Getting outraged over sexy spiders.......

You know I'm always amazed at the shit that gets people fired up sometimes. Especially because it seems more and more frequently they miss the point.

Take for example, Marvel's newly released alternative cover for their new spider woman comic:

A lot of people are getting pissed because they say its way too oversexualizing of the character, and object to the fact it was drawn by a well known erotic artist.

Now on its face that seems all well and good. I mean quoting from the article in Elle about the picture

"All in all, the image seems to toe the line of pornographic; imagine Spider-Man in that position instead, and the concept would have never gotten this far." 

that seems fair right? After all Marvel would never ever put a male in that pose, that pose is purely sexual.

The Vox version of the article even outright points out the differences in how Spider Man and Spider Woman are drawn, stating
"To be clear, that is not how Spider-Man poses or is drawn when he climbs buildings:"
Then to drive the point home, they add a helpful picture of the two you can slide back and forth to see the difference. (you can take my word for it, or go to this link since i cant copy there image)

io9 gets even more specific stating "First of all, even the dumbest, horniest teenage boy on the planet knows there's no fabric on this earth that could possibly cling to Jessica Drew's individual buttocks like that. "

Point is though. Clearly Spider-Woman is forced into unnaturally sexy positions you would never ever ever ever ever find a man in.........

That picture by the way, is the cover of Amazing Spider-Man volume 2, number 30. Which was printed in June of 2001. Oddly I cant find any angry posts about the inherent sexiness of that pose and how its degrading to the character for that cover. Also to i09's point, I'm seeing a fair amount of ass cleavage, but I guess fabric can cling like that to man ass? 

Speaking of past covers no one seems to find objectionable:

.

And these are just the ones with Spider-Woman in them. Of course no one said anything at the time. I could find plenty of other much worse examples with other characters.

All of which leads me to one inescapable conclusion. The people who are outraged either dont know anything about comics or dont actually care about the sexiness. They care only that an erotic artist got a job drawing something that everyone still [incorrectly] believes are children's books. 

 Which is a shame, since they almost have a valid point. Comic book characters are overly sexualized. But lets be honest, some of that is inherent in the idea. These are idealized humans. I'm sure there are very few if any women who naturally look like Spider-Woman. Conversely I dont know very many men who look like this:

Just saying.

Now look I'm not going to lie, the playing up the overtly sexual/physical appearances isnt gender equal. Historically its weighted towards women. However an interesting thing has happened. Most of the images I've used so far are fairly recent (last 10-15 years), and theres a reason for that, thats the current marvel style. Now that style has a very detailed body with "depth" to it, so its a basically allows for much more realistic sexy image then this

That's Ms Marvel crica 1980, and that costume is [rightly] the usual go to default for people criticizing the sex appeal built in comic book characters (mostly women) at the time.

But this is her now, in her much less revealing, hailed as "not sexual" current costume:

 

I dont know about you, but I think I find this second lady much more attractive then the first.

Point is though, ever since Marvel adopted its current style, the sex appeal/sexy poses for Men and Women have gotten much closer. Yes it still learns towards women, but we are getting nearer to equality.....just not the equality people had in mind.

And thats a point everyone upset about Spider-Woman's new cover has missed. You can be against the sexiness of comic characters at this point, but if your only aiming it at women your missing half the point, cause men are strutting their stuff now too

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Incredibly unclothed Hercules....

Oh, hey ant man, what were you doing down there?

Furthermore of all the characters to pick on for being overly sexualized, they seem to have latched onto a awkward choice.

You see Spider-Woman isnt a Spider-Man clone. She has her own unique power set. Including Pheromone control, which she can use to make her opponent feel fear repulsion or attraction.

Thats right, she actually has the power to make her enemies (or friends) attracted to her....and how exactly would you depict that in a visual medium? by making her sexy looking. Which would kinda give marvel an excuse to make her look hot....shes using her powers

Oh and before you point out that's sexist to give that power to a woman, meet Starfox, the brother of Thanos (for those who've seen Guardians he didnt make it into the movie)

His superpower? he can stimulate your pleasure center with his mind (not touching the possible contexts for that with a 10 foot pole) and make you fall in love with him....or anyone else. Oh and did I mention his real name is Eros? And how did he get the name Starfox? Well according to the wasp, he came from the stars and he's foxy......

So yea. turns out Marvel's pretty equal opportunity on that too....well except that both Fox and Spider have been accused of using their powers on a lover......want to guess which one wound up in court fighting a rape change and which one got off scott free? I'll give you a clue, the fact that Marvel didnt make it clear enough Fox didnt rape the women (they stated it in the text, but as an aside after the trial that he hadnt done it, not at the trial himself) is one of the reasons he will likely never be seen again, readers incorrectly think he's a rapist so he's now bad PR for Marvel.

Whereas no one really mentions what Spider Woman keeps doing.....

Anyways point is, the overall argument the people who are outraged over the new cover are trying to make is for the moment still somewhat valid. Women are sexualized more than men in comics. But they likely could have picked a better [read earlier] time to do it, before things started to equalize, they should have picked a different hero then the one with a built in excuse as to why she might look unrealisitically attractive, and the definitely should have picked a different cover to fight over, and a better reason to fight, because as I showed, Spiderman, whom they all turned to to make their point, has been shown in exactly the same pose, which actually undercuts their argument of sexism. Which in turn hurts the valid part of their point.

Now thats the end of this rant, but before I leave you, I uncovered one more comic book cover while writing this that I want to include but didnt really fit well anywhere else:

Whatever Herc and Wolverine were doing right before this cover I DONT WANT TO KNOW!!!!!!!!

The war on Whites.

So it seems Congressman Mo Brooks is the first person to actually figure out the truly evil plans of the Democratic Party's stand on immigration reform. You see, you might think its about fixing a broken immigration system, or helping people brought here illegally as children. If your more cynical you might think its actually about pandering to Latino's by trying to convince them your policies are better for them. But you'd be wrong. You see Democratic immigration policies, nay ALL Democratic policies are actually about a WAR ON WHITES!!!!!!!!!

Or as Rep. Brooks put it, “This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else, It's part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true.”

Now first off I think we all need to admit the truth of Rep Brooks statement. If there is one group through-out american history that has been repeatedly victimized its white folks:

I mean just look at those poor guys. Not only are they required to hide their faces when they go out in public, they are forced to wear white robes to identify themselves publicly as white people, and forced to endure all the scorn that comes with it. Plus look at their chests, like the Jews in Germany they are forced to where a symbol identifying their religion and  singling them out for even more scorn. All thanks to the muslim socialist fascist President. Thanks Obama.

And its not like thats the only example. Take a look at this offensive mocking of the White People.

That woman is CLEARLY in White-Face. She's clearly mocking the chapped lips problem white people can have when its cold, the fact our noses can turn red when we are sick and the fact that our hair can grown in a wide range of colors. Point is its OFFENSIVE and needs to be stopped.

And its not like shes the only one:

Cant you just hear them "Hey dude, you know what would be HILARIOUS? lets all dress up like White People and walk around town for a while....you know with the 3 piece suits, the rosey cheeks, the sneers and weird mustaches" "Dude youre right, that would be TOTALLY EPIC"

So I mean, at the end of the day, you cant deny Congressman Brooks has a real point. Just look how badly white people are singled out in this culture.

Although then again, maybe the identification is needed. I mean, maybe its just me, but it seems I'm a little confused what a white person is.

You see I thought those were all white people (except for Sen Hirono). But it turns out most of them are Democrat's.

Same here:

And here:

Like I said, I thought all those groups were white. My mistake, I guess we really do need the hoods to tell the difference.

Now I know what your thinking, maybe they ARE white and some white folks vote democrat? Not according to Rep Brooks who tried to clarify his first comments with these:

"As best I can in the time limitations I have, I try to make sure people understand what the Democrats are doing by raising race as an issue every chance they get. It's much like the congressmen during the (immigration) debate on Friday: Democrat after Democrat was talking racism and race. And the motivation for their doing so was to try to cause bloc voters of race to vote solely on skin color.

I'm one of those who does not believe in racism and I believe everyone should be treated equally as American citizens. It's high time folks started calling out the Democrats for their racial appeals. Certainly if you were to flip the coin and a white person were to say vote for me because I'm white, it would be an uproar and deservedly so. So why do we allow blacks to say vote for me because I'm black or Hispanics vote for me because I'm Hispanic? Race is immaterial and everybody ought to be treated the same."

See. Democrats only run on the fact they arnt white and you should vote for them because you arnt white either. Its never been that the policy endorsed by Democrats is seen as being better for minorities by minorities One of the most famous examples of cheap vote for me due to my race pandering:

Now as we all famously know "ich bin ein berliner" actually means "I'm Hispanic so vote for me my Hispanic brethren". 

And I mean its not like JFK is the only one. This guy is famous for supposedly being America's First Black President:

  

Which is a TOTAL LIE. I mean we all know who America's first black president really was:

But then again, maybe he was Asian, I really cant tell apparently........but as America's first Democrat president we KNOW he wasnt white.

Point is though, Republicans would never NEVER run a candidate based solely on the fact they werent white and assume that would bring them minority votes.

Remind me again, why this clown was declared the Republican Frontrunner for 2016 8 seconds after the polls closed in 2012? Clearly it was because of his wealth of experience and policy like the famous [editors note find the name of a bill Rubio wrote that became law and edit this later] that he wrote and is now law.

By the way, is Marco Rubio still alive? I'm just saying no one seems to have mentioned him in like a year...ever since he laid out his policy ideas..........

Eh, must be a fluke that ever since he said what he actually stands for, Republicans wont support him, but before when he was only his appearance they loved the guy.

I do legitimately fully agree with one thing Congressman Brooks said though "[If] a white person were to say vote for me because I'm white, it would be an uproar and deservedly so." And credit to Congressman Brooks for having the guts to test and prove that theory personally.

5 most important Vice Presidents in US history.

So I thought this would be a cool follow up to my 2 recent 10 best/worst presidents list. Especially since as a rule the Vice President is kinda an unknown. In fact the only real requirements for most Vice Presidents has been to have a heartbeat......or in the case of Dick Cheney, a reasonable substitute.

So unlike our Presidents list, the rules for Vice President are a little different, their entire political career up until becoming vice president counts....however nothing they did after being Vice President will count, since this is about what made the important vice presidents, not people. (this is also to prevent the list from being populated by presidents who had been VP's)

Also, the rules for electing the Vice President changed in 1804 when the 12th amendment was passed. Prior to 1804 the Vice President was simply the runner up in the electoral college. Which also means the reasoning behind who became Vice President and why also changed in 1804. Therefore in order to ensure an even playing field (and give time to some lesser known VP's) the men who were VP prior to 1804, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr are disqualified. However since the idea usually is that the VP is most important before the election, ALL other VP's including Joe Biden and Dick Cheney are eligible.

One last thing, please take note of the word IMPORTANT. This is not a best or worst list, just a list of Vice Presidents who did something that had a big impact, for better or worse.

First up we have:

Elbridge Gerry. 5th Vice President under Madison

Ever wonder why Gerrymandering is spelled with a G and not a J like is sounds? Because it was named after this guy. In 1812, Gerry "invented" (or perfected) the practice when, as governor, he approved a map of Massachusetts congressional districts that used lots of irregular shapes to make it much easier for his party to win seats in the states, and much harder for the opposition. Pretty much every time we redraw districts after the census the party in control of a state legislator that year will try to do the same thing Gerry did 200 years ago. And it can work really effectively.  Consider, in 2012, the Democrat's got 1.17 million more votes in House races then Republicans, but Republicans still hold a near 30 seat majority. How? because the democratic vote was spread out and mimimized into highly republican districts using gerrymandering in the 2010 redistricting (and to be clear, this is not an indictment of the GOP, the dem's would and have done the same, it just so happens the this is the most recent example). So yea, thats the power of Gerrymandering and lasting legacy of its originator, Elbridge Gerry.

On one last thing, it should also be noted Elbridge Gerry is the only person on this list to not have a post vice presidential career of some kind.....because he died 18 months into his term (the second of 7 VP's to die) prompting people everywhere to go "Dude you had ONE JOB! ONE FREAKING JOB! HAVE A HEARTBEAT! AND YOU FAILED!"

Number 4:

Andrew Johnson. 16th Vice President under Lincoln.

So somewhat shockingly, given his placement on my worst presidents list, Johnson is actually here for a GOOD reason. If you live in the midwest/great plains, you've likely heard of the Homestead Act, a congressional bill that gave public land to settlers to encourage westward expansion. In fact its arguably one of the main factors for all original US migration west of the Mississippi, and it was all the idea of this guy. In fact he introduced it for the very first time during his first term in office as a congressman in 1843....and basically spent the next 20 years pushing for it in both the house and the senate (with a 4 year break to serve as governor of Tennessee.) In an ironic twist however, Johnson would leave the Senate in 1862 just months before final passage occured. Unlike most of his southern ilk though, Johnson didnt leave due to secession, he actually left to become military governor of occupied Tennessee.  As military governor, Johnson, devoted to the Southern way of life (even if he supported the idea of the Union) got an exception for his state from the Emancipation Proclamation, ensuring no matter who controlled which parts of Tennessee after 1863, the whole state could keep their slaves. In another ironic twist, Johnson's final act as Military Governor, before assuming the Vice Presidency, was to sign into law Tennessee's new Constitution.....outlawing slavery forever.

Number 3: 

John C. Calhoun. 7th Vice President under Q Adams and Jackson.

Calhoun is famous in his own right, but most of the reasons he's famous come from his stint as a senator, AFTER being vice president (which it should be noted was not at all unusual, most still living ex Vice Presidents up until and including Andrew Johnson at least ran for the Senate). But he was actually pretty important before that senate stint as well.

First he's an AMAZING set of trivia answers, Second (and last) vice president to serve two different presidents, only vice president to serve two different parties, first vice president to resign the office.

And its actually that last one that gets him on this list. People may remember that when I was talking about Andrew Jackson on my worst presidents list, I mentioned he cant even take full credit for his crack down on nullification because his vice president had mainstreamed the whole idea? yea well this is that Vice President. And the idea of Nullification, was one the south pointed to as proof they could legally secede, and that idea had actually more or less entirely Calhoun's.  So in a nutshell he's kinda responsible for the civil war.

One other less important, but intended to be more positive thing Calhoun did: before becoming VP Calhoun had been Sec of War, and as such was supposed to oversee relations with native america's. In an attempt to better address relations with them, Calhoun created the Bureau of Indian Affairs inside the War department to draw up treaties with native tribes (which as far I can tell Calhoun assumed [incorrectly] we'd honor).

Number 2: 

Thomas Marshall, 28th Vice President under Wilson

Thomas Marshall was only the second vice president in history to serve two terms under the same president. The first was Daniel D. Tompkins under James Monroe a century before. But in addition to serving what was at that point a once in a century term, Marshall was also the first modern Vice President.

Most VP's had focused almost exclusively on their role in the legislative branch (as leader of the senate) up until Marshall. Although the Vice President would continue to preside over the senate regularly until Alvin Barkley (VP under Truman), Marshall would be the one to take the first steps to moving the Vice presidency into its modern fit as part of the executive branch. In fact he was the first to be regularly invited to cabinet meetings (although he often didnt attend after the first year or so), and was the first to be used as a surrogate on campaign speeches and later liberty bond/support the war (WWI) propaganda speeches, regularly.  This would lead to him being the first Vice President to actually conduct a cabinet meeting after President Wilson left the country to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles ending world war I.

Actually to be honest, Marshall had a chance to BE president in his own right. Not long after returning from europe, Wilson suffered a stoke that left him incapacitated. Many members of congress believed without Presidential leadership the Treaty might fail and "League of Nations" (a fore runner to the UN) certainly would (and did). So they called on Marshall to assume the powers of the President due to Wilson's incapacity. Marshall refused citing the precedent this would set for forcing a president from office for a sickness. (Wilson refused to officially admit to his incapacity, so legally it was if he was only ill). The ensuing battle and unsuress on correct legal policy would eventually lead to language clarifying when the Vice President was required to assume power in the 25th Amendment (paving the way for Bush Sr to assume the mantle of President a few times during Reagan's term while Reagan was undergoing surgeries). How many Vice Presidents do you know of who would pass at a chance to BE president? not to many and that alone makes Marshall remarkable.

However even outside of what he did as VP, Marshall was notable, and a kinda awkward pairing for the racist Wilson.  As governor of Indiana, Marshall took a trying to overturn the states Eugenics and Sterilization laws, at the height of such laws popularity in the country (and laws favored by future president Wilson) going so far as to order state institution to NOT comply with the law.  He also was opposed to capitol punishment and would pardon anyone sentenced to death during his term, as a result he was the first Governor to execute no one during his term in office.  He also helped pass Child Labor laws and Anti corruption legislation during his tenure.  All in all he made a rather activist liberal running mate paired with a somewhat conservative racist president.

Number 1: 

Richard Cheney. 46th Vice President under W. Bush

As if it was going to be anybody else. Dick Cheney is possibly the most powerful and influential VP in american history. Rumors persist that he was basically the senior partner and the one calling the shots during the first term of the W. Bush adminstration. He's credited as the architect of the Iraq war, and many of Bush's other policies during that time. He's also so modern I dont really need to go on about him, EVERYONE knows him and why he's famous. Which is actually unusual for any vice president, even the incumbent, and goes a long way to showing why he tops the list.

In fact the best example of his influence comes from hearing talking heads talk about the period between 2000 and 2008. Its just as often referred to as the "Bush/Cheney Administration" as it is just the stand alone "Bush Adminstration". In fact my prediction is in 100 years, Dick Cheney will still be the only vice president (other than the ones who became president) that any school kid will actually know.

(side note: the reason I dont have a "statue" picture of Cheney like I do everyone else is because the statue doesnt yet exist, not for any reason of bias)

So there you have it, the 5 most important Vice Presidents in history, 2 of whom you know, 2 of whom you likely never heard of, and 1 you likely never knew was VP.