reboot in question is 2011’s New 52. A lot has changed since then, but a lot of this still holds up. From 2011:
I’m just going to go ahead and be a nerd here for a few minutes. DC Comics is renumbering three-quarters of their titles with 52 new Issue #1’s staggered weekly beginning August 31. That’s essentially a reboot, right? DC honchos are calling it a new point of entry for a new generation of readers, which makes sense given the massive platforms offered by the popularity of superhero movies and merchandising.
Fine. Actually, more than fine. I think it’s a great idea. A lot of fanboys think it’s long overdue after the almost-reboots of the last few years, but I think the timing is perfect. I think it’s great and I look forward to it. It might get me to start subscribing to a few regular titles again, which would be a lot of fun (especially since I have a vintage grocery store comics rack that I can’t fit my bagged and boarded 90’s books in). What I’m not so sure about is the new Justice League roster (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern Hal Jordan, Aquaman, and … Cyborg?)
I’m always of the opinion that the Justice League should be Superman, Batman, The Flash, Wonder Woman, a Green Lantern, and Aquaman. I left out Green Arrow. Maybe I shouldn’t have. Is he iconic? Green Arrow is on the bubble, like the letter y. He’s a legacy character with classic runs in the 70s, and he’s the team’s resident dissident/progressive. He’s the League’s only bow-and-arrow guy, so there’s that. But he’s not an archetype like the Big Three, and he doesn’t stand in for great elemental and cosmic forces (Aquaman, Flash, Green Lantern). The same’s true for Cyborg, and so I’m conflicted. Nothing against Vic, but neither his history nor his skill-set seem to bring something essential, or quintessential, to the team.
I know without Vic, the team is all-white, and I don’t think that’s acceptable. Who’s the most iconic of all the non-white characters in the DCU? John Stewart as the Green Lantern? Absolutely. He was the best character on the the animated Justice League series not named Batman (sorry, John, but Bats will always be my favorite), and, truth be told, he carried the show and the team. Justice League established him in popular media as a quintessential character to the JL mythos, and it wasn’t because of his green ring. It was because of how awesome, conflicted, and noble he was. What does Hal Jordan really bring to the table? I know, I know, he’s the Silver Age original, but while he was away, John Stewart became the definitive Green Lantern for me, even as Wally West became the Flash. Sorry, but that’s just how I see it. Somewhere, someone is saying “what about Kyle Rayner?” Exactly. Loved him. Haven’t thought about him in years.
I’d bump Hal and Cyborg and sign John up in a heartbeat, if he’d take the job. If DC is also hoping to skew younger with the Cyborg character (he’s historically been cast as younger than the DCU’s banner heroes), what about Static? Isn’t his full inclusion in the top narratives of the DCU long overdue? Wouldn’t putting Static in the JLA add some much-needed youth and also be a more-than-fitting tribute to the late Dwayne McDuffie? No one else pictured above has Static’s elemental kind of powers. There’s a fast guy, a strong girl, a strong guy, a dark avenger guy, a mystical space military guy, a water guy. Where’s the electric guy? Static to the Justice League the second I’m in the door at Editorial. (Also, Pete Rose to the Hall of Fame).
All of this still leaves us with a relatively undiverse grouping, but it’s a step in the right direction. Where’s Martian Manhunter, by the way? I know he’s dead in current continuity, and I’m guessing that he’ll appear later in the series like he did way back when in the original. Speaking of which, I know that Supes and Batman weren’t part of the old league back in the day, but whatever. I’m writing about comic books so I get to say that.
On to my second issue. It has to do with costumes. Wonder Woman’s change is long overdue, but they should have kept some yellow. Black threads on a color palette that doesn’t historically have them are gimmicky in baseball and gimmicky in comics. Aquaman looks great, which is sometimes hard for Aquaman to do. This look honors his history even as the military collar recalls his finest hours as my harpoon-handed beard-twin. (His current incarnation on Batman: The Brave and The Bold is brilliant and my undeniable favorite). The Flash has those weird piping lines on his cowl, which is to be expected with these kind of reboots. If you look closely, Batman probably has them, too, and his gauntlets are more modular and armor-like. Fine, though I like a cleaner cowl for Batman. Flash’s chin thing is meant to make his ensemble look younger, hipper. Fine.
But sweet Siegel and Shuster, where on Krypton are Superman’s red briefs? What’s with the bishop/general collar? I only just now noticed the blue on blue gauntlet piping and red sleeve trim. Is that a red belt? I can only imagine what his boots look like. This feels a lot like the future version of Superman that Connor Kent/Superboy became a while back in Teen Titans. I thought then that the evolution of this look might work over time, but this seems so sudden, so…drastic. This is Superman we’re talking about. I know he’s been changed in varying degrees over the years, but the late Golden Age and Silver Age look has been kept largely intact until now. The lack of briefs is shocking, but the collar bugs me most. It looks way too Zod for Kal. And now that I’ve lost most of my regular readers, I bid you a fond “till next time!”
They are, instead, the photographic evidence of the beautiful wedding of two wonderful friends (groom not pictured, natch). As the day and evening progressed, the degree to which people just called me Alan increased accordingly.
I was going for Morrison or Foghat, but I'll take Galifianakis all day long. Who are these comely gents beside me? I still don't know!
I haven’t watched this whole video yet, but any time successful people talk about the crafts of writing and storytelling, it’s worth checking out. When you have an hour to spend, why not spend it with Robert McKee? Yes, yes it is good enough for me. Good enough for me and Bobby McKee.
A few days ago, Scottie Pippen said that while Michael Jordan remains the greatest scorer in the history of basketball, LeBron James might be the best all-around player ever. And then everyone said “ffffwhat?”” and I thought about Batman. See, when Dick Grayson, the first and best Robin, got tired of feeling like an underrated sidekick instead of a respected, equal partner, he didn’t go tell Mike and Mike. First he whined to Superman, then he became Nightwing, the coolest superhero not named Batman. Dick Grayson, even in his recent stint as Batman, has never been and never will be Batman. But as Nightwing, he has a little something for himself, and he’s a respected, bona-fide champion of his own burg across from Gotham.
With Pippen, having been Robin is the deal. There’s no Nightwing role in basketball unless you play right now for the Heat. Super Sidekick isn’t the job you dream of as a kid, but six rings? Two three-peats? Being the second best player on the best team of the 90s, and, as some have it, the best team ever? Yep, okay. I’ll take it. Right now, Pippen is widely considered the best sidekick in recent history almost by default, which isn’t to diminish his own skill set or career. He wasn’t just in the right place at the right time: he had to be, and was, the right player. He is the greatest of lieutenants, at least by acclamation, which is the same metric everyone uses when talking about Michael Jordan’s own supremacy.
Everyone except Kareem Adbul-Jabbar. He posted “How Soon They Forget: An Open Letter to Scottie Pippen” on his website yesterday. And if you expect Kareem to take Scottie to task for disrespecting Jordan, you don’t know Kareem. First, there’s the part where he says Pippen, while possessing a great basketball mind, is ailing from limited perspective. Wilt Chamberlain, he reminds us, is the greatest scorer ever. He also talks about how much better the league was back in the day, and says “So MJ has to be appraised in perspective. His incredible athletic ability, charisma and leadership on the court helped to make basketball popular around the world — no question about that. But in terms of greatness MJ has to take a backseat to The Stilt.”
Kareem’s real point, though, is that neither Michael Jordan nor LeBron James nor even Wilt Chamberlain can lay claim to the mantle of greatest player ever. He doesn’t exactly say so, but he’s squarely in the Bill Russell camp in this discussion. “The ring’s the thing,” he says, and we all know Russell has eight straight.
Kudos, I say, to Kareem for being the grumpy old guy in the corner who says “the 90s schmine-ties. Back in my day ____.” Kudos for questioning all of this acclamation business. Somewhere, Skip Bayless is just wishing Kareem would have called Pippen a “prisoner of the moment.” Negative points, though, for being kind of rude and passive aggressive about it. That’s part of the deal, I suppose. Minus a few more points also for not also saying what he’s making everyone else point out: that he, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, is the NBA’s all-time points leader and by that metric alone should be at least second on everyone’s three-person list of greatest scorers. By making Chamberlain’s case, Kareem is also making his own and he’s about as subtle as a skyhook. Come on, now, friend. You think we didn’t catch that?
I am, however, one of those thirtysomethings with a robust red beard.
This may surprise you, but I’m not one of those 30-somethings that can go deep and wide on Simpsons quotes or trivia past the second season. The same is probably true for Seinfeld. That said, I’ve never forgotten some of the nuances of the episode where Johnny Cash plays a coyote in Homer’s vision quest. You likely have an idea, even if it’s just from other popular media, about what a vision quest is.
I didn’t know until yesterday that it’s also the name of the language (or something…I’m a liberal arts/MFA grad, let us ne’er forget) that Facebook uses to run their insight tools for Pages:
Isn’t that sort of like naming a program “Baptism” or “Bar Mitzvah?” It strikes me as rather insensitive, inappropriate, and rude. Considering that vision quests are meant to impart, well, a vision, the use of the program or protocol or whatever it is within the Insights application (or whatever it is) feels kind of crass, don’t you think?
If you’ve been reading The Daily Cocca for a while you probably know that I’ve become increasingly interested in spiritual formation over the last year or so. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on First Nations rites of passage or spirituality, but I will say that the general idea of listening for or hoping for or even preparing for the building or outright giving of spiritual insight is something the Christian tradition and other traditions affirm. With that in mind, the juxtaposition of insight and vision within the Facebook Pages platform got me wondering about the degree to which we all either:
a) think of insight as an ability to know the good in a given situation (political, economic, whatever) and then how to enact it (basically, this is Aristotelian prudence) rather than the building up or taking in of some other kind of knowing (spiritual/existential).
b) think that insight, even apart from its meaning in metrics, is something quantifiable.
c) think something must be quantifiable to have value.
In some ways, of course, most faith traditions suggest a kind of metric for spiritual growth: Christians, for example, speak of the non-quantifiable process whereby Christ is built in us, or in which grace upon grace is imparted to us. Even though we can’t measure in objective ways the degree to which we are becoming like Christ (or, perhaps, healthier, happier), there are subjective measures: the fruits of the spirit, the sense of God’s will in community, etc. All ripe for manipulation and abuse, mind you, but useful and helpful in healthy, humble spiritual communities.
I was talking with a friend the other day about whether or not I believe that there’s anything soteriological (saving, in a spiritual sense) about the Eucharist, which Christians also call the Lord’s Supper or Communion. I’ve believed all kinds of things about the Lord’s Supper over the years, but right now I’m at the point of saying “I don’t believe the Eucharist saves us, but when I take it week to week, and when I go up in front of church of anointing, I….”
“Meet Jesus,” my friend said.
“Yes.”
Nothing in my practice or study of various Christian spiritualities convinces me that God requires us to be saved by the Eucharist, but I do think God uses whatever God can from our traditions, and from our need for tradition, to meet us where we are. I’ve referred to this elsewhere as God deigning to be part of our rituals and practices, but really, it’s more than that. I think maybe God delights in the opportunity. “Hey, man, thanks for being here. Oh, you need to eat? Eating is like the most communal thing you do, not just with each other but with all of nature, too? Well then, friend, when you do it, think of me.”
Did God meet Homer Simpson in what began as a hot-pepper trip? In the person of a God-voiced coyote? Do I meet God in the act of Communion? Yes, I know I can only speak for myself, and I know The Simpsons is a cartoon. But I also know there’s a lot of mystery in the universe, that our brains do amazing things when given the chance to rest, to solve problems, to sleep, to mediate, to dissolve in the great freeing spaces of spiritual practice or prayer or circadian rhythms. I heard Tony Campolo saying the other day that when Mother Theresa prayed, she really just listened and believed that God listened, too. Nurturing our own vision quests requires a certain kind of listening, I think, and that’s different for each of us. For me, it’s lately been poetry, prayer, meditation and honoring my fearfully, wonderf’ly made self by taking better care to eat right and sleep better.
Chris Cocca 