I’m a big fan of Orson Scott Card, and I usually enjoy reading his “Uncle Orson Reviews Everything” column over at Hatrack River. But the latest column had a bit that annoyed me:

Without ever actually planning to, I have somehow got myself involved in writing comic books, and having comic books made from my novels and short stories.

And it’s fun.

At the same time, it’s not like comic books are a noble part of our culture. They’re kind of … how shall I say … retro.

If you doubt me, check out http://youtube.com/watch?v=pB7DlcDto4Y. The video is funny. But the message is oh so sad.

Don’t tell me the need for affirmative action is over.

First of all, the YouTube video in question isn’t saying anything about race in modern superhero comics — the guy’s complaining about the black superheroes of his youth. That was before Steel, Bishop, Cyborg, Blur, Patriot (from Young Avengers), Cloak, Charcoal, Bumblebee, the new Firestorm, Mr. Terrific, the kid who’s got Johnny Thunder’s lightning bolt now, Rage, Night Thrasher, Spawn, John Stewart (one of the Green Lanterns), XS, and one of my favorite superheroes, Captain Marvel (or whatever she’s calling herself now — Monica Rambeau). So, off the top of my head, there’s 17 black superheroes (none of whom have “Black” in their names, note).

Secondly, I suspect the “affirmative action” thing is a joke, but Card has some screwy political views here and there, so maybe it’s not. I wouldn’t put it past him to support a policy that a.) undermines the attempts of any member of a minority of a workplace to get any respect (because it fosters the impression that they got the job only because of their race) and b.) undermines the attempts of minority parents to tell their kids that they’re capable of achieving anything (since it tells them that there’s no way they’re good enough to get that job without assistance from the government).

One could argue that there is still quite a bit of room for comics to have more black superheroes, but the situation is not nearly as bad as it was in the time period that the video is talking about, and it certainly isn’t so bad that we need a famous author implying that we need Superhero Affirmative Action to introduce new black superheroes just to have more black superheroes.

And, with great power comes… well, you know the rest

Mrs. du Toit has a post about ownership, freedom, and responsibility, and how those things tie into being an American:

As with most things like this, however, some folks can get the wrong idea. They’ll get the idea that because no one overtly stamps a list of rules on your forehead that there aren’t any. Further, that because no one gave you a list that detailed what your adult responsibilities are, there isn’t a list.

There is a list!

…

There can be no acceptance of those who will take liberties and offer nothing in return. Everywhere you go in this country, every street, every town, and every state, the day to day events that happen to our neighbors (regardless of how far away they live from us), is OUR business. Because it is OUR country. We own it. We’re responsible for it. And if we’ve forgotten that, or if we are incapable of actually living up to that requirement, then the American experiment has failed, and we’re just a bunch of louts and scoundrels in it for whatever we can steal for our selfish selves.

And if some folks think that turning in those who break the law, making a citizens’ arrest, or responding to a call for help, makes you something like a sucker or a tattle tale, then you’ve learned nothing about what freedom and responsibility means, and what ownership of a country is all about.

The whole thing is really a must-read.

It bothers me when people stretch words out by repeating a consonant that can’t be repeated easily. The letters B, D, K, P, Q, T, and X (or C and G, for their hard sounds) make no sense when you stretch them out to indicate the word’s being drawn out. For example, if they want to indicate a whiny “Please”, and they type “Ppppppppplease!” Given the presence of so many other letters that can be stretched (especially the first “E” and the “S”, which are typically the letters drawn out when stretching the word please), there’s no reason for the P to be stretched unless you’re pronouncing it with a stutter, like P-p-p-porky P-p-pig.

While I’m ranting about silly stuff, I get annoyed when people misuse “Ooh” and “Oh” or “Ah” and “Aah”. “Ohhhhhhhh” is not pronounced like a drawn out “Ooh.” “Ooh” (Or, if you must draw it out, “Oooooh”) is a sound of amazement, joy, excitement. “Oh” (or “Ohhhhh”) is more of an expression of surprise, possibly alarm. It might also be used simply as a generic interjection. “Oh, I get it now.” This might be drawn out if you’re coming to a slow, dawning realization, “Ohhhhhhhhh, I get it now.” Using “Oooh” in that case conveys something different.

“Ah” is very similar to “Oh” in its usage, whereas “Aah” is an expression of surprise and alarm. Think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, just before the Black Beast of Aarrgh shows up:

Bedevere: Ooooh!!!
Lancelot: No. ‘Aaarrgh’, at the back of the throat. Aaaarrrrgh.
Bedevere: No, no, no. ‘Ooooh’ in surprise and alarm!
Lancelot: Oh, you mean a sort of ‘Aaah!’

Now that you mention it, yes, I think I am feeling a bit nitpicky today.

I’ve had arguments with friends in the past where I have complained about Concealed Carry permits and gun registration. If I want to own or carry a gun, provided that I’m not waving it about actually attacking people with it, I believe I should be allowed to do so — without telling the government about it.

“But what harm does it do?” they ask.

I will grant that my first instinct when the government wants to do something is to ask “Why?” instead of “Why not?”, which puts me at odds with the friends in question on a very fundamental level when it comes to questions like this. I don’t generally think the “Why not?” question needs answered — because it’s impossible to answer the “Why?” question to my satisfaction.

Still, if you need to ask why not, how about this story, by Michelle Malkin, outlining the Roanoke Times assault on CCW permit holders:

Two weeks ago, the Roanoke Times published an online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders in the paper’s community under the sanctimonious guise of “Sunshine Week.” The database included both the names and street addresses of some 135,000 Virginians with permits to carry concealed weapons. Columnist Christian Trejbal patted himself on the back for making it easy to snoop on the neighbors: “I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It’s nobody’s business but mine if I want to pack heat. Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone’s business.”

By that logic, the Times should also support making it possible for private citizens to look up license plate numbers from the public database. The government handles it, after all — it’s everyone’s business.

Trejbal denied that compiling the concealed carry permit holders list was “about being for or against guns.” But he exposed his true agenda when he compared law-abiding gun owners to . . . sex offenders: “A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not.”

I’ve expressed displeasure at the idea of sex offender registries in the past, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that they work exactly as they’re intended — the people listed are dangerous offenders who should be in prison, since they’re obviously still dangerous enough that we should all be informed about them so we can be wary watched carefully by the public (why else would we be informed about them?). So, assuming the sex offender registry works as intended, it monitors people who have broken laws and assaulted another human being. Gun owners, well, own guns. By the very nature of gun laws and the registration requirements as I understand them, we can assume that registered gun owners have never been found guilty of committing a felony (and, statistically, most of them will never even be suspected, except, perhaps, by hoplophobes). Yet, Trejbal wants us to equate the “outing” of gun owners with sex offender registries.

With that kind of prejudice against gun owners pervasive in this country, it’s no wonder that gun owners would prefer their anonymity (even if there’s no physical threat to them, they run the risk of being ostracized by their community for doing nothing wrong).

“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” –Aaron Levenstein

While I’m talking about people who use the truth to mislead…

I visited Mom for a bit yesterday evening, and while there, I played with a little black and white radio/TV/Flashlight thing that she had on her kitchen counter. It was hooked up to cable, and while I was fiddling, I found myself watching CSPAN.

I couldn’t get the sound to come in right, and, as I said, I was pretty much just goofing off, but I saw someone talking about a chart that caught my eye. The chart showed average worker salaries for the last several years (I think it was a couple of decades of information, but again, I couldn’t make out details on the fuzzy five or so inch screen), and how, adjusted for 2005 dollars, the workers had made pretty much the same amount of money over the timespan. Another line on the chart appeared to show what their payrates “should have been“, if they had received payraises to keep their pay proportional to that of the company’s CEO.

A quick Google search reveals that CEO/Worker pay ratios are often used to criticize CEOs who earn a “gluttonous” amount.

Let’s be reasonable for a moment. First of all, while it’s certainly emotionally compelling to talk about the workers who have effectively been working for the same amount for the last twenty years or so, that’s really misleading. The individual who was working in the job twenty years ago almost certainly has moved on, probably to another job where he is receiving considerably more money, even adjusted for inflation. The job is worth a certain “value” to the company, the company pays for the job in relation to that vlaue, and the fact that the value is more or less consistent over time shouldn’t surprise anyone (as I’ve argued before, the dollar amount really doesn’t matter, since the market will keep it “balanced”).

Secondly, CEO to average worker isn’t really fair without other context. Let’s pretend for just a second.

Imagine that I’ve started my own business. I have ten non-management, blue-collar employees (“workers”, for lack of a better term), and for the sake of argument, they all make $20,000. I, on the other hand, make $60,000, for a ratio of 3-to-1. Fast forward twenty years. My company’s a big success, and I now have a thousand workers, a number of managers to help keep things running smooth, support staff, etc. The workers’ pay averages (the inflation-adjusted equivalent of) $20,000. I, on the other hand, now make $600,000. That’s a ratio of 30-to-1.

In the course of ten years, the CEO-to-workers ratio has gotten “worse” by an order of magnitude. It’s ridiculous, absurd, gluttonous. I should be giving up some of my extra pay to make the workers’ lives better. What kind of a jerk am I, anyway?

Well… for the sake of argument, let’s say that those thousand workers are, for all intents and purposes, doing the same job the workers ten years ago were doing. It has the same relative value, and so it pays the same. On the other hand, I’m now managing (through intermediaries, granted) at least 100 times as many employees, dealing with legal issues and such that I would never have even considered ten years ago.

Simply comparing the CEO to the average worker’s pay is an ultimately meaningless measure without a great deal of extra context.

The Board of Directors that runs a publically-traded company sets a CEO’s salary and compensation package based on the value they see the CEO bringing to the company, just like the accountants set the salary for a fry cook based on the value that he brings. The fact of the matter is, people get paid by a company based on the value of their work to the company. Whether it’s fair or not, the value of a CEO can vary greatly from individual to individual or even with the same indivdiual from year to year, but the value of a fry cook at a single McDonald’s restaurant is pretty consistent with respect to the market.