Monday, August 29, 2005

Okay, But When Do They Fight The Cavity Creeps?

The funniest thing you'll read all day:

A new comic series bearing the unwieldy title ''Liberality for All" is coming out in October from ACC Studios, a recently formed one-man publishing venture in Kentucky. Advertised as ''an Orwellian nightmare of ultra-liberalism," the series features radio pundits Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, and Oliver North as biomechanically tricked-out members of a conservative underground resistance called F.O.I.L. (the Freedom of Information League). Writer and creator Mike Mackey, an affable comic book aficionado, says it's the conservative movement's first comic book series (unless you count the three 1987 issues of the exquisitely low-camp ''Reagan's Raiders") and the only series put together specifically for a right-wing audience.

Great, a comic book with less appeal than the free comics they used to give out at the dentist's office. You know, the ones sponsored by Aim toothpaste, where Spiderman and Dr. Shapiro would have to stop the Green Goblin from stealing some top-secret drill or the latest plaque-fighting technology.

Seriously, you expect quality from something published in that hot-bed of publishing excellence, Kentucky. First, isn't "Orwellian nightmare of ultra-liberalism" itself an Orwellian turn of phrase, considering that 1984 has basically become a conservative instruction manual? And speaking of Orwellian...Hannity, North, and Liddy as the...FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEAGUE? What the---? Ok, Liddy maybe I could see, given his fondness for breaking in and stealing documents and setting up illegal wire-taps and so forth. I mean, that's a kind of freedom of information, right? Kind of like when you totally steal something from someone and say that you "liberated" it from them? And I guess if you stretch you could say that North supports freedom of information, if you mean that by shredding documents and lying through his teeth he was "freeing" us all from having to hear information about how he and the Reagan administration broke the law. But Hannity? No fucking way I'm buying that. But wait, there's more:
Set in the year 2021, the eight-book series imagines an alternative history in which Al Gore won the 2000 election and liberals went on to create a grim dystopia, with Chelsea Clinton as president, Michael Moore the vice president, a hyper-active Department of Political-Correctness, and the United States under the thumb of a corrupt United Nations world government. Meanwhile, Islamic terrorists no longer consider the kinder, gentler US government a threat, and have focused their energies on assassinating their true enemies--the arch conservatives who make up the resistance. Osama bin Laden, now the Afghan ambassador to the United Nations, plans to wipe out New York with a nuclear device, and it's up to our dynamic talk-radio trio to save the nation.

First of all, in 2021, Liddy will be 91, North will be 78, and Hannity will still be an asshole. Sounds like a recipe for non-stop action: 2 geriatric criminals and a douchebag. Which is actually a much better title than that "Liberality" hoos-a-fudge. Or maybe "The Ambiguously Gay Trio?" Second, this is the most awesome compendium of right-wing paranoia compiled in one place since... well, since the Republican National Convention, I guess. Chelsea Clinton and Michael Moore in the White House! Bin Laden an ambassador to the UN! What's next? Mandatory abortions for everyone? Phyllis Schlafly forced to go out and get a job? Al Franken digging up Reagan's corpse and having his way with it in the middle of Times Square?

Also, in order to wipe out conservatives, Bin Laden plans to wipe out New York City? Um... ooooookay. Seriously, if you really want to laugh, check out some of the preview panels here. And stop reading that freedom-hating homo Captain America...


Matthew Smith said...

This Injustice League is good for a laugh, but it brings up something that makes me cringe about my fellow card-carrying lefties: I can actually envision a liberal administration promoting a "Department of Political Correctness". Jesus Herman Christ, people! Can't anyone else see that the left's insistence that no one EVER be offended is itself an offensive idea? We speak in code – ostensibly to be politically correct. But tell me this: if I say "the n-word", don’t you know exactly what I’m talking about? Isn’t the idea behind the word "nigger" just as offensive as the word itself? And why should I feel, if I’m quoting some racist, bigot or asshole, that I have to say "the n-word" instead of representing the actual quotation? Why should I feel guilty that someone else is a prick?

Now I’m not saying you should go out and call some woman a cunt, but I’m sure it wouldn’t make it a more pleasurable conversation if you said "Mom, you’re a c-word." Am I wrong? There isn’t any difference, right?

We all learned early in life about sticks and stones; are black, gay and/or foreign people so fragile that names do, in fact, hurt them?

Sara said...

I agree that saying the "n-word" or the "c-word" is just as bad, and is just as politically uncorrect in my opinion. You're probably also right that it's not too far-out to think about a future Dept. of P.C. publishing some regulated list of things it's OK or not OK to say to avoid accidentally sharing your offensive ideas. However, what I am naively optimisticly hopeful for is the day when people stop having those offensive ideas-- then we all won't need to worry so much about what to say...

emeryroolz said...

I find it extremely unlikely that the political left would create any sort of aparatus to restict free speech, no matter how offensive it is. But maybe I'm the one who's being naive. I think there's a definite distinction between trying to do away with language that's offensive to groups of people, and codifying that into law and enforcing it.