Comics News and your daily Music Shot
The World's First Conservative Comic. I've seen this sort of thing before, but never with so much publicity. Also, the writer was laughed out of the thread on the John Byrne forums in which he first aired the concept. (John Byrne is a formerly good comics artist/writer who has gradually slipped into far-right lunacy. Including echoing Ann Coulter's rantings about "killing all their priests and converting them to Christianity", he also thinks all blonde Hispanic women "look like hookers". I feel this tells you something about the quality and political leanings of Liberality for All). I would post some sort of debunking of the very idea of "liberal oppression", but I feel that the fact that it is AN OXYMORON is rather obvious to anyone who isn't thick enough to, er, attempt to write or sell Liberality for All. Because, of course, the whole point of liberalism as a method of governance is not to "tell, not ask people what to think".
Also, if you look at the cover -
- you will note that the letters "ALI" have been highlighted in the logo. Why is this, you ask? Well, in the comic, "Usama Bin Laden" is the exalted ambassador for Afghanistan, and the UN Government of America give him full honours as a visiting diplomat. Which would suggest that the "ALI" highlighting is there to show how "liberality" makes proud Aryan Americans slaves to those naughty Arab types. Do you see? Taking the "Ali" (i.e. stereotypical Arab/Muslim* name) out of "Liber[ali]ty" gives us back our "Liberty". Which, for the hard-of-thinking, is a horrible, racist statement that I really hope they don't intend. If this isn't the case, please, please give me some kind of alternative implication.
Also for the hard-of-thinking (again, the writers of Liberality for All), the word for the abstract concept expoused by "liberalism" is, er, "liberty". Unless they mean "liberality" as in "an inclination to favor progress and individual freedom" [Source this definition, please - Subed]. Which, er, doesn't sound too bad to me, actually.
I'm actually really, reallly tired of the whole "Liberal/Conservative" perceived divide. Not only do the words have entirely different meanings in Britain, they perpetrate the false association of authoritarianism with right-wing politics and liberalism with left-wing politics (invert this if you are one of the writers of Liberality for All). Governance can be economically or socially left- or right-wing (covering their philosophy, essentially), and either** authoritarian or libertarian in the way they put their philosophy into practice [If you define "libertarian" as anti-authoritarian or anarchic (a term which need not carry any pejorative connotations) - Subed]. So, Thatcher was economically right-wing and strongly authoritarian, wheras Hitler was actually further to the left economically (I think, anyway [Hitler was a smudge, but certainly incorporated a variety of left-wing economic devices - Subed]), but a little more to the authoritarian side than the Iron Lady***. Although both favoured concentration camps and censorship.
There's a test somewhere that shows your position on a chart compared to political figures, but I can't find it anywhere.
You probably feel dirtied after that, so here is "Sleep Deprivation Blues", which I have made for saney as a special present.
Also, here is a forum thread where I explan Why I Am Not A Liberal, which expands on what I've posted above.
* These are not the same thing. Daily Express, I'm looking at you. And I want a reply to my carefully-worded email, please.
**Yes, there is in fact a spectrum between the two. I am tired.
***This is hyperbole. Hyperbole is where you exaggerate facts to make a point. Although not much in this case.
[Sweet Mephistopheles, this article required a lot of editing and commenting - Subed]