August 08, 2006

THE FOLLOWING ARE ON NOTICE

OnNotice.jpg

Posted by Peter David at August 8, 2006 08:25 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: vocalyz at August 8, 2006 08:42 PM

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!

Good thing I mourned the ending of Young Justice... and then, the loss of Superboy.

Daniel

Posted by: Juho Salo at August 8, 2006 08:49 PM

Sorry, I dont watch American telly.. is this real or is this photoshop?

Posted by: Shawn Backs at August 8, 2006 08:52 PM

Colbert is a pretty avid comic reader. He just had joey q on the other week.
However, I'd be surprised if he was making such an obscure joke that only we would get.

Posted by: David_cgc at August 8, 2006 09:04 PM

Check the URL in the corner of the picture. It's an internet toy that lets you make a customized "On Notice" lists. I mean, would Stephen Colbert's "blame America last" character put George W. Bush on notice?

Posted by: Robert Fuller at August 8, 2006 09:34 PM

What are pocket splits and hov lane abusers? I also don't understand "not my cup of tea," unless you just have a problem with the use of that expression.

I never read the actual Young Justice series, but I did read Sins of Youth, and I hated it, but only because I hate all stories in which the characters turn into children (just give me a comic featuring the X-Babies if you really want to annoy the hell out of me).

Posted by: Alex Tucker at August 8, 2006 10:14 PM

'Pocket Splits' is a bowling term. Like a 5-7 split, or an 8-10 split. Usually happens when the ball hits the 1-3 pocket too fast. Kinetics are not always a bowler's best friend.

A HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane is meant to be used by cars with two or more passengers in certain larger cities, ostensibly to promote carpooling. These lanes usually move a tad faster on freeways during rush hours, and jerkwads can frequently be seen breaking this law on America's highways on a daily basis.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at August 8, 2006 10:14 PM

If I'm not mistaken, "Pocket Splits" refers to bowling. More specifically, to the occasional fluke of a split that occurs even though the ball is right on target, or "in the pocket."

Not sure about HOV lane abusers, though.

I think I can understand putting "not my cup of tea" on notice, though. Not that there's anything wrong with the saying, per se, but when coupled with the also on notice internet jerks, it has to rank up there with "IMHO" as one of the top phrases used in an attempt to absolve the writer of any wrongdoing when they say something insulting about a writer and his work.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at August 8, 2006 10:25 PM

Yeah, I had fun with that on my blog last week. One of the best generators I've seen in awhile. I love how they actually make the letters recede!

Posted by: AD at August 9, 2006 12:29 AM

HOV lane = High Occupancy Vehicle lane AKA the Carpool lane. Abusers are the idiots that treat the lane like their own personal express way ore passing lane even though they are the *only* person in the car.

Posted by: sneezythesquid at August 9, 2006 02:29 AM

This rocks! Now I want a "Dead to Me" generator.

Posted by: Peter David at August 9, 2006 08:36 AM

"I never read the actual Young Justice series, but I did read Sins of Youth, and I hated it, but only because I hate all stories in which the characters turn into children (just give me a comic featuring the X-Babies if you really want to annoy the hell out of me)."

I find it funny as hell that you would say that, since that entire aspect of the story wasn't my idea. My original concept ended with YJ facing down congress and having a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" moment. Editor Eddie Berganza came up with the entire thing of YJ aging, the JLA becoming kids, and turning it into a massive crossover event. I was lukewarm on the idea but he went ahead and sold it to Levitz and Carlin. Basically my entire story was hijacked. I did the best I could, but it wasn't my favorite sequence. Yet it's one of the only YJ stories collected in trade. Figures.

PAD

Posted by: Thacher E Cleveland at August 9, 2006 08:50 AM

Hey, is there a reason why my comment was deleted?

Posted by: The StarWold at August 9, 2006 08:56 AM

Makers of inflatable dolls and other cheap manequins made out like bandits when such High Occupancy lanes were first introduced. People would routinely put such dolls in their car to make it appear as though they were justified in being in the special lanes.

Posted by: lush at August 9, 2006 08:59 AM

Sins of Youth was worth it just for the "Robin inthe Batman's costume" moment alone!

I loved sharing YJ with my stepdaughter. Good role models - none of them ever tried to convince her dogs want to be carried in a purse, unlike that Paris Hilton.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at August 9, 2006 09:25 AM

Paris was just trying to share with her dog the experience of being in a straightjacket, wasn't she? Hmmm. A straightjacket. Is that formal wear for playing poker?

Posted by: Peter David at August 9, 2006 10:08 AM

"Hey, is there a reason why my comment was deleted?"

Did you post it very quickly after the initial blog entry went up? Because as soon as I put it up, I noticed I'd made a typo (I wrote "Yankee" instead of "Yankees.") So I redid the entire thing, reposted it, and deleted the previous entry completely. This all happened over about ten minutes. So if your entry was in that ten minutes, it got tossed along with the rest of the first entry.

PAD

Posted by: Thacher E Cleveland at August 9, 2006 11:05 AM

"Did you post it very quickly after the initial blog entry went up? Because as soon as I put it up, I noticed I'd made a typo (I wrote "Yankee" instead of "Yankees.") So I redid the entire thing, reposted it, and deleted the previous entry completely. This all happened over about ten minutes. So if your entry was in that ten minutes, it got tossed along with the rest of the first entry.

PAD"

Yeah, that's what happened. I just added this site to my Google newsfeed and am still checking my new toy compulsively, but I guess that's what you get for being to quick on the draw. And I was all excited to get the first post. Ah well, such is life.

Posted by: Chris Grillo at August 9, 2006 11:29 AM

And I was all excited to get the first post.

My The Following are on Notice list has "first-posters" on it. ;)

Posted by: Luigi Novi at August 9, 2006 12:44 PM

Rex Hondo: I think I can understand putting "not my cup of tea" on notice, though. Not that there's anything wrong with the saying, per se, but when coupled with the also on notice internet jerks, it has to rank up there with "IMHO" as one of the top phrases used in an attempt to absolve the writer of any wrongdoing when they say something insulting about a writer and his work.
Luigi Novi: Well, I use those terms to make it clear that I know that I'm just expressing my opinion, and that I do not intend to denigrate the creator, or those who do not share my opinion. I've come to use qualifiers like that quite a bit, because every so often, when posting an opinion that someone didn't like, they'd feel the need to point out, "Well, that's just your opinion." I mean, duh, of course it's my opinion! What did they think that I thought it was? A fact? Santa Claus' opinion?

Posted by: Luigi Novi at August 9, 2006 12:48 PM

I tried using the generator, but it didn't work. Anyone else have this problem?

Posted by: Anthony W at August 9, 2006 01:15 PM

Ned Lamont rules! :)

Posted by: Anthony W at August 9, 2006 01:16 PM

Sorry about that. Little bit of left over excitement. Peter, Whatever happened to that fish boy that was a member of Young Justice?

Posted by: Thacher E Cleveland at August 9, 2006 01:46 PM

" And I was all excited to get the first post.

My The Following are on Notice list has "first-posters" on it. ;)"

D'oh! Well played, sir, well played... ;)

Posted by: Anonymous Internet Jerks at August 9, 2006 02:32 PM

Right back at ya, MR. David!

Posted by: Zeek at August 9, 2006 03:40 PM

OT: Another funny I found recently:


Trek Inspirationals

Posted by: Zeek at August 9, 2006 03:46 PM

uh. If the link doesnt work try copying and pasting from here:

http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/star_trek_insp.html

Posted by: dave at August 9, 2006 05:26 PM

Hahahahaha. Steve Colbert, you must be loving him right now.

Posted by: insideman at August 9, 2006 07:51 PM

How about "ANONYMOUS INTERNET NICE GUYS"?

Not that I always am one, IMHO.

Posted by: Josh Pritchett, Jr at August 9, 2006 08:42 PM

1I knew there was a reason I loved Colbert so much.

Posted by: Alan Coil at August 9, 2006 09:21 PM

PAD said: "Editor Eddie Berganza came up with the entire thing of YJ aging, the JLA becoming kids, and turning it into a massive crossover event."
-----
Yet he still works for DC. Thankfully, he is off the Superman titles and they are readable again.

Posted by: Blake Ward at August 9, 2006 10:37 PM

Young Justice is my favorite series of all time. My 2 best friends and I were pretty much obsessed with it, and when it was cancelled we were very sad. I have two pictures drawn by Todd Nauk on my wall... one of Impulse, and one of Arrowette and a Ninja. Im worried about Bart Allen... the Flash story line isn't making me too happy.

Posted by: Mikey at August 10, 2006 07:46 AM

I passed on YJ when it was on the shelves because I had my head stuck up my ass (painful, I know) and the humorous premise and cartoony Todd Nauck art put me off at the time.

I recently got a chance to read the entire run and boy, was I wrong (especially about Nauck's art). With the exception of the plodding "Sins Of Youth" crossover (which of course wasn't PAD's idea) the whole thing was a delight to read. I especially like how the last issue (#55)was a huge f*** you to the grim 'n' gritty crowd and stayed absolutely true to the series, light, fun tone.

Posted by: AdamYJ at August 10, 2006 03:40 PM

"I did the best I could, but it wasn't my favorite sequence. Yet it's one of the only YJ stories collected in trade. Figures.

PAD"

The poor trade selection of YJ is one of the sad truths of the series. The following are the only YJ stories in TPB: JLA: World Without Grown-Ups, Young Justice: A League of Their Own, Young Justice: Sins of Youth and Spyboy/Young Justice.

The "World Without Grown-Ups" kick-off was decent, but mainly the work of Todd Dezago and not yet even into the actual series. The Spyboy and Sins of Youth crossovers were good, but not necessarily representative of the actual series. The "League of Their Own" issues (1-6, plus Secret Files) is a good start, but not quite enough. I think the series wasn't really cooking with gas until issue 6 or 7. The camp-out issue is when things really started to get going. Sadly, we'll probably never see any stories from the bulk of the series in trade. This series could even work in the little digests if they wanted (the only drawback being making Todd Nauck's great art so much smaller).

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at August 10, 2006 05:12 PM

"This series could even work in the little digests if they wanted"

Agreed. I love the little digest size. I've bought all the Runaways digests because I don't mind the size reduction and I like the price. That's a comic I would never have read if it hadn't been in little digest form.

Someone (I think Joe Q.) said that supermarkets don't like comics because the size vs. price doesn't work out for them. Well, I think Young Justice is the perfect thing to shrink down into the smaller size and put into supermarkets.

Posted by: Dan at August 10, 2006 11:12 PM

That is honestly truly awesome photo :D.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at August 11, 2006 01:10 AM

If nothing else, the lack of TPB's only proves one thing, something I've said for years. The quality of a book (or movie, or song, or food, or whatever) really can't be judged by anything other than the item in question. And for every collection, the best stuff is always left out. Like why in any Styx collection I've seen, Not Dead Yet does not appear. Same principle.

Posted by: Shawn Backs at August 11, 2006 01:43 AM

Now I feel like an asshat for pointing out that it could have been real.

also, supermarkets and big franchises don't like comics because they can't send back what isn't bought anymore.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2006 03:34 AM

Off-topic, but I am curious, what's your take on the fact that Lieberman lost the Democrat primary in Conn because of his support for the Iraq war?

I mean, with the exception of his support of the Iraq war, Lieberman is basically you. He's left on virtually everything else. Environment, social security, education, civil rights, gun control, etc.

But because he supported the Iraq war specifically, and the war on Islamofascists terrorism in general, the far-left were quick to ditch him and support Lamont instead.

I know you generally support Israel's right to self-defense. So how does the fact that the far-left Democrats were more than happy to toss aside a stauntch Democrat solely for his pro-war reasons make you feel?

Posted by: Bill Myers at August 11, 2006 08:38 AM

Anonymous: "Off-topic, but I am curious, what's your take on the fact that Lieberman lost the Democrat primary in Conn because of his support for the Iraq war?

"I mean, with the exception of his support of the Iraq war, Lieberman is basically you."

OK, I'm not Peter, so maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, but "Lieberman is basically you?" I don't think Lieberman has written much, if any, fiction. And I don't think Peter has ever been a member of Congress.

Seriously, it's unwise to paint in such broad strokes. Even people who appear to agree from the 50,000 foot level will have differences when you examine their views more closely.

Anonymous: "But because he supported the Iraq war specifically, and the war on Islamofascists terrorism in general, the far-left were quick to ditch him and support Lamont instead.

"I know you generally support Israel's right to self-defense. So how does the fact that the far-left Democrats were more than happy to toss aside a stauntch Democrat solely for his pro-war reasons make you feel?"

The problem with the above question is that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not self-defense. Iraq posed no immediate threat to us. Moreover, there is evidence that the current administration was too quick to ignore intelligence that indicated Iraq posed no long-term danger to us, either.

On the other hand, Israel is defending itself against clear and present dangers. I mean, even during times of relative "peace," radical Islamic "martyrs" (read: murderers) have strapped bombs to themselves and detonated them in crowded civilian centers.

The recent thwarting of a plot to destroy civilian jets -- an attack that could have killed thousands -- serves to remind us that we are indeed at war with Islamic fundamentalists. That is why I believe it is critical that we assess the threats against us with a clear eye. Iraq was not assessed in such a fashion, and we are now wasting effort, resources, and most important, lives, in the wrong place. That may make some of us feel good, but feeling good won't make us any safer.

Posted by: Dwight Williams at August 11, 2006 12:39 PM

Speaking of clear eyes, I note that the National Post, that *ahem* bastion of liberal thinking up here in Canada, led off the top of the fold of their front page in 120-point headlines with the fact that the bad guys -- real or alleged -- in this instance, had been tagged and watched intensively for over a year.

A similar mess-averted in Toronto? Same kind of advance warning and attention from Canadian law enforcement dealt with that one.

I would suggest, therefore, that our various intel and police services already seem to have much of the worst of it in hand.

Posted by: roger tang at August 11, 2006 01:41 PM

The recent thwarting of a plot to destroy civilian jets -- an attack that could have killed thousands -- serves to remind us that we are indeed at war with Islamic fundamentalists. That is why I believe it is critical that we assess the threats against us with a clear eye.

I think it's a matter of appropriate tactics for approrpiate targets. Afghanistan was an appropriate use military force, because you had infrastructure that terrorists were using; destroy that and you hurt the terrorists.

However, with the recently foiled plot, the key point is that they were able to identify the plotters; once done, the way to handle them is relatively easy. The way that was done was through human intelligence, not military force, not data mining.

I don't think the current administration makes good use of human intelligence (see, for example, the continued dismissal of needed Arab expertise for the "crime" of being gay)...it relies far too much on brute force methods such as military force and data minining, while not recognizing that such methods NEEDS human intelligence in the field to make them effective.

Posted by: Robert Jung at August 11, 2006 02:36 PM

Not to hijack (oops) this thread further, but:

The recent thwarting of a plot to destroy civilian jets -- an attack that could have killed thousands -- serves to remind us that we are indeed at war with Islamic fundamentalists.

It also serves to remind us:

1. That the Bush Administration's "terrorist flypaper" theory -- "we fight them there so we don't fight them here" -- isn't working, as they are here.

2. That the British were able to foil this plot without the use of torture or illegal wiretaps.

3. That the Bush Administration had no qualms about exploiting this plot for political gain. After all, they coordinated with the British government to delay raiding the terrorists until after the Vermont primary results were in.

(And note that five suspects are still at large, which means the Administration's political gaming may have actually endangered civilians instead of protecting them.)

More at my blog.

--R.J.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at August 11, 2006 02:42 PM

I think you mean Connecticut above, Robert, not Vermont. Other than that, I agree.

TWL

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at August 11, 2006 03:19 PM

On the subject of "On Notice," last night Colbert appeared on the Daily Show and had a "fight" with Jon Stewart. It was awesome, and it included Colbert saying that Stewart was On Notice.

I'm hoping they keep that going. I've been hoping for awhile that the Colbert Report and the Daily Show would start their own little Civil War. The Russ Lieber character on Colbert Report is OK, but the Daily Show just makes for such a great opportunity for mock friction.

Posted by: Bill Myers at August 11, 2006 04:27 PM

Posted by: Robert Jung at August 11, 2006 02:36 PM

It also serves to remind us:

1. That the Bush Administration's "terrorist flypaper" theory -- "we fight them there so we don't fight them here" -- isn't working, as they are here.

Define "here." The information that allowed authorities to foil the terrorist plot came from a man arrested along the Afghan-Pakistani border. After that, there were multiple arrests in Britain and in Pakistan.

Posted by: Robert Jung at August 11, 2006 02:36 PM

2. That the British were able to foil this plot without the use of torture or illegal wiretaps.

Everything we know about this case came from leaks made by intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity. How do you know they didn't use torture or "illegal wiretaps" to obtain the information? This was a covert operation and there may be a lot of things we are not being told.


3. That the Bush Administration had no qualms about exploiting this plot for political gain. After all, they coordinated with the British government to delay raiding the terrorists until after the Vermont primary results were in.

Somehow, I doubt the terrorists would have cooperated with this plan. Had they deliberately delayed the operation, there would have been a significant risk that the terrorists could have executed their vile plan. I doubt that either the U.S. or the British governments would have wanted to take that chance.

(And note that five suspects are still at large, which means the Administration's political gaming may have actually endangered civilians instead of protecting them.)

The fact that five suspects are still at large does not prove your conspiracy hypothesis (I don't call it a "theory" because in science, a "theory" is as close to proven as most things get). In fact, your hypothesis is based on circular reasoning that uses its own conjecture as proof.

Posted by: Robert Jung at August 11, 2006 04:33 PM

Everything we know about this case came from leaks made by intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity. How do you know they didn't use torture or "illegal wiretaps" to obtain the information?

From CNN: "The original information about the plan came from the Muslim community in Britain, according to a British intelligence official. The tip resulted from a person who had been concerned about the activities of an acquaintance after the July 7, 2005 terror attacks in London, the official said."

Had they deliberately delayed the operation, there would have been a significant risk that the terrorists could have executed their vile plan. I doubt that either the U.S. or the British governments would have wanted to take that chance.
Except we already know that British authorities did delay the raid. They knew about the plot as early as August 1st (if not earlier), but held off the raid long enough to give Cheney and Snow time to bash the Democrats with it.

Your blind alegiance to the Bush Administration is admirably misplaced, exactly the hallmarks of a perfect Republican...

--R.J.

Posted by: Robert Jung at August 11, 2006 04:35 PM

Everything we know about this case came from leaks made by intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity. How do you know they didn't use torture or "illegal wiretaps" to obtain the information?

From CNN: "The original information about the plan came from the Muslim community in Britain, according to a British intelligence official. The tip resulted from a person who had been concerned about the activities of an acquaintance after the July 7, 2005 terror attacks in London, the official said."

Had they deliberately delayed the operation, there would have been a significant risk that the terrorists could have executed their vile plan. I doubt that either the U.S. or the British governments would have wanted to take that chance.
Except we already know that British authorities did delay the raid. They knew about the plot as early as August 1st (if not earlier), but held off the raid long enough to give Cheney and Snow time to bash the Democrats with it.

Your blind alegiance to the Bush Administration is admirably misplaced, exactly the hallmarks of a perfect Republican...

--R.J.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at August 11, 2006 06:01 PM

OK, I'm not Peter, so maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, but "Lieberman is basically you?" I don't think Lieberman has written much, if any, fiction. And I don't think Peter has ever been a member of Congress.

Actually, I have it on good authority that the entire "Sins of the Past" storyline in Amazing Spider-Man was written by Lieberman, who snuck into the office while Joe Straczynski was out getting coffee. (What can I say? It takes a little while to make a half-caf triple-tall fat-free extra-foam double-shot caramel macchiato with a twist of lime!)

More seriously, as to the idea of "illegal wiretaps", this took place in Britain - does anyone here know British law as regards wiretaps?

Posted by: AdamYJ at August 11, 2006 09:52 PM

"Agreed. I love the little digest size. I've bought all the Runaways digests because I don't mind the size reduction and I like the price. That's a comic I would never have read if it hadn't been in little digest form."

Also, another strength of putting YJ in little manga-esque digests is that the book doesn't necessarily need to be cut up into easily collected arcs. YJ never really flowed in six issue arcs or anything similar. Once, a story even ended in the middle of one issue and the next story-arc started right after. However, the manga digests I have cut stories into pieces all the time and people will apparently just pick up the next volume to get the next part of the story. So, it could work like that and they could get the whole series out if they wanted to.

Posted by: Bill Myers at August 12, 2006 09:43 AM

Robert Jung

From CNN: "The original information about the plan came from the Muslim community in Britain, according to a British intelligence official. The tip resulted from a person who had been concerned about the activities of an acquaintance after the July 7, 2005 terror attacks in London, the official said."

Note the key phrase in the passage above: "according to a British intelligence official."

Again, as I said, everything we know about this case is coming from news media reports that cite intelligence officials as their sources. The CNN news story you excerpted does not contradict what I said, but in fact validates it.

Robert Jung: "Except we already know that British authorities did delay the raid. They knew about the plot as early as August 1st (if not earlier), but held off the raid long enough to give Cheney and Snow time to bash the Democrats with it."

No, we don't know that. What we do know is that intelligence officials have said they waited before lowering the boom because: a.) they wanted to build as strong a case as possible and b.) they wanted to nail as many of these bastards as they could. As soon as they realized these murderous smears of slime were about to do a dry run to determine if they could smuggle the necessary materials onto a plane, the authorities brought the hammer down on them.

The idea that "the timing couldn't have been coincidence" is a fallacy. It could indeed have been coincidence.

You have not provided any evidence to support your conjecture. Moreover, you have failed to explain why Tony Blair, who has suffered politically in some cases for his support of Bush, would risk his entire political career to delay these arrests. How would Blair have benefited? What would Bush have done to Blair if he had refused? What could Bush have done to him?

Robert Jung: Your blind alegiance to the Bush Administration is admirably misplaced, exactly the hallmarks of a perfect Republican...

According to the Microsoft Encarta North American English Dictionary, allegiance means:

"a subject’s or citizen’s loyalty to a ruler or state, or the duty of obedience and loyalty owed by a subject or citizen"

or

"loyalty to or support for a particular person, cause, or group"

I am a registered (albeit unhappily so) Democrat. I almost always vote Democratic. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I have stated repeatedly that I believe George W. Bush is incompetent and dishonest. I have been opposed to the invasion of Iraq since it was just a glimmer in W.'s eye, and have since criticized his inept handling of the occupation.

That doesn't fit any known definition of the word "allegiance." The idea that I must be a blind supporter of George W. Bush and the G.O.P. merely because I recognize that there are no facts to back up your wild claims is patently illogical.

(Mind you, as I get older I find myself gravitating more and more towards conservative beliefs. I think conservatism -- not conservatives per se, but conservatism -- has much to recommend it. That said, I remain fairly liberal. It works. I choose my point-of-view based on what seems most logical given the facts known about a particular situation, rather than deciding ahead of time what my views "should be" based on the "side" I'm "supposed" to be on.)