Hostage Crisis

[note: this image made more sense with the original title, “America Pulls a Boehner,” and it's still too good not to keep; courtesy of superdickery, though I'm sure owned by DC]

DI: Last year, Obama used the metaphor of a hostage crisis for the Republican negotiation over the Bush tax cuts. He ended up relenting, because he wasn’t willing to let them hurt the hostage, when the hostage was the American people. But you’ve dealt with some real-world hostage situations, so I’d like to get your opinion on this latest negotiation.

B: I don’t negotiate hostage crises; I end them.

DI: Probably by breaking through a hostage taker’s skylight then kicking them until they go to prison.

B: In a nutshell.

DI: Do you provide the nutshell, or do Gotham’s hostage-takers provide their own?

B: Clever.

DI: I have my moments.

B: But there have been circumstances where I’ve had to negotiate. It’s a favorite tactic of the Riddler, making sure he and his victims are hidden somewhere, so I have to deal with him remotely. It’s the only way he could ever get me to play his games at first.

DI: At first?

B: We came to an understanding about ten years ago: he stopped kidnapping people and I agreed to solve one of his riddles a month.

DI: So you enabled his lunacy. Wonderful.

B: The Riddler’s obsessive and compulsive, but not violently insane in the same way as someone like the Joker. All he really cared about was his puzzles, and one time, as I was taking him to the police, frustrated, I asked, “Next time can’t we just skip to the part that you care about?” And he laughed. But then he thought about it, and asked if I was offering what it sounded like I was offering. And I hadn’t been, but now that we were both thinking about it, it made a weird kind of sense.

Because he’d been terrorizing innocent people needlessly. He didn’t want a ransom. And he never actually hurt his hostages. He just wanted to play the game.

DI: But given that you negotiated with terrorists

B: Actually, you’ll note that I negotiated an end to the terrorism.

DI: But at the time he was a terrorist and you negotiated- and that makes President Bush cry- so what would you say of the current stalemate?

B: Well, first, looking back at the first hostage negotiation, Obama was being stupid. I think his metaphor fails, in that we weren’t talking about really hurting the American people, just whether or not some of them paid marginally higher taxes- at the rate they paid them under Clinton. Regardless, he did the worst thing possible: he caved- which only encourages more hostage-taking.

By contrast, I think the current debt ceiling negotiations, and maybe to a lesser extent the budget fight earlier this year, are closer to hostage negotiations. Because the debt ceiling allows us to pay for services that really will hurt Americans who lose them. And unlike taxes, which have a large lobby constantly agitating against them, those Americans tend not to have powerful political allies. So damage done to those Americans could well end up permanent.

DI: Then what do you think of the debt ceiling bill Boehner got passed in the House?

B: I liked Jonathan Chait’s description of the Boehner ‘deal’: “it's like a kidnapper demanding for the release of your child $100,000 and your other child.” Because Boehner’s deal extracts cuts without revenue, but then ensures that there will be another debt ceiling standoff in six months’ time.

This may be the reason that, according to CNN, the House plan championed by Speaker Boehner would likely lead to a downgrade of US credit from Standard and Poor’s, while the Senate plan championed by Harry Reid wouldn’t. [note: the Reid plan offers a ceiling extension that should see us to 2013]. We’ll see, I suppose, in the next few days, if that does anything to change the debate. I suspect not. John Boehner’s been painted into a corner. I suspect he’s not long for this political world; he was barely able to craft a bill that mustered Republican support in the House, but it’ll never make it through the Democratic Senate. His options now seem to be to throw his speakership under the bus to vote with the Democrats, or to try to preserve his speakership by tacking right, which means not voting for whatever compromise comes out of the Senate, and means the Republicans get hammered for the consequences and probably lose their majority and the speakership anyway.

Not that I’ll lament his loss. In attempting to sell his bill to the House, Boehner called the other options default or giving Obama a blank check. Now, I hate to go against Hanlon’s razor, but I can’t believe that the Speaker of the House misunderstands government so badly. The President doesn’t spend money- he executes the laws as passed by the Congress. Spending- the power of the purse- that’s Congress. The Congress, one half of which Boehner “leads,” set spending levels. Which makes it either blatant propaganda or criminal stupidity.

DI: You’ve placed a lot of people under citizen’s arrest in your time. Ever for stupidity?

B: I’ve caught a lot of people because of stupidity, but that was never the charge.

DI: You’ve been a pretty passionate proponent for raising the debt ceiling, even when a majority of Americans were against it.

B: I think most Americans are busy. They don’t want government to be a major thing in their lives- because they’d rather do something else, work, spend time with friends, family, just screwing around. So most Americans don’t pay a lot of attention to politics until it’s something important, something that gets in their face and demands attention. So the fact that most people didn’t understand what the debt ceiling was, I think accounts for most of the change in polls. But selling the increase - explaining why I’ve favored it, beyond what could go wrong- is a different thing. And I’ve said it before, but it’s about a different vision of the country.

Let me ask you a question: do you like our country? Right now, looking around, at the state of our roads, at the state of our national parks, at the state of our national security apparatus. Do you like this country, and want it to be able to continue at this level?

DI: Generally speaking, yeah. At least at this level.

B: Okay, these are the things our government spends money on. But how about the things you may not like, that the government isn’t doing as well with: the state of our schools, our crumbling infrastructure, high unemployment, the fact that seniors are edging closer to poverty as a group- these are all things that will require more spending in the future. Not unlimited spending- in some cases, like infrastructure, just a down payment- but increases over what we spend now.

I think most Americans are fairly happy with the country today. So I don’t understand that zealousness on the part of conservatives to take apart something we value.

DI: But you’re a dangerous socialist.

B: I’m a liberal. And maybe in the Europe I’d be a social democrat. I’ve never tried to hide that. And yes, personally, I’d favor robust government spending, to put us back on top of the world in education and technology, which is quite honestly where we belong. We’re the richest country in the world, and we still have an opportunity to cement our place at the head of that table; to me, that’s an America to dream about. It would require higher taxes- but if we made serious efforts to make the tax code fair- and I’m talking about treating all income equally, not the Orwellianly named ‘fair’ tax- it wouldn’t require a lot of sacrifice, either. To the average American, it would be more than worth it, to know that Medicare and Social Security were going to be there for them, and their kids.

But let me be clear: that’s not what I’m advocating here. I’m saying that, at a minimum, we should be trying to keep America strong. We don’t have to be the best. But we shouldn’t be willing to watch our nation slide further and further away from being the center of innovation, growth and prosperity. We’re still about as rich as the EU, but every day we fall further behind on the education and technology curves- and the further we fall back, the harder it is to regain position.

We should be looking for ways to ensure our nation’s stability and prosperity going into the future. We shouldn’t be looking to cut benefits for the elderly, while maintaining tax cuts for the oil industry. Those kinds of trade offs just don’t make sense.

DI: So how do you feel about the Reid plan?

B: The Reid plan isn’t wonderful. It has its flaws, namely a pretty large reduction in the government’s ability to protect its citizens. It does attack the deficit, and on that front it’s remarkably like the Beohner plan, both in how much gets cut and how quickly. So it tries to have the least effect during the downturn, which is a plus.

DI: So what’s so bad about the Boehner plan, then?

B: To get it out of the House, Boehner had to make the ceiling increase, or a second one, since he cuts a Reid sized increase in two, contingent upon passage of a balanced budget amendment. We’ve discussed how pointless such an amendment is, and this provision guaranteed that it could never even be considered by the Senate.

The thrust of the problem with a balanced budget amendment is it’s unenforceable, so it’s a rule which would only keep honest politicians honest.

DI: So the same way that, say, gun control only keeps honest gun owners honest?

B: One can of worms at a time.

And maybe I’m being cynical here, but I think Democrats have learned from pay as you go rules that they will try to live within the system, but Republicans won’t. Republicans, you’ll recall, got rid of pay as you go rules as soon as they took the House, and replaced them with cut as you go rules. The irony of which is that the party now obsessed with debt and deficits changed the rules to make it even easier to increase both.

But the other problem with Boehner’s plan we already mentioned. It’s the reason I think S & P has talked about downgrading our credit even if we pass the Boehner plan: it sets this whole hostage crisis back up again in six months. And even if we managed to talk the crazy people off the ledge this time, that doesn’t mean that next time we’ll be so lucky. In fact, since they’re likely to view this as a loss, and I speak from a long history with vengeful crazy people, they’re likely to be crazier, and more likely to throw us all off the ledge next time.

Unbalanced

B: I can tell you think you’re being clever. So out with it.

DI: I have two topics I’d like to talk about with you; unfortunately I’ve been having trouble coming up with an overarching theme, but they are Michele Bachmann and the budget.

B: And I’ll take a wild guess and assume you’re going to title the piece, ‘unbalanced.’

DI: On the nosey. We’ll start with the one that’s the furthest out of whack.

B: Michele Bachmann?

DI: Correct. Michele Bachmann really first came to prominent national attention when she called Barack Obama anti-American. Most notably because he was palling around with Bill Ayers, a member of the Weathermen, a group that bombed several government buildings in the 70s, and was friendly with Obama.

B: Obama served on a charity board with Ayers, and lived in the same neighborhood. I was friends with Harvey Dent- I actually cooked for him, in my home, once. I gave to his campaign when he was running for DA. By that standard, Michele Bachmann would believe that I condone any and everything Harvey’s ever done.

Which is stupid if not unbelievably cynical. Harvey was one of my best friends. When his… issues broke him, it was hard on me. But that never stopped me from beating the hell out of him every single time he put innocent people in danger. I don’t condone his actions; I despise them. I hate what Harvey became- and it’s all the sadder knowing where he came from, and who he could have been.

DI: But is that fair? Obama knew Ayers after he’d been in the Weathermen.

B: Okay. Say that Harvey reformed- which he’s tried, several times. Let’s say this time he makes it, and like Ayers he’s an honest, normal citizen for twenty years. Let’s say he gets his law license back, somehow, and runs for DA. I’d donate to his campaign all over again.

DI: I’m just going to lay my cards on the table, here, and just quote from Wikipedia: following comments by China proposing adoption of a global reserve currency, Bachmann introduced a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to bar the dollar from being replaced by a foreign currency.

B: I have no words. (pause) You’re not going to say anything else until I respond, are you?

DI: Nope.

B: It’s just… lunacy. The existence of a global reserve currency would have nothing to do with the US. All China is saying is that it doesn’t like being tied to US policy. They don’t like the idea that all the wealth they’ve generated is denominated in dollars, because they could lose their shirts if we were to do something stupid, like, say, reneg on our debts by refusing to lift the debt ceiling. So they’d rather have a currency that wasn’t related to any single country- sort of a gold standard without tying the reserve currency necessarily to any particular commodity.

DI: She also made headlines when she fretted publically about the census.

B: Which was ironic, given her self-proclaimed love for the Constitution- because that’s where the Census comes from. Every ten years the government performs a count and accounting of the citizenry- largely for the allocation of representatives for the house, but also the distribution of funds.

DI: And during the health care debate, she read an article by the notorious Betsy McCaughey on the floor of the House.

B: It’s unclear how much Bachmann’s persona is cynical shtick and how much of it is actual, diagnosable paranoia. But I can’t, looking at the evidence, believes it’s all an act; she went on record saying she wanted to “wean” people off Social Security and Medicare. She was talking about keeping people in the system there, and making sure people who wouldn’t get it had time to prepare- similar in spirit to the Ryan budget, but also throwing Social Security under the same bus- but that’s an incredibly unpopular mindset to have in this country. Frankly, I’m surprised she’s getting any traction at all.

DI: In 2004, Bachmann said, “We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders”

B: Given my long career in dealing with people with mental dysfunctions and identity disorders, I can tell you I have profound compassion for people like Bachmann, surpassed only by my compassion for the poor people of Minnesota she represents.

DI: That was catty. You’re getting catty in your old age.

B: Maybe I’ve been spending too much time around Selina. Kitten has claws.

DI: But conveniently, Bachmann has been at least on the outskirts of the skirmish over the debt ceiling. She tends to make wacky sounding demands- actually, I imagine that’s your wheelhouse, since you’ve been involved in hostage negotiations with the Joker.

B: To be fair, Bachmann isn’t going to kill anyone; she’s just threatening to hurt the country and its interests. Both dire, I admit; but I want to make sure we don’t step too far into hyperbole, here. Bachmann isn’t a murderer, and while I’d question her ability to properly grasp reality, she’s far from the Joker in that regard.

DI: Noted; also, aren’t I supposed to be the grown-up, here?

B: That’s what I keep asking.

DI: But what I was trying to say about Bachmann’s demands; she has, if I’m remembering this right, demanded at one point a balanced budget amendment, and at another, repeal of the ACA.

B: It’s hard to watch. I don’t know how many people were reading you and Clark’s discussions, but I can’t help but feel the ACA- it’s a part of Clark’s legacy. It’s a part I think he was proud of, even though he didn’t get to see its final passage. But so often, he, and I’m in a similar position, we get to help people in a way that’s immediate, and visceral.

But after you’ve saved someone from the burning building, you set them back down on the sidewalk and you fly away. And the circumstances that had them living in that poorly built building that wasn’t up to code, with the badly functioning smoke detectors that they couldn’t afford to replace- those all stay like they were. So it’s hard to feel like you saved them, really- you just postponed the inevitable.

I’m in a more unique position, in that I can afford and have the resources to come back later, and try to help out. There were a lot of times, especially when I was starting out, that I’d say to people: “Batman told me you could use a hand.” And little kids, I mean, the first thing they’d say is, “You know Batman?” And their eyes would light up; and it always felt like the answer was “only slightly.” Because he’s a part of me, but he’s not a part of me I have access to when I’m out with people like that. He’s as much an enigma to me, at those moments, as he is to everyone else.

But the point I was trying to get at, that I think I’ve wandered away from, is that at least in my mind, the ACA is something he advocated for, at the end. The last hurrah in his campaign for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. And I remember, when the debate over the bill got really nasty, he called me, depressed. Because he couldn’t understand how people could question the patriotism of the idea that everyone should have medical coverage. He asked me, “What’s more American than all of us, together, helping every American succeed, and prosper? Is there anything more American than that?”

At the time I didn’t say anything. It was rhetorical, but beyond that he had a way about him- even when he said something corny, something I wanted to laugh about- I couldn’t. He made you want to believe silly things. I don’t think the ACA is actually silly- but I believe it’s aimed to make the world better, in a way that sometimes I want to dismiss as hopelessly and romantically idealistic. But I also think it’ll save more lives than Clark or I ever did. And I know that’s what Clark hoped, too.

DI: That’s all well and good, but don’t you hate freedom?

B: I once punched Captain America in a comic book- but I don’t think that counts. I’ll cop to the fact that Bachmann and I don’t see eye to eye on the purpose of government. But I also believe that in a democracy you actually have to govern, that means voting for budgets on time, it means funding agencies even if you may not like the way they work; it means doing the business of the American people like a professional.

As to the budget, itself, I think it’s silly to attempt to balance the budget immediately. Aside from the fact that taking billions if not trillions out of the economy in the midst of the recession is a bad idea, I think it’s unfair and irresponsible to the people who have come to rely on certain government programs to suddenly do without. You’ll note, this is the exact same logic Bachmann wants to use for Social Security and Medicare, and at least as a methodology I can agree with it. Weaning people off of government funding is better than suddenly slamming the door shut and saying no more. You’d be dealing a huge blow to the economy, and just as important, really hurting a lot of people.

I agree, that over the long term we have to make up the difference between revenue and spending; reasonable people can disagree on the balance, there- and I’m hopeful that more reasonable people are elected in 2012 to make it a more adult conversation.

DI: So you don’t like the current state of the negotiations?

B: It’s difficult to know what the current state is, actually. But last I heard, Obama was pushing for $3.5 trillion in spending cuts, against about $1.2 trillion in additional revenue. To people who look at the debt the last couple of years, that might sound great. But to anyone paying attention to the long-term it’s a kick in the crotch.

$3.5 trillion is slightly less than what the Bush tax cuts cost every decade. Raising revenues by $1.2 trillion might sound like a good idea, but $.8 trillion of that comes off letting the Bush cuts for those earning more than $250,000 expire. Why that’s a crappy deal is it’s basically asking for the least investment in the country from the wealthy, and asking for the most pain endurable by everyone else. If you like the idea of the elderly staying above the poverty line, if you like the idea that the US might remain a well-educated country, these are not the kinds of cuts you want to see.

Which isn’t to say that this isn’t necessary. It’s possible that we really are spending so far beyond our means that we have to cut $350 billion out of our budget every year- which is around 10%. But I don’t like that we’re being forced to cut our budget by that much this quickly; the appropriate time to examine your finances is not while your house is on fire.

And I think if we’re going to ‘tighten our belts’ that it shouldn’t come on the backs of the poor and the vulnerable. There are a trillion dollars being basically wasted every decade through these so-called ‘tax expenditures.’ You can argue whether or not this is spending or it’s a tax cut, but that’s semantic; at the end of the day, it’s the government picking winners and losers. Giving some people preferential treatment through the tax code is, most of the time, a bad idea. It distorts markets, which can make it harder for certain businesses to compete.

After that trillion, I would say rescinding all the Bush tax cuts makes sense. If we really, really can’t afford our government, we should start things back at zero- because before those cuts was when we had a balanced budget. And from there we can have the sober discussion of how high we think taxes should be, versus the things we think the government should do.

And maybe the conclusion would eventually be, well, we want to pay fewer taxes even if that means a smaller military and smaller Social Security checks and maybe some rationing in Medicare. I don’t claim to speak for the American people on this. But I think we should start the conversation there- after we’ve put out most of the fires.

And personally, since I imagine you’re soliciting my economic expertise as a kind of poor man’s Warren Buffet, I’d suggest backloading the cuts. Because whenever you cut spending it’s going to take money out of the economy. If you aim it properly, some of it will be replaced by private investment- but that’s a matter of timing it so that it happens after the recovery actually gets stronger- no more of this see-sawing.

DI: Give yourself a little credit. You’re almost exactly like Warren Buffet, only you have a more interesting personal life- by which I mean your fetish gear fashion sense. And also your sex life.

B: Thanks for that.

Making Amend(ment)s

DI: We had an animated conversation the other day, and I’d like to talk about something similar: Republicans in the House have been saying they want a balanced budget amendment; in fact, they’re refusing to vote on the debt ceiling without it being tied to a balanced budget amendment. And you told me that was the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard.

B: The problem with a balanced budget amendment is it’s pointless. Because even if a congress were to violate the amendment- even if Congress decided to go completely off the deep end and stop collecting any taxes while also double all spending, an amendment would be powerless to stop them.

DI: And why’s that?

B: There are a couple of issues tied up here, both having to do with enforcement. The first hurdle has to do with the mechanism of enforcement. How do you write an amendment that guarantees that the budget be balanced? The most creative method I heard came from Warren Buffet, who suggested the amendment state that sitting congresspersons could not be reelected if there was a deficit. But even the budget hawks probably wouldn’t go for that- since even the most ambitious budgets won’t achieve balance for several years. And realistically, putting a revolving door into the Congress would likely increase spending, rather than decrease it. I mean, if you’re not going to have to be accountable to the voters at all, why not? Even assuming you could come up with language for an amendment that would be able to get through the constitutional process- which takes years and comes with no guarantees- you come up against the second issue.

When there’s a contention, rather than if, it’s ultimately the courts who are responsible for enforcing the Constitution. But the courts have refused to hear the case in similar circumstances. The courts have argued that plaintiffs don’t have standing to sue, even a case where congresspeople argued that their ability to carry out their constitutional prerogatives was being thwarted.

DI: And for those of us who have thusfar avoided being the targets of lawsuits, what’s standing?

B: Standing basically says that you personally were hurt by an action. For better or worse, the current court tends to favor executive power. So these suits get thrown out for lack of standing if there are any shades of gray.

But even if you assume for a moment that a court- any court- decides to set aside the concept of standing. Maybe they’re mad as hell, too, and want to see if anything can be done about it. They hear the case, and decide that indeed Congress is exceeding it’s authority by spending more than they’re bringing in. What then?

The court can’t decide on its own which spending is improper- they don’t have a line item veto: there’s nothing approaching that in the court’s authority. The court would then be left with the choice of either declaring the entire government unconstitutional, or admitting that it couldn’t do anything to change it. And even if a judiciary so vastly overstepped that it declared the US government illegitimate, what then? Does the Congress just turn in their parking passes and go home. Or do they flip the Court the bird and keep on trucking?

I want to be clear, here: I want a balanced budget, and sooner is certainly better than later. But this slash it now now NOW attitude pervading the conservatives in Congress- especially when coupled with intransigence on taxes- is purely political. It has nothing, zero, to do with the long term health and viability of the government or the country- and even less to do with the well-being of its citizens. Republicans are using the current budget issues as an excuse to try and dismantle the social programs they have never particularly liked.

Ironically, the largest drivers of our current financial woes, were enacted by Republicans who had gotten rid of pay as you go rules and scoffed at the idea that they should have to pay for their agenda. Congressional Republicans are playing chicken with the global economy, and what they claim to be holding out for is this amendment. But it’s pointless and toothless.

DI: I read in the Washington Post that Michelle Bachman has said that she will not vote for a debt ceiling increase. The reporter said that placed her to the right of some other conservatives.

B: But it’s not ideologic, it’s just idiotic.

This is unprecedented. Never in the history of this country have we defaulted. That’s why we have good credit. Seriously, this would be like the head of a household declaring to his family, “We’re just not going to pay the credit card bill.” Years of good credit history would disappear, and borrowing rates, for the car, the kid’s student loans, the home, would all go way up. And even delaying payments a month would make the interest rates on any existing debt skyrocket. There is absolutely no good reason to do this. It borders upon insane.

DI: But don’t we have to cut spending?

B: Sure. Absolutely. And there are ways to do that that don’t put the financial future of the country at risk, that don’t put the global economy at risk. The sane thing to do would be to pass a clean debt ceiling hike today. The ambitious but still not crazy thing might be to push for, not some empty amendment, but a binding budget agreement that says that budgets over the next ten years we need to cut 10% of the deficit annually. As an enforcement mechanism, the law could automatically cut budgets across the board at the decade mark to make up for whatever deficit was left. Add in that repeal of this law takes a three quarters majority of both houses and you have a balanced budget law that’s even stronger than pay as you go rules the Democrats used to operate under.

DI: But isn’t that undemocratic?

B: So’s a balanced budget amendment. But just maybe to be responsible, we can’t be all that democratic. To make it fair, though, you could make sure the law can’t take effect without three quarters of both houses voting for it- so it takes an equal amount to pass it as repeal it.

Alternatively, you could reinstate the old pay as you go rules, with the change that you don’t just have to pay for changes, but pay a ‘surcharge’ on changes, of say 10%, so every time Congress made adjustments to programs they would have to find savings or revenue to cover the difference, plus ten percent. There are lots of ways to get us back in the black- and the vast majority are simple math problems that don’t require destroying Medicare or gutting Social Security or even telling the poor that we’re okay with them dying.

But the amendment, and especially tying an amendment or budget cuts, to the debt ceiling? That’s playing with fire. And it’s all of us that are going to get burned.

DI: You feel better? Farther away from a coronary than when we started? I hope so, because to make amends to our readership for your crazy polemics- I’m kidding; please don’t hit me- you know what time it is?

B: Where were we?

DI: Diana had just been to Cale Pharmaceuticals with the Gotham Police to investigate Danielle’s story, and came up empty.

B: Okay, we’re back in the embassy, then.

Wellys:
Diana, I swear to you, it should have been there.

Diana:
Start at the beginning.

Wellys:
I thought we'd hit a dead end in our research. We'd missed all of our milestones. When Veronica called me in, I thought it was because we were going to have all of our funding pulled. But she said she'd found a benefactor, one that was going to keep funding our project, and had some... ideas about getting over our hurdles.

DI:

Diana:
What hurdles?

B:
Wellys:
The human body doesn’t like tech. Whether it’s an artificial hip or nanites, we tend to react pretty violently to a foreign object implanted in the body- hence anti-rejection meds. The project, we were calling it “Silver Swan” to keep it secret, involved nanotec cosmetics. The idea was to stop putting makeup on the body, and start making the body itself beautiful. But all of our subjects were getting sick. Several of them developed tumors. It was a mess. This new investor brought in a truckload of cash and some kind of know-how. Within 72 hours all of our problems were gone. At first I was thrilled- I’ve been working on this project for six years, practically my entire professional life- and finally it was getting somewhere. Then I saw what they used it for. And it just, I knew they were taking shortcuts. Because that kind of a breakthrough, from where we were, it wasn’t possible.

Diana:
That's because it wasn’t science. It was magic. And I know someone with plenty of it.

DI: I think I know where you’re going with this. CUT TO poolside, a beautiful woman in a bikini, with long purple hair, is lounging beside the pool.

B: She sets her drink down on a tray held up by a male waiter who is dressed like a Chippendales dancer. He takes the drink away, and as he’s going, she wiggles her fingers, and his trunks become loose and nearly fall off before he catches them, giving us the hint of an untanned but firm butt.

DI: Thanks for that.

B: Somebody needs to help keep the ratio of T & A to man candy equitable. Besides, Circe really is man crazy. Circe lays back down, relaxing. A shadow looms over her, and she assumes for the moment it’s the waiter as she sits up to speak.

Circe
A little more salt on the rim this time if you- oh. It’s you.

DI:

Diana
Cale Pharmaceuticals. I have reason to believe that someone’s been trying to magic up some miracle make up.

B:

Circe
And you’re tired of trying to conceal those crow’s feet? Wish I could help you, Diana, really I do. But have you forgotten what happened last week?

Circe pushes down her sunglasses to reveal a black eye.

DI:

Diana
Oh, right. I punch a lot of people. Sometimes I forget who.

B:

Circe
I haven't had time, or frankly the perspicacity, to engage in another endeavor. Give me another week, maybe two, at poolside and perhaps I'll have something fun we can get up to, but today, I'm only lounging at the pool. But did you try Ares? Of course not. You came here hoping it was me. Because you don't enjoy the prospect of locking horns with the god of war- though as a lady I'd be happy to lock his horn any day of the week.

DI:

Danielle
Lady might be a bit of a stretch.

B:

Circe
Meow. Kitten’s got claws.

Diana
But if you're lounging around here, who's tending to your flock?

Circe
We witches call it a coven. And I forget the young man's name, but he looks excellent without a shirt on.

DI:

Diana
At least you remember the important details.

B:
Circe
I note you're chirlishly disapproving tone, Diana. But if L. Ron Hubbard can have his own clan of religious zealots, why can't I? Speaking of clans of zealots, how are the Amazons?

Diana
That's right. I hit you because you were trying to turn every Amazon on Themiscyra into a pig.

Circe
I've been in the market for another island- and I am a sucker for the classics.

Performance Enhancement

DI: Roger Clemens is in the news at the moment because he lied to Congress- which is a pretty hilarious thing in and of itself, given that politicians are probably the most consistently untruthful people on the planet.

B: It’s true that politicians lie. But I think it’s fair to ask why. And fundamentally, I think it comes down to the fact that the electorate doesn’t like consistency.

Look at the current Republican Presidential nominees. They’re vilified for taking what, at the time, weren’t even controversial stances on issues: Romney on health care, Pawlenty on cap and trade, even Gingrich on the Ryan budget. So they’ve largely denied ever taking those stances, or at least walked them back.

Note that I’m not condoning the behavior. I think if those three men, longtime party members with broad appeal and respect, stood up and together said that the politics of immolation can’t continue- that they took stands they believed in, and wouldn’t retreat just because something they liked was polling well- it would go a long way to changing things.

DI: But isn’t that a fairly undemocratic idea?

B: Let me explain. I have some socialist leanings- anyone who likes Medicare or Social Security does, frankly- but I’d go a step beyond. I’d like to see a higher minimum wage. I’d even support a maximum wage. If I were given the keys to the kingdom tomorrow, and told to remake the US to make it the best country I could, I’d push for more social democratic programs, similar to what exists in Europe, socialized medicine, for a start. But on the other hand, if I were running for or elected President, that’s a different story. Elected leaders aren’t chosen to represent their own ideas and interests, they’re there to represent the people. On a lot of issues I’ve been disappointed with Obama, but in that regard, I really feel he’s tried to be President not just of blue states but of all the states. You might not know it from all of the Nazi/Socialist rhetoric, but he’s a fairly centrist President; I’d say he’s not even as far left as Bush was right.

DI: Okay, but what I wanted to talk about was why Clemens is in the hot seat. He lied. Specifically about using performance enhancers. Or at least that’s the contention. And I know we touched on it briefly, I think around last Halloween- so I’ll try and keep us from rehashing. But I want to know, as a former performance enhancer, how you feel about performance enhancement.

B: Why do I shudder to think what you’ll name this blog entry? But it’s a tough question, and there’s a lot of nuance to it, so I’ll start at the general and we’ll get more specific from there. I think we’re living on the cusp of a new evolution in humanity. Some heroes are aliens, some have magical assistance, but some- I’d say most- of them truly represent what we’re doing or will do to ourselves as a species. Cyborg is a pretty good example. He’s part man and part machine. Call it post, trans, or metahumanity, but we’re changing, evolving; I doubt we’ll recognize the human race in 50 years.

And there are all sorts of mechanisms. Cybernetics, gene therapy, chemicals, nanotech. I don’t know how we’re going to get there, but I think it’s clear from what’s happened in the hero community that we’re changing. I think the people who put on spandex and fight crime- or commit it- are just the precursor.

Which is why I see what’s happening in our sports as a choice. If we decide, as seems to be the overriding thought of the day, that sports ought to be a throwback to what humans can do without technological aid, then so be it. So long as those are the rules. I think the reason there’s been so much trouble is that the rules were technically that performance enhancement was wrong, but in reality everyone was looking the other way. So honest athletes were put at a severe, perhaps even crippling disadvantage. Which is wrong.

Now what the capitalist in me imagines for sports is that we’ll eventually end up with two of everything- a natural and an enhanced version. People or athletes who for whatever reason want to see the pinnacle of human achievement without certain kinds of technology, we have the Olympics and equivalent associations. For those who want to see a man kick a football as far as he can by whatever means, you’d have sports leagues that allow enhancements.

And whichever people pay to watch on TV, whichever people buy merchandising for, that’s what will determine which brands survive. And maybe it’ll be a case, like the NCAA and the NBA, where there’s an audience for both that overlaps. I don’t know.

DI: That was a fairly obvious caveat where you mentioned ‘certain kinds’ of technology being prohibited in the Olympics.

B: Well, there’s a reason why Olympic world records today tend to outstrip records from fifty years ago: the world changed. Nutrition, and sports medicine, equipment and training have all come a long way since then. And it’s only going to get more complicated. Taking your vitamins is okay; but what about eating a genetically modified fruit that secretes small amounts of human growth hormone? That’s probably a silly, and obvious, example, but there’s a lot of nuance that’s going to continue to complicate things. But what about a macrobiotic diet that includes bacteria designed to secrete small amounts of pain killers?

DI: Okay, so continuing to regulate the line between natural and not is complicated. But won’t somebody think of the children? Isn’t telling our youth that it’s all right to trade their health and longevity for success damaging?

B: That’s what sports already do. Even athletes that don’t take performance enhancing drugs are putting their bodies through tough exercise regimens with constant stress on them, and frequent injuries. Even sidestepping the amount of people football grinds up and spits out, athletes tend to trade time off their life for their sport. As someone who kept himself in peak physical condition for nearly thirty years, and engaged in some of the most demanding and damaging activities you can find, I can tell you, it took its toll. I took Venom less than a year, so the side effects I’ve suffered were fairly minimal from that. But there are days I have so much pain I can’t get out of bed- at least not until I get some pain relief. And that’s the reality of modern athletics.

DI: Okay, but do you regret using drugs- as someone who is frequently held up as a role model for children?

B: But I’m not a role model for children. I wasn’t plastering myself on the sides of cereal boxes or putting toys into happy meals, I was trying to help people. Even the merchandising, that was all done for charity- and I think even most children can understand the difference between the cartoon caricature and me doing what I’ve done.

But on the record, I regret my use of Venom. But that’s because it made me irrationally aggressive, even violent- not because it was wrong on the morals. If I had to trade time off my life to save that little girl, to just save that one little girl I failed to save- I’d do it. In a heartbeat. And I wouldn’t feel bad about it.

DI: So the take-away from you is that there should be a decision at the organizational level to use performance enhancers or not in sports, right?

B: Generally, yeah.

DI: And do you know of any heroes currently operating who take performance enhancing substances?

B: No- even among people who don’t believe there’s anything wrong with enhancers, there’s still a stigma about it. But I’d be surprised if I was the only one who ever did.

DI: And given what we’ve been discussing, do you think that’s wrong?

B: I think if it’s an issue of vanity, either to look bigger, or to perform better, purely as a function of ego, that’s wrong, or at least counterproductive. I think steroids and other current enhancers often have nasty side effects, and that having compulsory, de facto steroid use in sports is wrong, too. It’s a choice, not just for the commissioners, but for each player to make, too. There may come a day when players are forced to choose between enhancement and not playing the game anymore- which is unfortunate, but could be the reality.

But as for our League, I’d say that I think anyone who puts their own health at risk to try and help people- whether it’s through enhancement or just walking into a burning building- that’s the definition of a hero. And I’m proud that I know so many people who fit that description.

The Poor Man’s Economic Argument

B: I’m a businessman, but only in the loosest of meanings of the word. I don’t spend my nights hovering over financials. I don’t personally oversee hiring, firing, buying- I’m a businessman in the most abstract of terms.

At my level, I speak in generalities. Because when you’re making multi-billion dollar decisions, spreadsheets don’t win people over. You still need those, because other people operating at this level had their own accountants who want to make sure the numbers add up, but to win over the bosses, you have to be able to craft a story.

And I think I finally have one for this economy.

Imagine our economy is a poor man. He works hard, but he doesn’t make enough to pay all his bills. So he’s deeply in debt.

Then he becomes ill. It’s not life-threatening, but it’s that kind of long, lingering illness that will stay with you for weeks, perhaps months, if untreated. He manages to go to work, but his productivity plummets, and his piece-rate wage dips.

So now he’s ill, and having even more difficulty making his bills. He’s worried that perhaps his credit can’t take the hit.

He’s not sure what to do. Medicine, and good food, could help him get healthy faster. It would also mean going deeper into debt. But there’s the chance that if he gets healthy faster, his productivity might go back up fast enough to make up for whatever extra debt he took on. He could even come out of it ahead.

It’s essentially the same argument I’ve been making, and it’s the same one Paul Krugman has, as well- though this is certainly closer to a parable.

DI: But the nutshell, basically, is that austerity during a fiscal crisis might be counterproductive.

B: Exactly. If the economy were healthy, telling the man in our scenario to do more to live within his means would be completely appropriate. But with a frail economy, it is harder to see how doubling-down on shrinking the economy is a good idea.

DI: Okay, you lost me.

B: Government spending doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It goes to contractors and workers who then filter that money to other parts of the economy. If that money suddenly disappears, then it takes money out of the economy. Put another way, a highway construction worker who eats a cheeseburger every day for lunch who gets laid off is no longer buying that cheeseburger. Worse, you’re only partially defraying the costs, since he’s likely to go on unemployment, so you’re still paying for some of his work, only with none of his productivity.

There’s nothing wrong with asking how large a government we should have, what functions it should provide, and how much we’re willing to pay for it. But I’m worried that the spending cuts we’re looking at now, they aren’t helpful, and they may even be like ancient physicians trying to bleed a patient back to health.

DI: I want to come back to your specific formulation, there. You were very deliberate in saying “how much we’re willing to pay” for government. Why was that?

B: Because it’s unfair to say, “this is how much I want to pay” for something. Ideally, government would be free. In a perfect world, food and shelter would be free, too. And when I stop at a burger place, I don’t want to pay seven bucks for a burger- but that’s how much it costs, after paying for the ingredients, the rent, the staff, and a reasonable margin of profit for the owners.

And government exists largely within the same constraints. I don’t want to pay $1300 per person for Medicare, but that’s how expensive it is- and those costs are 40% cheaper than private insurance would be.

There’s tension, between how much we want government to be able to do for us, and how much of that we’re willing to pay for. And that’s certainly a discussion we should be having, on a continual basis that we aren’t.

I see similar problems in discussions of the debt ceiling. A majority of Americans favor not raising the debt ceiling.

I understand those poll results, in the context that people conflate the debt with the budget. But the ceiling isn’t the budget. The ceiling is the credit card bill. These are things that previous Congresses approved, laws already enacted, spending already carried out. This is money owed, money that other people are expecting to come in- that individuals and businesses and potentially entire economies are counting on.

Part of the reason the financial crisis had such reverberations is that people who were responsible, who shouldn’t have been in trouble, suddenly weren’t being paid for services rendered. But the government is several times larger than any failed company- and the splash its default would make is tough to even comprehend.

But the worst problem is that even when the ceiling gets its eventual raise, this grandstanding about not raising the debt limit could drop our credit rating.

DI: Crap. And then our rates go up. And we enter the debt death-spiral basically anyone whose ever been poor or in college is familiar with- and that includes journalists who paid their way through school. But can’t not fixing our debt problems also destroy our credit?

B: This is definitely a danger. But what markets want is long-term sustainability. They want to see that the government is going to be able to keep paying it’s bills. One way to do that is to stop using the heat in the house. The other is to bring home more revenue.

And there’s nothing- save for the Republican leadership- saying we can’t try a combination of both. My preference has always been for finding ways that the government can be leaner, without destroying its ability to help its citizens. And frankly there are a lot of people out there who don’t pay their fair share of the taxes- largely because of a disparity of lobbying power.

DI: Okay, I think we’ve filled out space quota. But you know what happens whenever you rant politically, don’t you? We live-write some more Wonder Woman pilot. The last bit was here, but why don’t you give us a quick, “Last time one Wonder Woman” synopsis.

B: Last time, on Wonder Woman, she punched me through a window to safeguard a woman wanted in connection with a murder investigation. We open on Cale Pharmaceuticals, specifically their Gotham research facility. Diana is dressed in smart business attire, with her hair up in a bun.

DI: Sounds very naughty librarian.

B: She’s only there to observe. She’s with Detective Bullock, overweight and overbearing, with a cadre of uniformed officers. They’re investigating the claims about Kapatellis.

DI: You’re telling, not showing.

B: Diana watches as Veronica Cale, who flew there in her helicopter, argues with Bullock about the validity of his warrant. Her lawyer gave up minutes ago, but she’s still staring angrily at Bullock.

Bullock:
Amanda Waller, Department of Metahuman Affairs. She’s the person you’ll have to take that up with. The ambassador is here as a courtesy; the information for our warrant came from her embassy. Everything else, including the thousand dollar words and the ten-thousand dollar mouthpiece, are above my paygrade. Now if you’ll allow me through, I’d hate to have to charge you with obstruction.

Her lawyer nods, and Cale steps out of the way. Diana and Cale exchange an icy stare, but Diana plays her cards close to the vest. She believes Cale is up to something, but isn’t ready to stake her name and reputation on it. Yet.

We cut to cops looking through lab material. And cut again, to the cops leaving, tails between their legs. Cale is triumphant. Bullock is talking to Diana.

Bullock.
Nuthin.

Diana:
Nothing?

Bullock:
No Kapatellis, none of the equipment you expect to find, either. Looks clean.

Cale:
You were expecting, what? Frankenstein monsters and imprisoned orphans? This is a pharmaceutical company in Gotham, not the Liberal conception of a third world sweat shop. Now if you’re done, I have a business to run.

Bullock tips his hat at Cale.

Bullock:
Ma’am.

Are you going to join in anytime soon?

DI: Sorry. I was transfixed by that accent you were doing for Bullock.

B:

Lawyer:
Unless you require anything further, I can start drafting a harassment complaint against the Amazon.

She waves him away with her hand. The solid wall behind her shimmers, and a man, handsome and tall, steps through where it had been.

DI: Behind him, we can see indeed a grotesque menagerie of scientific and surgical apparatuses. Bathed largely in shadow is the face of a young woman.

Doctor:
They only saw what we wanted them to see.

B:

Cale:
Thank you, Edgar.

DI: We zoom in on that face in the background, as the woman eye opens wide, panicked and afraid. Cut to black.

B: And a commercial break?

DI: You aren’t that lucky. We’re back on the sidewalk. Diana exits the building. We see a black limousine parked on the curb.

B: Don’t.

DI: We here a man’s voice from offscreen, behind Diana.

Bruce:
Diana. I didn’t expect to see you back in Gotham so soon.

DI: She recognizes the voice, and smiles as she turns to see Bruce Wayne.

B:

Diana:
Bruce, how are the ribs?

Bruce:
Fine.

Diana:
You’re breathing heavily.

DI:

Bruce:
You have that effect on men.

B: I hate you.

Diana:
I’m sorry.

DI: He can’t let it go that easily. But then he smiles, wide, because they’re not alone anymore.

Bruce:
Always a pleasure, Madame Ambassador. And I’ll have my office get in touch with yours about that fundraiser.

You shake hands, and yours lingers, just a moment. There’s a lot in that handshake.

And now we mercifully go to commercial.

I Can See Your Underpants

DI: Okay, now I have something to ask you. You’re usually a pretty practical guy. So I assume that even when you do something strange, you do it for a reason. So why did you where your underwear outside your pants.

B: You’ll have to be more specific. But if you’re talking about last New Years, I’d have to say liquor.

DI: Cute. But no, I’m talking about your costume. Black or blue underpants on the outside? Were you just trying to copy Clark, or what?

B: He has the excuse of it being a Kryptonian design. I, well, I needed extra support. And protection. The earliest costume I wore, which didn’t last long, was basically just a black unitard. That got replaced quite early on, because I kept getting hit in the balls. Even untrained criminals know to aim for the weak points, apparently. Even the costume that followed was basically still a unitard, only with several sheets of Kevlar sewn into the chest. The crotch padding was difficult, though, because without having the suit custom-sewn, it was going to cause a really odd crotch bulge. Alfred had the bright idea of making the padding part of a design that looked almost like underpants- I was afraid it would make me look like I was wearing a diaper, but it had the effect of leading the eyes away from the bulge. After I adopted a sleaker, more armored design to the costumes, it was pretty simple to conceal the padding, but at that point the design had become a part of the persona, and it kind of stuck. I’ve used hundred of different costumes through the years, so not all of them had the underpants design- but there it is. Mystery solved.

DI: But on that note, DC Comics, the subsidiary to Warner whom you and the League lease your license rights to for the sake of charity, are relaunching most of their books. And there’s apparently an editorial edict, one demanding that all of the female characters cover up their legs. Notably, this has effected characters like Zatanna- known popularly for her magical feats and fishnet leggings- though not necessarily in that order.

B: That’s a travesty.

DI: You say, as someone quite familiar with Zatanna and her leggings.

B: Careful.

DI: I don’t meant to imply anything by it. Just that you’re at the very least friendly with her. Colleagues. And I’m sure, as a connoisseur of the female form, you’ve at least taken in the sight.

B: She’s a friend. And we’ve worked together, extensively. She’s a hell of a magician- and she’s got some excellent legs- a fact I know she’s proud of.

DI: Really?

B: Of course. You can’t magic up legs like that. She works out. She shows them off because she’s proud of them. There’s also an element of distraction to it, too, but that isn’t all of it.

DI: Hmm. Because of a fairly recent change to her costume, at least in comics, Wonder Woman isn’t being affected. In fact, her costume change seems to be a precursor. What did you think about that, when it happened?

B: I agree with Gloria Steinem’s reaction, actually- which extends to the entire line. Making it so superheroes have to wear pants make it seem like only pants are powerful. Which is of course blatantly untrue. She cited the ancient Greeks, who basically wore armored skirts into battle, and sumo wrestlers. What’s more insidious, I think, is that it takes away choice from the equation. I think Diana said something similar, in her response about the MAC make-up collection she endorsed, but feminism should be about choice.

DC having the standard heroine costume be skimpy is sexist. Dictating that heroines cover-up, almost burqa-like, is just as sexist. It might make it harder to objectify them, but it’s no less sexist. And more to the point, the new costumes are still skin-tight, the art used on them still ridiculously over-accentuates the female form. There are lots of things DC could do to make their heroines both more realistic and healthier representations of femininity, but forcing all of them into pants is not one of them.

Speaking of Diana specifically, her usual outfit, the one-piece bathing suit, is the casual version. Her actual costume looks a lot like Greek armor- the one-piece is what she wears under all the leather armor. But unless she’s planning on being smacked around with a sword and a shield, wearing around the armor everywhere is impractical- not to mention uncomfortable. And she sweats in it. A lot.

DI: And nobody wants to buy BO Wonder Woman action figures.

B: No. And I know how that feels. I’ve got some armor that’s basically everything-proof; anything short of someone drop a Sherman tank on my head wouldn’t hurt. But my entire body smells like the inside of a marching boot for a week after wearing it.

DI: And is your opinion maybe the least bit biased by having spent time with women in phenomenal shape who seem to have a collective aversion to fabric.

B: Of course. I am an unapologetic admirer of the female body. Always have been. But I’m pretty sure that’s a biologic necessity- not something to feel ashamed of.

DI: Even though you came out?

B: Just because I’m no longer looking to buy a new sports car doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate ones that drive down the street.

DI: I can’t tell if you’re ironically objectifying women.

B: I’d say it’s more accurately categorized as a metaphor. Women are of course people, with thoughts, feelings, desires and the right to be treated with respect. But that doesn’t mean men can’t or shouldn’t appreciate the way they look, or how the way they look makes us feel. And vice versa. We’re all of us human beings, and our sexuality is very much a part of the experience of being human. It doesn’t make sense to deny that part of ourselves.

Batman is a Dick

DI: You’re a dick.

B: And you’re stupid. What are we doing here?

DI: You’re insulting me, apparently.

B: Oh, and you’re ugly.

DI: Quit it. My point was you’ve developed a reputation for being… strident.

B: You just called me a dick. Why are you trying to walk it back now?

DI: I’m not, it’s just that I bought a thesaurus and want to justify my purchase through the gratuitous use of synonyms.

B: I don’t know if ‘strident’ is quite right.

DI: My thesaurus had no suggestions for ‘bite me.’ But you’ve got a habit of being frank.

B: Only when I get tired of being Bruce.

DI: So the one time I actually want to talk about you being a jerk, you’re doing shtick? Which I guess is pretty dicky. Kudos. But that kind of forthrightness, before I knew you were Bruce Wayne, I always figured it was from social ineptitude. But see, in your day to day, you’re witty, charming, personable- you know how to socialize, you just don’t like to. So where did that come from?

B: Well, when I first started out, it wasn’t a thing to put on a costume and punch people- I mean, outside of specific brothels that catered to that sort of thing in Amsterdam, anyway.

DI: Wait, are you saying you’ve frequented S & M clubs in Amsterdam?

B: Just that I’m familiar with them. Personally I’ve never had the time. Being the CEO of a multibillion multinational company, plus my preference for staying close to Gotham-

DI: Talk about that.

B: My parents were killed because of crime. My alter ego we’ll call him, was created to fight crime, to cut the odds of that ever happening to another little boy or girl. Every night that I stay outside of Gotham, is an opportunity for that to happen again. I can’t stop every crime- but if I was out there, on the streets, then I did my best. But if I wasn’t there because I was doing whatever in Holland- it’s just not even a choice for me.

DI: Okay. But as you were saying.

B: Right. When I first started training, there weren’t really superheroes- outside of the pulp stories, you know, the Phantom, the Shadow, Zorro. I think by the time Alfred had finished sewing my first costume Clark was flying around in that garish unitard, but he and I were the first on the scene- at least, the first we knew about. Later we met some of the older, retired heroes, your Jay Garricks and your Alan Scotts- the ones who came and went before our time.

DI: Should you be using their real names?

B: Well, the funny story there is, they were the original Flash and Green Lanterns. But later on, others took up their monikers. But they continued being personalities, particularly in the campaign for elderly rights, working with the AARP and the Justice Society, under their real names.

But Clark and I were the first in a masked man renaissance. Pretty shortly after we met Diana. And it wasn’t too long before we formed the Justice League, which I know Clark has talked about at length.

DI: And which we’ll have to, at some point.

B: But most of the people we met, they weren’t like Clark or Diana. They made me nervous, because they were both so powerful, yet so inexperienced. But they had carriage; almost from the start I always assumed they would both remain on the up and up.

But that didn’t go for all of the others we met. I don’t like shaming people I worked with, but Plastic Man is an idiot. He knows it. And despite any and all my efforts to get him to mature, just a little, he’ll probably always be an idiot. And I don’t suffer fools lightly. It might have been a game to people who suddenly found themselves with the power to alter matter, but for me, I was a normal person, easily damaged, as were most of the people we were working to help.

Or maybe it’s just that I watched my parents bleed out on a sidewalk. I was as intimate with the consequences of failing at our task as anyone could be. Even the idea that I might be made responsible for that happening to someone else made me see red. I still get a little pissy about it, honestly. It’s not a burden required of any of us, but once we took it up, we owed it to those we were trying to save to be professional and do what we could.
DI: So you were like the drill sergeant whose harsh, but only because he really cares?

B: I don’t know if I’d characterize it exactly like that.

DI: Okay, here’s your chance to define yourself, then. Do you think you’re a dick?

B: I think sometimes it makes sense to be terse. I think sometimes it’s helpful to have someone willing to make an unpopular decision.

DI: So you are a Dick- in the vein, no pun intended, of Dick Cheney!

B: I think the difference between me and the former Vice President is that I don’t relish it. I don’t go out of my way looking for reasons to be a dick.

Working in the league, there were a lot of people who didn’t have a military or police background, people who would have benefited from some formal training. Sometimes I had to come down on them, hard, before they managed to screw up in a catastrophic way, in public.

DI: So you’d say you lean more towards Darth Vader, then. Without the child-murdering, back-stabbing and general evil, obviously.

B: Then what’s left? My penchant for wearing black?

DI: And the heavy breathing. Kidding. Though you do have an almost James Earl Jonesy voice when you’re pissed off. Say, “Come to the dark side.”

B: No.

DI: How about, “Simba, you must bite your uncle.” Damn- I thought I’d remember something more specific from the Lion King.

B: If I admit to wishing I could force-choke people on occasion will you stop?

DI: Yes. Maybe.

B: I find your lack of clarity disturbing.

DI: Awesome. Chills. And goose bumps. Want to feel them?

B: No.

DI: Fair enough.

Budgeting for Time

B: I know you hate it when I talk politics

DI: Personally, I’m fascinated- it’s just that I can hear the torrent of readers clicking away in either boredom or outright political hostility

B: But now that 40 Senate Republicans have voted in favor of it, it’s long past time we talk about the Ryan budget.

DI: Okay. But as compensation for the good folks for putting up with you, we add in another scene in our Wonder Woman pilot script.

B: Fine.

DI: But first, because not everyone spends as much time plugged into the political debate as you, give us the basics of what the Ryan budget is.

B: In a nutshell, what this plan does, is carve about 3 trillion dollars out of Medicare and Medicaid, and hand out about 3 trillion dollars to corporations and the rich in tax cuts. It’s practically a straight swap.

There are vague murmurs in the plan to do things to offset the tax cuts, namely ending tax breaks, but given the general hostility to those measures in the past, anything that isn’t carved in stone and signed in blood is about as believable as the promise of a unicorn pony for your birthday.

DI: So you’re saying because it’s harder to do, it just won’t get done?

B: I’m stating that by not even listing which tax breaks he wants to end, Ryan is signaling, discreetly, that he doesn’t really want to end any of them. But what’s shocking is that this isn’t coming from some lone nut- it isn’t one of those Ron Paul ideas. Paul Ryan is the guy they put in charge of the House Budget Committee. Under the auspices of the Republican party, he drafted this budget, and 235 out of 239 Republicans in the House voted for this budget; and now 40 Republican Senators. If the party had their way, this would be our country.

Now, you can make the argument that maybe they didn’t read the bill, that they were just following orders, but is that really a better outcome? Either those representatives are incompetent, or they’re vicious, bordering upon evil.

DI: There aren’t any supervillains in this debate to punch- but I seem to remember you mentioning something else; your background is in business, so as a businessman, how does this look to you?

B: As a budget, the absolute worst portion is the fact that it caps revenue. Capping at a historical average doesn’t make sense. The cost of our military, and of our healthcare, and of so many functions of our government, have gone up. And more than anything, it’s the cost of health care that’s expected to cause future budgetary issues. We do have a revenue issue- caused in large part by the Bush Tax cuts. I’d like to share a graph, here.

DI: Okay. But you said yourself earlier in the year that everyone was going to have to sacrifice. Isn’t the Ryan plan what sacrifice looks like?

B: For the poor and elderly, yes. And if our budget were that dire, maybe everyone would have to suffer to that extent. But this is America, and we’re still the richest country in the world. By miles. Our economy is almost 3 times the size of China’s, and is about the size of the economies of the entire European Union.

It’s entirely within our grasp to balance our budget without cutting these programs to the bone. The Progressive Caucus in the House put out a plan that balances the budget in a decade. During that time, it would cut the debt by 10%. I don’t want to belabor this too much, but it goes far beyond just. I’m not even making a case for this specific budget- merely that this budget is far more logical and centrist than the Ryan budget plan, and that we needn’t behave like we’re going from a first world to a third world nation.

This argument is about a different view of America. The Progressive budget attempts to keep the country’s position as a leader, not just financially, but as a leader in technology and ideas. It’s about securing our place in this century, comparable to our place in the last. I have sons- adopted, yes- but I love them enough that I don’t want to give them a diminished America. The Progressive budget proves we don’t have to- certainly not to the extent Ryan wishes.

Look, I don’t care if people don’t think the same way I do, I don’t care if they come to different conclusions. But we need to think these things through. We need to know what it is we’re endorsing when we vote. The fate of our nation is very much at stake, here.

DI: All right, monkey, you’ve had your say, now dance for the people.

B: Uh, where were we?

DI: We’d just gotten through that first opening moment with the interviewer, and Diana’s impassioned defense of force.

B: Right.

DI: Interviewer
I’d like to switch gears. You wear a lot of hats- most of them tiaras- but how do you balance your roles?

B: Diana considers.

Diana
It’s mostly a question of need, and of impact. Sometimes it means I have to make difficult decisions. But thankfully, most diplomatic meetings can be rescheduled, whereas interventions can’t. I really feel bad for Etta; she’s the one who gets yelled at by foreign secretaries while I’m out saving people.

DI: Interviewer
Well, the reason I ask this is because recently you were involved in an incident. The so-called Wellys Affair. If the reports are to be believed, this even put you at odds with the vigilante knows as Batman. Would you like to tell us more about that?

We cut to daytime. Her punching you through that second floor window in the embassy- I’m sure you remember the picture, the one that was on the front page of USA Today, starting our story in media res.

B: Thanks for that. We see Diana look out the hole where the window used to be. She’s full of fury, in that instant after she threw that punch that cracked a few of my ribs. She takes a breath, and she’s suddenly calm again. She steps through the hole, and floats gracefully down to the sidewalk where I landed. A pedestrian, several of whom have gathered, helps me up. We stay in my POV, because we want me not to be the story. Her expression is pained.

Diana
I’m sorry for that. But the embassy is my home. I won’t let anyone remove a political asylum seeker from Themiscyran sole- not even you.

DI: But you can’t help yourself, can you? You choke out:

Bruce
She’s a murderer.

B: I hope you enjoyed putting words in my mouth.

Diana
She’s under my protection. That’s all you need to know.

It becomes clear that the crowd isn’t just pedestrians, as several of the people begin asking Diana questions, and one of them starts taking pictures. One voice, a reporter we’re both familiar with, breaks through the crowd.

Lois
Lois Lane, Daily Planet. Diana. Are you saying, point of factly, that you are prepared to defend a murder suspect from justice, including other members of the League such as

Lois turns to gesture to me, but I’m grappling away. She turns back to Diana, hoping for an answer, but she’s already flying back inside the embassy.

DI: Wow. Now I’d buy that for a nickel. You think we’ve made enough story progression for a commercial break? After all, Wonder Woman is bound to sell mountains of tampons and panty hose. Do they still advertise panty-hose on TV? Am I dating myself with that?

B: We follow Diana back into the embassy. A young girl, Danielle Wellys, is terrified.

DI: You do have that effect on people.

B: Wellys
Is he gone?

DI: Diana
He won’t stay away. He can’t. I can’t protect you here indefinitely.

B: Not exactly what she said- but not a terrible guess, either.

Diana (cont’d)
So you need to tell me everything you can about Cale Pharmaceuticals.

DI: No way. Veronica Cale’s company?

B: You forgot, so far this is all based around something that happened- so we can use her name. And Cale Pharmaceuticals is just a tiny portion of Cale’s empire. But it was her first- her baby- and she takes its flagging business personally. She sees Diana’s successes as easy, and her own failures as tragic. In many ways, Veronica is the Lex Luthor to Diana’s Superman; but I feel for Veronica. Maybe because she hasn’t, to this date, committed massive atrocities against civilian populations. Though what she did to Kapatelis was a step in that direction.

DI: You’re getting ahead of yourself- and possibly spoiling things.
B: Sorry. Now we cut to a commercial break.

DI: All that build-up, to cut to a commercial?

B: Always leave the people wanting more, remember?

DI: Crap, that was supposed to be my line.

Sir Charles

DI: Just to avoid any undue confusion from casual surfers with this title, I’m not looking to talk about the recent royal wedding; I wanted to bring up Charles Barkley (and the Round Mound of Rebound sounded a bit too dirty, to me).

B: I shudder to know why.

DI: Because he was quoted by the Washington Post, specifically talking about gays in the locker room. It was itself a reaction to Rick Welts, the President and CEO of the Phoenix Suns, coming out in a New York Times story.

B: Yeah, I know Rick. Socially, though- not personally.

DI: But, and given the general abrasiveness of Barkley’s persona, maybe this will come as a shock, but he didn’t really care about it. He even said he knew at least two of the three teams he played for had homosexual players, and still had excellent chemistry, excellent morale and played decently well enough. Barkley specifically said he was less critical of good gay players than he was of bad straight ones.

B: That’s very enlightened.

DI: He also mentions that he gets irritated when ESPN says that players can’t come out, that there would be open hostility to gay players in the lockers rooms. And that he doesn’t like being told how he thinks or feels. He knew there were gay players. And it’s unfair, maybe even stupid, to assume that most athletes couldn’t handle that reality.

B: You know, there’s something to that. In the League, some of the guys you’d think would be the most sensitive to the subject- or even the most hostile- were the ones who’d say, “So?” I think it’s just one of those things, where the first time someone showers in the same room as a gay person, there can be tension, and they’re a little leery, but as time goes on and nothing untoward happens, they get used to it. It becomes less of a thing.

DI: They acclimate.

B: Right.

DI: Familiarity doesn’t breed contempt so much as acceptance.

B: Exactly. Even understanding. I remember, and I won’t say his name, but a member of our League had a very outspoken reaction to one of our colleagues coming out. So outspoken, that he was almost sanctioned for it.

DI: Sanctioned? What would that have entailed?

B: Basically we told him that if he couldn’t at a minimum keep what amounted nearly to hate speech in check, he wouldn’t be allowed to stay in the League.

And we kept him away from any of the known homosexuals, anytime we had missions. It’s one thing to ask someone to be civil, another entirely to put him into positions where he wasn’t comfortable. But on some of our bigger disaster responses, there’s no way to keep teams or individuals separate. So he ended up working with homosexual heroes in the field.

And last year, he ended up in an altercation, where a group of men were harassing a gay hero. And he intervened- loudly- on his behalf. He was very passionate. He’s got an explosive temper, so that’s maybe not surprising, but just being around gay people had helped him see that there wasn’t anything to hate there. And I’ve seen the same with Muslims, Jews- even women, actually, if you can believe that, in this day and age. People are uncomfortable with the unknown- until they get to know it. Then it becomes part of their experience, and mundane.

DI: To get back to Barkley just a moment, I think it all comes down to the locker room question, whether or not people feel comfortable showering around someone who thinks of them as a viable romantic candidate. Surely you’ve dealt with that in the League.

B: But that question itself is problematic, because inherently it implies that homosexuals are more promiscuous, to the point of pouncing on straight people without regard for the inappropriateness of a locker room come-on.

DI: But aren’t homosexuals more promiscuous? I mean, you’re probably a bad example, because when you were dating women you were a man-whore, and it seems now you’re more reserved, but in general, or maybe statistically.

B: But the statistics aren’t really the issue. Even if, and I don’t know that I’ve seen an untainted study to that effect, homosexuals are more promiscuous, that isn’t the same as being inappropriately sexually aggressive. And promiscuity likely comes, in part, from lacking the same kinds of social norms. Straight people are raised with the idyllic fairy tale of the picket-fenced house, the family with two and a half kids, and the virginal wedding. Gay people can’t have those things- though there are some available facsimiles like civil unions and adoption. But we’re still in the process of building the gay American dream.

But even beyond that, promiscuity isn’t the same as hitting on people in the restroom, or the showers, or the changing room, at work. And while we’re on the subject of inappropriate sexual expression, promiscuity and homosexuality are not the same as pedophelia, either.

DI: Whoa. I might play devil’s advocate, but I wasn’t-

B: You might not have been, and you’re likely smart enough not to, but the conflation can and does happen- far too frequently for it to be just a mistake. But for clarity, I’m going to say it again: being gay, even being gay and promiscuous, is not the same as inappropriate sexual expression. I understand that some people disagree with homosexuality, and might even consider it divergent, but even to them, it shouldn’t be hard to see the difference between divergent sex between consenting adults on the one hand and sexual molestation and harassment on the other.

DI: Trawling TNR, I came across more coverage of Barkley. I didn’t know he’s been mulling a Gubernatorial run in Alabama. He’s colorful, but I was actually a little surprised, I know, stereotyping athletes, but surprised at how wide and varied his ideas about politics are.

B: Yeah. Charles is an interesting and articulate guy.

DI: Throw in bright and clean and you can be just as offensive as the Vice President.

B: Please. Biden’s word-choice was problematic, but there wasn’t racial coding there.

DI: So one old white guy wants to give another old white guy a pass?

B: And the young white guy wants to get his ass kicked by an old white guy? If you give Biden reasonable doubt, that the meaning of clean was supposed to either imply clean-cut or to not have the baggage of a Jesse Jackson, then no, I don’t think it was racial coding. Joe doesn’t come from 1950s Mississippi, he’s from Delaware.

And what I’ve always taken away from the statement was him saying that Obama was a different kind of African American candidate- as opposed to Jackson or Sharpton- who wasn’t just running on a civil rights background; I think that was always the inherent issue with their candidacies- and by extension the candidacy of any mostly single-issue candidate.

DI: Though civil rights and race is more a point of view about issues than a single issue itself- but if you’re running as the African American candidate, who has fought for civil rights in your community, it does make it harder to win over voters outside of that group- especially when other groups often view civil rights as a zero sum game, where advancement for one group is at cost of another.

B: In that same ballpark, I assumed, back in 2007, I think it was, that Obama was sunk after people started openly questioning whether he was black enough.

DI: So do you think he is?

B: I think it’s an unbelievably stupid question. For one, any kind of a reductionist litmus test is absurd; it places a positive value on adhering to a stereotype. Am I rich enough? White enough? Gay enough? All pretty ludicrous questions.

DI: Then why were you concerned that the question was being asked about Obama?

B: Well, at the time he was still a relative unknown, politically. He’d only been on the national stage for three years. He’s a gifted speaker, and seemed like a smart enough guy. But if he couldn’t even solidify support amongst African Americans- a stronger voting bloc for the Democrats there isn’t, and who in the primary at least would have been more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt- I didn’t think he would be able to overcome Clinton. Of course, I now realize that was naïve. I was still giving the media more credit than it deserved for being relevant.

DI: So you’re saying the media isn’t relevant anymore?

B: I’m saying that its old position as a gatekeeper of information is no longer relevant- and that particularly today they aren’t even very good at it, anymore. The media has two basic goals in reportage: to inform and entertain. Both can get you ratings, though I think it’s fair to say entertainment value is king. But increasingly, media outlets chase entertainment like greyhounds after an electronic rabbit- and information is largely left to fend for itself. So the fact that a few people questioned Obama’s blackness- it was anecdotal, and in no way indicative of the general mood of African American voters- which meant it was even less relevant as a gauge of American voters in general.

DI: I want to go back, because as a journalist it’s always fun to accuse somebody of racism in the form of a question [with all due serendipitous apology to both David Gregory and Newt Gingrich]: why would you think African American voters would have a biased affinity for a black candidate?

B: Because statistics don’t lie: voters want to vote for people like themselves. This is true of race. Of gender. Of class. Even personality, to an extent. If Al Gore had been as personable as George W. Bush, he would have been President- way beyond the margin of a few hundred contested votes from Florida.

It’s not the only factor. Policies matter. Experience matters. Name recognition matters. But if a voter can connect themselves with a candidate, everything else is easier. And for African Americans, the pulled up by his bootstraps Obama from relative poverty and obscurity is certainly more relatable than the white-privileged Southern lawyer who stuck by her cheating President husband. Demographically, if Obama couldn’t win over African Americans, he could never have beaten Clinton, and would have fared even worse in the general. Not because African American votes are that large a bloc, but because if he can’t connect with those most likely to relate to him, then the chances of his relating to anyone are lower.

DI: And that’s not racist?

B: No, it’s evolutionary. We like people like us because those like us were more likely to help us survive. Those who didn’t group together fared poorer; those who grouped well thrived. But the easiest grouping, the most comfortable, is the familiar. You can trust them because they’re like you, and from nearby, and want similar things. It’s just a look back into man’s evolutionary history. Perhaps it’s a little… vestigial, at this point, but it doesn’t make it any less real.

And at the same time, in this country, it’s impossible to recognize that there are differences to growing up black in this country as opposed to white. It’s still fair to say there’s a black experience that, at least generally, differs from the white experience in America.

DI: But isn’t a lot of that the same kind of liberal apologia that you hear about African American crime rates?

B: There are no excuses. None. For going into crime. But it’s short-sighted and foolish not to look at the circumstances that create crime, and try to mitigate them. Because fighting crime is a losing battle. I’ve done it for years, and barely made a dent. But the work I’ve done with the poor, with youth centers and charities, with organizations that provide scholarships and educational resources- that work has done more actual, measurable good than all of my costumed exploits. Eight years ago I actually ahd Oracle start tracking the statistics, so I can say this is a fact: depriving crime the fertile soil of poverty in which to grow is the best way to stop it. Period. Whenever there’s need, there’s going to be crime.

DI: But also wherever there’s greed.

B: That’s true. But greed’s a tougher thing to stamp out; and ironically, greed is often what creates need in the first place. And greed is something for law enforcement to cope with; need is something we can all impact.

Pilot Error

DI: So you might be happy to hear that the Wonder Woman pilot was scrapped.

B: I’d heard rumblings. But of the many issues I had with the show, I think one of the most important aspects should be why she signed off on it in the first place.

DI: And why do you think that was?

B: You forget, I know her. And she told me. She’s unintentionally built up this persona, this almost allegation in the public sphere, for perfection. She chided me for perpetuating, it, actually. But she isn’t perfect.

She has thoughts. And fears. And even inconsistencies. She wanted people to be able to see what and who she’s really like. Because I think there’s a perception out there, either that she’s the Venus de Milo, perfection in stone, or that she’s just “superhero Barbie.” Even her activism is treated with the same derision that movie stars speaking about politics is.

DI: Hmm. I think I want to try something different. Between the two of us, I’m a writer, and you’re intimately familiar with her. So let’s give writing her pilot a shot. Right now. In real time.

The framing device, because I’m a uncreative journalist, is an interview setting. It creates an easy context for us to get viewers into Diana’s head without cheesy voice-overs or even cheesier girls-night-outing.

But we open on Diana, sleeping.

B: She’s mussed, but still oddly beautiful. Even asleep.

DI: Overlaid, we hear the voice of another woman:

Interviewer
Walk us through your typical day.

Diana’s eyes flutter open.

B: Diana
I wake up around 7 am.

DI: Cut to the interviewer, in smart business attire, sitting in Diana’s office, comfortable and even welcoming, but with an aura of respectability- after all, it’s also an embassy.

Interviewer
So you do sleep?

B: Diana laughs.

Diana
Five or six hours a night.

DI: We cut back to Diana, rising from bed.

B: Diana (voice-over)
I used to exercise in the morning, jog through Central Park. But these days, I jump right into business. My morning secretary, Etta, has been up since five, and she briefs me on my day’s activities, and anything that happened overnight.

DI: Etta enters, and they converse, unheard.

B: Diana (voice-over)
We eat breakfast together, usually something light, bagels and sliced fruit.

DI: We see the things you’re describing happen, so I don’t have to keep interrupting.

B: Diana (VO)
Usually by nine there’s important embassy work, meeting with dignitaries.

DI: We cut back for a moment to the interview.

B: Diana
My position as an ambassador means I get to help solve world problems. It’s gratifying, but it’s also necessary; that’s why it comes at the beginning of my day- it’s where I have the least give.

DI: Cut back to her day.

B: Diana (VO)
From there, I usually proceed to fundraisers or events. I usually spend the bulk of my daylight hours volunteering. Broken up occasionally by having to intervene in a situation.

DI: Cut back.

Interviewer
You mean fight crime.

B: Cut to Diana in costume, hoisting a gunman’s hands over his head, using her lasso thrown over a fire escape as a fulcrum, as a gray-haired woman he was mugging acts surprised.

Diana (VO)
Some might call it that.

The sounds of the interview fade away, and the background sounds of New York City fade in.

DI: I didn’t realize she operates out of New York.

B: She’s an ambassador to the UN. Where else would she be?

DI: Good point.

B: But we see Diana talking to the gunman, who is young, and nods his head. The sound fades in on Diana speaking. She’s soft, and intense a moment later.

Diana
Life is a gift. I love life- and I hate taking its gift away.

The gunman by this point is remorseful- and just the tiniest bit afraid.

Diana
So tell me: have you seen the error in your ways?

The moment is tense, and when he finally speaks, he’s nearly crying.

Gunman
Yes.

Her lasso, still around his wrists, glows brighter. She loosens it, and lets him go.

Diana
Go.

DI: The old woman is still there. She’s less happy about the escaping hoodlum.

Bitty
You should have punched his damn head off.

B: Diana isn’t surprised by the reaction. She walks with the old woman a moment.

Diana
Revenge is an easy answer. But it leaves part of the question nagging- to be asked again. I pray your safety and health.

DI: Wait- does that actually work?

B: Shockingly enough, it does. It wouldn’t, for me. I would have knocked his fool head off. But Diana, she has a presence. A certain quality that when she says things like that, people listen. Really just sit up and take notice. I’m actually referring to something I saw one day. And at the time I was pissed at her. I thought she let a mugger go free only to stick a gun in somebody else’s face. And given my history, that pushed buttons. So I tracked the guy. On his way home, he pawned the gun. From his address, I got his name, and kept track of him. He works for the sanitation department now, not so much as a parking ticket since.

Her approach works. New York has recidivism rates as high as 65%. Educational programs like the one at Rikers can cut that by ten percent. But Diana, less than a third of the people she talks to recidivate. She isn’t perfect. But you can see it in everything about her, that she tries. She’s an example for people to strive for. She makes you really want to be better.

DI: But don’t you think that in a way she’s an unachievable goal? I mean, she isn’t technically human, even.

B: Maybe. But I would place her more in the category with Michael Phelps, people who are extraordinary, and beyond the reach of normal people- but should still be held up as goals, achievable or otherwise. But you’re derailing our pilot: we cut back to the interview.

Diana
By this point Etta has gone home for the day, and my evening secretary, Mala, takes over for her.

Interviewer
Mala- she’s Amazonian, like yourself, right?

Diana
Yes. Officially, she’s deputy ambassador. But effectively, she helps me with the day to day; she’s usually the person in the chair at the UN. But my evenings are largely taken up by charity and awareness dinners. It sounds more fantastic than it is: squeezing into a dress to shake hands with dignitaries or wealthy socialites.

DI: Interviewer
Like Bruce Wayne?

B: Diana
Bruce and I are friends.

DI: Interviewer
That isn’t what US Weekly said.

B: Diana
He’s a humanitarian and a philanthropist. And we’ve known each other for years. But we aren’t together.

DI: Interviewer
So that means US Weekly was wrong, and both you and Bruce are on the market.

B: Diana
I won’t speak for Bruce, but I don’t really have the time. For every charity event I attend, there were three I couldn’t because they conflicted. And with all the preventable suffering in the world, looking for love just isn’t a priority.

DI: Interviewer
Apparently not- if even a billionaire playboy doesn’t catch your eye. Er. Sorry. But it sounds like you have a very busy schedule. But what does Wonder Woman do for fun?

B: Diana pauses a moment to think, then smiles.

Diana
This. I enjoy spending time with people. When I get free time, I like to read, the classics, poetry. I have a soft spot for Aristophanes- my mother read me Lysistrata when I was a girl.

DI: Interview
Seems a little crass for children’s literature.

B: Diana
But it was informative. Themyscira was founded by women looking for a different way. The Amazons co-existed with men for centuries, but left, when Amazons decided that men would always seek war and conflict. My ambassadorship is the reverse, trying to reach out the olive branch we learned to live by.

DI: Interview
By hitting people in the face?

B: Diana
Sometimes force is the only way to achieve justice, and justice is the only way to achieve peace.

DI: Interviewer
When liberty comes with her hands dabbled in blood, it is hard to shake hands with her.

B: Diana
I agree. My methods are imperfect, and often imprecise. But they are a match for our imperfect world- one I hope to make better.

DI: I actually got a little goose-bumpy, there. And I know you weren’t speaking in your own voice, you were, for lack of a better word, channeling Diana.

B: Diana is what Robert Fulghum was talking about when he said, “Peace is not something you wish for; it’s something you make, something you do, something you are, and something you give away.” That’s what Kelley missed.

DI: This was fun. We might even have to do it again.