Spain sent a message to terrorists today, and the message was “we give up.” The message is “you were right.” The message is “you win.”

Pre-election bombings in other countries (including our own), already likely, are now a virtual certainty. And why shouldn’t they be? Spain’s Socialists and their supporters have taught al Qaeda that murdering 200 commuters for no reason is perfectly viable campaign strategy.

The Spain debacle is easily the biggest setback to the free world since the War on Terror began, and I feel worse about it than I can remember feeling about anything since that awful autumn. It truly is a disaster–not just for the local- and geo-political ramifications, mind you, but (it bears repeating) because this virtually guarantees that many many more people will be killed in countries across the globe whenever an election is in the offing.

ADDTF reader George writes in to lament the lack of attention being paid to these issues here in America. Of course, the reason it’s not being made a bigger deal of in this country is because the people responsible for making things a big deal, the major news media, think that voting the PP out of office was an eminently sensible response to being attacked by terrorists–a dress rehearsal, if you will, for November 2004 here in the good old U.S. of A.

Not good. Not good at all.

Meanwhile, as a commenter points out here, a major Western nation has just been defeated by an army of approximately one dozen people.

Europe is gone.

…and then I’m done for the day. Glenn Reynolds has a long post on the Spanish election and the lessons it teaches, offering a variety of links and points of view. Definitely worth a look.

Okay, now go look at the paintings.

Here are three paintings by my comically talented wife. Consider it art therapy.

Uprising in Iran.

Uprising in Syria.

“Wind is changing!”

–Ghan-buri-Ghan, The Return of the King

(Links courtesy LGF, IP.)

In addition to the raw agony I feel about the 199 murders that took place in Madrid the other day, there’s the agonizing wait to find out how the people of Spain, and of Europe, will react. After the initial grief and shock subsides, will they wave the white flag, offer a mea culpa, wash their hands of the efforts to safeguard civilization against those who are engaged in the process of destroying it, and decide that the best response to being senselessly brutalized by nihilist sectarian murderers is to try to make themselves inoffensive to them, in hopes that this will be enough to persuade the killers to direct their sickness elsewhere? Or will they find renewed determination to condemn such acts and their perpetrators regardless of their so-called justifications, declare that deliberate murder of people whose only crime was going to work one morning is anathema to life as we know it, stand up against the notion that no one is innocent and that everyone is fair game for a murderous god to destroy, and take the fight to these enemies of liberalism and democracy and humankind without embarassment and without hesitation and without mercy? Whither Spain? Whither Europe?

Agonizing though this wait might be, one thing it will not be is long. Spanish elections are tomorrow.

Suddenly these thoughts just overwhelmed me: I just want to say how heartbroken I am for the people of Spain, how sorry I am that these murders took place. I’ve never been there, but for three years I was a railroad commuter, travelling in and out of the big city. The people killed in Madrid were people like me, trying to earn a living, perhaps looking forward to seeing their coworkers, perhaps looking forward to being back home with their families that afternoon. They ate breakfast and drank coffee and kissed their wives or husbands or kids or pets goodbye. They read the paper, listened to their headphones, took a nap, stared out the window, thought about today’s meetings and schedules and projects, thought about the weekend. Now they’re gone forever because a band of vicious killers thought God wanted them dead.

The tragedy of this, on every level, is unspeakably profound. Please spare a thought for these commuters, and their country, and our world.

TheOneRing.net brings you speculation and spoilers, translated from a German source, as to what will appear on the Extended Edition DVD of The Return of the King.

I’m a little excited.

So with all this bad bloggin’ blood flowing around the Internet lately, I decided to go to the Brian Bendis message board and start a thread that would shed some light on the fact that comics blogs are actually pretty good. Here’s that thread. Enjoy!

Since you

How did AiT/PlanetLar head honcho Larry Young develop such a hard-on for bloggers?

(Larry’s own blog, which is exactly what it is, doesn’t have individual-entry permalinks, so check out the entry for March 10th. Link courtesy of Graeme McMillan.)

I don’t get it–it’s not like he’s a publisher people tear to pieces on a daily basis, like Marvel or DC or CrossGen. As far as AiT/PL books go, everyone seems to like True Story, Swear to God, and while Brian Wood’s work is somewhat polarizing, I feel like his hit-miss ratio as far as bloggers are concerned is pretty respectable. Compared to the treatment various bloggers have given Mark Millar, Chuck Austen, Lee Loughridge, Gary Groth, Matt Brady, “Jess Lemon,” Jeph Loeb, Craig Thompson, Joe Quesada, Mark Alessi, Tony Isabella, Brian Bendis, Bill Jemas, Warren Ellis, Grant Morrison, Dave Sim, Mike Dean, Kurt Busiek & George Perez, Seth, and so forth–not to mention other bloggers–Larry and his stable have gotten off comparatively easy.

I guess he was tangentially involved in that old blogosphere dust-up with James “The Comics Pimp” Sime, but reacting to that teapot-tempest in the fashion Larry has (if indeed that’s the impetus behind it) would be similar to someone on the other side of that argument deciding that because they disagreed with the point of view espoused by one retailer, all retailers are idiots. And that, of course, is just plain dumb (especially considering that even the retailer in question is himself not an idiot).

Finally, I suppose Larry could legitimately believe that the comics blogosphere as a whole isn’t any good, but that’s even dumber.

If the majority of comics bloggers really are such lousy writers, then there shouldn’t be much harm in Larry actually naming the bloggers he thinks are so bad, rather than continuing in this passive-aggressive vein.

Chris Allen sings the praises of the comics blogosphere. Alan David Doane doesn’t think he’s singing loud enough. La la la!

ADD also has a 5-Question interview with True Story, Swear to God creator Tom Beland. Beland was on the Comics Journal message board once or twice back in the day and rubbed me the wrong way (which is unsurprising, because as Evan Dorkin points out, that board brings out the absolute worst in absolutely everyone), but I really like his attitude as it comes across in this interview. Give it a read.

But hey–occasionally a nugget of value can drop from between the Journal messboard’s clenched cheeks. For example, board regular Chris Polkki will be editing a new anthology series for Fantagraphics, called Blood Orange. Marc Bell, Anders Nilssen, John Hankiewicz, Ron Rege Jr., Jeffrey Brown, and many more plan to contribute. Fanta has been seen as unnecessarily hostile to young alternative cartoonists–this title ought to go a long way toward putting that to rights. (Link courtesy of Egon, who really needs individual-entry permalinks.)

In a column about CrossGen’s attempt to get back on track, Steven Grant points out that its ostensibly superhero-free lineup is, of course, full of superheroes–“it was blatantly obvious to everyone they were.” Shhhhh–don’t tell Mike Dean!

(While I have your attention, can someone tell Comic Book Resources to put date-specific permalinks to each column within the column itself?)

The Pulse interviews Incredible Hulk writer Bruce Jones. It’s a surprisingly in-depth look at Jones’s thoughts about his work on the series.

Bill Sherman reads and reviews about forty million comics, so you don’t have to!

Finally, holy crap–Enid Coleslaw is an anagram for Daniel Clowes! Did everyone else know this but me? Seriously, I never would have noticed that on my own. Thank you, Guy Leshinski! (Link courtesy of Kevin Melrose.)

Oh, hey, my blogroll over there has undergone some serious updating over the past couple-three weeks, including some new additions today. Get yrself acquainted with some of the terrific sites listed therein.

One of which, by the way, is a new blog by military historian and American Warblogger Idol Victor Davis Hanson. Next to Christopher Hitchens, Hanson is my favorite writer on the War on Terror, which facts probably tell you everything you need to know about my feelings about the War on Terror, but there you have it. Permalinks pending, it would appear. Man, he’s good. (Link courtesy of Charles Johnson.)

Also new to the ‘Net is this season’s Slate/Sopranos running discussion. Instead of last season’s shrink-centric roundtable, this year we’ve got the musings of mob reporters Jeffrey Goldberg and Jerry Capeci. Capeci is the author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Mafia, the most comprehensive and easy-to-follow book on the subject I’ve ever read.

Here’s the scoop on the standard-edition DVD for The Return of the King. It’s coming out much earlier than its predecessors did, but I still have yet to hear whether the extended-edition set will be released sooner as well.

Finally, fuckin’ Freemasons. Nothing changes.

Frank Vincent is going to be on this season of The Sopranos.

Holy Moses.

The Missus has begun mc’ing.

‘Nuff said.

Semi-comics blogger Franklin Harris is on a roll today.

First, he posts on the Spurgeon/Raphael Stan Lee book, pointing out that as far as taking too much credit for the creation of the Marvel Universe is concerned, Jack “King” Kirby actually oustripped The Man. Of course, Lee was the one who was actually in a position to truly cement his erroneous claims (or, to be charitable, his lack of correct ones) over the years, but still, a post worth examining.

Second, he examines the deeply creepy news that a North Carolina sheriff’s captain is prepping to wage war against manga, because, you know, all those clean-minded teenagers might think about s-e-x if they were to read Love Hina. I think this could accurately be described as a ripple effect from the federal governments asinine decency hearings of recent weeks–this sheriff is simply modeling the behavior of Michael Powell et al, all of whom really have better ways to spend my tax dollars these days. The problem is that on a small, localized scale, and against a medium that garners little public recognition or support, such crusades as the good Captain’s can really do some damage, ruining businesses and instituting a thought-police regime against small-town kids with no other options. Keep an eye on this one.

Finally, Franklin calls our attention to a minor scandal involving the late Silver-Age superstar Julius Schwartz, who was apparently something of a dirty old man. It would seem that the Comics Journal is exhuming a 13-year-old unpublished interview with cartoonist Colleen Doran to help make this point in an upcoming issue. Worthwhile expose, tasteless schadenfreude, or both? It’s too early to make the call just yet.

Franklin’s a swell linkblogger, but pieces of his that run even slightly longer than usual are a real treat, and these ones are no exception. I hope we see more of them.

Since I’ve scaled back my comics purchasing budget, I’ve forgone a good many trade paperbacks and graphic novels that I’d really like to have. I’m wondering: Do any of you, my delightful readers, have any copies of the following that you’d be willing to donate or trade?

Battle Royale Vol. 5

Uzumaki Vol. 3

If you’d like to make a donation, terrific–send me an email. If you’d like to trade, that too is terrific–I have a trade list here at Sequential Swap, and I’ve also got plenty of complete sets of individual issues that you won’t find on that list. Drop me a line and we’ll work something out.

Tony Blair, in a simply astounding speech, lays everything on the line about the War on Terror, spelling out in crystal-clear detail the link between tyranny, Islamic extremism, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, September 11th, myopic “anti-war” movements, and ossified international institutions. He gently but righteously upbraids his critics for ignoring the real issue at hand. He points out that our invasion of Iraq has not only brought the hope for democracy into one of the most Godforsaken regions on earth but given new strength to our efforts to root out terror, tyranny, and especially the proliferation of mass-mudering weapons in countries like Libya, North Korea, and Iran. He rejects the conservative definition of sovereignty proffered by the outdated Treaty of Westphalia and now inexplicably embraced by so-called liberals and libertarians. He refuses to back down on this, the most important issue facing humanity today.

It’s an enormously uplifting speech for people, like me, who think free societies should use their collective might to free other societies–a cause one would think the liberals and libertarians I speak with here in my corner of the internet every day would support with all their hearts. Why don’t they? I wish I knew.

I also wish I had a President who could articulate these ideals so clearly, who could set the terms of the debate so strongly, who could overcome the cries of “move on” and “you lied” with such incandescent strength and vision. I wish I had a President who fought for these ideals at home as well as abroad. Regardless of who wins our upcoming election, these things seem unlikely. But here in my little corner of the internet, and in my own life, I’m going to try to do these things myself, as best I can.

For an optimistic-sounding round-up of various developments on the marriage rights front here in New York State, check out this New York Times article. The same-sex marriage caravan I participated in is mentioned prominently. Thank goodness for the liberal media, eh?

Yesterday I re-watched Martin Scorses’s Casino, which may be my favorite of his films. You may be aware of a scene towards the end of the film generally held up as one of the most graphically violent in film history. I want you to trust me when I say that it’s worse than you’ve heard. I’m going to try to talk about it without spoiling the film for those of you who haven’t seen it, which may not be the most effective way to go about this, but: The first time I saw it, since I had my own experience with the kind of relationship shared by the two people on the receiving end of the attack, I broke down and sobbed. Each time I’ve seen it since then, my gut tightens in anticipation, and then when the scene is actually in progress it’s so disturbing I can feel it all through my body, from my head to my throat to my stomach to my genitals. It’s beyond appalling into the almost overwhelming.

And yet I think it’s entirely appropriate. The characters who are attacked have been repeatedly shown to be the absolute scum of the Earth. Most viewers would, by that point in the movie, welcome their deaths. Scorsese was faced with the challenge of depicting a death so horrific that it would shock the audience out of their too-comfortable endorsement of gangster’s justice and into a realization of just how terrible this lifestyle really is. I also believe that this and indeed the whole of Casino was a reaction to its more warm and humorous predecessor, GoodFellas, in much the same way that the relentlessly grim Godfather Part 2 was Coppola’s attempt to prove to his audience that his intent with the first Godfather movie was not to romanticize the mob. In Casino, Scorsese wanted to make his characters hard to love, hard to enjoy. I think he wanted to make the film that way, too. He succeeded in no small part because of that final act of violence.

My point is that extreme, graphic violence often does serve a purpose in filmmaking. Barker and Cronenberg use it to comment on the relationship between mind and body (Barker somewhat more positively than Cronenberg). Tarantino uses it to reflect on what constitutes honor, loyalty, a life well lived (people miss this since it’s layered with pop-culture irony, but it’s there). The indie horror cycle of the early 1970s (beginning in 1968 with Night of the Living Dead) used it to comment on the horrific injustices of that era, and to break through audience resistance to them.

Mel Gibson is different. He’s not making a filmic point. He’s not making a thematic point. He’s not even making a political point. He’s making a life-philosophy point. He wants his viewers to internalize the violence in The Passion of the Christ, take it upon themselves, feel that they are the people wielding the whips and the scourges and driving the nails. I think he knows full well that in addition to the guilt and shame that this will produce (as it must: guilt and shame are integral parts of his vision of Christianity), it also produces a vicarious thrill, a sado-masochistic charge, and a desire for collective expiation of those feelings against a similar scapegoat. That feeling you get in your gut and your balls when you see that beating in Casino? He wants that to be the basis for how you live your entire life. He wants that to be the basis of your relationship to God Himself.

That’s sick.

I’m not saying that it’s wrong to have an emotional basis for your faith. In my opinion, no other basis for faith is possible–an intellectual basis misses the point of faith, an inherently non-intellectual value, altogether. The problem is that this is deeper than emotion, into a physical reaction of revulsion and disgust, which since they cannot be indefinitely borne, are translated into emotional/intellectual actions–in the case of Casino, condemnation and rejection. In the case of The Passion, it’s supposed to translate into adoration and obedience, an ever-present knowledge that this happened because of you, that your only salvation is following the man this happened to, and that those who do not follow him are committing the kind of sin that caused this man to be brutalized so in the first place. There are other mass movements in recent times that tried to bridge the physical and emotional in worship of an extraordinary man and his extraordinary ideals and in fanatical opposition to those who opposed him. I need hardly mention the names.

In my original post on The Passion I stated that I doubted the anti-Semitic nature of the film because I trusted the judgement of American critics and pundits like Ebert & Roeper and the God Squad. But Gibson is not a film critic or an ecumenicist, and neither is his target audience. His loathsome political leanings are clear enough: His throwback anti-Vatican II “Catholicism,” his damnation of all people not of his denomination, his homophobia, his flirtation with Holocaust revisionism. I say we take Gibson at his word, and believe that his faith is what motivates his every action. His faith, therefore, is what leads him to make these grotesque statements and hold these awful beliefs. His faith is one of cataclysmic violence and pain–violence so profoundly all-encompassing that he felt the need to continuously one-up the Gospel descriptions of it. Torture, maiming, and killing aren’t just a facet of his faith–they’re central to it. And the film’s Jews are central to that central point. That’s the faith he’s promoting.

That’s why I will not see his movie.

Mission accomplished.