Tag Archives: conservative

Took a While But Other Sites Think Liberalism Has Ruined Comics Too

Posted on by

It took long enough, but a few websites have picked up on the article from Bleeding Cool about how liberals are ruining comic books.  As if moths to a flame their reasoning is muddled and not really accurate let alone thought out… but that doesn’t stop me from pointing all of that out.

First up The Politically Incorrect Australian has this nugget:

It’s become impossible to just sit down and enjoy watching a movie or a TV show without having political correctness rammed down one’s throat. Even kids’ programming these days mostly consists of political indoctrination. Strident political propaganda does not make for good entertainment.

Yeah, damn those liberals and PC world.  Every piece of entertainment is tainted, they even made Fox liberal!  Nothing like a hyperbole to make one’s argument.

Sago had an article entitled “Yes Liberalism Was The Downfall Of Comic Books.”  Sago just goes for the jugular and lays it out there with it’s homophobia:

Archie decided it was time for a gay character. To take something as wholesome and free of the taint and the onslaught of liberalism even though, they also did the whole global warming scam for a period was one step to far. I would just skip over those stupid stories, knowing full well it was a scam created by people who saw how to extract precious dollars from billions of people worldwide to their bank accounts, such as Al Gore. The gay character though was a move to far, the way the global warming hucksters attempted to sway a generation of children to their cause, now Archie was doing the same with gays. I have said and will continue to say, I don’t care what you do in your bedroom, I do damn well care that you are attempting to subvert a generation of children to your cause.

I’m pretty sure this person also thinks marriage has been ruined by the gays too.  I mean, having one gay character totally makes something tainted.  In no way does it reflect the real world or include the variety of people you might meet every day.  You wonder what a person like this’ thought when it comes to racial integration.  Took a while for Archie to do that too.

It is always sad to watch the few destroy America for the majority, but when 18% call themselves liberals but they have the whole of the entertainment industry, they are indeed “deciding” for the rest of us.

I never really understood this argument.  If the right is so hardcore about capitalism and the market deciding things, why not put their money where their mouth is and fund conservative entertainment?  I mean Fox is doing pretty damn well.  24 was a hit, Passion of the Christ had it’s Christian fans.  There’s just no evidence on any of this, but if a few things don’t meet one’s viewpoints, why not condemn everything?

But where a lot of this is coming from is Newsbusters and D.S. Hube‘s post “Is Liberalism Leading to Comic Books’ Downfall?”

…as one who continued to purchase comics up until the mid-2000s, I find this modern “progressive” trend not only disburbing, but disgusting. It’s what led me to stop purchasing contemporary comics outright

Well, if it’s been 5 years, are you really an authority on the subject you’re writing?  There’s been a way of conservative writers and artists and comics cover issues from every perspective.  Comics are anything but liberal.  Are there liberal stories?  Sure.  Are there conservative stories?  Absolutely.  The idea of a vigilante taking justice into their own hands is as conservative a concept as can be.  Batman should be the ultimate conservative icon having a corporate leader funneling money to do what the police and government can not.

Hube goes on to cite The Authority and Mark Millar, especially Millar’s work on Superman: Red Son and Marvel’s Civil War.  Red Son was a solid story that if anything praised American ideals and saw Superman landing in Russia instead of the U.S.  Civil War saw the liberals lose in the end.  Never mind Millar is reviled by many for his over the top violence and portrayal of women.  He might call himself a liberal and hold those political beliefs but as a whole his modern comics are very much about shock and awe.

Hube continues:

The Ultimates (which, by the way, the upcoming The Avengers movie is mostly based on), Millar had a superhero team composed of characters from countries like North Korea and the Muslim Middle East invade the United States so as to “restrain the Roman Empire” because they “feared what America might do next.” Another rationale was because America was “interfering with cultures they could never understand.”

I’m pretty sure I hear Ron Paul spouting similar ideas at every Republican debate.  I don’t think Dr. Paul is a liberal in any way.

The usual issues of Superman renouncing his U.S. citizenship is brought up.  Never mind that is so he can easily spread American ideals without causing the U.S. international incident.  Also the Captain America/Tea Party fiasco.  The humor of it all is that Hube calls some of the comics he condemns as good reads and “top notch.”

It’s the ‘ol “Shut up and sing!” mantra. If you’re in the entertainment business, you run the risk of alienating a certain portion of your fanbase if you insist upon making controversial statements or taking up controversial positions on issues. This is no way means you have to shut up; however, you need to be aware that freedom of speech does NOT mean there’s freedom from criticism — or freedom from consequences.And, thus, all this is [partly] why I blog. I why I’ll continue to not shell out $3-4 for a comicbook any time soon.

And there’s the rub.  What the right really has an issue with is anything that doesn’t fit their world view and that includes the freedom of speech.  They should practice what they preach and Hube is thankfully.  If they disagree with the content or the viewpoint or what a creator says on their Facebook page or on Twitter, vote with your wallet and don’t buy it.  Instead of getting worked up about sex in comics or how a character is drawn, don’t buy it.  It’s really that easy.  Conservatives believe in market forces.  This is a good example of practicing it.  If people really dislike it, they’ll stop buying.  But that’s not reality.

If liberalism is so bad, how come comic book sales increased last year?  Maybe because the majority of folks don’t care or notice.

Around the Tubes

Posted on by

The weekend is here (and it’s a long one).  I can finally catch up with the comics I’ve neglected to read and review… yay!

SOPA/PIPA News:

Mashable – Nuke the Net: How to Get the Mainstream Talking About the Dangers of SOPA

Mashable – SOPA Sponsor Has a Copyright Violation of His Own

Mashable – Soapy: Can This Plug-In Kill SOPA?

GamePolitics – President Obama’s Hard Choice on SOPA, PIPA

GamePolitics – Runic Games Opposes SOPA

GamePolitics – Notch: ‘No Sane Person Can Support SOPA’

Kotaku – Sega Customer Support Has a Bizarre Take on SOPA

Kotaku – League of Legends Wants to Destroy SOPA

 

Around the Tubes:

CBLDF – CBLDF Now Hiring: Office Manager – Great org, go apply!

Bleeding Cool – What Might A Conservative Comic Book Look Like? – Interesting….

 

Around the Tubes Reviews:

IGN – Comic Book Reviews for 1/11/12

Around the Tubes

Posted on by

The weekend is here, what’s everyone doing?

Around the Blogs:

Bleeding Cool – How Conservatism May Be Hurting Comic Book Sales – And Bleeding Cool retorts itself.

iBlognDax – Are Comic Books Hurting Themselves? – Interesting read.

FP Entrepreneur – Pow! Target your marketing like the pros – Really, calling them pros?

Aurora Sentinel – Graphic appeal: Former state lawmaker works with local college artists to bring zombie comic novel to print – Very interesting and worth checking out.

The ComiChron – More comics sold in 2011, but trade weakness contributes to slightly off year – Great stats as always.

Dave Does the Blog – Are comic books too liberal for their own good? – A good take down.

 

Around the Tubes Reviews:

CBR – Wolverine & the X-Men: Alpha and Omega #1

Comics Are Liberal? Try Again.

Posted on by

Another day, another “conservative” complaining that comics are too “liberal.”  Bleeding Cool yesterday gave space to Darin Wagner who went on a pretty well articulated rant about how comic books are too liberal and that he has less and less to read.  The fact is, Mr. Wagner is just wrong in his argument.

The crux of the argument is that comic books are bleeding readers because they’re “too liberal.”  As usual, a conservative decides to mix up causation and correlation.  There’s numerous factors that affect the sales of comics, the story is just one of them, but that’d actually mean people are picking up comics and then putting them down, that first part is just not happening.  Comic sales were up in 2011, when it was too liberal according to Wagner.

The humor of it all is that Wagner ignores a basic tenant of conservatism, allow market forces to decide things.  Comics aren’t shedding readers because they’re too liberal, it’s an issue with distribution and competition from other forms of entertainment, but who said conservatives were consistent in their thinking.

Comic books have a long tradition of politics, even with super heroes.  The early strips during the beginning were commentary on castes and society.  Those little scamps running around tin can alley?  There was some deep material there about social structure and class.   Wagner writes:

The first comic book superhero, Superman, fought a liberal/social agenda in his first stories.

He also cracked down on crime and later wasn’t exactly progressive when it came to depicting women.  But even then, Captain America, who has sat on all sides of the political spectrum, advocated the entry of the United States into World War II a year before Pearl Harbor.  Early Batman is a vigilante bucking the system to fight crime using his money to get around what the government can’t do, a very conservative principle.  There’s also the recent issue of sexism in comic books, not exactly progressive or liberal.  I’m sure Wagner also thinks the media is liberal.

The fact is, there is conservatism in comic books, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Bill Willingham’s Fables series is conservative, Holy Terror, The Infidel, The Infinite, hell there’s works of Ayn Rand in graphic novel form.  The fact is Wagner thinks comics should be apolitical or fit his world view.  Conservatives are supposed to be FOR freedom of speech, not condemning opinions.

Wagner picks and chooses a scene in an issue here or there.  Each week 100 plus comics are released, how many of them espouse a political viewpoint?  A few?  Who cares!  Read the other 90 something comics.  I don’t stop reading comics when someone is conservative.  I like to hear the other side and differing opinions.

Wagner gives these two examples:

Wonder Woman looks at the interior of the mall and likens it to a temple. Superman replies “Yes, for those who worship their credit cards.”

and

“…your childhood favorite grumbles about his/her country’s dependency on oil or how inherently dangerous oil drilling is to the environment and how it’s not worth it..”

So if these are liberal stances, then consumerism and credit card debt, not being energy independent and destroying the environment are conservative principles?  Many conservatives cried foul when Superman denounced his US citizenship as anti-American, ignoring that it was to be able to spread American values globally easier without causing the United States diplomatic issues.  That’s liberal?

What Wagner really is talking about is this study, which says people rarely seek out differing political viewpoints.  We like to live in a bubble that fits our worldview.

The re­search­ers found that peo­ple are on av­er­age about twice as likely to se­lect in­forma­t­ion that sup­ports their own point of view as to con­sid­er an op­pos­ing idea. Some, more closed-minded peo­ple are even more re­luc­tant to ex­pose them­selves to dif­fer­ing per­spec­tives.

But this statement is what really annoys me:

It’s happening more and more over the last dozen years: The people behind the scenes allowing their personal politics to bleed through into the stories of otherwise apolitical superheroes whose adventures are meant for everyone to enjoy.

It is not a right to have all media to be enjoyable by all people.  You have no right that entertainment fits your worldview.  That comic book characters should be drawn the way you want them to be drawn.  Artists and writers are hired, it’s their prerogative as to what’s put to paper.  It is then our choice, as consumers, to choose if we want to purchase the items.  That’s capitalism.  The fact is, comic sales rose last year, very much on DC’s shake up which is cited a lot in Wagner’s piece.  Can we make the argument then that liberalism in comics increased sales?

If Darin Wagner is this same person, he’s a comic book writer himself.  If he thinks there should be “conservative” comics, then make them.  I always think this is the proper response, especially for one who has created comic books.  Stand by a conservative principle and let your project sink or swim based on market forces and leave it to the consumers you think are being neglected.

Around the Tubes

Posted on by

It’s the end of the week, yay!  Lots and lots of comics to read.  Sort of yay!  Here’s the news you might have missed while I go and do that.

Around the Blogs:

Bleeding Cool – How Liberalism May Be Hurting Comic Book Sales – Better believe I have a response coming….

The Capital – Local publishing firm seeks digital comic fans – Um, k…

Kotaku – Gotham City Impostors‘ January Release Date Was Some Kind of Joke – Can’t wait to play!

Kotaku – Confirmed: Lego Batman 2 Will Assemble a MiniFig Justice League This Summer – Never have played one of these games.

 

Around the Tubes Reviews:

CBR – Action Comics #5

MTV Geek – Fatale #1

CBR – Fatale #1

Saffron Walden Reporter – Fear Itself and Fear Itself: The Home Front

Karissa’s Reading Review – Neverland

Cambridge First – One Model Nation

IGN – Comic Book Reviews for 1/4/12

Frank Miller, Losing His Mind, Occupy Wall Street and My Thoughts

Posted on by

Comic book legend Frank Miller went to his website to rant about Occupy Wall Street.  The conservative writer is on a roll after his release of the racist and over the top anti-Muslim graphic novel Holy Terror.  The graphic novel has sold well at the distribution level as expected but retailers have informed me that copies sit on their shelves.  Maybe Miller is smarting from the poor reviews?

But, to get on track, Miller has decided to post his thoughts about the Occupy Movement entitled “Anarchy“.  Here’s them in full:

Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:

The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached – is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

This is no popular uprising. This is garbage. And goodness knows they’re spewing their garbage – both politically and physically – every which way they can find.

Wake up, pond scum. America is at war against a ruthless enemy.

Maybe, between bouts of self-pity and all the other tasty tidbits of narcissism you’ve been served up in your sheltered, comfy little worlds, you’ve heard terms like al-Qaeda and Islamicism.

And this enemy of mine — not of yours, apparently – must be getting a dark chuckle, if not an outright horselaugh – out of your vain, childish, self-destructive spectacle.

In the name of decency, go home to your parents, you losers. Go back to your mommas’ basements and play with your Lords Of Warcraft.

Or better yet, enlist for the real thing. Maybe our military could whip some of you into shape.

They might not let you babies keep your iPhones, though. Try to soldier on.

Schmucks.

FM

Where do I even begin taking down this just random and factually so off post by an industry legend?  Well, lets get back to form and dissect it part by part.

Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:

From the start Miller shows his lack of understanding or clue of what’s going on.  The police have beaten and fired on protestors.  I’m not delusional and know there has been law breaking, but even with, crack downs have been bloody.  I think this video speaks for itself:

The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

First, not quite sure how this is anything but an exercise in the First Amendment.  Methinks Miller needs to go back and reread that.  And, where was his decrying the Tea Partiers as they actually advocated violence?  My favorite part is the “thieves, and rapists” line.  No idea where that is even coming from.

“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached – is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

The bowel part is funny and I’ll admit I have issues with the organization or lack of (see Stephen Colbert’s interviews of members for some of the sillier sides of it all) but to lump everyone together saying they’re iPhone users is just false.  I’m sure many have Droids.

This is no popular uprising. This is garbage. And goodness knows they’re spewing their garbage – both politically and physically – every which way they can find.

How do you spew garbage physically?  Seriously the Democratic establishment doesn’t like these people as opposed to the Republican fronted Tea Party movement.  The last I checked the support of the movement was growing.  Add in the fact in there’s really no singular thought as to what the movement actually believes in it’s a bit hard to nail down exactly what it stands for – both politically and physically.

Wake up, pond scum. America is at war against a ruthless enemy.

Um, Wall Street?

Maybe, between bouts of self-pity and all the other tasty tidbits of narcissism you’ve been served up in your sheltered, comfy little worlds, you’ve heard terms like al-Qaeda and Islamicism.

And this enemy of mine — not of yours, apparently – must be getting a dark chuckle, if not an outright horselaugh – out of your vain, childish, self-destructive spectacle.

What does this have to do with al-Qaeda?  Miller does realize this has nothing to do with the war on terror, right?  Comic book writer Erik Larsen sums up the movement really well.

In the name of decency, go home to your parents, you losers. Go back to your mommas’ basements and play with your Lords Of Warcraft.

“Lords of Warcraft”?  Frank, go back to your drinking… Seriously, why the insult?  What does one have to do with the other?  This stereotype fits comic book fans more than those participating in the Occupy Movement.  He’s mixed up his insults, the proper one here is “dirty fucking hippie.”

Or better yet, enlist for the real thing. Maybe our military could whip some of you into shape.

They might not let you babies keep your iPhones, though. Try to soldier on.

First, make up your mind, do you want these people to join the military or go back to their parents basement?  Please make up your mind.  Second, I fully back our armed forces.  They, the police, EMTs and firemen are real life heroes.  But, I wonder, when did Frank Miller serve?  His hero Will Eisner did.  I found this interesting Eisner quote:

Memory is a very amorphous thing. It is selective and shaped by emotion . . . people are constantly in pursuit of the details of their past because it is from that they determine their own identity upon which they can base their strategy of survival.

It would seem that Miller is stuck in the past and has forged his current mindset squarely from the events of 9/11.  It was a horrible day and wars rage on today in an attempt to defeat those who attacked us, but not everything in the world today revolves around that horror.  The fact he can’t distinguish that is amazing and sad.  Miller was one of the greats.  Now, he’s a cranky old man who wants the damn kids of his lawn.

Mr. Green, On the Blog, With Some Rambling

Posted on by

Bookmark and Share

A frequent topic of mine here is the ramblings of right-wing blogger Avi Green.  In a post this past Monday, Green goes on the attack labeling me an “apologist, would-be politician” and a “leftist moonbat.”  This due to my criticisms of Green’s writing which you can read here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Seeing as he’s a political blogger, it’s only fitting for this site to cover his posts and of course correct him where he’s either factually incorrect, outright delusional or just hypocritical.  He accuses me of becoming “nasty and arrogant” in my writing.  Arrogance is an absolute trait of mine, but “nasty” doesn’t quite portray the snark correctly.  In his normal hyperbolic writing, this is on the level of Daily KOS vs. Pamela Geller, though I’m “less significant” in Green’s mind.  In the end I wonder if I’m so “insignificant” why does Green care what I have to say?

As usual, I must play the level headed one, using fact and reasoning to carefully pick apart his rather lengthy attempt to put me in my place.  So, lets began, shall we?

I’ll overlook the comment about this blog being “boring” (we can’t all have babes of the month now can we Ari?), and just get to Green’s first point, which is my coverage of the right’s issues with Peter David’s recent story in X-Factor concerning a character being Muslim.  I remind Green it’s just a story, in his assertion that Muslims would dislike mutants (seriously, we’re grown adults arguing this?).  He attempts to deflect my argument by changing the subject, a favorite tactic of his:

Taking things quite literally, I see. Just a sign that he really doesn’t want to argue. But all he’s doing is falling back on a classic argument at the same time: it’s all “just stories”. But with ludicrous real life issues thrown in. Sci-fi may be make-believe, but the damage done by al Qaeda is not.

Of course I take the writing “literally” as it’s the basis of Green’s argument.  By saying Muslims would find “any mutant who didn’t practice Islam” as inferior,  he himself takes the situation out of the fantasy world and bases it in reality.  The tool of allegory to teach a lesson or issue through story is lost by doing so.

Again the “Muslim as a terrorist” portrait constantly portrayed on his website is evoked.  I’ll use logic and bring us back to reality.  There are Muslims who are terrorists, just like there are Jews, Catholics, Christians, people of all backgrounds who are.  To paint an entire religion or belief system as evil, due to the actions of a few is narrow minded and to not not do so for all is hypocritical.

Mr. Green then admits the phrase of “moderate Muslims but not moderate Islam” is a phrase someone else has used.  Does this matter?  If anything it shows the lack of citation that peppers Green’s posts.  It doesn’t matter who said it originally, just that he’s using it.  Are all Irish Catholics bad because of the IRA?  I can understand the idea of just a subset of people are “evil” is a difficult topic and it’s hard to not paint everyone who shares traits with that subset as “evil” too.  But by not doing so Green is a hypocrite. But don’t worry, others have issues with this as well, it’s a tough line to walk one Congressman Peter King has trouble with.

Green then focuses on women’s roles through religious doctrine:

In Judeo-Christianity, it is considered abominable to molest a woman. However, if young Mr. Schenker were to consider what the Koran’s Sura 2:223 tells:

“Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like”

And also what Meredith Jessup relates happened to her in Egypt, maybe he’d be able to understand that Islam completely condones molesting women, and burka/chador or not, even then a woman isn’t safe in many Islamic countries. Unfortunately, we can’t expect someone who worked for a loon like Kerry to be rash.

Yeah, I’m the mean spirited while jabs like “loon” are thrown around.  But, lets actually dive into this, because in recent news we even see how other religions treat women as second class citizens.  It was yesterday that a Hasidic newspaper had to post a statement as to why two women were Photoshopped out of a photo of President Obama and his staff watching the raid on Osama bin Laden.  But it’s this statement I find the most interesting:

In Judeo-Christianity, it is considered abominable to molest a woman

That’s Judeo-Christianity with Western morals added in, not what the Bible or Torah actually says.  As Green enjoys quoting scripture, I’ll do my best to back my facts up with examples as well.

Deuteronomy says rape is ok, as long as you pay the father.  From Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

On slavery, pillaging and rape, Deuteronomy 20:10-14:

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

That it’s ok the murder a rape victim, from Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB:

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Deuteronomy seems to have a lot on the subject.  From Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB:

When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.  However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

I guess in Judeo-Christianity molestation is bad, but rape is quite ok in God’s eyes (as well as genocide, murder, pillaging and slavery).  Once again I punt it back to Green.  If you condemn one religion for it’s “acceptance” of rape, I sure hope you’d condemn Judaism and Christianity and all others who do so as well.  As I’ve shown above, they seem to have no problems with it.

And interesting how he considers a picture of a pretty model more concerning than an act of violence against a woman. Does this mean that if we put up a whole gallery of pictures of Sports Illustrated models we’ve literally committed a crime? Only to someone as begrudging as he is, apparently.

I have no issues with pictures of women, I’ve looked at a few, but it’s hard to take serious a website that decries the molestation and rape of women, when itself objectifies them.

Green fixates on Mohammed’s marriage of a 6 year old girl of which Mohammed had relations when she was the age of 9.  I don’t disagree with this as fact, nor do I think it’s ok by today’s standards.

Notice how he doesn’t clearly condemn Muhammed or acknowlege his own actions, like he wants to avoid an actual condemnation of Islam’s “prophet” or recognize that Muhammed’s beliefs are what Islam itself was built upon, and from what I can tell, seems to consider Christianity more of a problem.

In my original retort, I again brought up the double standard that this behavior isn’t isolated to Islam and that Catholic Priests abused young men and women.  I pointed out this is is a hypocritical stance (notice a pattern?).  Green ignores this fact, instead attempting to refocus the attention that I somehow think “Christianity” is more of a problem.  If you read that post I point out Green’s hypocrisy, not overlooking what Mohammed did, just pointing out fact (there’s that crazy word again) that there are more men of religion who have committed these acts.  I’m waiting for Green to condemn those acts as I have condemned all of them, no matter the religion.  I don’t pick and choose what disgusts me based on what God one prays to, instead I condemn the act(s) and who committed them.

When it comes to Mohammed and his marriage to Aishah, I thought this paper was an interesting read as to the history concerning it (good and bad) and the historical and cultural context of the time.  Context and cultural norms for different time periods are difficult concepts I guess.

Green then shows his homophobic nature:

He seems oblivious to how, as this study tells, many of the priests who committed the rapes were gay, and apparently is more comfy to damn Christianity as a whole. On homosexuals, on the other hand, it appears he’s taken a PC route.

I’m guessing after the Muslims, the Gays would be next in Green’s world.

But Green admits to the wrongs committed by other Religions:

Of course Christianity’s followers of yore have done some very bad things. The Crusaders didn’t make a difference between Judaism and Islam, and even King David did something very wrong when he sent Bathsheba’s first husband into frontline combat where he’d be likely to get killed, all so he could marry her instead. But he doesn’t consider how following the Spanish Inquisition, Christianity did make an effort to reform, and by the end of the 19th century, most totalitarians were of a fairly secular nature, thanks to Karl Marx. I guess the French Calvinists and Protestants don’t get any credit for their efforts to make improvements, nor does Pope Benedict for his own effort to clear the Jews in Jesus’ death? That’s sad.

Going with that logic, does the good some Muslims have done to write the wrongs committed by others make that all good?  I guess committing the act is ok, as long as you apologize for it after.  So, it comes back to a question again, should all acts, no matter who they are perpetrated by, be condemned?

I also found humor in this:

But he doesn’t consider how following the Spanish Inquisition, Christianity did make an effort to reform, and by the end of the 19th century, most totalitarians were of a fairly secular nature, thanks to Karl Marx.

Karl Marx the commie/socialist is good for something I guess!

I challenged Green to do some good or put together a conservative political comic of his own.  I even offered to promote and chip in some money to fund the comic.  Instead of raging against Muslims, I suggested he use his traffic to raise funds for victims of 9/11 or fight to make sure first responders are cared for.  I point out I see 0 posts on his website concerning the well being of first responders and Green challenges me to back it up.  When I search for “charity” I found 0 posts raising money for the victims of 9/11.  For the word “fundraising” it’s 0, for “money” it’s 0 and “first responders” has some posts where the words are mentioned with 0 actually calling for Congress to care for them.  Again, I lay down the challenge to help the victims of tragedy, not just rage against an entire religion.  One act does some good, the other achieves nothing.

Green might have missed the issue about making sure the funding is there to care for first responders, so here’s a video from the Daily Show, where someone with a platform and audience does some good.  They eventually got the funding.

[vodpod id=Video.5139650&w=425&h=350&fv=autoPlay%3Dfalse]

Green continues onto the subject of my criticism of his criticism about Sarah Glidden’s The Waiting Room.

Notice something funny about the links he used? They’re from Wikipedia! LOL. Just how does a site anyone can edit prove automatically what he wants to buy? Besides, my problem isn’t the free education, in and of itself, it’s whether it allows free ideas.

I can understand how Green would dislike a website where ideas are exchanged and facts are backed up with citations.  One can look at the bottom of a Wikipedia article at all of those citations and realize it’s all just made up.  A free forum where others can challenge your facts isn’t good enough for Green.  I could of linked directly to the UNESCO fact sheet I cited, but why not link to an entire article that gives the good and bad?  I guess I’ll just stick to quoting Fox like Green does, at least they’re “fair and balanced.”

And where would I get the idea that Green dislikes “free education?”  How about Green’s own words:

…the political cartoon site says the colleges were free, which sounds vaguely similar to the notions some communists/marxists/socialists have of how to do things

But towards the end of the rambling Green gets interesting citing a purchase I made of Brad Meltzer’s Identity Crisis (you are what you read I guess?), another shot at my former boss John Kerry and a really strange attempt to connect himself Dave Medved (as if his family once knowing someone matters).

So what have we learned here? If anything, that Mr. Schenker is a sadly angry and vindictive man on his part, who detests the right no matter how much he may try to deny it. And that’s a shame, but I guess we can’t expect much better from someone who worked for John “you’ll end up in Iraq” Kerry. What a shame, if anything, that I can’t call him my lantzman.

I could go on and on and say “some of my best friends are Republicans or of the right persuasion” but that argument sounds silly.  I absolutely don’t hate the right, in fact on some issues, I’m conservative.  What I detest is hypocrisy, something Green shows off time and time again in his rants.  Whether that hypocrisy is on the left or the right, it doesn’t matter, I’ll point it out and challenge it.  I also am disgusted by blind hatred.  Labeling an entire religion or an entire people for the acts of the few is close minded and has no place in civil society or civil debate.  Again, whether that comes from the right or the left, it doesn’t matter.  Condemn those who commit the act, condemn those who praise the acts, condemn the act itself.  Don’t paint broad strokes due to the acts of so few and absolutely don’t pick and choose what to condemn just based on the God they choose to pray to.

In the end I realize no matter how much fact or logic I use in my writing, I will never change Mr. Green’s mind.  Sometimes you need to let it go and just accept that a “hater’s gonna hate.”

batman haters gonna hate

The Right Blindly Attacks Sarah Glidden’s The Waiting Room

Posted on by

Bookmark and Share

Sarah Glidden who has used graphic narrative to explore her own thoughts on being Jewish and traveling to Israel for Birthright has focused on Iraqi refugees displaced since the recent war in Iraq and now reside in Syria in The Waiting Room.  The 20 page web comic is fairly balanced focusing on the hurdles of the refugees.  In Syria, they are not allowed to hold jobs, but many are educated and have skills they can bring to the workforce.  At the same time their status as refugees remains in limbo, forcing them to rely on the slow processes of international efforts to gain basic necessities such as food and education.

What a shock in the usual culprit over at The Astute Blogger Avi Green saw this as an opportunity to attack Glidden for her reporting and also not bother to fact check any of his incorrect opinions.  Right off the bat Green labels Glidden as a “would-be” graphic novelist, demeaning her first piece of work, How to Understand Israel in 60 Days or Less.  I thought her first piece of major work was excellent, giving it an overall 10 in the review.  She’s not a “would-be,” she is a graphic novelist.  That remark coming from a “would-be” journalist like Green is downright unnecessary and petty like much of his attacks.

I’m also not quite sure Green has read her work, as he calls it a “a negative stance on Zionism.”  The graphic novel is anything but.  Instead Glidden admits going into the story she expects a hard core stance by her Birthright guides and that she comes from a more left perspective.  Her views by the end are different than going in, as she comes out with a greater understanding of the situation in Israel.  It’s actually quite a positive depiction of Israel.

Green begins to dissect and attack the work at hand, and as usual throws out factually incorrect statements that simple Google searches debunk.  His first issue is Glidden’s commentary on the Iraqi educational system is this panel.

Green has this to say:

Really, was it that solid in education? Saddam lived and died a Muslim, holding a Koran at his trial, and his government run universities would most likely have incorporated the Religion of Peace and anti-Israelist education into their curriculum (one of the other panels at the political cartoon site says the colleges were free, which sounds vaguely similar to the notions some communists/marxists/socialists have of how to do things). I’m not sure you can call that solid stuff. Nor can a religion/education/political system that calls for jihad, oppression of women, and considers Jews “sons of apes and pigs” be something to learn from. And why do I get the vibe these refugees wouldn’t give a crap about how Saddam fired scud missiles at Israel back in 1991, causing plenty of people, myself included, to have to hide in airtight rooms?

A simple search online actually reveals the facts.  According to UNESCO prior to the 1991 Gulf War ” Iraq had one of the best educational performances in the region. Primary school Gross Enrollment Rate was 100% and literacy levels were high.”  Since the war with Iran and especially after the 1991 Gulf War, education has slid and declined.  However, they are still considered an educated populace.

Green also shows his blind hatred of any sort of left philosophy calling the Iraq free college education “vaguely similar to the notions some communists/marxists/socialists have of how to do things.”  I guess Green also is against the free primary education here in the United States.  I do wonder if hey actually thinks through his hypocrisy or just slings out the bullshit without even thinking.  Free education exists in many countries throughout the world and in non-communist/marxist/socialist nations like Australia and Brazil.  In Australia and Brazil that does include college education.  But again, a simple Google search would have allowed Green to do real journalism.  Not the “would-be” type he practices.

But really Green’s blind hatred for Iraq and Iraqi’s is present in this telling line:

And why do I get the vibe these refugees wouldn’t give a crap about how Saddam fired scud missiles at Israel back in 1991, causing plenty of people, myself included, to have to hide in airtight rooms?

His criticism as shown in that quote has nothing to do with facts or the story as presented, it’s his absolute hatred for Iraqis.  Green seems to forget back in 1991 there was a war that raged in the Gulf that forced allies to band together a remove Saddam from the invaded Kuwait.  Those attacks were part of that war.  That’s just a fact.  I’m sorry he needed to hide in an airtight room as the allies bombed Iraq as well.

But lets continue to dissect and disarm Green’s fantasy land attack.  He then goes on in his rant of a blog post calling the web comic “propaganda” citing this panel.

Green has this to say:

So the woman drawn in the panel blames America for her misfortunes, not Saddam for the oppression, nor the terrorists who went on a rampage after the US raid. Perhaps she might want to consider that nearly a decade ago, when the raid took place, there were terrorists going through Syria to get to Iraq, and Syria helped and encouraged many to do so. But she probably won’t. The 7th panel at the political cartoon site has the interviewee saying, “America set fire to my country and we lost everything”. Not exactly. There is a legitimate case that could be made that the US military didn’t do a good enough job at defeating the invading terrorists properly at the beginning, and this is what led to their misfortunes. But it appears she’s only blaming America for invading in the first place, and not the jihadists who crossed through Syria into Iraq. What, they don’t have any responsibility?

What Green leaves out is this panel:

Clearly there are Iraqis who have no problem with America, especially if they’re moving here or receiving their education from American universities as this web comic tells.  The above is an absolute misrepresentation of what’s presented by leaving out further panels.

But again Green shows off his hypocrisy.  He rages against, and clearly hates Iraqis for their attack against Israel as part of the 1991 Gulf War.  But when an Iraqi shows distrust and dislikes the United States for bombing their country, that’s not ok.  Pretty sure there’s something up with that logic there.

But he seems to be mixing up what people are talking about.  In his “logical” response about someone’s dislike of the United States due to the second Gulf War, Green takes a divergent discussion bringing up terrorists and jihadists invading from Syria.  One has nothing to do with the other.  This next part is brilliance by Green:

“America set fire to my country and we lost everything”. Not exactly.

So were you there Avi?  Did you see the bombs fall?  It’s kind of hard to say that this didn’t occur.  We bombed that country, infrastructure was destroyed, people lost lives, it happened.  How did it “not exactly” happen?  Because we didn’t do a good enough job of beating the shit out of the nation.  Green goes on “There is a legitimate case that could be made that the US military didn’t do a good enough job at defeating the invading terrorists properly at the beginning, and this is what led to their misfortunes.”  Green actually advocates for blowing more things up.  So I guess his “not exactly” was more in reference to the refugee’s statement of “lost everything” and the United States military could have actually destroyed more.

Green then takes issue with an article by Comic Beat on this work by Glidden:

Glidden is definitely following in the footsteps of the incomparable Joe Sacco in becoming a graphic reporter on the trouble spots of the world. While there’s only one Sacco, Glidden is finding her own place in the field with her work.

Avi spends the rest of the post beating up on Sacco who at times does take a side in his “graphic reporting.”  While the Comic Beat is just stating the fact that like Sacco, Glidden is using graphic novels as a way to report and depict real world events, Green takes it more personal (he really hates Sacco) as if Glidden has the same stances or beliefs as Sacco:

When they start comparisons with a foul fiend like Sacco, something is wrong.

and

And back to Glidden now, it’s tragic that the artform of comics is being abused by such loathsome people to attack Israel and America. I wonder if her next destination will be to attack the Israeli army (which I served in when I was 19-21, even if it was only in supplies duties)? She is just as bad news as Sacco.

Say what you will about Sacco’s work, the only comparison that two have is they both cover the Middle East and both use graphic journalism to tell their tales.  Their view points are divergent.  But again, Green’s attacks on Sacco are telling.  Green clearly has issues with free speech and viewpoints that aren’t his own.

Green is a Zionist, he doesn’t believe that people called “Palestinian” exist.  When that’s the viewpoint you take, it’s hard to hear the opinion, take or viewpoint of anyone else.  And as long as Green presents misleading statements, lies stated as facts and uncalled for attacks, I’ll be here to call his bullshit.

David Hine Talks Muslim Batman

Posted on by

Bookmark and Share

Batman and Robin on MuslimsWriter David Hine talked with the BBC World Service over the controversy surrounding his use of an Algerian Frenchman for a Batman, Inc. recruit.  This interview was in response to the uproar of the introduction of the character Nightrunner.

When asked if he was part of indoctrination:

Well not only have I not been indoctrinated, I have no intention of indoctrining anyone else. What we’re doing is writing a series of stories about Batman going worldwide . It’s becoming a global franchise, so we’re going to have a Batman in France, we’re going to have a Batman in Argentina, in Africa. It was my task to come up with a story set in Paris. and I wanted something new, something a little bit different…

On whether this is political correctness run amok:

I’m not sure whther political correctness is supposed to be good or bad, I don’t even think about it, I mean, I’m writing a story that entertains, that I want the characters  to be engaging and interesting, and if there are political elements, obviously, there are going to be political elements come into a story but that’s not what we’re setting out to do.

I must say having seen these bloggers who I think are based in America, the reaction has been  stunning, overwhelming from both American and French fans, and it’s been quite, I’ve been very pleased with the reaction and people are loving the character, irritated by this comments.

We have our own interview with Hine coming down the pipeline

Twitter Tuesday

Posted on by

Bookmark and Share

We scour Twitter to see what politically oriented Tweets those in the comic industry are posting.  It was a quieter week than normal, but we found one that caught our eye.

« Older Entries