Where comics writer Kurt Busiek now posts his sad political rants

Years ago, when X was Twitter, leftist writer Kurt Busiek had plenty of terrible leftist drivel to say there. Today, after Elon Musk bought out the social network, it looks like Busiek no longer posts there, presumably because he can't stand being on a rightist-owned site, and now he's turned to Blue Sky. And here's a few examples of his continuing leftist rhetoric there. For example:

Wow, look how he's trying to draw a moral equivalence between antisemitic and "anti-palestinian" sentiment, making it sound like Iran's mullahs are literally against local Moslems, or as though the fabricated race/community "palestine" isn't Islamic. Put another way, Busiek's clearly not interested in doing any research to determine that the whole name "palestine" was a Roman conception, drawing from the Philistines, to humiliate the land of Stan Lee's ancestry. Also interesting how Busiek simultaneously attacks the POTUS who's now overseeing a raid against Iran's tyrants to destroy their murderous weaponry. Whose side is Busiek on anyway? He's right that Iran's got anti-LGBTQ positions, but, if he won't acknowledge it stems from the teachings of the koran, then his approach there falls flat too.

Then we have:

The USA military many sigificant achievements so far, like destroying Iran's naval crafts, and Busiek's ungrateful? Just what and who does Busiek stand for anyway?

Busiek even posted the following involving Israel:

How intriguing he lectures us all that Israelis across the board literally don't support Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, this despite how recent pollings show he has sizable support, and plenty of support for the war against Iran's tyrants. What's telling here is how Busiek doesn't back up his claim, and while he may acknowledge the Islamofascists of Iran are willing to attack civilians, his absurd biases ruin any notion he respects the Israeli public on anything. Also atrocious is how Busiek subtly compares Netanyahu to the Iranian Islamofascists. Shame.

Next we have this:

And is that supposed to mean the military commanders don't face any danger, say, from enemy moles and sleeper agents? Oh good grief, this is just so naive. Then there's this and this:

Busiek won't learn lessons either, that wasting so much energy attacking conservatives doesn't improve the situation. And if he's implying Americans and Israelis who allegedly want war should die, that's disturbing as well, and sick. Besides, it's not that any sensible person literally wants war for "fun". They support war against tyrants because there's situations where force is inevitable if that's what it takes to stop barbarism. Busiek also made unverified claims that Israelis literally are guilty of war crimes, and also this item, and this one:

Well if that's what he thinks, but doesn't think the Islamofascists running Afghanistan today aren't guilty of war crimes against the ancient Buddhist inhabitants who originally dwelled there, that's disgraceful too. Ditto if he doesn't think Turkey's guilty of war crimes against Armenia. And Busiek also reposted the following from Tom Peyer:

I guess that means Mr. Peyer's also hostile to Israelis, conservative or otherwise? For shame. Later on, Busiek made a nasty comment about Trump:

And then, what did Busiek say about the US army attack on Kharg island?

If he's no military expert, he has no business commenting, and also had no business writing superhero comics. But who knows, maybe today, he regrets writing superhero tales. It is rather funny he'd write anything starring say, Captain America, considering Kirby/Simon created Steve Rogers as a military cadet who volunteered for the super-soldier serum experiment that made him the formidable fighter he became. But then, that's why, if Busiek really feels that way today, he should no longer be writing superhero themes, plain and simple.

Interestingly, if it matters, Busiek also mentioned the disgraced Gerard Jones, and said the following:

What's that supposed to mean long before? Does that mean people not wanting to benefit monsters is something that only recently came up? Let's be clear. If Jones had been caught in the acts years before and it made headlines in the news, you can be sure there's plenty who'd want nothing to do with him anymore. And must it be pointed out Staton didn't just illustrate comics written by sick Jones? Staton got into comics as far back as the early 1970s, and he'd drawn Green Lantern before, beginning in 1979, for stories written by writers with far better reputations than Jones will ever have at this stage. Staton also has other comics to his credits (including some Batman books), and even a few at Marvel. What, does Busiek have a grudge against Staton or something? That aside, if there's anything Busiek wrote that perhaps we shouldn't benefit, it's his creator-owned comics like Astro City and Arrowsmith, based on how he's indirectly insulting plenty of decent USA military officials who're working hard to bring down the Islamic regime in Iran. Don't their reputations matter? Don't even the reputations of 911 Families matter? Why, what about Betty Mahmoody, who was fortunate to get her daughter out of Iran during the mid 1980s after her creep of a husband taqqiya'd them into traveling there? How don't topics like those ever matter to Busiek?

And since Jones came up, this is very embarrassing, but it appears that since his release from prison nearly 4 years ago, he's been quietly turning up on social media again, and even posting chapters of a book he wrote called "Ginny Good" on a Substack site. Most disgraced writers of his sort would ususally just disappear after all the harm they caused. But Jones appears to be one of those sorts who cannot keep his stupid mouth shut. And if there's at least one example of what political rants he's posting to put on display here, it's the following:

Well. Looks like Jones hasn't changed from the time he first said a decade back he considered Trump a "fascist". And I guess he also considers Trump a communist, seeing how he claims the POTUS wants to be like Vladimir Putin. And all this after Jones was arrested and convicted for illegally hoarding child porn. What, does he think because he's been paroled from prison after 2 thirds of his sentence, it's okay to go right back to such crap again? As though it weren't bad enough he was trying to downplay his criminal offenses when he was still behind bars. All that aside, does he really think anybody wants to read even his text-only books after what he did? Such a repellent disgrace indeed. I wonder how Busiek feels about having written a backup story for Wonder Man in one of the 2 annuals for the 1991-94 series Jones wrote over 3 decades ago? That series was practically worthless as it is.

It's very sad some of the same leftist comics writers of the past decade refuse to stop wasting time on divisive politics, yet quite interesting how, ever since X/Twitter was bought out by a conservative supporter, they decided to jump ship from that service over to one that's more attuned to their leftist beliefs. That, alas, doesn't make the situation any better for the well being of the world.

Frank Miller's remains defeatist during a convention in Ireland

Down the Tubes gave some coverage of comics artist Miller's trip to a convention in Dublin, Ireland, where his recent documentary, American Genius, was screened, and his 2011 GN, Holy Terror, is also brought up, which he may have otherwise disowned in a very sad example of capitulation several years back. Most eyebrow raising here is that he actually raises the issue of censorship:

He also spoke about censorship, about how it’s like being trapped, and how “it’s worse than anything, censorship always achieves the opposite of what it intends to”. He went on to say that “through the 1950s, when they clamped down on every foreign entertainment we loved, the most subversive stuff in the world surfaced”. This part is interesting to me, as I am looking at Irish censorship of that time, that relates to comics.

Frank then reflected on entering the film business, and how he was working on Robocop II and he said “I convinced myself this thing would be this thing was going to win an Oscar” and how it was brilliant, and he would fix it, fix it in editing and how “I’d been convinced that something was brilliant, that wasn’t that good”.

Well first, I don't think he was ever a success at writing screenplays himself at the time, nor was he ever successful at crafting a film based on Will Eisner's Spirit, as he once did around the time Eisner passed on. So who's to say he's truly a "genius"? Not really.

But how funny if he's bringing up censorship problems, when he himself, in a way, succumbed to just that when he expressed regret over crafting Holy Terror about 7 years ago? And a lot of good it did him, since the Thought Bubble convention shunned him? All that does is put a damper on his whole argument, and suggest he's not very firm on his positions at all.

There's also the following claim that's bizarre:

Dave Gibbons spoke about Martha Washington, and then Frank spoke about Sin City, the black and white crime comic and how Dark Horse “didn’t flinch”, even though there were no superheroes, and which, at the time, was unheard of. We see a variety of authors, Al Williamson, and John Romita Jr., talk about comics they worked on with Frank, and there is discussion about original art.

Gee, hasn't the writer heard of say, Adam Strange, Nick Fury, and even Jon Sable, Freelance? Those weren't exactly characters known for being superheroes. Why, even the Warlord and Omega Men could be considered non-superheroes within such a universe. Even Marvel's New Universe line, short as it was, may have had characters who weren't superheroes either. We could even add the GI Joe and Transformers comics. Those aren't superheroes by any stretch either, no matter how close they came to having similar adventures. Now, here's more about the documentary:

The film pivots to the 21st century, and after the events of 9/11. One of the narrators explains how he “used nails to scrape the ink into the page because he had such visual visceral response to everything that happened during 9/11 and this was one of his first expressions of his anger and pain” we are told.

“I was still breathing in the stink,” says Frank Miller, visibly emotional, “of concrete, glass and human flesh” and how immense it was going through a “darkness, a sadness and horror”… “it turned into rage later”.

[...] The time shifts twice now, as two hours later, I learned that Frank was at home in New York during the 9/11 attack and tragedy, something I had suspected, but could not imagine. There were no shortage of connections at the time, including its impact his work on The Dark Knight Strikes Again, and, later, for example, his controversial contribution for the anthology, 9-11: Artists Respond. Art and anger, the expression of an artistic response, dealing with upset or trauma through art, it is a very interesting aspect.

I have no idea what the precise contribution was, but is the columnist complaining about something published in response to a horrifying incident where thousands of people were murdered by jihadists? It's bad enough he let's his leftism be clear later in the article. Now we have to hear something's wrong with contributing to what one would think was meant to be a tribute to the victims? Though as I'm aware, at least one special published around that time did contain left-wing messaging, and it's chilling now to wonder if Miller did anything similar. Because as revealed by the following:

Back to the film, which continues apace, and later the music later goes deep, a bass sound, and we learn that that the American conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart was a fan of Frank’s work, and tried, perhaps, to use him. Frank talks about how he met Breitbart, and discusses how people have an agenda, and how individuals had an agenda.

This element of the film was very specific. You can see how he is so unhappy with this time, and how he was near “something that gave us Donald Trump” and this was not something Frank was happy with. Frank wasn’t having any part of that (Breitbart News itself reported in 2017 how Miller described Trump as a “buffoon” during a Comic Con panel), and stayed very much away from them.

Obviously unhappy, Frank spoke of how the “propaganda” that Breitbart practised crossed a line into the territory on “no respect”.

Then Frank was asked a direct question: “Do you regret your comments on the other Occupy Wall Street people?” and he responded he was “certainly inconsiderate of the people who were occupying Wall Street, so sure,” and he reflects, “it was very aggressive”.

It's already old news he sadly backtracked, but what's really bizarre is that, at the time he first made the condemnations, he never provided even a single article link to back up his accusations. Let's take this report and also this one as examples. Why didn't he direct anybody to check those out? I never understood that at all. If anything, Miller's retraction sounds like a frantic effort to mend fences with fellow leftists when he didn't have to, and that's another huge problem - he didn't have the courage to part ways with them. I guess being famous was far too important to him than justice. And Breitbart's also problematic for him? For shame. If memory serves, the late Andrew Breitbart was favorable to Israel, and the news site named after him, in a manner of speaking, got a special start in Israel. Recalling Holy Terror, a subject of the American Genius documentary, is supposed to involve an Israeli mentor or something, I must say I find it difficult to understand why Miller has an issue with somebody in real life who was helpful to Israel in his time, unless maybe Miller wasn't so strong on his positions then at the time after all? He certainly doesn't seem to think much now of saying he supported patriotism back then either. And then, turning to the documentary's discussion of Holy Terror, it says:

The film then switches to footage of what I would consider right wing television championing his controversial project, Holy Terror, the film purposely showing its impact, in that regard, feeding the Islamophobic hatred that some people harbour, recognising an aspect of Frank’s past work that I had not expected to see.

“I get that it was complete freedom and a break,” Frank acknowledges, “and it shows… I was not at my best.”

The discussion moves to actors and film aspects, but then comes back to Frank, and he says how he was processing a large “amount of alcohol without even being aware of what I was doing.”

I realize Miller had problems with addiction, as he later told, but this seems like a cheap, all too convenient excuse to say he was almost literally wrong in his beliefs at the time. Wow, he sure isn't doing much to make me think he's worth upholding. Not that I ever thought much of his resume before though, recalling GNs like Sin City seem to comprise the bulk of his output, and hardly anything that could be described as optimistic. That's decidedly one of Miller's biggest problems, and why he's unfortunately overrated. Perhaps that's why, if there's any mistake Breitbart made, it was being too big a fan of Miller's. Also, lest we forget, Miller's art style's become very mediocre over the years, to the point where one can wonder why he continues his artist career, if he does. He even tears down on Will Eisner:

He then spoke about his “biggest feeling about addiction” which was a “sickening sense of missing time”. I thought this was powerful and he spoke about when he sat down with Will Eisner, over dinner, and Eisner did not want to talk about life, or what he had done wrong, but rather he had to go out, “travel the world, and get his heart broken”.

Then we see him talking about how he loves people who tell “heart-rending” stories, and how some people he admires, have made “terrible and tragic mistakes” and how he has to “learn from them, to to learn the true nature of life and what success is”.

One can only wonder if he believes Eisner made a mistake to research Islamic antisemitism, as he did when he was developing his last GN, The Plot. Miller certainly lets down Eisner's memory with this defeatist position, that's for sure, and what Miller says here about Eisner sounds rather forced, like he's looking for an opportunity to rip down on a guy I thought was a respectable mentor to him. And recalling the disgraced Neil Gaiman was a contributor to the documentary, does Miller come to terms with how Gaiman made mistakes? Who knows? It's shameful how he clings to friendship with otherwise unreliable figures, and recalling he wasn't credited to a letter written by Batman specialists in support of the Israeli family of an infant who was murdered by Hamas jihadists, one can only wonder - is Miller really that cowardly he couldn't add his name to the list, assuming the Wyman Institute asked him? That's not helpful at all. What's he "learning" then? The discussion of the documentary continues:

Frank Miller: American Genius is definitely not a piece of propaganda, as it goes to the weaknesses and failings that have occurred to Frank, which I had not anticipated, issues which were discussed included his alcoholism and its effect on him, his anger and the graphic novel Holy Terror, and his take on the Occupy Wall Street Movement. I wasn’t aware that during that darker phase of his life, that Breitbart and Steve Bannon, had become somewhat enthralled and desired to be aligned with Frank.

The film was not afraid of addressing parts of Frank’s life that one would be ashamed of, and I felt that this film was prepared to probe and ask hard questions. It was reflecting on what had happened, and Frank came across as quite remorseful about what had occurred, and repentant.

It is not for me to decide what others will make of the film, or whether they can find any form of reconciliation for the harsh utterances he made and the work that was Holy Terror. I am not and was not impacted in the way others were, who will have felt outrage with validity; that they were impacted, hurt or targeted. My position and privilege protect me, and it is easy for me to consider that to fail is to be human. So it it is to individuals to consider and decide for themselves their view, if they even want to.

Gee, the writer sure is intent on validating the defeatist side of the whole affair. Has he even ever met 9-11 Families? In the near quarter century since the tragedy, people like him never seem to bring up the victims and their families, as if they don't matter. At worst, the defeatists act like they don't even exist. It's a similar situation with Israel post-October 7, 2023. Also note he complained earlier about "islamophobia", and that's pretty telling as well. And on that note, the columnist then proceeds to sugarcoat pro-Hamas movements in Ireland:

This is no scarf to give warmth or comfort. It is an international quilt of resistance, which has been crocheted in rural Ireland by a group of women and their international allies for Palestinian children killed in Gaza. This is “Craftivism” and the quilt is “a gesture of remembrance, resistance, and rage at the appalling loss of life in Palestine.”

Wow, so much feeling for "palestinians", but none for Israeli victims of Islamofascism, huh? Or even the Irish victims of the same? That's the impression one can get from this otherwise one-sided disgust and sorry excuse for a pop culture column, which even proceeds to sugarcoat anti-Israel cartoonist Joe Sacco:

I had picked up Footnotes in Gaza by Joe Sacco earlier in the day, at the Oxfam charity table at Dublin Comic Con. Charity tables at conventions turn up the most unusual things, and I think they add a lovely aspect, so I rummage under the table, and find this amazing book, and I am asked whether it was a good book, as I commented that I had it, even though I was considering it, you can always gift such a book, I reckon, and I respond, “one of the best” I says, “Sacco is brilliant and one might find a path to understanding what is happening now, and an appreciation of the history for sure.

Oh yeah, Sacco's a pure god, but Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster are nothing, is that it? Such a disgrace. And no objections to how "palestinians" are indoctrinating their children with the Religion of Peace? There's another sad example of failure right there. The writer then says:

I am back in the room with Frank and many fans, and I have three questions in mind, I have mentioned to comic reading pals over the years, that I have these questions, for some time, that I wanted to ask them of him, long before I knew he would be in Ireland. The third, which sadly I do not get to ask, would be tricky, although possibly the easiest in this setting, as I want to ask Frank “If he hates the Irish”, given his portrayal of David the bomb maker in Holy Terror and The Mercenaries in Sin City as Irish; and I am not altogether sure that the Irish aspect was a positive element in Daredevil, and if Matt Murdoch is crippled by his Irish Catholicism – but I did not get to ask this question. Probably for the best.

My second question was about 9/11 and as you know, I asked this on Monday.

After all the defeatism, one could wonder if Miller really cares about the better interests of the Irish at all, though an even better query is whether the columnist does, after all Ireland's gone through, and even Britain, at the hands of the Religion of Peace, which the Gazans he speaks of adhere to, and many of them even kept Mein Kamph in their houses. What, is that okay if they follow those kind of horrific belief systems? That Islamic indoctrination practically led to October 7, 2023. It even led to the assault on Salman Rushdie. On which note, is Miller aware of verses in the koran like 47:4? There's valid issues that can be made about the "Religion of Peace", and he throws them all away just to remain in the "good graces" of the leftists with whom he produced the documentary.

In the end, I'm very disappointed with Miller, who appears to have made use of the American Genius documentary as a means of groveling for all the wrong reasons. Mike Baron and Chuck Dixon, by contrast, will likely never get a documentary about their careers by contrast. And as for the Down The Tubes news site, it's more like down the drain, seeing how far-left their approach really is, so what business do they have speaking for the medium anyway? Miller has at least a few allusions to WW2 in his writings, and his standings today end up making them look like a joke. Does he also think communism isn't worth protesting? From what I know, Miller was unhappy in the 90s when Marvel put Elektra to more use again, but considering how poor his own viewpoints have become, that's why I don't think Miller has any business complaining that Marvel decided to bring the kunoichi he created in 1981 back into the spotlight again. All that matters is how artistically successful that was, and post-2000, it definitely wasn't much. But then, it's not like Miller's had much to do with Marvel and Daredevil for years now, so maybe he at least understands it's hardly worth it to be so petty. He has recently returned to work with them on a joint project with DC, for a Batman/Wolverine crossover. but again, his artwork has become so forced and mediocre, what's the use beyond the artist's name recognition?

And that's got to be the problem with how that comic's being sold too - just upon that Miller's the illustrator. But that alone doesn't guarantee artistic success, even story-wise. All that aside, my problem with Miller, again, is that he's the kind of creator who's far too obsessed with all that's dark, yet when a serious issue like Islamic terrorism comes about, he turns defeatist, as is already old news. When it comes to brighter storytelling, there's very little of that in Miller's resume, as again, he's just so obsessed with making use of Batman for reasons increasingly pointless. No doubt, a similar argument could be made involving Wolverine. And Miller even has the gall to throw Eisner under the bus. I just don't know what Miller's still working in entertainment for, or why we have to consider Sin City fantastic art any more than anything else. Miller's definitely past his prime, and the defeatist path he's taken of recent only feeds into the narrative the far-left wants to hear. And all this just explains why, beyond Daredevil, there's little else he's ever drawn and written that I've ever cared for.

50 creators who worked on Batman call for release of Israeli infant hostage whose family wore T-shirts of the Masked Manhunter, & Doonesbury cartoonist depicts Hamas properly

Something most remarkable was performed by quite a few comics contributors, old and new, who've had writing/art/editing credits on Batman over past years, as the Times of Israel reports:

Fifty creators of the iconic Batman superhero character signed a petition urging the governments of Egypt and Qatar to press for the release of Yarden and Shiri Bibas along with their two red-haired sons, Ariel and Kfir. All four family members have been held hostage in Gaza since October 7.

The family was kidnapped from Nir Oz by Hamas terrorists on October 7, a day that saw 3,000 terrorists infiltrate southern Israel to massacre 1,200 Israelis — most of them civilians — and kidnap 253 people into the Strip. Mother Shiri and her sons were captured separately from her husband Yarden.

One of the iconic images of the family that has been circulated since their capture shows the four wearing Batman apparel. Ariel, 4, is a dedicated fan of the Gotham City protector.

The petition was sent to Egyptian and Qatari ambassadors in Washington, DC, on April 12. The effort was organized by Dr. Rafael Medoff, historian and director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.

“These comics creators have spent decades developing a hero who fights for the innocent and stands as a beacon of hope for his community, and we’re trying to channel that spirit through this effort,” Medoff told The Times of Israel. [...]

Some of the Bibas petition’s high-profile signees include Mike Carlin, DC’s head of animation; longtime DC publisher Paul Levitz; and former president of Warner Animation Sander Schwartz.

The petition was also signed by some of Batman’s veteran writers, including Chip Zdansky and Mark Waid. Leading artists from the franchise who signed include Mark Bagley, Dan Jurgens, Denys Cowan and Amanda Conner, the celebrated artist behind the Joker’s girlfriend, Harley Quinn.

“As members of the community of Batman writers and artists, we are contacting you concerning the young Batman fan who was taken hostage by terrorists and held in Gaza since last October 7,” said the creators.

“Moved by the many anecdotes of Ariel’s affection for the iconic character who has become a symbol of hope and justice for so many, we implore your governments to exercise all possible leverage on Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to immediately release the Bibas family, and all the Israeli hostages, from captivity,” said the petition.

Well this definitely is amazing, considering how quite a few of these same creators, even the veterans, have taken such a lenient position on Islam in the past, and on that note, maybe it'd be a good idea to remind everyone why they still have fences to mend, and not just in the sense they've acted as apologists for the Religion of Peace in some way or other.

For example, Levitz, when he was in charge of DC comics, vehemently refused to greenlight Frank Miller's story that later became Holy Terror, yet Levitz had no issue going ahead with a collaboration with the Kuwaiti publishers of a propaganda comic called The 99. Waid was once involved in the writing of the storylines that led to Age of Apocalypse in X-Men, which drew a bizarre moral equation between Israel's officials and the PLO. Zdarsky's quite a woke leftist ideologue himself, as is writer Andrew Farago, the museum curator who attacked Comicsgate and blocks even Jewish X posters who could support the hashtag. Jurgens once wrote an apologia tale for Islam in the pages of Superman, as did Mike Grell in Iron Man during the early 2000s, and should it be mentioned it's ludicrous and offensive how a lethal villainess like Harley Quinn is being depicted with a Jewish background? After all, chances they'd do something similar with a Moslem character are next to nothing.

The writers who signed onto Wyman Institute's petition who do impress me more are Chuck Dixon, Ann Nocenti and even Steve Englehart. The latter 2 are leftist, to my knowledge, but unlike a lot of modern ones, seem to recognize the advantage of avoiding divisive statements, on social media or otherwise.

No stranger to Batman lore, Medoff penned an essay for a book called “Theology and Batman.” One of the book’s central themes is the theodicy — or sense of redemption — Batman brings to the world by vindicating goodness over evil.

Many of the creators of Batman, Superman and other superheroes were of Jewish descent. Quite a few books and essays have been written about how these creators were influenced by Jewish history while at their drawing boards.

Yes, but whatever the background of the creators, those of more recent times aren't exactly helping matters, if the latter of these 2 examples says something:

Earlier in 2024, an issue of DC’s “The Penguin” remembered that Bruce Wayne — Batman’s alter-ego — is Jewish. The moment came when Bruce Wayne referenced his handkerchief as being a Hanukkah gift from his father to his mother.

In a “Batwoman” reboot released in 2006, the character Kate Kane — Batwoman’s alter-ego — was reintroduced as a Jewish, lesbian cousin of Batman, demonstrating how comic artists both shape and reflect their times.

And they don't think this is even remotely insulting to the intellect the Kane character's depicted as lesbian solely for woke brownie points? And implying Wayne could have some Jewish ancestry (in some past renditions, it was established his ancestry was from Scotland), will not work if the writing is as woke as it's become lately. To imply Bruce is even bisexual only damages the character's image/reputation all the more, and is an embarrassment to Bill Finger and Bob Kane's legacy. Let us be clear. Those writers and artists who've joined Dr. Medoff's petition did the right thing. But unless they can prove they're repentant, and writers like Jurgens and Grell won't boomerang back on apologia for Islam tomorrow, what good is this project going to do in the long run? Add to this the unlikely scenario any of these creators will show the courage and altruism to work on a comics project tackling Islamic terrorism, and that's another frustrating issue right there.

Besides the above news, Dr. Medoff tells on Israel National News how Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Truedeau's acknowledged that Hamas is evil, and mocked them in his newspaper strips:

One of America’s most beloved newspaper comic strips has dared to poke fun at Hamas. Get ready for controversy!

In the latest Sunday installment of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Doonesbury strip, a fictional anti-terrorist fighter—known as “the Red Rascal”—bursts into the bedroom of an actual Hamas leader, Ismail Haniye, who is living in Qatar.

The cartoon shows Haniyeh enjoying luxurious accommodations, and identifies him as “one of three Hamas leaders worth billions, who enriched themselves with donor money intended for impoverished Gazans!”

Garry Trudeau, the writer and artist of Doonesbury, has dared to acknowledge a fact about the Hamas leadership that most of the mainstream news media prefer to ignore. [...]

What makes this Doonesbury strip even more interesting is that Trudeau has been strongly critical of Israel in the past. His view of Hamas is not motivated by any kind of built-in pro-Israel bias.

Not only that, but Trudeau has been extra sensitive concerning Muslim reactions to controversial cartoons, such as the one about Mohammed that was published in the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015. Islamist terrorists responded to that cartoon by massacring twelve members of the magazine’s staff.

Trudeau accused Charlie Hebdo of engaging in “hate speech.” He argued that the magazine's publication of the cartoon was unjustified because it constituted "attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority."

But the Doonesbury creator can’t count on any of his past statements to protect him from a furious reaction to his criticism of Hamas. Pro-Hamas extremists in the United States are not known for their ability to calmly and rationally discuss differing points of view—especially when somebody reveals uncomfortable facts about their heroes.

Obviously, it's to be unfortunately expected Islam's sympathisers will react poorly and horrifically. Why, they could act the same way towards any and all of the above Batman contributors, and that too will be terrible, if God forbid it happens. Of course, one must wonder at this point if creators like Trudeau are repentant for the harm they caused by blaming the victims in horrible incidents like that in France. If not, then while it's amazing on the surface he'd attack Hamas as the evil entity they are, any failure to acknowledge he was wrong to blame Charlie Hebdo and other victims of Islamofascism in France ruins everything. I do vaguely recall at least a few Doonesbury strips that were negative to Israel, and so it sure has taken Trudeau a lot of time to show the courage to acknowledge that jihadist organizations like Hamas and PLO are barbaric evil incarnate.

So far, if there's one notable name connected with Batman stories whom I couldn't find on the Wyman petition, it's Frank Miller. How odd. Is he really that stupidly regretful for penning Holy Terror back in 2011 that he doesn't have the guts to participate in a project like Medoff's now? Well it's honestly disgraceful, IMO. Come to think of it, when even far-leftists like Kurt Busiek, Ron Marz, Dan DiDio, Joe Quesada, Gail Simone and Axel Alonso can't even contribute, that too has got to be saying something. This isn't just something that should involved Batman contributors, but all sorts of comics creators, even those more into independent productions. I'd strongly suggest Medoff try to contact them as well, and try to convince them to put aside all their vehement leftism and recognize why the message he's sending here is important for all to uphold, not just anybody who's worked on the Masked Manhunter. Calling for release of the hostages - many of whom have doubtless been subjected to torture and sexual violence - is surely the most important part of this whole tragedy.

Black Adam movie's screenplay builds on left-wing metaphors

Overrated wrestler-turned-actor Dwayne Johnson's new Black Adam movie, last time I looked, fell to 40 percent on Rotten Tomatoes' approval ratings. But that aside, when I looked at the reviews so far, Vanity Fair had quite an eye-opener for the political metaphors turning up in screenplay, which surely were to be as expected as what turned up in Wonder Woman 1984. First:

Kahndaq, you see, is a stand-in for not-Iraq/not-Afghanistan under longtime occupation by not-America, but a band of villainous swine called Intergang who plunder the nation’s resources and make the people wait at long checkpoints. They also zoom around on sci-fi skiffs that glow blue (just like Eternium!) and really want that crown.

Soon Adrianna summons the trapped hero, Teth-Adam, who is the gargantuan Johnson wearing a superhero suit and a scowl. Bullets and missiles and grenades can’t stop him, and a mere touch of his hand can turn someone into a skeleton. He goes on a wild PG-13-style kill spree, flinging bodies thousands of yards in the air and ripping off limbs, but without any blood, terror, or agony. [...]

Ah, so that's there excuse for the violence: they didn't add any blood spilling out of severed limbs. Sorry, but doesn't make it any more acceptable, and children shouldn't have to be subject to this kind of mayhem any more than what you see in a Mortal Kombat game. Whether the film lacks terror and agony, however, doesn't really matter when disgust and insult could sum up the proceedings much better. According to the UK Independent, the filmmakers had to remove at least 5 scenes to avoid an R-rating, which confirms just how blatant their vision truly is. And as for the hints given in the above regarding the leftist metaphors, here's that part of it from VF:

There’s not really much to stew on with Black Adam once you’ve left the theater, except to be somewhat amazed at how the story comments-but-doesn’t-comment on the actual political situation in the Middle East. An early checkpoint sequence is clearly meant to mirror the struggles of everyday people crossing from the Palestinian Territories into Israel, and Adrianna’s fed-up line about world powers not doing much for the people after a decades-long presence could be about Iraq or Afghanistan or both. And while there is much reverent talk of Khandaq’s indigenous cultural heritage, there are no Muslim signifiers center stage throughout the picture. Indeed, the Hollywood staple of the muezzin call to prayer is nowhere on the soundtrack, probably a first for a movie set in this part of the world, even when it’s a fictional country. One must marvel at how this massive international project goes out of its way to be even remotely apolitical, taking its cue, perhaps, from the famously politically-unaffiliated Dwayne Johnson. It takes a special kind of movie where the most interesting thing is what’s not in there. During its two-hour runtime, you won’t be asked to exert yourself, either with backstory or political reads. Viewers can just sit back in their cushioned seats, silence all brain functions, and enjoy the CG fireworks.

Oh my, why am I not shocked they could resort to these kind of metaphors, building as they do upon anti-Israel propaganda to boot, with Intergang as the stand-ins? And that's something that'll have to be considered by all concerned when it comes to past and present movies based on DC properties: they may have more leftist metaphors, stealthed or out in the open, than we think. The Marvel movies too, lest we forget. One more reason they're not aging any better than the overload of special effects accompanying the "actors". I hesitate to think what'd a screenplay containing a metaphor for opposing war with Iran's brutal regime would be like, because it's not impossible for these obsessed ideologues to go that far too.

Interesting how the reviewer here seems disappointed specifically because there's little or no serious allusions to Islam, as though this movie couldn't be bad enough. The filmmakers, who should be ashamed of themselves, are already doing enough harm with the metaphors they've injected as it is. The following reviewer from Buzzfeed seems disappointed for similar reasons, and is much more blatant:

It’s too bad that Black Adam ultimately punts on most of the big questions it attempts to raise, because the movie does have something sorely lacking in much of its peers: a willingness, however slight, to engage with the world around it. It’s hard to miss the similarities between Kahndaq, a Middle Eastern country occupied by white military personnel, and a variety of real-world analogs, ranging from the American occupation of Iraq to the ongoing occupation of Palestine. [...]

It’s pretty jarring to see a major superhero movie that even gestures at treating America as the bad guys in anything beyond a “there are a few bad apples in the military” sense. After all, the genre entered its modern era with 2008’s Iron Man, where a weapons contractor is kidnapped by terrorists and escapes captivity in Afghanistan. Black Adam isn’t the movie that’s going to continue exploring that territory, but it’s refreshing to see it try.

So here, the writer is much more hostile to Israel in the sense he won't even mention the country, replacing it as he does with the Roman era name for Israel that's been distorted in modern times for the sake of delegitimizing Israel's claim to Judea/Samaria, by fabricating the lie that there was ever an Islamic/Arabic country there? Now that's even sicker, as is the strong hint his opinions on the USA are extraordinarily hostile too. (Interestingly, the Boston Herald says movie co-star Mohammed Amer is a "Palestinian-American". Could such casting have been intentional, coinciding with the filmmakers' politics?)

I also noticed this review by NPR's terrible writer Glen Weldon, who surprisingly enough actually panned the movie, but, he really screwed up on just who reintroduced Black Adam:

In the early 2000s, writers Geoff Johns and David S. Goyer — with art by Stephen Sadowski and many others — introduced to the comics pages a new version of Black Adam. The character had been around since the 1940s as a supervillain who dogged the family of superheroes that, like him, had been given powers by the wizard Shazam. As such, he came factory-installed with the basic supervillain-threats package: I'll destroy you, I'll rule the world, etc.

Man, is this sloppy, but to be fully expected from such a charlatan who's not a comics fan, no matter how much he insists otherwise. Black Adam was first reintroduced to the DCU proper in 1994, in Jerry Ordway's GN, The Power of Shazam, which later led to an ongoing monthly series for Billy Batson that ran at least a few years. And reprehensible Weldon would rather rob Ordway of the credit, and bestow it upon some of the least deserving of DC's overrated modern writers, Johns and Goyer, instead. As disappointing as I find Ordway's leftism these days, this is still too much. So shame on far-left Weldon for this deception as well.

Now, one more review I checked is from Midwest Film Journal, and in addition to panning the movie, they also make an eyebrow raising note regarding a certain 2013 movie whose star is brought back in this new movie as a special guest for Teth-Adam to clash with:

Man of Steel, which launched the whole misbegotten DCEU in 2013, introduced the world to a darker and more “grounded” take on these heroes. It had its flaws but feels like a masterpiece compared to Black Adam. The two have some very direct points of comparison, too, as supposed launching points for future films. Zack Snyder’s Steel, for example, featured a breathlessly cool prologue on Krypton whereas Adam features an extended sequence narrated by an annoying child. In Snyder’s film, the violence of two Kryptonians battling is destructive and purposely reminiscent (however wrongheadedly so) of 9/11. Here, Adam’s supposed brutal fighting is nowhere near as destructive and, 10 years later, considerably worse-looking. Steel’s fights still inspire awe; Adam‘s are nauseating at best.

Of course, Adam also invites comparison because it delivers on what “fans” have been supposedly clamoring for — the return of Henry Cavill to the role of Superman, a half-decade after his experience filming Justice League turned him off the role and turned Warners off of the franchise he headlined. Bringing Cavill in for a post-credits tease is a Hail Mary by a studio desperate to garner interest in a movie that they clearly know has no interest to any sort of general audience. It’s kind of pathetic, particularly because there’s a blatant joke about Superman being an empty role early on in this film. I’m a fan of Cavill in that role, but there’s no part of me that thinks he deserves to be thrown into more shitty iterations of the character, if Black Adam is any indication of where it will go from here.

Well, like I said, if this new DC movie could be so blatant in its political metaphors, chances are there'd be earlier ones going that route too, and looks like Man of Steel had one that was bound to be troubling. If Batman vs. Superman could boast a scene alluding to protests against illegal immigrants in real life that was insulting to the intellect, we can't be shocked if any 9-11 metaphors Snyder's Man of Steel attached to its screenplay could be just as tasteless. That's why I for one am not pleading for Cavill to resume the role, even in a stand-alone movie for Superman proper, because what if more blatant leftist metaphors seep in? This whole "franchise" of the past decade was decidedly never worth looking forward to in the first place, and the dark angle didn't help matters.

So now, if the above descriptions say anything, I have far less reason to admire Johnson, whom I recall was among several far-leftists who created controversy for the sake of attacking podcaster Joe Rogan over distorted reasons (and Johnson himself wrote extremely crude comments years earlier). And recalling Rogan was just as critical of Hollywood for romanticizing violence as Bill Maher was, he might want to take issue with the Black Adam movie next, because physical/sexual violence has tragically been glorified in Hollywood too over past decades, and this new film is no improvement with its portrayal of Teth-Adam. A most shameless embarrassment it decidedly is, and I wish WB would stop making superhero movies already if this is what it's all coming down to.

A so-called comics historian sides against Lois Lane's Jewish creators

Tim Hanley is a Canadian comics historian of a most left-wing leaning who's written books about Wonder Woman, Lois Lane, and other such comic women, but apparently out of some kind of male feminist belief system. And guess who's side he chose to take at a time when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's Israeli/Jewish brethren around the world are suffering horror stories at a time when antisemitism arose during the Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza, and Islamic riots in cities like Lod? It wasn't Siegel/Shuster's ethnic relatives:

Here's some info on the mission and the charities @books_palestine supports so you can learn more! #BooksForPalestine pic.twitter.com/RpcE0QGVeA

— Tim Hanley (@timhanley01) May 27, 2021

He's dedicating his work on a Betty & Veronica history book to a cause going against any and all of comicdom's Jewish creators? Well...this is certainly telling. Some gratitude he shows there alright, after all the problems comicdom's Jews went through, and tried to address in their time. Now, some charlatan desecrates their memory by taking a position that's hurtful to their Israeli brethren. Even Archie had their share of Jewish contributors decades before, and these repellent promotional posts are a slap in the face to their memory as well. He even posted the following:

Just signed this petition, and wrote the library directly. There should be no place for anti-trans rhetoric in our library system. Remove Anti-Trans Hate From Halifax Public Libraries - Sign the Petition! https://t.co/L9lhqGqm7H via @CdnChange

— Tim Hanley (@timhanley01) May 30, 2021

So he buys into this transsexuality propaganda too, and what next, will he throw his full support behind allowing men claiming to be the opposite sex into bathrooms reserved for the ladies? This is why Israeli-American columnist Ruthie Blum once lamented the failure of schools to teach boys to defend a woman's honor and dignity these days.

I've taken a look at a few other subjects on Mr. Hanley's own site, and he sure does offer a lot of telling clues what's wrong with his thinking. His site, with entries spanning at least a decade, is a stunning goldmine of absurd social justice propaganda. Here's an early entry, where he blabbers about underrepresentation of women in the industry:

Women account for half of all human beings on the planet, but in terms of making comic books they are seriously under-represented. This shouldn’t be a shocking piece of information to anyone… we all know that comics are a male-dominated industry. But we know this anecdotally, not with solid numbers behind it or breakdowns of what women are doing where. Thus, this women in comics statistics project.

Comic books come out every Wednesday, and for all of 2011 I will examine the comics released each week by the industry’s two biggest companies, Marvel and DC Comics, and chart the credits along gender lines. [...]

And movies and music aren't male-dominated in any way? Let's put it this way. It's not like the industry never did anything wrong. I've commented on their most greivous errors for over 15 years now. But the problem with his arguments is that, despite any attempts to persuade to the contrary, he largely refuses to consider talent and merit important factors for hiring, and past lady contributors like Marie Severin and Ann Nocenti don't seem to mean anything to him. Yet what does is the Big Two:

Why Marvel and DC: Ideally, I’d look at every comic from every company, but a) that’s a TON of comics, and b) full credits are really hard to find for smaller companies (but if you are a non-Marvel or non-DC company that would like to send me all their credits pages each week, I would gladly chart them up!!). Plus, together Marvel and DC account for nearly 70% of the comics sold in a given month, along with well over 80% of the top 300 comics sold. So yes, there’s going to be a mainstream, superhero bias to these stats… but the vast majority of the comic books people are buying will be accounted for.

He fails to understand a]not many women may want to work for them even now because of the shoddiest examples they published at the time Quesada/DiDio were in charge, where a number of items they put out were full of reprehensible mistreatment of women through violence and such, b]they may feel there's no creative freedom, and the universe wide crossovers are no improvement, and c]in addition, the job just doesn't pay much money any more than animation studios do. Yet I can't say that in what I've read, I've seen him arguing women should get into the gigs for the glory more than the money either. So his statistics for ladies' employment over the past decade are meaningless if he's going to be so fluff-coated. He also said:

So there you have it. I think this will be very interesting… I’m not trying to call out publishers, or suggest they go start hiring women just to look better or anything. I’m just trying to provide numbers for something that we all know is anecdotally true. Frankly, comic books have been aimed at males for decades now, and most of the people working on them today were the boys to which they were marketed. The industry hasn’t created an environment where one should expect a fair number of female creators… it’s very much a boy’s club. And gender isn’t the only divide; it’s very much a white boy’s club too. But charts are fun, and I am curious as to what the current status of women in comic book industry actually is, not just anecdotally. Ultimately, perhaps seeing how the data breaks down will lead us to think about why the numbers are the way they are.

My my, this is also telling. If we take the Big Two's superhero output as an example, what's so wrong with Stan Lee for one forming a boys' club? Besides, if anybody wants to form a publisher that can promote a girls' club, they're quite welcome, yet socialist mentality's dictated that established franchises must be exploited almost entirely to push the shoddy agenda Mr. Hanley has for over a decade now. Big problem: from what I've checked on his site, I've never seen him complain why Joe Quesada and Dan DiDio should be fired from the publishers, as the latter was last year. And that's one of the reasons why they were able to hold onto their positions as long as they did, or still are: nobody's willing to stand up and boldly say why those truly accountable must be giving the pink slip. Here's another post he wrote that's quite insulting, where he implied something was wrong with "60-year old white guys" like the late Len Wein being hired to script miniseries for DC 6 years back:

I fail to see how a group of men with an average age of 62.3 years old are, to quote DiDio, “the best writers for these characters” when the task is to freshen up and contemporize them. All of these men are certainly talented writers and I respect their work and, for several of them, their legacies, but the last thing the superhero world needs more of is old, white guys reintroducing characters and trying to make them relevant and interesting. That rarely goes well. Especially when so many of them have such close ties to past incarnations of the characters. This is where you introduce new voices and new talent, find the NEW Marv Wolfman and the NEW Len Wein, not bring back the same old creators. This would be a KILLER lineup in 1987, but it’s not 1987 anymore.

It's not a time of sanity anymore either, and Hanley was only precipitating a terrible situation where whites, no matter their age or sex, are discriminated against. Would he have said this about veteran black writers like Christopher Priest? I doubt he'd be that stupid, but then, why is it okay to say Wein and Marv Wolfman are obsolete because of their age, merely because they're white (and Jewish)? Again, I can't say I've noticed much criticism leveled by Hanley against DiDio for more valid reasons, like the obnoxious misogyny he injected into comics during the mid-2000s, and however he was handling the DC output around this later time, it was no improvement, artistically or otherwise. Hanley got some pushback about this post, and he attempted to minimize the damage with the following:

I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that guys like Wein, Wolfman, et al. shouldn’t be getting work. They’re legends. However, a line written primarily by white men who’ve been in comics for decades sends, intentionally or not, a bad message about diversity.

I understand that comics is a rough industry for older creators, and my problem isn’t with them for doing the gigs. But it’s also a tough industry for women and POC who have been rarely afforded the opportunity to break into the Big Two in the first place.

My issue is with DC for not putting together a more diverse and representative line. Hire some old white guys, sure, but ALSO hire woefully underrepresented folks getting their first shot at superheroes. Doing just the former doesn’t send a great message.

And for everyone going “But DC’s June #DCYou books!” Yes, ONE TIME DC put together a slightly more diverse lineup. SLIGHTLY. That doesn’t mean they can stop doing that now, or that it’s cool to even things out with these new minis.

Gee, he sure was pretty frantic to offer an alleged apology. Since when hasn't the industry been hiring "underrepresented folks" like Blacks/Asians/Latinos? I've written before about Matt Baker, the guy most famous for illustrating Phantom Lady of the Freedom Fighters. And DC practically has a man of Asian descent, Jim Lee, in a prominent executive role, even if his politics are sadly reprehensible. Also, considering how bad the Big Two became artistically and in terms of creative freedom, what's the use of working there at this time anyway? Nobody creative will benefit, no matter their racial background. And turning back to Hanley, a big problem with his argument is that, despite any attempts to sound otherwise, he's putting diversity entirely above artistic talent and merit. If such are lacking, what's the use of hiring a particular writer/artist at all? Here's some examples of the replies he got on the page proper, including:

Ageist Bigot

And then:

I get that you’re trying to take a “progressive” look and stance to modern comics, you just seem a little misguided here. Not to mention that focussing so much on the age of the writers involved makes you look completely ageist. A balance needs to be found between modernisation and classic, and judging by their current line up of monthlies and these new minis announced, DC look to be doing a great job in the regard. As I said, DC You is for everyone, not just young new readers.

The line was a failure regardless, and Hanley's "progressive" ideology is exactly what's wrong with him. It practically led him to take the PLO's side at the expense of Siegel/Shuster's Jewish brethren. Another reply:

That was an absurdly ageist take on this.

And:

Ageist racist bigot.

And then, better still:

You are incredibly racist. How many more times could you mention “white guys”? How did this medium start out? Oh yeah, white guys. I’m tired of the white male being singled out. Do there need to be more women and people of other colors in comics? YES. Do the people who have established themselves need to be kicked to the side like leftover meatloaf? NO. Stop usurping the past and trying to replace current writers/artists and the heroes they created. Bring in fresh talent of all colors shapes and sizes. Create new characters. Enough with the whining and wimpering. You are not entitled to erase the past. Create your future.

Sadly, we're 6 years past this moment and Mr. Hanley's still plying his loathsome, petty ideologies at the expense of classic creations. Here's another good one:

“Old white guys.” Because there’s nothing fresh and contemporary to be found in the works of 60-year-old white guys. Wait, how old was Steve Jobs again?

As a Hispanic 30something man, I am sick and tired of the “White old men” boogeyman.

I am sorry, Wolfman -created- Raven. Made the Titans THE best selling book in DC during the 80s. If someone deserves to write a mini on Raven, it’s going to be goddamned Marv Wolfman, especially since Pfeiffer and Lobdell have made such a terrible spectacle of the Teen Titans.

You know, I understand that you are trying to advocate for diversity, but I thought that diversity meant inclusiveness, and that means *everybody*- not simply brown people like me and people with a strict cutoff at the age of 30something, brandishing a “Go Away” sign being waved in the face of any pale old dude.

As much as I respect your very insightful book on Wonder Woman, I am going to have to call you out and say- no, Tim, you are acting like a total ass right here, right now. Part of being actually diverse and individualistic includes listening to people who are often discarded and disregarded, people whom idiots and fools consider not worth anyone’s time because they assume they have nothing of worth.

Like “old” people. You assume they cannot create anything fresh, you assume they cannot find new angles, you assume they cannot tell new stories, that they cannot possibly have anything into which they can pour their considerable experience that could possibly fascinate anyone.

Because old people are only good for sitting back on their laurels and do nothing except ushering in the next generation gracefully, while tending to their gardens, kittens and tea kettles. Old me-

Wait.

What is that?

Over there- yes, I do believe it is the shadow of Sir Terry Pratchett, Tim.

He’s staring at you with such a look.

I cannot fathom what words he would say to you, but I imagine they are the kinds of words that would leave very strong scorch marks in the air.

You are a disappointment, Tim Hanley. For someone who allegedly admires Wonder Woman for her message of compassion and acceptance, you have demonstrated a very ugly side of yourself.

On that, I fully agree. Hanley's a hypocritical leftist who even goes out of his way to support the wrong sides of an issue, and whether he's uninformed, it's still no excuse. Mainly because well before this, he was already pandering to Islamophilia, and gushing over some of G. Willow Wilson's worst propaganda, here being Alif the Unseen:

I also really liked that not only is the strongest and bravest character in the book a woman, but Dina’s a woman who’s chosen to wear the niqab, the black veil. Lately debates have raged about veiling and whether or not it should be outlawed, and most of these conversations seemed to ignore the issue of choice for a woman herself. The decision to veil or not became her father or husband forcing her to wear it OR the state forcing her not to. Now, of course many women are forced to wear a veil who don’t want to, but there are also women who DO want to. Dina chooses to wear the niqab even against the wishes of her family because it means something to her, and she’s no weak-willed wallflower. Being devout to Islamic law and being a strong woman aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, and Dina was a great character who walked that line.

SIDENOTE: Veiling is a super complex issue, even if you agree that it should be a matter of choice for the woman. For example, sure a woman might choose to wear a veil, but is the religion and culture that encourages veiling so inherently patriarchal and oppressive to women that choosing to wear the veil is actually just participating in your own subjugation? And even if it is, I suppose you should have the freedom to so subjugate yourself, right? I don’t have any answers… I just very much appreciated how Wilson addressed the issue in the novel and made it Dina’s choice.

As somebody who finds the Haredi/ultra-Orthodox lifestyle demeaning to women, even if it's not going as far as Islam's belief a woman should be veiled (although there are some clans who made use of it, and even a cult called Lev Tahor made use of similar outfits), I find it repellent Mr. Hanley would take such a lenient position on the whole notion such self-isolation from society is acceptable, and his ostensible admittance there's women forced against their will to wear such denigrating outfits does nothing to alleviate concerns. It goes without saying I cannot accept such outfits in any religion, not even Catholicism's concept of the nun's wimple dress, because it all makes women's sexuality and beauty out to look like the worst thing that could happen, and is insulting a woman's body. Or, put another way, it's insulting God by extension, since God gave women their physical attributes, and now, look where things have wound up by extension in an era where the left is denigrating both women and men, and indoctrinating them into sex-change operations that can do serious harm, along with encouraging rejection of the opposite sex for the sake of homosexuality. That Mr. Hanley lacks a clear answer on whether women should be encouraged to accept the degrading idea of veiling themselves is another serious problem with his approach. It's no better than an inability to express a clear opinion on whether punk lifestyles like mohawks and noserings are healthy for the mind and body, let alone cocaine abuse. Mr. Hanley is shameful. He doesn't even consider apostates from Islam who find that abandoning the Religion of Peace gives them a much better perspective on life.

Here's also something he said about Frank Cho:

This weekend, artist Frank Cho announced on his Facebook page that he’ll be drawing variant covers for Wonder Woman when the series relaunches this June as part of DC’s “Rebirth” line. Several sites are reporting that he’ll be on the book for a year, and since it’s shipping bi-monthly that means 24 covers. Cho is an artist best known for doing sexy pin-ups and while his work isn’t really my jam, he’s certainly very good at what he does. He’s also drawn some cool, non-hypersexualized stuff when reined it, and hopefully he brings some of that restraint to Wonder Woman. Cho’s got definite skills. However, he’s also a real twit.

It all started a while back when Marvel inexplicably decided that it would be a fun idea to hire famed erotica artist Milo Manara to draw variant covers starring their female characters. He did a Spider-Woman cover that had the character bizarrely positioned with her butt poised high in the air, and the cover drew a lot of criticism. It was poorly drawn, and the sexualized pose wasn’t a good reflection of the contents of the new Spider-Woman series. Marvel eventually decided not to release the cover.

Umm, they did release it, but with a large Spider-Woman logo over the supposedly offending part, whose only mistake was that it just wasn't very appealing artistically. By the way, is that good manners to call somebody a "twit", just like that? For somebody who'd surely consider himself a public figure, Hanley's setting a pretty poor example.

For some reason, Frank Cho decided that this was the hill he wanted to die on. He did a commission of Spider-Gwen on a blank sketch cover, mimicking the Manara pose. When folks were all, “Come on, man,” Cho blasted the “small group of angry and humorless people ranting against my DRAWING of a pretty woman,” telling them that they should “just grow a sense of humor and relax.” He then doubled down on the pose, drawing Harley Quinn in the same position. Over the past year, he’s done several of these pieces, reveling in the controversy he’s causing and proudly posting them on the internet like he’s some sort of brave rebel (he’s not).

The reaction to Cho’s pieces have brought him some vocal defenders, many of whom are the sort of men (they’re all men) who use the term “social justice warrior” unironically. They see Cho as a defender of free speech, a valiant hero saving the comic book industry from the scourge of evil feminists who are ruining their funny books. Cho tried to capitalize on the support of these dopes by following the posting of one of his sketches with a campaign where he sold “Friends of Cho” t-shirts. The ad for the shirts asked, “Are you outraged by the outrage?” and offered his fans the opportunity to stand with him (he only sold 21 one of them online).

So what he's saying is every artist of Cho's caliber has no female fans? I'm think that's disputable too. Does this also mean Hanley believes Spider-Man, for instance, isn't their funnybook? I guess that sums it up. It's too bad that since this was written, Cho had to go and attack Comicsgate using the F-word, and alienated a lot of people when he could've avoided causing trouble. But speaking of Comicsgate, look what Hanley said the other year about Blake Northcott:

...Elsewhere, Blake Northcott is co-writing Catwoman this month, which I am less excited about. She’s been ComicsGate adjacent for a while now, and I’m not terribly thrilled when anyone associated with that hate group lands a mainstream gig.

Strange, aside from her being a leftist, I don't think she ever said she supported the campaign. I guess her refusal to actually come out against it is why he decided she was. But look at that - when ideological divides come into the picture, suddenly, a man who writes sugarcoated takes on many items related to lady writers decides he's against her. In any case, she's largely disappeared from comics over the past year, possibly because now, she's working on films and TV.

Here's more on Hanley's predictable gushing over the Muslim Ms. Marvel book:

While Kelly Sue DeConnick and David Lopez are set to relaunch Captain Marvel this March, a new character is taking over Carol Danvers’ old identity of Ms. Marvel in February. Kamala Khan is an American teen girl of Pakistani origin, and when she discovers she has super powers, including the ability to change shapes, she takes the mantle of her hero Ms. Marvel.

The book is written by G. Willow Wilson, who has done some fantastic comic work including the Vertigo graphic novel Cairo and the recent CrossGen/Marvel mini-series Mystic. Her novel Alif the Unseen is also absolutely fantastic. Kamala is Muslim, and Wilson is a convert to Islam, giving her a unique perspective for writing the character. The art is by Adrian Alphona, best known for his great work on Runaways. He’s also Canadian, which makes him extra cool. The cover above is by Sara Pichelli, who I hope is the regular cover artist for the series because she’s super good.

This book sounds interesting, boasts a stellar creative team, and is a new and original direction for a superhero title. It’s also exactly what Marvel needs given some recent unfortunate trends at the company.

And by that, he means "too sexy" for his political/ideological beliefs, right? This guy is truly disgusting with his leftism, and of course, his automatic support was a precursor for his recent pro-Hamas, anti-Israeli propaganda, that, interestingly enough, ignores what another famous woman, Golda Meir, said regarding "palestine".

Now, another item prior to release of the first Wonder Woman movie with Gal Gadot, where he attacks Fox News for all the wrong reasons:

First, they got upset about Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman costume because it didn’t have the halter top and short shorts that they liked, or the patriot markings of the classic outfit. Then, somewhat bizarrely, they also took issue with the dark colour scheme and the fact that Wonder Woman has to share her movie debut with Superman and Batman, which was an odd moment for me to say the least. Hearing people on Fox News say things I actually agreed with made me re-evaluate my entire life and every decision I’ve ever made, but after that life crisis I continued on with the video and things got ridiculous again.

Nowhere near as ridiculous as Hanley's politics. And at the end, he let slip what's really wrong with his visions:

Anyway, that was some great work by Fox News, getting outraged about a comic story from four years ago in the most offensive and sexist ways possible. I don’t understand why these people have a network. Why do you let them talk, America? I mean, I understand free speech and all, but they’re just so goddamn dumb.

Gee, if you don't like their alleged rightist leanings, don't watch them! I'm not fooled by Hanley's supposed insistence he "understands" free speech values either, and his accusations of sexism are pathetically cheap. If I were an artist and created a rabbi's daughter wearing a bikini, and he made accusations of sexism, I'd be furious. He's giving a very bad impression of a Canadian leftist, that's for sure. But, he sure does reveal quite a bit more what he thinks of men who love women in the following review of a WW comic by Wilson from 2019:

I’m very much enjoying this identity crisis of the gods. First, we have Ares wanting to give up war for justice. That’s gone quite poorly so far, of course, due to his engrained toxic masculinity more than anything else, but it’s been a very interesting turn for the character. And now, Aphrodite wants to separate herself from love. She doesn’t seem to have a plan of where to go from there, what new cause to champion, if any. She’s just tired of being’s love representative.

It sounds like we have quite a double whammy here. On the one hand, Ares embodies that atrocious anti-heterosexual propaganda called "toxic masculinity". On the other hand, Aphrodite doesn't want to represent the concept of love anymore? But then, it's long been apparent many far-leftists are thrilled to stuff as much propaganda into their stories as possible.

I'm glad I don't own any of Hanley's history books. Disgraceful people like him with such loathsome politics tend to be the least reliable on these pop culture subjects anyway. If they could spout all this reprehensible tommyrot, why should we expect them to be the most accurate on any subject since their ideology could play into their approach? Why should we even believe they supposedly don't approve of Fredric Wertham, who had similar positions? If this is how men like Hanley intend to ply their trade, nobody with common sense should waste their money on his publications. Again, let's be clear, he's desecrated the Jewish originators of the industry, including, but not limited to, Siegel, Shuster, Lee, Kirby and even Wein, among others. Why, now that I think of it, the worst part of Mr. Hanley's propaganda is that he's engaged in otherizing the people who made superhero comics possible in the first place.

CBR sugarcoats the most politically developed member of Batman Inc.

In another of CBR's dreary lists, they bring up a precursor to Geoff Johns' Islamic creation for the Green Lantern books who was introduced by UK writer David Hine a decade ago to serve as a cast member in a Batman spinoff called Batman Incorporated:

One of the most unique and underutilized members of Batman Inc who could use more storylines going forward is Nightrunner. Real name Bilal Asselah, the young boy is a French-Algerian living in Paris when he and his friend are injured when caught in the crossfire between protestors and the police.

After his friend passes away, Bilal becomes the vigilante hero Nightrunner, sworn to uphold Batman’s ideology of defending what’s right no matter a person’s race or religion. A skilled free runner and parkour expert, Nightrunner assisted Batman in taking down a child-slavery ring in Paris, joining Batman Inc in the process.

Wanna bet that slavemongering operation wasn't managed by Muslims? It's shameful CBR's fawning over these politically motivated embarrassments, most of which they all but moved away from in the past few years, but I'm sure they wouldn't have an issue boomeranging on if they think Marvel can get away with it. The way the character's made out to look most righteous despite having a bad religion ascribed to him, "no matter the race/religion" of others, is head-shaking. It's honestly offensive to make a character look almost like a saint based on his ideological/religious background, because all humans, no matter their race/religions, are prone to err and do bad things.

As mentioned, most of this propaganda was eventually abandoned by DC, but has since been replaced in some way or other by more, and come to think of it, if they think they can get away with it, they're sure to bring back any and every bad element they've created since.

Even today, Frank Miller's Holy Terror is still victim of censorship

Andrew Harrod at the American Spectator (via Middle East Forum) has given an alert that Miller's notable 2011 graphic novel, Holy Terror, originally planned as a Batman tale before DC under Paul Levitz rejected it, has been shunned at a Texas library because the Council of American Islamic Relations called for it:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Dallas-Fort Worth chapter (CAIR-DFW) recently “applauded a decision by the Plano Library to resolve an issue related to anti-Muslim material in its catalog.” CAIR claims to have convinced this Texas library to remove the book Holy Terror by renowned graphic-novel author Frank Miller, a disturbing act of censorship and a flagrant violation of longstanding library standards.

This author asked the Plano Library Director Libby Holtmann about the book’s removal. She stated that the library “did not remove the subject item from its collection from a request by anyone including CAIRDFW,” but rather “was alerted by a comment sent through social media.” Examination of Holy Terror revealed “that it did not have any professional reviews,” which she claimed is a “necessary component for maintaining an item.” She also cited library records showing little reader interest in Holy Terror.

In fact, dozens of reviews of the comic book have been published, including by prominent newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. Plano library’s dubious response leaves several troubling questions. What was this social media comment that led to an immediate “evaluation” of Holy Terror? Why does Plano Library appear to be kowtowing to CAIR? Does the very controversy itself surrounding Holy Terror raised by groups such as CAIR not justify keeping a copy for the sake of healthy public debate?

CAIR’s opposition to Holy Terror, a story of comic superheroes battling Al Qaeda in New York City, goes back to when it first appeared in 2011. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad had condemned Holy Terror as a “shameful” example of how “Islamophobia is becoming mainstream.” That same year, journalist Spencer Ackerman wrote that “Holy Terror is a screed against Islam.”

Accordingly, CAIR-DFW Executive Director John Janney asked the Plano library about “standards, policies or code of ethics that the publicly funded library followed when faced with publications that dehumanize or marginalize minorities.” This applied, he claimed, “especially when those publications are targeted at children” (which the adult graphic novel Holy Terror is in fact not). Although paying lip service to First-Amendment free speech guarantees, CAIR-DFW’s argued that “imposing hate literature on a captive audience of children is not appropriate” for a library’s mass holdings.

Well this does tell something besides the sad fact CAIR, which was founded by Hamas sympathisers, is still active: they have a backwards view of the comics medium itself, taking the antiquated vision that it's only for children.

CAIR-DFW also claimed that Miller had in 2018 “expressed regret for the book” — implying that Miller would support the censorship of Holy Terror. Yet he actually stated, in a Guardian interview, that he did not “want to go back and start erasing books I did.” Importantly, he described Holy Terror in a 2011 interview as a specific “screed against Al Qaeda,” not Islam. “The issue here is a method of killing. It’s not a religion,” he explained. “I can tell you squat about Islam,” but “I know a goddamn lot about Al Qaeda and I want them all to burn in Hell.”

Ironically, CAIR-DFW’s announcement appeared during the annual Banned Books Week of the American Library Association (ALA), the “oldest and largest library association in the world,” founded in 1876. During Banned Book Week, ALA promotes a “Stand for the Banned Read-Out” for people to “declare your literary freedoms by reading from a banned book or discussing censorship issues on camera.” Since the Week’s 1982 beginnings, “libraries and bookstores throughout the country have staged local read-outs, continuous readings of banned and challenged books.”

What the Plano library did was a slap in the face to anybody opposed to book censorship. But most curious is where the CBLDF stands in all this? Unsurprisingly, this hasn't been in the mainstream comics press from what I can tell, proving where they actually stood all these years, and if the CBLDF won't give Miller any backing in this case, then they've rendered their mission meaningless.

I think it's a shame Miller reverted back to leftism, if he supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections. Though this current case can demonstrate the unforgiving positions of social justice advocates - he dared do something the late Will Eisner also did with his last graphic novel, The Plot, and for this, the SJW leftists shunned Miller for all eternity by not coming to defense of his work.