UT ‘Glock’ protests: Dildorks pretend sex toys, not guns, stop active shooters

UT tweet

A funny thing turned up in my Twitter stream yesterday: Images students from the University of Texas juggling sex toys — sometimes on a unicycle. The “Cocks Not Glocks” protest was underway, which meant that hundreds of dildo-wielding students marched around and pretended that the world would be a safer place if cops carried plastic genitalia in their holsters. At UT, law-abiding students with concealed carry permits are a bigger threat to peace than psychos who always seem to be sane enough to target gun-free zones.

The College Fix reported:

“If you’re uncomfortable with my dildo you cannot imagine how uncomfortable I am with your gun.”

So says Rosie Zander, a College Democrat at the University of Texas who helped lead on Wednesday a “Cocks Not Glocks” protest on the first day of school. Zander made the comments to the Austin American Statesman in explaining that their goal was to “fight absurdity with absurdity” in protesting a new state law that allows people 21 and older with concealed carry permits to bring their weapon on campus.

“Why can we have guns on campus, but we can’t have dildos out in public, that’s absurd,” Zander said, referencing campus and state policies that forbid the public display of dildos.

Protest organizer Jessica Jin then told the New York Times that the point of “Cocks Not Clocks” was to “normalize sex culture the same way [gun-rights advocates are] normalizing gun culture, and see how they feel about it.”

Note to Ms. Jin: “Gun culture” in the U.S. was “normalized” with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 (perhaps slightly later if you want to get picky about the adoption of the Bill of Rights).

CN Glocks

Fact: “Sex culture” is normalized in the U.S.

Fergie Milf Money

Turn on television, go to a movie, or surf the Internet for about 30 seconds to see people objectify themselves in weird and grotesque ways. No one bats an eyelash at kids juggling dildos on an American campus in 2016 because “higher education” is mostly a joke. Students meander from safe space to safe space, and as long as they parrot their professors then they can graduate with a useless degree in Gender Studies.

If, God forbid, there is an active-shooter emergency on UT’s campus in the near future, then it is a good bet that every single one of these kids will be praying that someone with a gun — not a sex toy — comes to end the carnage.

UT campus protest

Exit question: How many of these male students are really only pretending to care about “Cocks Not Glocks” protests because they have some sad delusion that female activists will sleep with them? Your friendly neighborhood blogger has witnessed a few conservative/libertarian guys over the years who were happy to put on a liberal mask for a night if they thought it would be worth it…

Spider-Man movies called ‘white-boy fantasy’: The Root writer says Zendaya casting not ‘progress’

Jason Johnson

The Root bills itself as an “opinion and culture site for African-American influencers,” which works out nicely because I was recently looking to see what such self-proclaimed individuals were saying about Zendaya’s role as MJ in Spider-Man: Homecoming. It turns out that Spider-Man is a “white-boy fantasy” and nothing you ever do is good enough for “influencers” like Jason Johnson.

Mr. Johnson wrote on Aug. 23 for The Root’s “No, Zendaya in Spider-Man: Homecoming Is Not the Progress We’re Looking For”:

Consequently, the announcement that she’s been cast as Peter Parker/Spider-Man’s long-term love interest, Mary Jane, in Spider-Man: Homecoming next year has given many people all sorts of excitement and feels. I am not one of them. Casting Zendaya as Mary Jane is another example of Hollywood expecting black dollars at the box office, but disrespecting black consumers and fans on the big screen. …

Zendaya’s casting is yet another sign that makers of Hollywood sci-fi fantasy action films will “racebend” a character (change a character’s race from what it was in a book, film or cartoon), slap themselves on the back for being progressive and expect black fans to be satisfied, while pretty much maintaining the status quo. Racebending is fine so long as it’s for girlfriends and sidekicks, but the movies are still white-boy fantasy adventures in which the lead remains a straight white male no matter what. And that unfortunate fact can’t be separated from the choice to cast Zendaya as Mary Jane.

There was never a doubt or even a conversation about casting anyone other than a white man as Iron Man, Thor, Captain America or the Incredible Hulk. Even though Iron Man was black in the early 1980s, the first Captain America was a black man, and Thor as a Norse God could be anybody.

Are you a young comic book fan who is on the ideological fence? If so, then consider the psychology on display with Zendaya’s casting:

  • If you think movie producers should try to adhere as closely as possible to the source material, then liberal guys like Dan Slott will imply that you are a racist.
  • If you think movie producers should try to adhere as closely as possible to the source material, then liberal guys like director James Gunn will say that you have “too good of a life.”
  • If you think movie producers should try to adhere as closely as possible to the source material, then liberal guys like Devin Faraci of the website Birth. Movies. Death. will call you a “racist fanboy.”
  • Conservative guys like me will shrug their shoulders and say, “Yeah, but Zendaya may still be pretty good. As long as she tints her hair red then we should just give the girl a chance.”
  • Meanwhile, liberals like Jason Johnson will mock you for your “white-boy fantasy” even if you do give Zendaya’s casting three cheers for diversity. You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Welcome to a life of Kobayashi Maru-type scenarios if you board the USS Social Justice.

As your friendly neighborhood blogger has said on numerous occasions, social-justice obsessives are never satisfied. Any attempt to placate them will only result in additional admonitions that require an apology, new demands to meet without question, and more rules that undoubtedly conflict with a sub-group of professional victims someplace else.

Between now and the July release of Spider-Man: Homecoming, I implore anyone who is still trying to define their ideological identity to conduct a test: Come to this blog and disagree with me just to see how I react. Then, do the same with liberal writers like Dan Slott or Nick Spencer. By the time your favorite wall-crawler returns to theaters, I am confident that you will no longer be on the fence.

Elie Wiesel’s ‘Night’: Holocaust memoir a must-read along with Frankl’s ‘Man’s Search For Meaning’

Elie Wiesel Night

Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986 that the world must never forget what happened because “if we forget, we are all guilty, we are accomplices.” His memoir, Night, is a must-read for anyone who understands — as he did — that “we must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Perhaps one of the most important take-aways from the book is just how averse humans are to acknowledging evil — real evil — when it is in their midst.

Mr. Wiesel’s account of how his hometown in Transylvania reacted to the Nazi threat is surreal. It is hard to imagine just how far men while go to deny the truth when the truth may require a call to arms.

The author wrote:

“The Germans were already in our town, the Fascists were already in power, the verdict was already out — and the Jews of Sighet were smiling.

‘The yellow star? So what? It’s not lethal…’

(Poor Father! Of what then did you die?) …

Little by little life returned to ‘normal.’ The barbed wire that encircled us like a wall did not fill us with fear. In fact, we felt this was not a bad thing; were were entirely among ourselves. A small Jewish republic … A Jewish Council was appointed, as well as a Jewish police force, a welfare agency, a labor committee, a health agency — a whole government apparatus.

People thought this was a good thing.” (Elie Wiesel. Night. Hill and Wang. 10-12.)

The one man in town who tried to warn everyone was treated like a madman, which ironically took him to the edge of sanity. It was not long afterward that Mr. Wiesel would be shipped off to Auschwitz and then Buchenwald.

The horrors that Mr. Wiesel endured are too numerous to list in a single blog post, but it is imperative to note why Nazi torture was a special kind of evil: It took root in the souls of its victims, who then turned on one another.

“In the wagon where the bread had landed, a battle had ensued. Men were hurling themselves against each other, trampling, tearing at and mauling each other. Beasts of prey unleashed, animal hate in their eyes. An extraordinary vitality possessed them, sharpening their teeth and nails.

A crowd of workmen and curious passersby had formed all along the train. They had undoubtedly never seen a train with this kind of cargo. Soon, pieces of bread were falling into the wagons from all sides. And the spectators observed these emaciated creatures ready to kill for a crust of bread.” (101.)

Night is a powerful book that understandably simmers with rage and anger, hate and sorrow. It is a book that everyone should read, but it should not be completed without also making time for Viktor E. Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning.

Mr. Wiesel’s memoir shows his self-described “rebellion” against God, while Mr. Frankl chronicles how spiritual growth is possible — even in an Auschwitz death camp.

“When a man finds that it is his destiny to suffer, he will have to accept his suffering as his task. He will have to acknowledge the fact that even in suffering he is unique and alone in the universe. No one can relieve him of his suffering or suffer in his place. His unique opportunity lies in the way in which he bears his burden.

Long ago we had passed the stage of asking what was the meaning of life, a naive query which understands life as the attaining of some aim through the active creation of something of value. For us, the meaning of life embraced the wider cycles of life and death, of suffering and of dying. …

We had realized [suffering’s] hidden opportunities for achievement, the opportunities which caused the poet Rilke to write, ‘Wie viel ist aufzuleiden!’ (How much suffering there is to get through!) Rilke spoke of ‘getting through’ suffering as others would talk of ‘getting through work.’ …

There was no need to be ashamed of tears, for tears bore witness that a man had the greatest of courage, the courage to suffer. Only very few realized that.”  (Victor Frankl. Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press, 1959, 1962, 1984, 1992, 2006. 77, 78.)

In short, both books are essential reading for the man or woman who loves freedom, abhors tyranny, and understands the importance of history. The memoirs can be purchased for $10 or less, which is an unbeatable bargain given the wisdom each contains.

James Gunn stands on moral pedestal, lectures world on Zendaya-MJ story; fans praise giant red herrings

Guardians of Galaxy director James Gunn needs to be called out for his astonishing level of chutzpah. A man who has dedicated his life to make believe — the man who has spent countless days and weeks and months of his life focused on comic book characters — decided it would be a good idea to belittle fans who dared to disagree with him on Spider-Man: Homecoming casting.

“If you’re complaining about the ethnicity of Mary Jane your life is too good,” wrote Mr. Gunn on Thursday, shortly after reports that Zendaya landed the role.

Translation: Just shut up and accept what we do or you will be mocked, ridiculed, and labeled a racist. 

James Gunn MJ tweet

Mr. Gunn could not just be content to have 2,100 share his smug tweet (with another 3,500 “liking” it). No, instead he had to climb atop a giant moral pedestal and lecture the world via Facebook on a controversy he helped create by stirring the pot.

His fans, of course, took the red herrings he dished out and lavished him with praise. Since they are so blinded by partisan politics or celebrity worship to identify a logical fallacy when it slaps them in the face(book), yours truly will dissect elements of his self-righteous rant.

“I do not believe a character is the color of his or her skin. When Michael B Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm I didn’t understand the uproar. The primary characteristic of Johnny was not, to me, that he was white, or that he had blonde hair, but that he was a fiery, funny, big-mouthed braggart of a hero. I was happy that he was going to be played by one of the finest and most charming young actors out there.”

Here we have Mr. Gunn, just like Marvel writer Dan Slott, responding to an argument that does not exist. Who is arguing that a character “is” the color of his or her skin? No one.

People who loves Peanuts went to the movie theater recently to see Charlie Brown and his beagle — not Charlie Brown and his miniature dachshund.

Moviegoers who love James Rhodes went to see Captain America: Civil War, and rightfully expected to see a black man — in this case, Don Cheadle — on the big screen as War Machine.

No one is arguing that race is the primary element that defines a person, but it is not wrong for comic book fans to expect a faithful transition of their favorite characters from platform to platform.

To lavish Mr. Gunn for addressing an argument that no one is making is absurd.

“Yesterday, a rumor broke out that the character of Mary Jane was being played by a young black woman, Zendaya, and all hell broke out on the Internet (again).”

That is because guys like you and Dan Slott look at what the dregs of the internet are saying and then insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you a.) has “too good of a life,” or b.) is a racist moron.

James Gunn kicks a hornet’s nest and then wonders why he gets stung.

For the thoughtful majority of you out there:

For me, if a character’s primary attribute – the thing that makes them iconic – is the color of their skin, or their hair color, frankly, that character is shallow and sucks. For me, what makes MJ MJ is her alpha female playfulness, and if the actress captures that, then she’ll work. And, for the record, I think Zendaya even matches what I think of as MJ’s primary physical characteristics – she’s a tall, thin model – much more so than actresses have in the past.

Again, note what Mr. Gunn does here: He responds to an absurd idea that no one is making, as if that’s what the real debate boils down to, and then says you are “thoughtful” if you agree with his rant. Ironically, fans who are not very thoughtful fail to see what he is doing while still getting excited that they agree with him.

Yes, James, it is correct that a character who is solely defined by skin color is lame. That would be a stellar point to make if the issue at hand centered around that claim. But hey, at least you get to relax in the verbal sponge baths that your Facebook and Twitter fans give you. I guess that counts for something…

“Whatever the case, if we’re going to continue to make movies based on the almost all white heroes and supporting characters from the comics of the last century, we’re going to have to get used to them being more reflective of our diverse present world. Perhaps we can be open to the idea that, although someone may not initially match how we personally conceive a character, we can be – and often are – happily surprised.”

Bravo, James! Well said. Do you know what would also make guys like me “happily surprised”?

Answer: If you and your friends did not say that fans’ “lives are too good” or that they are racist when they disagree with you.

Related:

Zendaya as Mary Jane? Ask about red hair for the next year and you’ll be called a ‘racist’

Dan Slott plays ‘Captain White Privilege’ after Zendaya-MJ casting reported

Dan Slott plays ‘Captain White Privilege’ after Zendaya-MJ casting reported

The announcement on Aug. 18 that Zendaya will play Mary Jane in next summer’s Spider-Man: Homecoming spread like wildfire across the internet. It wasn’t long before the usual suspects were attacking anyone who questioned the decision with charges of racism. Dan Slott, the man who once said that Peter Parker’s love for Mary Jane is “anti-Marvel,” joined in the fray to play “Captain White Privilege” (yes, he went there) in his twitter feed.

Since Marvel’s scribe for The Amazing Spider-Man has a habit of sliming long-time Marvel fans with attacks on their integrity, it seemed as if it were time to make a YouTube video on issue. Since Mr. Slott never is a magnet for controversy, I fully expect future installments to follow in the months and years ahead.

Check out the video and let me know what you think in the comments section below.

Zendaya as Mary Jane? Ask about red hair for the next year and you’ll be called a ‘racist’

Zendaya

And so it begins — the great new excuse to call people “racist” for the next year.

News broke on Thursday afternoon that Zendaya will be playing the iconic role of Mary Jane in next summer’s latest Spider-Man movie, Homecoming.

The Wrap reported:

Zendaya will be playing long-time Spider-Man love interest Mary Jane Watson in next summer’s “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” two individuals with knowledge of the project told TheWrap.

Diehard Spidey fans have long speculated about whom the 19-year-old Disney Channel star would portray in Sony’s high-profile reboot of the superhero franchise, starring British actor Tom Holland as a teenage Peter Parker, a.k.a. Spider-Man.

Also Read: All 43 Marvel Movies Ranked From Worst to Best, Including ‘X-Men: Apocalypse’ (Photos)

At least one recent draft of the script has Zendaya’s character dropping several clues to her identity as Mary Jane, one of the most familiar love interests in the Marvel superhero’s universe — and played by Kirsten Dunst in Sam Raimi‘s 2002-07 movie trilogy starring Tobey Maguire as the webslinger.

Zendaya, the star of the Disney Channel series “Shake It Up!” and “K.C. Undercover,” was cast back in March to play a “key role” as a character named Michelle.

Your friendly neighborhood blogger has plenty of thoughts on Sony’s movie, but what concerns me most is the knee-jerk reaction by race-obsessed goons to label anyone who wants to see a beautiful redhead on the big screen as “raaaaaaacist.”

Superior Spider-Man Mary Jane

One of the first race-runners out of the gate was Devin Faraci of the website Birth. Movies. Death. He worries about the “next racist fanboy outrage,” (because honoring source material is apparently ‘racist’ nowadays).

Devin Farac

The comments section of websites like The Wrap (You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy) was just as bad.

Wrap comments Homecoming MJ

Ah, yes, all those “racist white nerds” who like their Blades and Rhodeys black and their Mary Janes white with red hair…they’re so weirdly racist!

The good thing about Sony’s habitual screw-ups when it comes to…pretty much everything…is that at this point fans only want to see a good movie. My prediction is that Zendaya — who is certainly beautiful  — will do just fine.

It’s hard to do a worse job than Kirsten Dunst, so as long as Zendaya captures the essence of MJ’s character then most long-time fans will forgive the studio’s deviation from the comics.

It is much harder to turn the other cheek, however, with writers who salivate at the chance to spit out charges of racism over the slightest disagreement.

What do you think of Zendaya’s casting? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you think it was strange of Sony to keep it a secret for so long if the casting is not supposed to be a big deal? Let me know in the comments section below.

Update: Dan Slott decided to weigh in on the issue, and he was in rare form with his Straw Man arguments and specious claims. I cover it in the comments section, but decided to take a screenshot of the embedded tweets since he has a habit of deleting them when things get out of hand.

Dan Slott Homecoming Zendaya

‘Civil War II: Amazing Spider-Man #3’: Peter Parker turned into hypocritical jerk to keep story going

Robot Master

Marvel “events” have a weird habit of warping a character’s personality in order to arrive at an author’s desired outcome — superhero integrity be damned. Civil War II: Amazing Spider-Man #3 officially falls victim to this recurring annoyance. Writer Christos Gage takes Peter Parker’s penchant for getting on his high horse and (in keeping with the theme of the story), jacks up the amplitude to a bizarre level. By turning the character into a hypocritical jerk, the prognostications of the Inhuman known as Ulysses once again come true.

Here is what you need to know about Civil War II: Amazing Spider-Man # 3:

  • Clayton Cole, aka Clash, meets with Robot Master. The villain, whose real name is Mendel Stromm, discusses his plans to steal money from Parker Industries but is ambushed by Clash.
  • Peter Parker laments having fired Clayton. He sulks at table as Harry Osborn Lyman condescendingly pats him on the back and says, “Clayton’s a grown man too. He made his own choices, and he’s responsible for them. Now it’s on him. (Note: How sad is it that a former Green Goblin now must lecture Peter on what it means to take responsibility for one’s actions?)
  • Robot Master, having anticipated a double-cross by Clash, notes that his mechanical minions have been upgraded and are ready for a fight. A battle ensues on the streets of New York City.
  • Spider-Man shows up to save the day. After Robot Master’s technology forms into a giant robot (and Spidey jokes, “Always giant robots…”), the two eventually agree to divvy up the tasks. Spider-Man agrees to “trust” Clash and leave him with the giant robot while he chases down Stromm.
  • Both men defeat their respective opponents. Spider-Man then decides to lecture Clash on what a rotten person he is the moment the dust settles. The hero says that “Peter Parker” is going to let Clayton have his job back — provided he turn over all of his sonic technology.
  • Clayton gets an “angry Beavis” look in his eyes from the old Beavis and Butt-Head cartoons, and then attacks Spider-Man —just like Ulysses predicted.

This issue had so much potential. It is hard not to look at Robot Master’s lab, which appears to be something out of Tim Burton’s wildest dreams, and not anticipate a good read. Mr. Gage generally does an adequate job — and Spider-Man fans finally gets a decent fight scene — but it appears as though the constraints of Civil War constantly undermine the book.

ASM Civil War Clayton Cole

Consider this:

  • On one hand we have Peter Parker, a sulking mess who doesn’t understand basic responsibility. Harry recounts how Peter behaved like a stalking ex-boyfriend by sending Clayton “message after message” via “voice, text, email” to try and apologize … for firing a guy who probably deserved to be fired. At Parker Industries, it’s almost impossible to get terminated. (Does anyone know what happened to Lian Tang, the Parker Industries girlfriend who tried to kill him? I wouldn’t be surprised if she still has a job…)
  • On the other hand we have Clayton Cole, a guy who outwardly appears to be a nutcase (bulging eyes, screaming fits of rage, crying on the job, sweating, etc.), in addition to the issues raging beneath the surface. The audience is often encouraged by Mr. Cage to have sympathy for the man, but it is always negated by his actions.
  •  The question becomes: What the heck is the point of all of this?

As has been said before, Christos Gage handles issues of redemption and responsibility much better than the series’ regular writer, Dan Slott. The interactions between characters are more natural, which in turn give the action scenes added weight (i.e., Gage’s stories do not feel like a kid who mashes his action figures together and then expects you to care). It’s just a shame that Civil War makes it difficult to judge whether editorial mandates are the cause of The Amazing Über-Hypocrite, or if that is an mistake that rests solely on Gage’s shoulders.

Fact: Spider-Man is a vigilante. Vigilantes do not get to stand upon a giant moral pedestal and lecture other vigilantes about the collateral damage brought about by their actions.

Peter Parker of all people should know that Clayton Cole — a fellow man of science — sees his knack for sonic technology as his “great power,” which also comes with “great responsibility.”

Peter Parker of all people should also know that Clayton Cole would feel added pressure and guilt, given that he erred with his powers early on in life. Therefore, a well-written Spider-Man in this issue would not have behaved like a massive tool in the immediate aftermath of a street battle.

Clayton Cole ASM

Beavis and Butt-Head

In short, Civil War II:: Amazing Spider-Man #3 is worth checking out if you purchased the first two issues, but you can probably sit out the finale if you still haven’t coughed up any hard-earned cash.

Civil War II ASM4 preview

Editor’s Note: Just to keep the sound motif going, what is with the Amazing Spider-Man #15 “echo”? Clayton asks Peter Parker to trust him in battle, which is what Mary Jane did during her battle with Regent. Oddly enough, Peter had legitimate reasons to not trust either of them…

Related:

‘Civil War II: Amazing Spider-Man #1’: Gage offers reprieve from Slott fare

‘Civil War II: Amazing Spider-Man #2’: Gage explores ‘self-fulfilling prophecy,’ recidivism, and redemption

Amazing Spider-Man #15: Dan Slott’s Regent took down a god, then falls to … Mary Jane

CNN goes full-Orwell during Milwaukee riot, scrubs call to burn suburbs down

Sherelle_Smith

Anyone who ever wants to know why Americans do not trust the media needs to merely turn to CNN’s Orwellian coverage of the Milwaukee riots after the shooting death of Sylville K. Smith. After members of the local community went ballistic, burned down a BP gas station, looted buildings, injured cops and shot a man in the neck, Smith’s sister called for them to, “take that s–t to the suburbs! Burn that s–t down!”

CNN then selectively edited its video and said the woman was calling for peace.

Once enough people called the network out on its 1984-inspired reporting, another edit was made and correspondent Ana Cabrera attempted to explain away the decision as “shorthand” that “unintentionally gave viewers the wrong impression.”

Ana Cabrera Twitter

We’ve always been at war with Eastasia…right, CNN?

DeeconX tweet

For those who are not up on the latest details:

  • Sylville K. Smith, an armed black man, was shot by a black cop and killed last Saturday.
  • Sylville K. Smith had a history of arrests.
  • Cops pursued Mr. Smith, who was traveling in a stolen vehicle. The car eventually stopped and he fled on foot.
  • Mr. Smith, armed with a handgun, eventually turned towards a cop with his weapon and was shot.
  • Locals, without any concrete details other than the fact that a man was shot by a cop, started burning their own community to the ground while screaming “Black power!”
  • It is now unacceptable for cops — even black cops — to use deadly force against black suspects for any reason. Sylville K. Smith should have been let go or stopped with fairy magic that wrapped him in warm pink blankets.
  • Police Chief Edward Flynn said body camera footage will vindicate the unidentified cops’s actions.

This story is important because a random guy on Twitter identified as DeeconX should never be in the place where he needs to expose “shorthand” better fit for the old Soviet Union.

This story is important because one of the reasons Donald Trump is popular (again, I’m voting for the Sweet Meteor of Death), is because mainstream media as a whole is often untrustworthy.

This story is important because at some point in time journalists decided that their job was to be political hacks instead of truth-seekers. The long-term consequences to civil society when the media completely abandons its original purpose are enormous. Until there is a shift in perspective, the Western world will continue its downward slide.

Daredevil #10: ‘Dark Art’ starts strong, but Soule drops ball on basic Catholicism

Daredevil NYC

Charles Soule’s Daredevil #10 is out, which means that Matt Murdock fans once again get their fix of solid storytelling. “Dart Art: Part 1” is nearly pitch perfect except for the writer’s big whiff on basic Catholicism. It’s a minor complaint, but still very important considering the fact that Daredevil Season 2 on Netflix covered the same territory without any problems.

Before we address the religious issue, here is what you need to know for DD#2:

  • Daredevil tracks a common street thug across the NYC’s Upper East Side to familiarize himself with any changes in the terrain since his last visit.
  • Blindspot’s arm has healed after being broken by Elektra one month earlier. He’s ready to get back into the superhero game and continue his training.
  • Blindspot receives an strange invitation that references a “battle,” but when he arrives at the location on the card he only finds a dead man —and a mural painted in blood.
  • Daredevil receives an emergency call to help out, which puts him in an awkward position. Matt Murdock, who know works as a prosecutor for the state, is swamped with cases and needs to call in favors he doesn’t really possess as the low man on the totem pole.
  • Blindspot worries that if he goes to the police about his invitation it will put him at risk for deportation since he is an illegal immigrant.
  • Daredevil takes the invite and says “if we ever need to surrender it, I’ll pass it along, say it was sent to me. Okay?” Blindspot agrees and thanks him.
  • Daredevil touches the painting and concludes that it was made with “at least one hundred and thirteen” different kinds of blood. When Blindspot says, “I thought you said I couldn’t touch anything” because they are at a crime scene, Daredevil replies, “It is. Mine.”

Again, as was said earlier, Charles Soule is on his game. Aside from a seemingly rushed issue with Daredevil #1 Annual, the man has been consistently good for months. Daredevil fans are experiencing an inspired run that, years from now, will be well-regarded by a new generation of readers.

Blindspot

DD Crime scene

This issue’s one problem, as Christian readers may have picked up on by the first panel, is Daredevil’s decision to refer to a common thug as a “no hoper.”

The one thing any Catholic man understands — as demonstrated in the Netflix series — is that no one is without hope. Everyone is capable of redemption. That theme was hammered home over and over and over again in scenes that pitted Daredevil against Frank Castle, aka The Punisher.

All Christians know that there is always hope for redemption through Jesus Christ.

Luke 23:39-43 says:

39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!” 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

Charles Soule, a trained attorney, makes sure that Matt Murdock is never ignorant of something a first-year law student would know, but yet in this case a Catholic superhero says something that children making their First Communion would recognize as incorrect.

It isn’t a large gripe, but it is somewhat bothersome that Marvel cares enough about Kamala Khan to literally have it written by a practicing Muslim to make sure there are no hiccups, while Daredevil’s Catholicism is downplayed, ignored, and generally just treated (these days) with a “go ahead and fake it” mentality.

Marvel’s decision to give Mr. Murdock a generic Catholicism in 2016 is a shame because there are great tales to be told by any writer who is familiar with Hubert Van Zeller’s Suffering: The Cross of Christ and Its Meaning For You; G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man; Dom L. Scupoli Apulia’s The Spiritual Combat and a Treatise on Peace of Soul; and many, many others.

I will continue to read Daredevil, but I will also continue to be disappointed that there hasn’t been a writer in ages who is willing to mine the character’s faith to unearth amazing tales hidden just beneath the surface.

‘Proof of Heaven’: Neurosurgeon turns NDE into fascinating read for skeptics, believers

Proof of Heaven

Skeptics have fascinated me for many years because they will often hear a supernatural story from a trusted source — a long-time friend who no history of mental illness or a reason to lie — and still find ways to dismiss it. Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon who also worked at Harvard Medical School in Boston, was one of those skeptics until he contracted a case of E. coli meningitis, which attacked his brain and left him in a coma for seven days.

What makes Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife such a compelling read is that its author a.) was a secular man, b.) is a doctor who specializes in the brain, and c.) knows that his illness attacked the very parts of the brain that give skeptics an “out” in terms of believing that neath death experiences (NDEs) offer proof of the spirit world.

Dr. Alexander’s NDE is important because he isn’t just some random guy who drowned and was resuscitated; it is important because he knows about “endogenous glutamate blockade with excitotoxicity,” the limbic system, the lateral amygdala, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) “dumps,” cortical function, etc.

In short, he is not a man who can be “out-scienced” because he has dedicated his life to medicine.

Random blog posts by a lucid dreamer who was visited by a floating purple orb can be easily dismissed — but a Near Death Experience by a neurosurgeon with over 25 years experience, who uses science to back his claims, is much more difficult to deny.

Dr. Alexander says at one point:

Depending on whom you talk to, consciousness is either the greatest mystery facing scientific enquiry, or a total non-problem. What’s surprising is just how many more scientists think it’s the latter. For many — maybe most — scientists, consciousness isn’t really worth worry about because it is just a by-product of physical processes. Many scientists go further, saying that not only is consciousness a secondary phenomenon, but that in addition, it’s not even real.

Many leaders in the neuroscience of consciousness and the philosophy of the mind, however, would beg to differ. Over the last few decades, they have come to recognize that ‘hard problem of consciousness.’

Like many other scientific skeptics, I refused to even review the data relevant to the questions concerning these [supernatural] phenomena. I prejudged the data, and those providing it, because my limited perspective failed to provide the foggiest notion of how such things might actually happen. Those who assert that there is no evidence for phenomena indicative of extended consciousness, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are willfully ignorant. They believe they know the truth without needing to look at the facts.”

For those still stuck in the trap of scientific skepticism, I recommend the book Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, published in 2007. The evidence for out-of-body consciousness is well presented in this rigorous scientific analysis. Irreducible Mind is a landmark opus from a highly reputable group, the Division of Perceptual Studies, based at the University of Virginia.” — Eben Alexander, Proof of Heaven, (Simon and Schuster, 2012), 151-153.

I do not want to spoil any details of the doctor’s experience in the spirit realm, so I will refrain from mentioning them here. I will say, however, that Proof of Heaven is a quick and worthwhile read for anyone interested in the subject matter. The paperback edition is $16 for a new copy, but it is money well spent.