MICHAEL DAVIS: That’s Just Wrong
For the last two weeks my articles have been light hearted and funny. Well I thought they were funny. I think I’m a funny guy (not in a brokeback way) but in a kind of “That Michael Davis is a funny guy” in a ha-ha kind of way.
Now there are plenty of people who think I’m not funny. That’s fine. There are people who think I’m an idiot. That’s fine. There are even some people who think I’m a genius. That’s fine. In fact that’s my favorite assessment of me.
Notice a trend here? If you don’t think I’m funny, if you don’t like my column, heck if you don’t like or agree with me, that’s just fine.
From day one of this column I have been right up front on where I stand. Actually it has been a staple of my writing. For those who may be new to this site and my column here’s a very small snapshot of some of what I am about.
I am a liberal Democrat, except when it comes to violent crime. In fact if it was up to me I think violent criminals should be put to death during half time at the Super Bowl. So it’s fair to say that I am a conservative when it comes to crime. I think people should be able to worship whoever or whatever they want. I think that people who treat their dogs like members of the family are nuts. I think DC comics are the best in the industry. I don’t think people should insist you believe what they believe. I love hip hop, I hate bluegrass. I think the Beatles are the greatest band in the history of popular music. I think Michael Jackson is the greatest performer ever. I love Frank Sinatra. I hate the TV shows Real World and Sweet 16. I love the TV shows All My Children and Family Guy. I think George Bush is the worst President in the history of America. Lastly, I firmly believe that you CANNOT regulate morality.
The above is just the tip of the iceberg on what I believe. You may agree or not. In fact if you don’t agree with anything I said and think I’m an asshole, that’s fine to.
But I’m not wrong.
On the flip side I don’t believe that you should be able to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, smoke cigarettes, climb a mountain, jump out an airplane, hunt deer, eat raw fish. I don’t believe that dogs should see therapists, that Paris Hilton is sexy, that NASCAR is a sport. If you believe any of that then more power to you my friend.
I think some of those things I don’t believe are just stupid. As an example, I think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is your suicide waiting to happen. I ride a motorcycle and I won’t even look at it without my helmet. In fact in over 10 years of ownership I have never been on a highway.
But if you want to ride one without a helmet and it’s legal in your state to do so then go right ahead, buddy. In fact all the things I just mentioned I’m against. If you believe any of them or engage in any of them I may think you are an idiot but…you are not wrong.
You have every right to engage in whatever you want it’s none of my business.
What a lot of people have forgotten in this country is this…
Opinions are not fact.
Recently I saw a news report on a new drug that would help women who have lost sexual desire. This drug will soon be up for FDA approval. There is a woman who is lobbying the FDA not to approve the drug. Her reasons? She does not want women to have to depend on a drug for intimacy. She believes it sends the wrong message.
What?
Let me get this straight. There is a woman who wants to make sure that other woman don’t get a drug that would help them. And her reasons are that she does not want women to depend on a drug for intimacy because it’s wrong.
How in the world is it any of her damn business?
I think black kids who wear their pants down by their ankles are freakin’ idiots. I hate that look. I think they look like stupid little fools who have no respect for anyone.
But they are not wrong. I have no right to try and make those kids dress like I want them to.
How is it anyone’s business to tell someone else what they are about to do is wrong when there is no law being broken?
What’s next? Will this “intimacy woman” turn her attention to Viagra because “It’s wrong” for men to use that to help with intimacy? Have a headache? To damn bad. Hey, if she doesn’t take aspirin YOU can’t take aspirin. If she doesn’t like SUV’s then NOBODY should drive them. If she does not like HBO then no cable for anybody! Ladies you better hope this woman does not pee standing up or she may want you to also.
Hey lady, if my lady wants to take a drug to help her with intimacy, I’m driving to the drug store like Speed Racer in my SUV while taking aspirin AND Viagra* with Big Love on HBO playing on my portable car DVD.
*Not that I need Viagra. I don’t. Really. I don’t. Really. Well, there was that one time but it happens to everybody and it was cold. Really cold.
By the way, this country is built on substances helping us with intimacy. Hey, I have a real good friend who has helped me with my own intimacy issues. His name is Jack…Jack Daniels.
By what right does anyone have to tell anybody what he or she can or cannot do in a free society? More importantly why is it wrong for someone to seek help if they feel they need it? If you suffer from an ailment how is it my right to tell you what to do about it?
I respect this woman’s right not to agree with the drug. I also respect her right to say she thinks that’s it bad.
What I can’t respect or tolerate are people like her deciding that their view is right and any other view is wrong.
When did a difference of opinion make you wrong? Why should a difference of opinion make you wrong? We are not talking facts like 2+2=4. If I said that 2+2=22 then I would be wrong, wrong, WRONG!
Or maybe not, being a product of the New York City public school system that 22 looks right to me. But that’s another story.
Facts are one thing; opinions are another. Opinions are not, I repeat NOT facts.
Your opinion does not make you right or wrong it simply makes you…YOU.
You see this “wrong way” everywhere, politicians saying that their opponents are “Wrong for the country.” Or “Wrong on that issue.” Or “Just wrong.” Instead of debating the issues they simply say the other person is wrong.
This really burns me when it comes to faith. I believe in Jesus and recently a guy confronted me about my beliefs. He also believes in Jesus. So what’s the problem? Well he told me that what I thought was (you guessed it) wrong.
I asked him why I had to be wrong in my approach to loving God? Why could I not worship in my way? He told me that I was wrong and that I was not living in the word so I was going to go to Hell. I told him I had already been to Newark.
After a few moments of this guy I had simply had enough and walked away. The alternative was to kick his ass and that I’m sure would be considered wrong on any level. I walked away because he was so adamant that I was wrong he did not even want to hear about free will. Oh no, forget that God gave us free will, I’m just wrong. This type of narrow mindedness is what gives religion a bad name.
If God gave me the choice to make up my own mind how can a man tell me that I’m wrong?
I will never understand that.
Never.
How are we to ever get to a point of unity on this planet when there are people who insist you are wrong because you don’t think like them? I mean, this guy and I both profess to believe in Jesus but I’m wrong because I don’t worship like he does. And here’s the thing, I don’t think he’s wrong because he worships a different way. You know what I think? I think he worships a different way. That’s it.
I also think he is a damn closed minded idiot, just as I would be if I tried to inflict my will on those kids who wear their pants down to their ankles.
Even if I think the guy who says I’m going to Hell is a close-minded idiot, he’s not wrong in believing what he thinks. He’s wrong only when he thinks he has the right to tell me what I should believe or do.
To think someone is wrong because they don’t share your views, well that to me is just plain STUPID.
I know a guy who does not eat ham. Am I wrong because I would wrestle a pig to the ground and eat it raw? This guy does not miss an opportunity when it comes to telling me how wrong I am because I eat pork.
I like PORK.
If you don’t eat it because of your religious beliefs I respect that. If you don’t eat it because you don’t like the taste, I respect that also.
But… I LIKE PORK.
This guy smokes like a chimney. I pointed out to him that I think smoking is one stupid habit but if he wants to smoke then that’s on him. You would think that this idiot would shut up but no, he says that smoking does not offend his God.
What?
Correct me if I’m wrong but I have NEVER seen a painting of any deity with a Kool cigarette in his or her mouth. I told him if it would make him fell better I would smoke some beacon for him. He was not amused as he walked away coughing like a steam engine telling me that eating pork was a sin.
Me? I LIKE PORK.
I like PIG. I LIKE BACON. I LIKE PORK CHOPS! Does that make me wrong? No it doesn’t. It may clog my arteries, give me high blood pressure and make me fat but it doesn’t make me wrong. If you think it does then you are a self-absorbed idiot, have a ham sandwich and shut the hell up.
I am done with people who dismiss any other view but their own. These people are so committed to their way seeing things that they refuse to see any other way.
You know, even that point of view is OK; it’s when these people decide that YOU must think what they think that really burns me.
I pose this question to anyone who reads this. Why should you have the right to interfere in my life on any level because you believe something different than me?
Look, I can make a case for anything but what I think does not and should not be able to regulate what YOU do.
I was having breakfast last Sunday at a restaurant when I got into a lighthearted conversation with my waitress. I have been eating at this restaurant for years and this young lady and I often get into a fun debate. She’s a conservative Republican and this time we were talking about the Presidential elections. She does not like anyone who is running on the Republican side. I told her to vote for Hillary. I thought she was going to throw my BACON at me.
She said she would never vote for Hillary because of how she stood by Bill. So forget rather or not Hillary would be a good President her thinking was that Hillary should have divorced Bill. You know, if that’s what she believes, that’s fine with me. I then asked her if George Washington cheated on his wife would he have been a bad President. She said yes.
She told me that no one should be President if they were not pure of heart.
Me? I could care less what Bill did. If Bill Clinton wanted to watch porn with a monkey and a jar of mayonnaise I could give a hoot. How does that affect my taxes and my quality of life in these United States? To me Bill’s actions were not the country’s problem it was Hillary’s problem. But you know as crazy as I think this woman’s views are (Who knows ANYONE who is totally pure of heart?) I don’t think she is wrong.
As long as she does not insist I MUST believe what she believes then she and I are cool.
What does this have to do with popular culture?
Everything.
This woman or someone like her may decide that comics, TV and movies are wrong for whatever reason. Think I’m reaching? Well in the 50s there was an attempt by a bunch of idiots to regulate the industry on moral reasons as well as stupid endeavors to brand Bat-Man and Robin as gay… among other things. There are already plenty of organizations that are trying to regulate or censure content by a variety of means. The difference here is those people are trying to make a point for the "public good" or some such reason. This woman simply wants this drug not approved because it’s just wrong.
So now someone doesn’t have to make a case for why they can simply make a decision that affects you or me based on feelings. Now someone just has to say it’s wrong.
Does that not sound wrong to you?
Michael Davis is a comics creator and the founder of the Guardian Line series of comics as well as being a television producer and writer. He was a co-founder of Milestone Comics and his artwork has appeared in Wasteland, Green Arrow: Shado, Green Hornet and The Question, among others.
You do get a good rant on, my friend, but keep them coming. I enjoyed this column more than a monkey with a jar of mayo. See you in November.
Ah! An opportunity to plug a ComicMix appearance.By "November" Tony's referring to the Mid-Ohio Con (www.midohiocon.com/). A whole bunch of ComicMixers will be there. Stay tuned.
Wow, great column, Michael! One of your best, I think. Except for the bit about raw fish. Obviously you're factually incorrect. :)What bothers me even more than citizens expressing their opinions about restricting the rights of other citizens who aren't bothering them is PROFESSIONALS doing it. It's bad enough that there's some ordinary woman who wants to bad physical-intimacy drugs for other women, but when professional pharmacists refuse to dispense legal medicine for which women have a prescription on the basis of their (the pharmacists') personal opinions, then this country's really in trouble.
Then, this country is really in trouble.
Opinions have a nasty habit of becoming facts and beliefs are so very potent. It is understandable that many feel it necessary to watch what one says. Focused opinion (as in the case of the "intimacy woman", as you have dubbed her) can have either good or bad consequences. For example, I submit the laws and opinions that brought us the Prohibition Era. Some people thought it was wrong to drink. So they marched and nagged and other such things and it became against the law.People who like to drink were not to be denied and those who saw opportunity were not to be disappointed. Soon a multi-million dollar business was in full swing, and brought with it prosperity and wealth (as well as bloodshed and turmoil, as with any illegal venture). People still got drunk. Men made money. Some got rich, others got shot in the street (or the barbershop…or the garage..or…well, you get the idea). It was a lot of hassle for so little result. People continued to do as they saw fit, regardless of what a few "moral" crusaders thought and did.In the case of Bill Clinton, his affairs were clearly a personal matter between him and his family. The opposing party decided to make a public spectacle out of it, even to the point of impeaching him.Passions can cause a person's beliefs and world views to become reality.On a different, but connected note…The thing that is interesting to me is that every issue has two sides, just like a coin. The same kind of tactics used in getting the Prohibition laws made were similar, if not the same as, the tactics used to get Women's Voting Rights, Civil Rights, etc. To address the question you posed with another question…By what right did the Civil Rights workers in the 1950s and 1960s have to come to a completely different region, one they didn't even live in, and dictate to shopkeepers and cafe owners who they were going to let and where they were going to sit?Is this "intimacy woman" any more out of line for what she is doing than the women who marched, lobbied, and protested to get a vote? There is no difference in method and strength of belief. The only thing that is left is one's own opinion as to whether or not one agrees with the sentiment.Is slavery wrong? To the master, not at all. To the slave, of course it is! The opinion of the master was the fact of life, until the opinion of the slave became the law of the land.I have heard many people refer to "basic right and wrong." But, I find these concepts to be bizarre.For example, the taking of another human being's life is wrong……unless they are too sick and death would better…or the "State" has condemned them die for crimes they have committed…or their commanding officer orders them to do so….or their religious leader orders them to do so….or little voices in their head tell them to do so…or it's the only way to fully demonstrate that one is "Pro-Life" (I'm STILL having trouble wrapping my brain around that one!).The only thing that really sets apart "Right" and "Wrong" are whether or not you agree. No one is right. No one is wrong. It just depends on which side of the coin you are on.As with the "narrow-minded" debater of religion you encountered, most people hear what they wish to hear, see what they wish to see, and know what they are most comfortable knowing. Just like with the coin, the view is one side or the other. Heads or tails. Also, just like the flipping of the coin, the view is that someone must win (be "right") and someone must lose (be "wrong").We, as a still-developing race, are losing a lot in that sort of either-or mentality…..but that's just my opinion.
"Is this 'intimacy woman' any more out of line for what she is doing than the women who marched, lobbied, and protested to get a vote?"Yes.This has been simple answers to silly questions.
She is no more or less out of line, Elayne.You view her as more out of line because you do not agree with her. You have decided what side of the coin you are on and are passing judgement on her reasons for her actions.I am viewing this for simply the actions taken. She is passionate and is very adamant about what she believes in. No different than the women who went through so much to be treated equally in this country.NOTE: I am talking a general similarity in actions and tactics here, NOT specifics of the cause.Although I do not agree with her REASONS, I won't go so far as to say that she has no right to do what she is doing.There were those who believed that the Civil Rights people had no right to do what they were doing. There were similar people who believed the same about any and all causes, be them social, religious, or political.I'm not opposing you or disagreeing with you in any fashion, Elayne. What I AM doing is expressing a few observations, which are without any feeling one way or another about either side of the argument.It is my belief that when one is too caught up deciding which side one is on, there is a tendency to forget about what the heart of the matter is.Being a Republican or a Democrat isn't going to repair the damage caused by war, natural disasters, etc. But, people get so lost in the arguments that they forget to solve the problems.Still, I will not say they have no right to make such arguments. It is a matter of choice. What one chooses to do, what one chooses to listen to, what one chooses to ignore, etc.I chose to post these questions. You chose to refer to them as "silly" and give what you call a "simple" answer.I don't think there are "simple" answers if one is to be truly open-minded about any issue. One's own opinions, politics, religion, social beliefs, etc. will surface. Nowadays, it seems that these surfacing feelings and viewpoints are more often than not combative and polarizing. What I am trying to do in life is to see beyond my own little view of the world and see where others are coming from.It make me sad and weary, because on the message boards where I once had wonderful exchanges of ideas and spirited discussions, I now find arguments, flame wars, and out and out hostility between this faction and that faction. It reminds me of when everyone used to choose sides before a kickball game.
"You view her as more out of line because you do not agree with her."So nice that you have a summer home in my head! You are, however, mistaken.I view her as more out of line because she's trying to restrict others' rights, not increase them. If you cannot tell the difference, there's probably no way to explain it easily to you.Flame wars abound in just about every place on the 'net. They often have little to do with political disagreements.
A summer home in your head? That explains all these tasteful drapes and all this cheesecake comic book art with lines drawn through them! ;)Seriously, though… Do you agree with her trying to restrict others' rights? Since you have been clearly against her in your statements regarding her actions, I will assume the answer is no, you do not agree with her. How, then, am I mistaken?Since whatever someone does (usually because they beieve they have the right to do so) restricts someone's rights in some fashion, I would hardly consider her unique or feel any need to single her out. Case in point, the current legal discussions in Atlanta, GA. regarding the "pantsline" issue. The proposed law (which could be an actual law by now…I've not heard anything more on this item past its announcement) would make it illegal for anyone to wear their baggy pants in such a way that allows their underwear to show. In other words, "pull up your pants or go to jail." Opposition to this have stated that such a law would restrict others' rights to "freely express themsleves as individuals" (That's a direct quote from the news story that ran on my local news network). Since there are many who agree with the proponents of this law (including Michael Davis, as he mentioned in the above column), it is not the majority viewpoint that these people's rights are being restricted or infringed in any way.Me? I happen to agree with the sentiment that one should keeps one's underwear UNDER one's pants, hence the name of the garment. But, as I said, I try to keep an open mind and see things from both sides of the argument before I make up my mind. However, this is not to be confused with an inability to tell the difference between the two sides. "Flame wars abound in just about every place on the 'net. They often have little to do with political disagreements." They start with any disagreement. Politics was just one of five examples I gave. I have seen some nasty flame wars erupt from political disagreements and (especially) religious disagreements lately. One from the religious front started as a discussion about religious denominations in the DC Universe (primary subjects were Black Lightning's Christian faith, Ragman's Jewish faith, and Mr. Terrific II's Atheism). What began as an interesting discussion quickly turned (quickly…as in within 10 or 12 posts) into some kind of vicious exchange between Atheists and Christians. An equally civil discussion about American political issues compared to those in Europe also deteriorated into a civil war, first between "Pro-Americans" and "Anti-Americans" (or those who did not agree with the "Pro-Americans"), then into a Republican Vs. Democrat flame war.Childish.