The Hand of a God

WTF did i just watch?

I happened across this when reading the news recently.  It seems this man, this "father" is a judge here in Texas.  Or was; the news post says he failed to get reelected.  I am not sure how much this video, which was released on YouTube in 2011, had an affect on his reelection bid.  I can only hope it had a significant impact, but that is difficult to readily determine because the conservative views here in Texas are such that I sometimes wonder if this kind of thing is more common and *shudder* accepted down here than we realize.

It is difficult for people to come forward when this kind of abuse happens.  On the one hand, it is rarely documented until the fateful moment when permanent damage occurs, but by then it is too late.  On the other hand, it is tough to know if this isn't just an isolated incident, because we all lose our cool sometimes.  We all get so frustrated that we don't make good judgments in response to problems we wish to control, but don't have the ready means or solutions at hand.

I don't wish to excuse this guy and his tactics when it comes to parenting.  As a single male with no children I can only look on in wonder at my family and friends who seem to have all the answers, all the patience, and all the right words to say when i am left dumbfounded by the actions of their kids.  I watch them in a state of bewilderment, thinking about how i would react in the current situation, and then watch as they defuse it, mete out punishment, and communicate in such amazingly effective ways.  Being a parent is quite a job, and i know suspect there is a lot of learning along the way.

But you can see here, in this video, how someone who quite obviously has control issues, has placed himself in a position of authority and doesn't mind resorting to abuse and belittling to maintain that authority.  The fact this guy is also a judge (or was) likely just enables that narcissism, that lack of empathy, that need to cast his divine will upon others without a single thought of their humanity or with any sense of compassion on his part.  But isn't that what we want in an authoritarian; someone who can dispassionately mete out the greatest possible punishment when necessary, and not be burdened by a nagging conscience?

I say no.  Power corrupts.  And I am glad this man, who is broken in his thinking, who lacks compassion even for his own family, shall not be deciding the fate of others.  Forget that our legal system is broken, that money and position hold more sway than the facts of a case; that is important but has no bearing here.  Instead see this man, this self-indulgent God who presents his disdain for anyone who would not give him his due respect (respect is never "due"), and see him for the monster he has become.  And remove from him the power he has allowed to corrupt him.  He doesn't deserve to be in a position to compassionately mete out punishment, because he has no more compassion.

Brilliance in advertising: Poo-Pourri

Sometimes you are just blown away by an advertising campaign that hits all the right buttons without going too far, or falling too short.  This is one campaign that nailed it.  Enjoy.

I've been hearing a version of this song in my head for months. This version is pretty close. Enjoy.

Movie Review: King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

I play video games. Since I was a kid I have been in awe of the increasingly astounding leaps in technological capability. The detail just keeps getting richer and more impressive, and I am consistently amazed. And when you look at what the games were like way back when I was a kid, then you will se they have come a long way, indeed. What hasn’t come a long way, however, is human nature. King of Kong is a documentary about the best players of one of the most popular video games ever. It was one of the originals, along with Pac-Man, Galaga, Defender, and Asteroids, to break the arcade game market wide open. It is called Donkey Kong, and millions of dollars in quarters were spent playing this game in the 80’s.

 The game is a pretty straightforward: Donkey Kong is a giant gorilla standing high up on the top girders of a construction site. He has captured Princess Peach, and it is up to her erstwhile rescuer, Mario, to scale the building while dodging barrels and balls of bouncing flame that Donkey Kong is tossing down at him. Simplicity of the game aside, there is a fair amount of skill required to master this game. The game isn’t truly random at all; it is a programmed piece of code, written to execute in a specific pattern. That pattern can be discerned through hours upon hours of study. Now, having determined the pattern, it is up to the player to not only remember the pattern while under the stress of playing through the game for hours while striving for a high score, but to display the manual dexterity necessary to perform the complex actions necessary to navigate the pattern, again, hour after hour, flawlessly. This is the world of competitive video gaming.

Since the first national competitions one name has stood atop the hill as “King”, and that is Billy Mitchell, a legendary figure from the 80’s who enjoys a very specific flavor of celebrity for holding a seemingly unbeatable record in the game. Enter Steve Weibe, a mild-mannered family man from Washington state who mastered the game on a machine in his garage, and who has produced a video showing him beating Billy’s record. Both the video and the arcade console Steve is using comes under scrutiny as the masters of this little demesne strive to protect their pantheon of demigods from becoming mortal once again. Steve enters a competition, which Billy fails to enter, and in front of a crowd of agape video game cultists, utterly destroys Billy’s longstanding record. In response to the shellacking, Billy sends in a tape of himself not only beating Steve’s score, but playing the game until the score had to reset back to zero and start counting anew. All suspicions about the validity of the somewhat poorly video-taped game are ignored by the true-believers among Billy’s vacant-eyed congregation. And when a head-to-head competition is scheduled everyone is certain Billy will show up wielding thunderbolts and walking on water. But he doesn’t. Show up, I mean. Even though the competition is a mere 10 miles away from his home, practically in his back yard, and Steve has travelled 3,000 miles to spend 4 days in head-to-head best-man-win competition.

The movie is clearly on the side of Steve, and well it should be. Billy Mitchell is laughable in his fortress made of Ego. It is clear he is not ok with losing face, or his place among the video-gaming pantheon. What is so amazing is how the rest of the community works so diligently to challenge and hopefully disprove Steve’s achievements while shrugging away very good concerns about the validity of Billy’s offerings. It is as though the entire insular community is much too comfortable with their little cult of personality, and fear losing it, even if through thoroughly valid means. Billy is king of a very small, very inbred community, while Steve is an outsider to be feared and mistrusted. It’s incredible to watch, if a little uncomfortable. There are moments when you can almost taste the thickening tension, such as when Billy is avoiding the competition while constantly calling his friend Steve Sanders, one of his true believers, to check up on Steve’s current top-scores, all the while doing loops around the arcade parking lot and making excuses as to why he can’t stop by. When they finally do meet up in person, you could hear fairies farting in the silence that breaks out in the arcade. And when Steve says ‘Hey Billy”, he gets a cold shoulder response. You almost wish you had a chalk-board to scratch your nails down so you don’t have to listen to the uncomfortable silence of the moment. In the end Steve and Billy never face off in competition, the gaming community shrugs as they take their ball and go home where the sacred image of a Billy Mitchell who never really left the 80’s remains enshrined above each bed, and Steve goes home without ever really being given a chance to prove his ability. The movie ends. It ends well, and I won’t spoil the final moments by explaining how.

 The documentary, as I stated earlier, is fully on the side of Steve as the hero, so don’t expect unbiased editing by the director. We like Steve, and we come to loathe Billy, and most of the Cult of Billy. It is still a wonderful portrayal of the sometimes small-mindedness of everyday people, of our fears of losing our legends, of the status quo being challenged. King of Kong is a movie about the small guy challenging an institution, and the hurdles and trials he must go through to prove himself worthy. It is a classic story, and very satisfying in the telling, and even more satisfying in that it is, for the most part, real life. Delicious. Hands down one of the most entertaining documentaries I have ever seen.

Red Bull Rube Goldberg

I have seen many Rube Goldberg videos off of Youtube, but I think this one may be my favorite.  Don't get me wrong, I am not a Red bull fan.  I do, however, think this is an original take on a classic.  It features some fantastic athletic ability, showcases athletes Red Bull sponsors, and is just fun to watch.

Supply-Side Jesus

Heh heh, love this!

Young girl is football phenom

This little nine year old's name is Sam Gordon, and she is impressive. To really appreciate just how good she is, you have to watch her moves, so I am offering you this video of her crazy-good running-back skills. You don't have to know much about football so see she has got some good moves. If you do know something about football, you will see her doing all the things professional running-backs do; juking, cut-backs, rolls, and amazing bursts of speed that put the bigger boys she plays against to shame.

Here she is.

WTF??

Best Lines from Plan 9

I love movies.

And much to the consternation of my friends, I also love bad movies. You know, movies like the brilliantly horrible "Plan 9 from Outer Space", Ed Wood's opus. It is horrendous. The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad. So bad it transcends critique and, in my opinion, becomes fun to watch just to appreciate how tragically pathetic it is. It was a sci-fi drama in conception, but now it is a humorously grotesque film with bad science.

Because I am devious and and believe in spreading the misery around, here is a little slice of what I think of as cinema heaven. Here are some of the best examples of poor script-writing taken from "Plan 9 from Outer Space". Enjoy.

Disturbing

I've known police officers in my life.  I've known the kinds of people they were.  Now, I want to be nice and say people are people, and there are many grey areas in life, and sometimes people make crappy decisions.  But it is difficult being nice.

This following video disgusts me.  it makes me vomit a little bit in my mouth each time I watch it.

What disturbs me the most about this is the level of attitude being dished out to innocent people, who are only guilty of being frustrated by an unwarranted harassment, and the abuse of power as an extension of fear.  The system is broken when the police are being given rewards for successful harassment.

What the future holds

I've made predictions about it before, and will share them with you here: We will not see a viable electric car culture until we also see a way to charge the consumer, per mile driven. Maybe that sounds cynical, but we live in a society that has proven time and again that emerging technology can be stifled if it interferes with a successful status-quo. And right now, the status-quo is a a cripplingly manipulated energy market that is holding onto its power (every pun intended) with a death-grip. There is no room for innovation in a market that fears change.

What I find most interesting is how there seem to be two sides to the political argument essentially using the same reasons to promote two differing ideas about future energy use. One side is excited about renewable energy, seeing it as a way to drop dependence on the limited stock of fossil fuels, while the other looks to finding new sources of fossil fuels closer to home so our dependence on such fuel isn't placed in the hands of other countries. I see it the arguments as extensions of fear, and I think it is important we understand what, ultimately, is causing the fear.

On the former side, the fear is a lack of sustainability. Without adequate resources, the prices go up as supply and demand take their inevitable place in the ongoing paradigm. Looking towards renewable seems to be a ridiculously logical step towards alleviating that fear. The only limitation has been a technology that doesn't satisfy the concept; IE relatively primitive batteries that still have an unfavorable weight/charge ratio, especially in comparison to the perfected fossil-fuel motors. Without a technology that either be comparable to the status-quo or exceed it, the incentive to take a backwards step in productivity just isn't there. What you lose in time and capability just doesn't sufficiently offset the cost of redesigning a working system. So, capitalism wins out. And without a market for the technology, there will be no technological research. Sadly it is like asking for a finished product before paying to have one built. Ask any military contractor if that is a way to achieve innovation and they will have a very succinct answer, I am sure.

On the latter side, the fear is control over a necessary base resource. Basic tenant of capitalism: if you can control the market, then you control the consumer. Many countries produce fossil fuels, and there is huge money in bringing that commodity to market Any hiccups in the production of that fuel is an immediately opening for another supplier to crowbar his way into someone else's customer base. Very dog-eat-dog, where the dogs don't mind taking a chomp out of the hands that buy their fuel as well since it is such a base necessity in this modern world. Electricity is not a luxury anymore, it is a necessity in America. I the summer months we are inundated with reports on how many elderly have died from heat-related injuries due to a lack of electricity, for one reason or another. So, it comes down to buy electricity or die. And since electricity is produced, primarily, by fossil fuels it can be rewritten as "purchase fossil fuels or die". Now THAT is a marketing plan! Why even consider giving up a marketing plan that is so perfectly ingrained in society. In fact, we shouldn't be sending all this money overseas to other suppliers... we should be keeping it for ourselves! Control. There is not fear here of what may happen to the consumer over time, just as there is no compassion by the drug-dealer towards his junkie clientele. There is only the potential rewards of ensuring you are the only drug dealer for this neighborhood.

So, we have a commodity that is vital for sustaining a modern society: energy. And we have two conflicting views on how to address this situation. One side believes it is better to supply society with what it needs efficiently, while the other side believes it is best to capitalize on the situation. Ethics aside, simple human greed beats forward-thinking every day.

But I just read an article about the how the Tesla auto company has installed a few recharge stations in California. The product they have produced is a self-sustaining recharging point that uses solar-power to supply itself with electricity. So... imagine driving around in a electric car and recharging it doesn't cost you a dime. Here's the kicker, though; it will take about a half-hour to recharge your vehicle enough to drive 3 more hours. This is, of course, at the current stage of technology. Since so little research has gone into improving that technology, I doubt it is unrealistic to assume it could improve dramatically. But just think about that for a moment... how far will you drive this next weekend for your vacation? How much to do you expect to pay in gas for the round trip? Would you be willing to add extra drive-time while eliminating all fuel-costs for the trip? I can spend $100 a week driving my truck to work and back, possibly a bit more. Now, imagine that number is $0.00 That's my truck payment being made with the money I would normally spend on gas.

Another interesting green concept is Solar Roads. Basically, you embed a series of solar-panels within roads and highways. The heat is transferred into electricity and reintroduced onto the grid. Parking lots, millions of miles of roadways, not to mention the tops of any building; all these urban surfaces could be generating power as a secondary function. You wouldn't need huge solar arrays out in the desert, because you would have them integrated into your towns. But again, the technology is proving too limited to make this brilliant concept viable.

And I suspect the reason the technology isn't there is because it proposes to replace the cash-cow that is modern energy distribution. Being a benefit to humanity just isn't enough reason to innovate anymore. However, finding a way to make money is. That is why I propose the reason we won't see a more robust electric car market; because the innovations being dreamt up which utilize renewable energy aren't lucrative enough.

Yelling "Fire" in the crowded theater.

I am currently in the middle of a discussion with my girlfriend about the riots going on across the world over a documentary which was posted on Youtube. I am not going to add a link to the video, if you are interested in watching it that is your business. I personally don't care to promote trash. I would rather link to another Uwe Boll film, to be quite honest. Ok... maybe not. But I digress.

My Girlfriend asked me to consider this arguement:
"It is like yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. If your intention is to cause chaos and distress, then you are equally culpable when it occurs."

I considered this line of logic, and found myself going back to the point that free will is still involved. When you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, people are running for their lives due to a perceived threat. It is all fight-or-flight, instincts have taken over, survival trumps all. When you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and there isn't one, your intention is to provoke chaos. When that chaos occurs the people who ran screaming did so without the benefit of being able to make rational decisions.

What has happened with the movie and the riots isn't the same, because people still have their capacity to make decisions. They have chosen to riot not out of survival or fear, but out of anger. Arguably, it doesn't matter what the medium is, be it political cartoon, a burning of their holy book by a group of redneck Christians, or a distasteful movie, these people chose to riot, chose to kill innocents only guilty of sharing a national origin. That isn't fight-or-flight... that is murder.

Just because we, as individuals, become upset doesn't justify bad behavior. It would be nice to believe that "Suzie MADE me kick the dog", but it is terribly difficult to force someone to exercise your will. Mind control helps, but even deep hypnosis has its limits. No, Suzie can't force upon you decisions against your will. You will always have a choice, the ability to say "Yes" or "No", and that is why the freedom of Speech is so difficult to understand sometimes. Just because a person has burned a flag doesn't mean he is unpatriotic, though it may look that way. The messenger is so separate from the recipient. What I meant to say has very little to do with what you heard me say, so how can I be responsible for what you do next?

Or can I? At which point do we have to turn around to the bullies and say "OK, asshole, what you are doing is wrong"? Freedom of Speech is important. I can say whatever I want about your momma, and as soon as you hit me you are the bad-guy. Is it ok to incite people with the intent to cause chaos, simply because the freedom of Speech is a protected right? At which point do our intentions warrant criminal investigation, even though the violence was the conscious actions of other parties. My girlfriend suggests there is too much gray-area, that if the intent of the cartoonist was to lampoon that is one thing, but if the movie-creator intended to cause global violence that is another.

Even as I fear the idea of inhibiting speech just because it is offensive, she makes the argument that 'offending with the intent to provoke' is wrong; as criminal as the violence it provokes. Interesting argument. It certainly makes a case against bullies. But does it leave the door too open to vague interpretation? Can "consciously provocative and incendiary speech" be legitimately separated from "offensive but unintentionally provocative speech"? If someone thinks "Man, this is gonna piss off Christians" then should the speaker be culpable for having incited the violent reactions of any listeners?

If someone speaks out against war and is shot by a conservative nut-job, who all is at fault; the shooter as well as the incendiary speaker whose comments provoked such a response? If a bully talks about a kid's mom until the kid snaps and slugs the bully in the stomach, who all is culpable? If a man rides into the middle of town bearing a Nazi flag and is hit by a beer bottle from an alleyway, who is in the wrong? What if it is an American Flag? What if it is an American flag on fire? What if it is a Mexican flag on fire?

I gotta tell ya, I am torn. I can see both sides to this all too clear. The Freedom of Speech is such an important right of a free society. But it is ugly and dangerous. It is perhaps the most valuable tool available to a free society; the ability to speak out against an authority that would keep you quiet in its own best interest. But it comes with a price; some people won't want to hear what could potentially be said. Finding the rationale to limit that freedom, based on political advantage, fear, or any possible reason is a slippery slope with dire consequences. I don't think it should be considered readily, lightly, or with an eye to using it to band-aid a bruised foreign ego.

The irreplacable Fred Rogers

I'm sorry, but as I was perusing Youtube, looking at various clips of the late Fred Rogers, I came across his Lifetime Achievement Award from 1997. I have to share it with you, but first I want to preface it with a story...

When I first moved to Texas and got my first job, I was tasked with going to Dallas for a summer and work as a part of my training with a cable installation company. That isn't important to the story, but it lets you know why I was there listing to a morning show hosted a couple of 30-something DJs from some pop-music radio station while traveling from job to job. I was lucky enough to hear a phone interview the two DJs had with Fred Rogers. Now, these two DJs, a man and a woman, were saucy and snarky about most pop-culture subjects popular in the moment, and they were mischievous and irreverent. That was their schtick. But it only took a few words form Mr. Rogers for them to suddenly become children again, awestruck and utterly captivated by this gentle, sincere man. I don't remember his words myself, but I will never forget his tone. He was soft, and gentle, and integrity personified. He was amazing. And the two DJs were completely under his spell. The woman DJ could hardly speak, she seemed so awestruck. And the man tried to bluff and bluster, but in the end Mr. Roger's kind demeanor was overpowering, and there was, could only be, reverence and respect for this brilliant man.

So here is Fred Roger's acceptance speech.



Even in his gratitude, in a moment when he is being honored for his life's work, when he has the stage to say anything about his life, he takes the community of self-possessed actors by the hand, and leads them all, like the children they have suddenly become, in taking a moment to thank the people in their lives who have given them support. He teaches us, in what could otherwise be a selfish moment, to be selfless. And in doing so Fred Rogers shows us what gratitude is truly all about.

What a truly amazing man.

An artist's eyes

Every once in a while I am fortunate enough to come across a little piece of magic in my internet travels. I want to share a could pieces of that magic with you today.

I am not sure if you are familiar with the two genius artists portrayed in the two clips I am about to off you, but if you are then you will likely enjoy this.

The first is a clip featuring the late Mr. Rogers.



The second is a clip featuring the late Bob Ross.



Now, I may be a sentimental goof, but I remember watching these men, these wonderful artists, when I was a kid. I was drawn to PBS as a child, like a moth to flame. Sesame Street, Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, The Joy of Painting with Bob Ross, Electric Company, and so many others. And what I brought away from this brilliant programming was an invaluable education. Only now, so much later in my life, can I look back and truly understand what I was being taught. I was taught to live life, to love learning, and to be kind to people I meet. I was being taught to look at the world as through an artist's eyes, where everything is a joy to behold, and a wonderful place to let my imagination run wild. These brilliant men offered me their time and guidance in a scary world, reminding me to be kind, be creative, and to respect and love the world around me and the people in it. How awesome is that?!

Rock out with your Hawk out.

Just had to offer this little tidbit of fun, because it made me laugh my ass off.

Enjoy.

The Declaration of Internet Freedom

Joy

Joy.
How do you define it? What does it look like? Better... how does one capture it?
This video, and the others like it, always give me joy, and I think I know why. It is a vision of joy, and all it required was a sincere connection between people, a love of self expression and selfless offering to the world an image of that joy. Its passion and fearlessness, freedom and love.

And it is so wonderfully captured by this video series. What a wonderful gift to offer the world: joy in its purest form.

Movie Review: The Union: The Business Behind Getting High

Just finished watching this documentary, and I am finding myself in a very reflective mood. Marijuana is a hot-topic, with controversy growing all around it like plants in a "Grow Op" (a term used in the movie to denote people who grow marijuana in their homes, typically in a basement or similar, for the purpose of selling as a cash-crop.) Ask anyone and you get a wide range of opinions concerning its danger, its legality, it medical potential, its industrial potential, and on and on. This documentary does a wonderful job of looking into much of those topics. And it does so in a straightforward, easy to watch method.

The host, Adam Scorgie, walks us through a fairly typical documentary format, taking time to address many of the points of controversy that are so fluid surrounding marijuana. He takes us to his hometown in British Columbia, where we get to visit the home of a grower; his "Grow Op". He takes on a trip to Grow Op that had been raided by police months before, but is now a forgotten spot on the side of a hill; 20 buried railroad cars turned into a huge underground green-house. We walk down city streets while he feeds us numbers and statistics. Then we get to hear from experts and people celebrities opposed or adversely affected by anti-marijuana laws. It isn't spectacular in its format, it doesn't reinvent the wheel. It is light and easy to watch. It offers facts, leads us to conclusions, challenges the status-quo, and feeds us exactly what it wants us to digest. And it does all this cleanly and with a good amount of craftsmanship.

What else can I say about it? Not much. It doesn't break down any doors or light up the screen with controversy. Even when it offers slices of the conservative position (marijuana is bad) it doesn't do it with much gusto. In fact, it is quite kind in how it handles the opposing side. Early on in the study it asks a couple of ex-growers what they thought about legalizing Marijuana, and they say without hesitation "Why would we want to give up that money?" And thus is the whole point of the film; the acknowledgment that money is the motivator behind any action concerning Marijuana. With that in place, nobody is truly evil in this story, just part of "The Union"; part of the vast system of people who profit in one way or another from the drug-trade, particularly Pot.


I actually found this message to be a bit refreshing. It is understated, but present in this film. Everyone believes it is ludicrous that Pot is illegal, but there is so much money involved. It doesn't produce crime by producing violent people, but instead by simply being criminal to possess, which is good for the whole criminal system, from lawyers to privatized prisons. It gets people elected to office, and keeps a long of chain of private entrepreneurs willing to side-step the law working hard for a plant which can be grown anywhere and yet holds a value greater than gold bullion. It is a marvel of cultural manipulation and indoctrination.

I found this film to be very similar to "Why We Fight", the documentary about the Industrial War Complex. It is understated, one-sided, and it doesn't shake the foundations of conventional thought so much as remind us not to bury our heads under the covers.

It doesn't try to quantify its facts, and the people interviewed aren't experts in their field of pertinent study. Nobody is interviewed who might provide an opposing view, so no confrontations exist to distract us away from its simply logic: Marijuana isn't harmful, but keeping it illegal is. And that is somewhat sad. I always like a good dose of opposing argument in my righteous indignation. But I don't fault the movie for sticking to one side of the issue so completely; many documentaries do that. You can't pick up a Michael Moore movie without coming away feeling like you should have been offered a plastic splatter-sheet when you entered the theater. But I guess the thought is that we are inundated with one side of the argument anyway, so why not offer a bit of clarity to the propaganda?

And this movie does so very well. It is kind and soft-spoken, much like a person smoking marijuana. And that is refreshing in a documentary.

Marijuana Documentary

I am currently watching a documentary on Marijuana. It has been freely offered for viewing on Youtube, and I urge everyone to watch it. Here's a link:

The Union: The Business Behind Getting High

Marvel over DC and why.

It seems tough to make an interesting movie about characters with no flaws, unless all you wanted to see as nifty special effects. Marvel and DC have both tried to do it, but have encountered some hurdles along the way. I feel it is because of the inherent nature of the respective cast of characters that is the cause. Special effects can let us see what a favorite super-hero is capable of, but it takes much more to provide an audience with entertainment.

DC superheroes aren't interesting. Yes, this is my opinion, but I have valid reasons. DC heroes have no character, no juice, no angst, no reason to sympathize or relate. They are like... virtuous Greek gods, and how boring would THAT have been? There is a reason Zeus shagged animals; it got people's attention. Imagine if Superman had a flaw... any flaw (as i was thinking about this myself, I came up with several concepts: a cripple when not in sunlight, a womanizer, an alcoholic, poor, homeless, had a family of normals, had a disgusting disease, etc) and suddenly the character is interesting. But he isn't. Because he is virtuous, a god, perfect... unrealistic.

Lets take a look at a few DC characters, and why they have so little to offer:
-Batman is the only character worth telling a story with, because, like so many Marvel heroes, he has obvious flaws: IE he is insane.
-Green Lantern is a guy with a ring of, basically, unlimited wishes. It is a god-ring. And we are supposed to worry about him, or relate in any way? And somehow, he'll get beat-up during the first 50% of the story... able to make any tool or, well, ANYTHING and yet he still loses. Come-on!
-Or Superman, who's only angst is a really unbelievable secret identity. Sure, he was born on another planet, but he didn't grow up in a foster-home, he was adopted by loving parents as his first memory, so the angst of that feels sorta trite and weak. Plus, he is a god. Yet he gets beat up for the first 50% of the comic? Come-on!
-The Flash is as fast as light, yet not fast enough to keep from getting beat up for the first 50% of the comic? Come-on!
-Wonder Woman has great hooters, but she is a goddess and that is part of the deal. And her only angst is about being a woman; unfortunately relevant 60 years ago, but not a big deal anymore.
-Martian Manhunter, despite his tragically stupid name, has an intersting and tragic character concept. He was accidentally teleported to Earth just as his home-planet of Mars has a cataclysmic event wipe out all the indigenous life. Heart-breaking, truly. But he has god-like power, so... Granted, more could be done with the guy, but isn't.
-Now, Aquaman is interesting. He has serious personality issues, and trust issues, and had his hand eaten off by piranha (wonderful irony there). He just doesn't have a very relevant power-set unless you also live in the ocean.
-Green Arrow, who shoots trick arrows at bad-guys, standing next to Superman, The Flash, and Green Lantern is like a kitten in a buffalo herd. He's cocky, which is interesting, but he'd have to be as a kitten in buffalo-herd. otherwise we'd realize just how uninteresting he really is.
My point is, the DC characters are caricatures, silly and unrealistic. One has to decide not to ask any serious questions about them. You can't ask a question like "What if Lois Lane was falling off a skyscraper, and a bus of kids had a bomb underneath it?" because the obvious, and really only, answer is "Win". Sad. You ask that of Wolverine, and you get a tragic ending. Superman is never fired for not being at work on time because he chose to save a bus full of children and C-4. He never has his identity outed, despite his clever ruse(??) with the glasses, even though outing him would mean... nothing. He is untouchable. Since he can't lose, why worry about how you could?? Daredevil had his secret identity known, and it ruined his life. But Daredevil couldn't stop Kingpin from having him disbarred (as a lawyer), ruining his legal practice and friendship with business partner, killing his girlfriend, etc. Daredevil had vulnerabilities, could be exploited, could lose. Superman has no vulnerabilities, in his powers or in his life.

Why? Why do we need a Superman who can't lose? It has been described to me that Marvel Comics are for the people who enjoy unhappy endings once in a while. People who enjoy tragedy, flaws, shades of gray, realism. While DC, I was told, is for the people who don't like to lose, who are scared of weaknesses, who like simple black-&-white hats on their cowboys. And in early days of comics, that worked. We were a simpler culture then. We knew less, and could have the wool pulled over our eyes easier. But with this information age we are privy to the machinations of powerful people, to their selfishness and deceit, and to the moral grays of personal perspective. Sterile stories aren't interesting anymore because we don't relate to them. Why doesn't Superman just shed is "secret" identity if he has proven that he can, time and time again, protect those close to him from danger? Why does Green Lantern swat villains with a giant green spatula when a force-bubble would capture them every time? Why would Flash ever move slow enough to get punched if he can move at the speed of light? Why does Wonder Woman's jet have to be invisible? Why does Batman need a sidekick if he is smarter than any of his villains? Or better; why would Batman endanger the life of an innocent kid if he wasn't seriously insane? Why does Superman care about a world he has never known, and never can, when he has really swell adopted parents who loved him unconditionally? Well, I can answer that one: because Superman needs angst in his life. He needs flaws. Otherwise, we would see him for the tragically uninteresting character he really is.