Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow

Superman's mission has changed.  This past Saturday, October 16, 2021, DC Comics announced at their DC Fandome event that Superman's long-standing mission for "truth, justice, and the American way" would be changing to better reflect the current world.  

The new mission - a never-ending fight for truth, justice, and a better tomorrow.*

Moving Superman away from strictly an American icon and giving him back to the the world.  DC Comics has stated that the decision is meant “to better reflect the storylines that we are telling across DC and to honor Superman’s incredible legacy of over 80 years of building a better world.”

Unsurprisingly, like the reaction to the new Superman's recent coming out, the reaction has been mixed.  Many praising the decision for its inclusivity and broader scope.  Other's seeing it as one more anti-American sentiment.  Notably, former Superman Dean Cain expressed his disapproval to this as well.

I told you.

DC Comics ditch mention of 'The American Way' from Superman's motto https://t.co/sz1gfnlh5o

— Dean Cain (@RealDeanCain) October 17, 2021

To Cain and similar detractors, this is merely the latest in a series of ill-advised political moves seeking to pander to the left.  It would seem to reveal more of Cain's politics than DCs.

In truth, it reflects a long pattern of changes to the hero's motto and mission.  Dating back to his earliest appearances, Superman's mission has always included truth and justice.  You can find many instances of Superman's slogan only including these two items.  The award winning Fleischer theatrical animated shorts from the early 1940s only proclaimed a "never-ending battle for truth and justice."  Ironically, Dean Cain's Lois & Clark television program only included the "battle for truth and justice" part as well.

The American Way portion has come and gone a lot over the 80 year history of the character.  This tag line originated in a 1940s radio serial; but really came into prominence with the 1950 George Reeves television show.  The phrase was then dropped for the 1960s cartoon, but picked back up by Christopher Reeve in 1978's Superman film.

Not surprising, the phrases comes and goes as American patriotism (or nationalism, depending on your perspective) waxes and wanes.  With the current emphasis on diversity and inclusion that is in the zeitgeist, broadening Superman's mission makes sense.  Likewise, with the increasing globalization of our pop culture and the larger global audience for superhero comics, television, and film, a global mission makes sense.

Plus, Superman has always represented the best of us as humans, not just as Americans.  His core beliefs, his personality, his innate goodness would have come through regardless of what country he hailed from.  What nation he called home.

He's always been the "Man of Tomorrow."  Now his mission is aligned with that.

*I have had to add the Oxford comma myself. 

What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, And The American Way?

Originally posted on December 6, 2019.  Re-posted for context around a couple of Superman conversations, both preceding and following this post. 

DC Films still doesn’t know what to do with Superman, the studio reportedly is unsure how to make the character “relevant to modern audiences” https://t.co/ActQZp2O3t pic.twitter.com/EtxNICHvWT

— Forbes (@Forbes) November 29, 2019

It started with a piece in Variety outlining the future of DC Films, the subdivision of Warner Brothers focused on the DC Comics characters.  It outlined plans for The Batman and discussed in depth plans for the upcoming R-rated features like The Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey, hot on the heels of the success of Joker.  But when it came to Superman, the piece confirmed what many of us have known for a long time - DC really doesn't understand Superman any more.

“The studio has less clarity on what to do with Superman, a character who has now been rebooted two different times in the last 13 years, […] without landing on a winning strategy.”

“To help find a way to make Superman relevant to modern audiences, studio brass has been polling lots of high-profile talent. “ Like J.J. Abrams and Michael B. Jordan.

Now, this will be harsh, but if you don't understand how to make a Superman movie, perhaps you are in the wrong business.  It you cannot find enough material to understand the character, then perhaps storytelling is not your strong suit.

Superman has been continuously published since 1939.  Eighty years of material waiting to be told on the big screen.

For the Man Who Has Everything

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?

What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

Superman: For All Seasons

All-Star Superman

Really, none of those could serve as an inspiration?!?

And the character isn't relevant?!?

It's hard to fathom not thinking an illegal immigrant raised in the Midwest who moves to the big city to become a journalist to fight corruption and an egomaniacal billionaire isn't relevant today.

Or that the original social justice warrior fighting corrupt politicians and slumlords isn't relevant, as he was presented in his original stories.

Warner Brothers hesitancy reveals a problem with sincerity, with hope, with optimism.  It's the Batman problem.  Everything to them is viewed through a Batman shaped lens.  Batman is gritty, Batman is edgy and dark.  Batman sells.  Ergo, in order for other things to be successful, they need to look like Batman.

And Superman is inherently diametrically opposed from Batman.  Superman is light, Superman is bright, Superman is hope.

You can see this problem in their most recent attempts at a Superman movie.  Man of Steel, while a solid sci-fi film, is a terrible Superman film.  Randian objectivism should not be allowed anywhere near a Superman film unless it is used as a contrast.  Superman should prove objectivism fatally wrong.  He must do what is right simply because it is right and for no other reason.  He protects, he saves those where he has no personal interest, no personal stake.  He will save everyone, or at least die trying.   Superman cannot stand by and let someone die if he has the power to save them, especially if the reason for inaction is to protect his identity.  That strikes against the very core of the character.

"Are you going to help everyone?
No.  But I'm going to try."
Superman: Up in the Sky #6

Likewise, Batman v Superman fails because it provides no contrast between the two characters.  In the film, we are shown no difference between Batman and Superman.  Two characters filmed through the same dark lenses, literally and metaphorically, battling each other because the plot requires it to be so.  And in Justice League, Superman is more of a plot device than an actual character in the film.  The adjustments to the film at least brought forth a few moments which showed what Henry Cavill might be able to do with the character under the right pen, but the disjointed production of that particular movie did no one any favors.

It's a puzzle why Warner Brothers has such a hard time with an appropriate tone for Superman.  Marvel's Captain America: The First Avenger, showed that an earnest approach to superhero film would work.  That character has formed the backbone of their MCU and has benefited from playing off the different personalities in that universe.

Likewise, a film like A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood showcasing an optimistic hero and contrasting him with the cynical world is earning critical acclaim.  And while it is not burning up the box office charts, it has still recouped its costs, nearing $40 million in ticket sales.

We need Warner Brothers to get this right.  We need Superman again, as everything he stands for seems to be under attack.

"To best be in a position to use his amazing powers in a never-ending battle for truth and justice, Superman has assumed the disguise of Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper."

The American Way was later added to Superman's fight, making the better-known phrase "Truth, Justice, and the American Way."

But what is truth when unpopular realities can be dismissed as "fake news" or when documented record can simply be denied?  When the images we see must be evaluated for their level of manipulation?  When scripted dramas are passed off as reality television?  What is truth when feelings and opinions matter more than facts?

What is justice when it seems to be applied unevenly at best?  When the color of ones skin can be the difference in a business meeting in a coffee shop and an arrest at a coffee shop or between life and death in a traffic stop?  When antisemitic, white power, and alt-right groups are on the rise?  When the gender pay gap still exists?  When affluenza is a recognized condition?  What is justice if it is not blind?

What does the American Way mean anymore?  Whose American Way? Especially when our country is as fractured as it is.

Sadly, even the "reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper" part is going away in our society.  Under attack from declining sales and partisan politics alike.

Superman has always existed to be our ideal.  The hero of heroes.  The greatest.  He has been a social-justice warrior before the term ever existed (look back to those initial comics where he was beating up slum lords and corrupt business men).  The Blue Boy Scout.  A father figure figuratively and literally.  The leader of gods and men.

He has been portrayed as a Messiah figure of late, though that is a little misguided in my opinion.  He is much more of a representation of Moses, the leader-deliverer.  A child sent away in a vessel, raised by adopted parents who discovers his heritage and becomes a leader and inspiration.  An important distinction given the heritage of Siegel and Shuster, two Jewish kids growing up in the Depression, with a war raging in Europe.  Into these dark times, these two guys created a beacon of hope.  A strong man who could stop all the bullies and protect the little guy.

Over time, Superman's character continued to solidify.  Powers and weaknesses came and went; some of them very, very strange.  But the core of the character remained.  Superman is honest, fair, and decent.  He is a paragon of virtue who knows and does what is right.  He is the strongest one their is, but uses that strength to protect only, not to intimidate or bully.  Strength with responsibility.

And through the years, we have seen him bubble to the surface when he is needed.  Christopher Reeves fully embodying the character more than any other actor, making us "believe a man could fly."  More than any actor, Christopher Reeve gave the character a lightness, a comfort in his own skin than shone brightly through the screen.  The movies may be a little corny and only two of the four really work, but there is no denying the sincerity of the portrayal that would define the character.

It's that character we need again.

We need that paragon, that beacon of hope to inspire us again.  The example that causes us to find a better way.

We need to believe a man can fly.

Guilty, On All Three Counts

Former Officer Derek Chauvin, guilty on all three counts.

Yesterday, a jury found Chauvin guilty on the charges of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter for his actions in the arrest and resulting death of George Floyd.  The jury had deliberated for 10 hours and was unanimous in its verdict.

Chauvin's actions in placing his knee on the neck of a handcuffed and subdued Floyd for nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds reignited a national movement regarding race relations in the country and police brutality and accountability.  Thanks to a cell phone video taken by a brave teenage girl, the entire country witnessed in excruciating detail as Floyd pleaded for his life under Chavin's knee.

It's hard to ignore the symbolism of the event yesterday.  It's exceedingly rare that a case against a police officer for abuse of their authority would go trial in the first place.  It's even rarer that a jury would find against the police officer.  Juries have a tendency to defer to the police in the exercise of their authority, even in cases of clear excessive force.  That the jury would find Chauvin unanimously guilty on all three counts indicates a clear recognition of the need for police accountability.  Especially when this case was merely the lynchpin of a dialogue that has been increasing over the past several years, resulting from several similar cases, that just seem to keep piling up.

A history of cases.

The cases of Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery.

The case of Daunte Wright, stopped for an expired vehicle registration and shot by an officer who claimed they were reaching for their taser.

Even more disturbing, the case of Ma'khia Bryant, a 16 year old girl, shot by the very Columbus, Ohio police she called 9-1-1 for  assistance.  Shot on the same day the Chauvin verdict came out.

If you can't see the problem, you aren't paying attention.

There is a definitive difference in how police interact with the white and black populations.

There is a problem with the militarization of our police and the increased use of force by its officers.

There is a distinctive problem with a lack of police accountability.  Unions fight against any attempts at an increase in accountability.  Our justice system largely shields them from being held accountable by the public they serve.  Even their own internal efforts to police themselves are often inadequate.  

Think of how often Internal Affairs is played as the bad guy in fiction.  Internal Affairs is never presented as a good part of the police organization; they are always depicted as standing in the way of good cops enforcing real justice or as an inept bureaucracy or as a corrupt organization in and of themselves.  

We've embedded in our fiction that accountability for police action is inherently bad.

That has to change.  Hopefully this verdict is a symbol of that change.  There have been signs to that effect.  There are leaders that are determined to make real and lasting change in this area.

Because that is what this is about - accountability.  

We have accountability because a seventeen year old girl was brave enough and strong enough to film the whole incident.

The question that should haunt you now, is what about the ones that were not filmed?

 

No Más Muertes

I've been meaning to write about this for a few weeks now, but it's taken a bit of time to come together.  In a bit of fortuitousness, it's aligned with a particularly significant event in the case.

I have one great regret from my time at Level 2.  For a number of years, I acted as a coordinator for the Level 2 Legal charitable fund.   The organization had a set amount of funds earmarked for charitable contributions.  Part of the charitable contributions would be used to align with client charitable giving, to show a commitment to the client extending to their particular focuses.  The remainder of the fund would be used to fund grants for charitable organizations nominated by our employees.  To show a commitment to the particular passions of the employees.

I would distribute the grant applications and encourage everyone to nominate an organization close to their hearts.  I would collect the completed applications and then would go through those nominated to look for the causes that the company would select to grant.  We only had a couple of restrictions, where an organization could not be strictly proselytizing or political.  It would need to have some charitable goal.  Similarly, we would not contribute to organizations that would be divisive or would potentially expose the organization to negative publicity.  With these stated parameters, I would raise the completed nominations to other senior members of the team for feedback and to ensure compliance with the guidelines and then would make recommendations to our CEO for the grants.

My greatest regret is listening to other voices that a particular organization would be too political.  Too divisive.

in our first year of the process, a colleague nominated No Más Muertes/No More Deaths because of his sister's involvement with the charity.

No Más Muertes is an advocacy group based in Arizona seeking to end the deaths of undocumented immigrants crossing through the desert regions near the United States/Mexico border by providing food, water, and medical aid to those crossing and to offer humanitarian aid to those in Mexico who have been deported from the United States.

The organization was founded in 2004 by religious leaders from Catholic, Presbyterian, and Jewish communities in Arizona.  They felt a need for a constant presence at the border to address the increasing number of immigrant deaths.  In particular, they had observed the Pima County Medical Examiner’s Office recovering the bodies of an average of 160 migrants per year between 2000 and 2005, up from 14 per year in the 1990s.  

The organization had also become particularly vigilant in compiling human rights violations.  No Más Muertes trains volunteers to document what they see as human rights violations by immigrantion officials.  They have documented migrants whom they have encountered that have been denied food, water, and medical attention, have been separated from family members, and have suffered physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.

Of late, the organization has come to the forefront of the news because of the arrest of Scott Warren, a volunteer with the organization, on January 17, 2018.  Warren was charged with a felony for harboring migrants after Border Patrol allegedly witnessed him giving food and water to two migrants in the west desert near Cabeza Prieta.  With the charge, he faced five years in prison.  

During the trial, three additional felony charges were brought against him: two counts of harboring undocumented migrants and one count of conspiracy to transport them to and harbor them in “The Barn,” a structure at Ajo, a staging area for humanitarian aid.  The combined counts brought the maximum penalty up to twenty years in prison.  

Warren was arrested only hours after the organization published a compilation video criticizing the actions of Border Patrol and accusing them of destroying humanitarian supplies in the desert.  Kicking over and emptying water bottles left for migrants.

In addition to Warren, several other volunteers were charged last year with lesser offenses ranging from “entering a national wildlife refuge without a permit” to “abandonment of property.”  Charges against four such volunteers were reduced to civil infractions, while a judge convicted four others of misdemeanors, sentencing them to fifteen months probation and a $250 fine each.  Warren likewise has a separate misdemeanor case pending.

Warren’s felony trial ended on June 12, 2019 with a hung jury after three days of deliberation.

As a statement following the verdict, Warren read the following from outside the courthouse:  “Since my arrest in January of 2018, at least 88 bodies were recovered from the Ajo corridor of the Arizona desert.  We know that’s a minimum number and that many more are out there and have not been found.  The government’s plan in the midst of this humanitarian crisis?  Policies to target undocumented people, refugees and their families, prosecutions to criminalize humanitarian aide, kindness and solidarity.  And now, where I live, the revelation that they will build an enormous and expensive wall across a vast stretch of southwestern Arizona unbroken Sonoran Desert."

Today marks the final day for the prosecutors to decide if they will retry Warren.

What still haunts me about not choosing this charity for a grant is that making sure people don't die is not political.  Whatever your thoughts on immigration in this country, on what you view the actual crisis at the border as being, giving any person water, food, or medical attention is humanitarian aid.  It's not trying to help them avoid immigration officials, its not trying to circumvent the laws - it's making sure they don't die.

It's the absolute least that we can do.  And it's very sad that we as a country need a charity to do it for us.

It's the definition of Christian charity.

"You shall not oppress a sojourner.  You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt."

Exodus 23:9

"When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.  You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."

Leviticus 19:33-34

"The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"

Matthew 25:40

"Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."

Hebrew 13:2

It remains a noble and worthwhile aim, and it should be second nature to us, a "Christian" nation, the "most generous nation in the world."

Hopefully someday we can get there.  We can achieve that end.  We can stop pretending it's political and just focus on how it's charitable.  It's humanitarian.

No More Deaths.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today we set aside to recognize the contributions of a man to the cause of equality.  A recognition of the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his contributions to non-violent protest, equality, and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

An ordained Baptist minister, you can see the inspiration he drew from the commands to love the Lord your God above all, to love your neighbor as yourself, and to love your enemies.  His call for non-violence from Jesus' instruction to turn the other cheek.

He serves as a reminder to us that we are all derived from one creator; that there is "neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  We could add to that list that there is neither black nor white.  And he reminds us that our founding documents declare that "all men are created equal" and it is our job to hold our country to that truth.  "All we say to America is, "Be true to what you said on paper." If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren't going to let dogs or water hoses turn us around, we aren't going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on."

One of my favorite passages from his speeches is the discourse on the Good Samaritan in his "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech.  I've included it below as a great reminder to us all that we are our brother's keeper and we succeed or fail as a human race on how well we treat each other.

"Be concerned about your brother. You may not be on strike. But either we go up together, or we go down together.

Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness. One day a man came to Jesus, and he wanted to raise some questions about some vital matters of life. At points he wanted to trick Jesus, and show him that he knew a little more than Jesus knew and throw him off base....

Now that question could have easily ended up in a philosophical and theological debate. But Jesus immediately pulled that question from mid-air, and placed it on a dangerous curve between Jerusalem and Jericho. And he talked about a certain man, who fell among thieves. You remember that a Levite and a priest passed by on the other side. They didn't stop to help him. And finally a man of another race came by. He got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy. But he got down with him, administered first aid, and helped the man in need. Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project the "I" into the "thou," and to be concerned about his brother.

Now you know, we use our imagination a great deal to try to determine why the priest and the Levite didn't stop. At times we say they were busy going to a church meeting, an ecclesiastical gathering, and they had to get on down to Jerusalem so they wouldn't be late for their meeting. At other times we would speculate that there was a religious law that "One who was engaged in religious ceremonials was not to touch a human body twenty-four hours before the ceremony." And every now and then we begin to wonder whether maybe they were not going down to Jerusalem -- or down to Jericho, rather to organize a "Jericho Road Improvement Association." That's a possibility. Maybe they felt that it was better to deal with the problem from the causal root, rather than to get bogged down with an individual effect.

But I'm going to tell you what my imagination tells me. It's possible that those men were afraid. You see, the Jericho road is a dangerous road. I remember when Mrs. King and I were first in Jerusalem. We rented a car and drove from Jerusalem down to Jericho. And as soon as we got on that road, I said to my wife, "I can see why Jesus used this as the setting for his parable." It's a winding, meandering road. It's really conducive for ambushing. You start out in Jerusalem, which is about 1200 miles -- or rather 1200 feet above sea level. And by the time you get down to Jericho, fifteen or twenty minutes later, you're about 2200 feet below sea level. That's a dangerous road. In the days of Jesus it came to be known as the "Bloody Pass." And you know, it's possible that the priest and the Levite looked over that man on the ground and wondered if the robbers were still around. Or it's possible that they felt that the man on the ground was merely faking. And he was acting like he had been robbed and hurt, in order to seize them over there, lure them there for quick and easy seizure. And so the first question that the priest asked -- the first question that the Levite asked was, "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"

That's the question before you tonight. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to my job. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?" The question is not, "If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?" The question is, "If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?" That's the question.

Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you."

from “I've Been To The Mountain Top,” April 3, 1968