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.

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.

ROLAND SHIRK: MUSLIM CAST MEMBER IN BATMAN BETRAYS THE SPIRIT OF THE MASKED MANHUNTER

Roland Shirk, a fairly new contributor to Jihad Watch, writes about DC's recent PC-capitulation in Batman Inc, and makes some good points about how this is a casualty of leftism:

Whenever a pop culture institution makes a concession to the cultural Left, it is invariably and shamelessly trumpeted in the media as a sign of "progress" toward "inclusiveness" and "tolerance." The creation of The 99, a team of Muslim superheroes embodying attributes of the 99 names of Allah, by Dutch comic publisher Endemol, was lauded by no less than the Times of London for "counter[ing] the effects of jihadist agitprop on Muslim minds." (If a comic book series could indeed cancel out the Qur'anic injunctions to oppress unbelievers, I would be lauding it myself--indeed, I'd happily be passing out copies in Arab neighborhoods.)

So it's acceptable to take seriously comic books, or plush animals on children's TV, as long as they are fostering multiculturalist goals. At such moments, there is no question that pop culture is important. But let someone on the other side agree, "Yes, pop culture matters--which is why I deplore this development," and he comes off as a kook. It's a tactic, and a fairly effective one.

I'm not one to lose much sleep over comic books, but I do find Nightrunner disquieting-- as I found the Christian imagery in the Spiderman movies uplifting. Most of the time, in American popular culture, religion is ignored, or used as backstory (for instance, when Mafia dons meet at the Feast of San Gennaro). When mass culture treats my religion as something important, real, and worthy of respect, I take it as an affirmation that I have a place in the mainstream. And that is why producers of comic books like Nightrunner are including Muslim characters, to foster the mainstreaming of Islam.

[...]

What's worse is that Nightrunner betrays the spirit of Batman. Bruce Wayne is a millionaire whose parents were murdered by bandits, who devotes his wealth to fighting crime and injustice--while keeping his identity utterly secret, averse as he is to public adulation. Could there be a figure more opposite to Muhammad?

Well said. The characterization of "Nightrunner" as an Islamist is a betrayal of the values and beliefs many superhero protagonists of yore stood for, Batman included. If Bilal Asselah, the real name of the alleged vigilante, were characterized as Christian, or even an apostate who tried to defend other apostates from Islam, this whole discussion wouldn't need to take place. Come to think of it, DC would've been getting a lot of praise from society concerned about Islamofascism, and even 9-11 Families for a Safe America would likely be very proud. Instead, they throw all that away for the sake of brainless PC-whitewashing while at the same time demonizing the French as the aggressors under the guise of moral equations.

JLA/99 DESERVED TO FAIL

On the blog called Every Day is like Wednesday, which is run by J. Caleb Mozzoco, a freelance writer in Ohio who contributes to Newsarama's blog to boot, he says he's surprised by the JLA/99's failure (via CBR's Robot 6 blog, where the man who linked to it, Kevin Melrose, is quite a dhimmi leftist):

I did experience a new emotion while reading this installment of the sales analysis though, beyond the usual shades of the gray and blue rainbow of sadness I generally get from the chart—shock.

Specifically, I’m shocked at how poorly JLA/The 99 seems to be selling in the direct market.

Many of you don’t sift through Google News alerts about comics on a daily basis as part of a “job” like I do, and thus you may not have read the same 10,000 or so mainstream news articles I did about The 99.

If not, they’re a superhero team created by Dr. Naif Al-Mutawa, founder of Teshkeel Media Group. The characters come from all over the world, although they are based in Islamic culture and religion, and gain powers through magical Noor stones. Their name comes from the 99 attributes of Allah.

They received about as much press coverage as any comic book characters could hope to. In the six-issue miniseries JLA/The 99, the new heroes team up with The Justice League of America, the DC super-team (usually) composed of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and the most popular and well-known superheroes who aren’t owned by Marvel. [...]

It started off selling pretty poorly, and, in just four issues, is selling half as many copies.

Why I find that so surprising is that while I haven’t been reading the book either (I wanted to, but DC priced it at the ridiculous 22/$3.99 price point), I have been flipping through the issues when I see them in the shop, and the JLA line-up they’re using consists of Superman, Batman Bruce Wayne, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern John Stewart, The Flash, Hawkman, The Atom and Firestorm. And those are just the one’s I’ve noticed.

That’s not quite the most popular, Big Seven version, but it is the Big Five, with some other perennially popular Leaugers in for Aquaman and Martian Manhunter.

It’s worth noting that Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, (a) Flash and (a) Green Lantern haven’t been in the official Justice League in approximately forever now, so JLA/The 99 has been offering the “real” (and/or popular) version of the Justice League for a few months now, while the official Justice League of America title has, in that same time, featured a team consisting of Batman Dick Grayson, Supergirl, Jade, Jesse Quick, Donna Troy, Congorilla and Starman Mikaal Tomas (If you don't read DC super-comics on a regular basis, I imagine at least half of those names are completely unknown to you).

In that time, however, the Justice League of America comic with the oddball cast was selling between 59,686 to 47,093; much, much, much, much better than JLA/The 99.

I find that curious.

There are a lot of plausible explanations for why that might be, of course.

There are indeed, but he hasn't mentioned any of them, so I'll have to take that task myself. It's not merely the price that's the problem. With all due respect to Mr. Mozzoco, does he know anything at all about the verses in the Koran? Always something important to cite in cases like these, IMO, and that includes Sura 2:223, for example:

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

And there's even Sura 8:12 (via Faith Freedom):

"I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them"

And, lest we forget, there's also Mohammed's marriage to the 9-year-old Ayesha to consider.

And even if JLA/99 doesn't actually feature any of those verses, that does not make this acceptable. A religion that promotes violence and even forcing an underaged girl to marry an adult man is not something you just simply whitewash. Why then should it be "shocking" that this propaganda failed?

Mozzoco also says:

Finally, I suppose there’s the possibility that DC didn’t promote it as well as they could have. I know no one sent me any review copies, and, now that I stop and think about it, I don’t remember seeing any reviews of any issue of it anywhere, although I’m sure Newsarama and Comic Book Resources at least must have reviewed at least the first issue.

[...]in the meantime, my mind is thoroughly boggled by the fact that it’s been selling sooooo much worse than Justice League of America.

Not mine. I've provided just a few clues why this book would be undeserving of an audience regardless of sales. And I think a reasonable argument can be made that, in the end, DC Comics, bad as their writing's become today, and even the comics store managers and customers alike, realized that, with the USA's growing understanding of why the Religion of Peace is a bad influence, there was little chance it would find an audience, and that's why they abandoned all attempts to promote this insult to the intellect. As for al-Mutawa, he can dream all he likes, but he will not be able to fool everyone into thinking that the religion, in and of itself, is "peaceful". Certainly not when even now, there's plenty proving otherwise.

(If it matters, there was at least one other source I recall that did look at the first issue of the mini, IGN's Comics section, and they said it was a dreadful, slapped together mishmash, just a clue to how it was only done for the sake of it.)

Also, if the Religion of Peace considers Jews "sons of apes and pigs", then as indicated in this post, that's why the whole "project" is an obscenity to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster as well. I may not be Siegel or Shuster, but if I were, I would be utterly outraged and disgusted that my classic creation of Superman, among others, were being exploited in some kind of propaganda/whitewash tool for promoting a religion that considers me inferior because I'm one of the "chosen". Indeed, JLA/99 is an obscenity to many DC contributors of yore, even those who aren't Jewish.

While it's good to see that the book was a disastrous seller, something most truly deserved for the disgraceful staffers at DC who put this together, it's sad if anyone promoted this to begin with. Sean Kleefeld, the author of Comic Book Fanthropology, for example, was one of those who basically promoted the miniseries, not to mention the regular 99 comics themselves over here, here and here. I think it's also worth adding that he fawned over a misogynist screed DC published as well called Identity Crisis, which, besides featuring an almost exclusively male-dominated viewpoint and trivializing a serious subject like rape, also contained allusions to 9-11 trutherism and blame-the-victim tactics. If I were a member of 9-11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, I'd be very sick if I saw how people who say they're fans of a now maligned art form were embracing this kind of junk.

Whether or not the comics industry should confront Islamic terrorism head on, they most definitely shouldn't be apologizing for it. And that's why they're failing: because they're doing the exact opposite of what they stood for during WW2.

Justice League #34 may feature Islamic terrorists, but still does enough to dampen the topic

Now here's something where veteran Christopher Priest almost succeeds in offering bold subject matter within the pages of the current Justice League volume, but there's still elements in here that take away impact, and do a disfavor to Wonder Woman in the process. For example, let's take a look at the picture below:

So two jihadists are holding some hostages - mainly two Christian nuns - and Wonder Woman takes the task of finding her way inside to stop them. But the mistake made is that they make her sound naive, which has become a troubling cliche by now. She says, "Praying on the defenseless while espousing a 'godly' ideology is an egregious form of self-deception." Which sounds like the kind of propaganda you might hear bad European politicians mouthing off, or even the weak statements from Dubya that he believed al Qaeda "hijacked a great religion." To make matters worse, Diana even says she doubts the terrorists would carry out their threat. It makes little difference how you look at this from a modern perspective; making WW sound so naive, not confronting the issue with a proper awareness of the barbarism and suicide mentality jihadists can go by, only makes her look idiotic and not well educated or trained at all.

And then, another problem is that the book just had to include DC's most notable apologia creation, Simon Baz, the Muslim Green Lantern. On which note, I recently found the following screenshot on Twitter, and guess what kind of person's upholding the Baz character, seen at the beginning of the issue doing Islamic prayer on another planet while wearing an odd outfit that looks like an Egyptian mummy:

See the hashtag in the text? "Free Palestine"? Yep, that's the kind of people lauding Geoff Johns' badly crafted character. Anti-Israelists. And if Johns and company do nothing to distance themselves from such a bunch, that's one more reason why I see no reason to support this dismal excuse for a science fiction adventure.

Back on the story itself involving Diana's encounter with the jihadists, it ends with one of them getting hold of her sword and using it to stab one of the nuns to death after the police throw in some flash bombs, and Batman arrives too late to stop him either. I don't think WW couldn't accomplish the raid so incompetently, which, coupled with the naive view of the jihadists, is hugely disappointing. She may not be as fast as the Flash, but her speed is still good enough to bring down the terrorists without serious risk that they'd manage to claim an innocent's life.

The following description from the reviewing site of Batman doesn't sound any better:

But I’m not that interested in a series in which we have to watch Batman crying some man tears over his terrible situation. [...]

If he's depicted as a sobber, that's another minus detracting from this whole story, which is apparently setting up "The people versus the Justice League". It may have been done before, but this is already becoming too much.

This could've been a nifty story where the League would have to bring down some Islamic jihadists, but I think they've blown it all the same, because political correctness unsurprisingly dictated the writing.

Diversity and Comics had the following to say in this video:

He seems to understand what's wrong with this whole mess, and why the dialogue simply doesn't do the subject matter...justice. Not even for Wonder Woman and Batman.

FRANK MILLER INTERVIEWED ABOUT HIS CAREER

Miller was interviewed by Playboy prior to the premiere of the new movie sequel for Sin City, and he's got some interesting stuff to tell them about his past and present work, including Holy Terror, and what he thinks of Superman too. Some of the more challenging topics come on the second page of queries, like the reception 300 got in Iran:

PLAYBOY: Through a spokesman, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the film “an insult” to Iran, as well as a “fabrication” and an act of “cultural and psychological warfare.” Do you consider it an accomplishment to have pissed off Ahmadinejad?

MILLER: I’m ready for my fatwa now. [laughs] I’m banned from Iran, but believe me, I’ve made much greater sacrifices. What I love is that I actually made the Iranian government change its historical policy toward Persia. It went from despising the empire of Persia to all of a sudden loving it, after 300. Persia had been a globe-spanning empire, then Muhammad came along and changed the mentality and rewrote all the histories. Iran’s days of empire are long gone, and they were just looking for something to get pissed off about.

Very courageous answer! And he's right about how Islam changed much of the middle east, save for Israel (and Armenia, which is more or less mideastern too), and Islamofascists like Iran's are always looking for excuses to turn into tantrum machines.

PLAYBOY: More recently you angered a lot of people with Holy Terror, your 2011 comic book about a superhero who fights Al Qaeda. In Wired, a writer called it “a screed against Islam,” and others accused you of depicting Islam as a violent religion. Do you stand by the book?

MILLER: Yes. Why not? I felt the response to 9/11 was tepid, if not disgusting. It’s almost as though they killed 3,000 of my neighbors and we spent the next bunch of years apologizing for it. Since superheroes have a tradition of fighting fascism, why not do it one more time? I don’t know where anyone got the idea it was anti-Islamic. I used, I believe, three Islamic words, which are common Al Qaeda usage. I didn’t feature their religious services. I happen to believe terrorism is a pungent evil, and I’m glad we’re fighting it. It’s incomprehensible to me that people apologize for it or pretend it never happened.

PLAYBOY: You described Holy Terror as “propaganda” in the tradition of Thomas Paine and predicted it would “offend just about everyone.” Has offending people been a goal in your career?

MILLER: I’ve been through periods when I wanted to spend my career annoying or offending people and other times when I wanted to inspire or spin a good yarn or draw a particular kind of car. I remember coming into the worlds of Marvel and DC and wanting to shake things up because they’d been the same way for so long. I wanted to be the bull in the china shop. And sometime in the 1970s along came Will Eisner with A Contract With God, which showed that comic books could have a shelf life and be read repeatedly, not just come out and disappear in time for next week’s cycle.

While his desire to be defiant in the face of tyrants is admirable, this got me to thinking about a downside: it's not always a good idea to anger people, depending on what the subject is, and if it's pissing off the Spider-Man and Green Lantern readerships, as Terry Kavanaugh, Ron Marz, J. Michael Straczynski and Dan Slott have done, that's where it's something very bad. So while I'm sure Miller's intentions of who to outrage were meant for all the right reasons, I think it's fair to argue that "pissing people off" does have a downside, and it pays to be careful not to take steps that can alienate people, as Marvel and DC have spent the last 20 years doing with superhero fans, for all the wrong reasons.

That aside, it's impressive he brings up Eisner, because, as noted earlier, Eisner's last graphic novel, The Plot, focused on Muslim anti-semitism, so I think it's safe to say that, whatever his opinions on the finished product, Eisner would support his old buddy Miller's idea on principle. Since we're on the subject, it makes me wonder what people like Slott might think of Eisner. I'm sure there's some people in comicdom today whose alleged admiration for Eisner turned to hatred and spite after they heard he was going to confront Islamofascism in his last days, and would probably denounce him as a "racist", and it wouldn't make any difference that he apologized long ago for his embarrassing renditions of Ebony White's character design in the original Spirit strips.

Miller also reveals something that happened in the mid-80s I wasn't aware of till now:

PLAYBOY: Early in your career the first thing you did to annoy people was to kill off Elektra, a beloved female ninja you created for the Daredevil comic. Did you have any hesitation about doing that?

MILLER: Sure. I had the jitters. There were death threats: “You killed the woman I love. I’m coming after you,” that sort of thing. I was worried for my girlfriend, so I went to the FBI, which explained that because the letters had been opened and had no postmarks or proofs of postage, they couldn’t be considered mail, so I was to take the threats and like it. But killing her was true to the character and true to the story. That’s all that matters.

Yikes. So Marv Wolfman and George Perez weren't the only ones who got a threat letter after the ending they wrote for the Judas Contract in New Teen Titans. And the worst part is that, at the time this happened, anti-stalking laws in the USA hadn't been properly drafted yet (it took at least until 1990 before that happened), otherwise, Miller could probably have gotten a case filed more easily and the authorities wouldn't have refused to help.

Despite what he says about Elektra Nachios, either he or another writer reversed her fate 4-5 years afterwards, so that's something he hasn't clarified fully here. (And how doesn't it occur to the interviewer that the real word for female ninja is "kunoichi"?)

He also has an interesting take on masculinity:

PLAYBOY: Your work is clearly influenced by film noir and pulp magazines. Do you prefer the older ideal of masculinity to the one you see represented in culture these days?

MILLER: I believe there has been a crisis of masculinity in modern times, and the 1940s-style gentleman needs to make a comeback—the sort of man who opens the door for women and compliments them and does things for them. I believe it’s a biological function of men, because we tend to be larger than women, to be protective of them. If I were to try to zero in, comic-book-like, on when masculinity went awry, I’d say it was when Rod Stewart sang, “You are my lover, you’re my best friend,” rather than allowing there to be two people in his life who served two very important functions.

I agree that, no matter how helpful it can be for women to learn self-defense and keeping their calm when faced with danger, honorable men who can defend an innocent lady in distress is an idea in serious need of improvement. Lastly, he has something to say about Superman:

PLAYBOY: A lot of Dark Knight readers think you love Batman and hate Superman. Any truth to that?

MILLER: The Dark Knight series is all from Batman’s point of view. But if you look at Dark Knight 2, you’ll see a Superman who’s much calmer than the one in the first Dark Knight. Batman and Superman are dead opposites. I love Superman. Do I love Batman more? They’re not people. They’re only lines on paper.

Rest assured, I don't think he dislikes the Man of Steel (or even Wonder Woman, though he had a very questionable take on her in his All-Star Batman book), though it's worth arguing guys like him should have tried writing Superman's solo tales more often, and using an optimistic POV more often too. But if he's acknowledging that the World's Finest are only fictional characters, that's good, because it shows he's one writer who recognizes why it makes no sense to think of fictional characters as though they're real people we bump into on the streets. Even today, there's still people out there who haven't grown up and understood the differences, which has only resulted in a lot of bizarre hatred for fictional people instead of criticizing the writers/editors for any faults they see in how the characters are depicted.

HOW THE LEFT-WING CHANGED COMICS POST-WAR ON TERROR

US News & World Report wrote - pretty dishonestly, I might add - about how comics changed after 9-11:

Captain America and Superman fight for truth and justice as they have for decades, but they've questioned the U.S. government more often since the start of the War on Terror in 2001.

Superheroes since the 2000s have increasingly held up a mirror to controversies like mass surveillance, remote killings using drones and the “with us or against us” mentality espoused by former President George W. Bush. Misuse of military technology also played a key role in recent movie adaptations featuring Batman, Spider-Man, Captain America and Iron Man, showing how fighting dirty to defeat evil can make America its own worst enemy.

It's just like them to worry more about supposed breach of civil liberties than about violent ogres lurking around our neighborhoods, making them less safe.

Before the terrorist attacks of 2001, great comics – such as Frank Miller’s “Batman: The Dark Knight Returns” and Alan Moore’s “Watchmen” – reflected a grittier side of American power. But the War on Terror “prompted comic books to take a more global view of the world,” says Axel Alonso, editor-in-chief at Marvel Comics.

Some view alright! The man doesn't have the guts to admit he's a leftist, and acknowledge the leftists now running Marvel seem intent on pushing the Truther view - that 9-11 was supposedly an inside job.

“It provoked comics that used metaphor to comment on the United States’ uncertain place in the world,” Alonso says. “The best comics take a look at the issues outside your window. We don’t take sides and we avoid raw politics. We focus more on ethics.”

A big fat lie. They've been taking leftist leanings for longer than we think. Since the turn of the century - and especially since 9-11 - they've taken a leftist bent that's become progressively worse as time went by.

The premiere of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” on Friday is a prime example of Captain America’s unique role taking on current events after being created in the 1940s to rally support against the Nazis. Captain America fought jihadist terrorists in the early 2000s, but at the same time fought anti-Islamic racism fanned by the World Trade Center attacks, Alonso says.

“'Cap' is not pro-government, he is pro-U.S.,” Alonso says. “He is about doing what he thinks is right for the people.”

More dishonesty from the same editor who's kept up the anti-Spider-marriage position. It may have looked as though Cap was fighting jihadists at first, but then, as that 2002 story drew to a close, it turned out those jihadists who took the small town hostage were working for the government. And that's when the book became extremely unreadable. Sure, they may have tried to disguise their intentions with allegedly pro-US standings, but the moral equivalence fell flat on its face. Besides, despite what they say, under that Marvel Knights imprint, Cap was simply not pro-Republican.

And once again, some of the most incompetent reporters call "anti-Islamic" sentiments "racism" instead of anti-religious sentiment. Nothing's changed with these clowns.

Marvel brought its entire comic universe into that commentary in 2006 with its “Civil War” series, inspired by the inescapable destruction of the World Trade Center near its New York City office and the perpetual security in the city that followed, Alonso says.

“Much of the public debate around that time was, ‘How much of your civil liberties are you willing to give up for your security?’” Alonso says. “Many of us were riding on trains having our bags inspected by soldiers. We were in constant ‘orange alert’ in New York. That discussion was the seed for what became ‘Civil War.’”

Sacrificing liberty for security is the “with us or against us” challenge given to the superheroes of the Marvel universe in the "Civil War" series, as the destruction of a school by supervillains leads the government to pass a law requiring superpowered people to unmask themselves to the government as lethal weapons. This tore the superhero world apart, with Captain America leading resistance and claiming infringement on civil liberties, and Iron Man supporting the government by helping them to imprison rebel heroes in a parallel dimension in the name of public safety. That story does not have a happy ending, and neither does political feuding.

This article doesn't make clear the most embarrassing part of Civil War: the New Warriors were scapegoats, depicted leading to the situation while hoping for publicity.

Rather than take one side, Alonso says he and the Marvel team represented both sides of the security and civil liberties debate equally.

“Iron Man’s methods may not have been ethical … [but] Iron Man might see a long-term game to be played, political or otherwise,” Alonso says.

It's just like Alonso not to admit neither he nor any of the contributors to Civil War were showing any true love for the cast in their care. And equally? I don't think so at all. What is clear is that they wasted everyone's time over a pointless clash between superheroes, far more than hero-vs-villain, if at all.

Also in 2006, “Superman Returns” raised eyebrows when a character in the film asked if Superman stood for “truth, justice – all that stuff” instead of the rest of his motto, "the American Way.”

I assume they consider that fine, since they've already made clear they see nothing wrong with the angle used in the Marvel Knights take on Captain America, the senseless slaughter of a school building in Civil War for the sake of it, or the sheer disregard for many great heroes and co-stars.

The ethical challenges of mass surveillance additionally were a major feature of “The Dark Knight,” and privacy advocate Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., even made a cameo in the Batman film. Batman movies starring Christian Bale also showed a healthy distrust of the military-industrial complex, as he battled executives that made Wayne Enterprises into a weapons company.

Now that I think of it, that may have been one thing overlooked by everyone who saw that movie, IIRC.

A major dose of realism the War on Terror brought to comics is that superheroes can’t save everybody – but they’re heroes because they try. The first comic about New York native Spider-Man published after the World Trade Center attacks showed Spidey walking through the destruction of the towers and helping rescuers find survivors in the debris.

“One of the things that modern comics have come to terms with is the fact that there are some problems that heroes can beat, but some that they can’t,” Alonso says. “Not all problems can be beaten, kicked or force-bolted into submission. Sometimes the best thing a superhero can do is to save as many people as possible.”

This is another example of their inability to recognize why there's cases where fact and fiction simply don't mix. They leave out that there's many other superheroes in the MCU - quite a few who also appear in the issue from that time by J. Michael Strayncynski (36, Vol. 2) like Thor, who have the strength to hold up a large building long enough for civilians to escape. Another irritating problem overlooked is that during the story, Spidey's seen replying to a guy running from the debris that they couldn't have known or imagined this would happen. Excuse me? The very same heroes who had to contend with the menace of Dr. Doom, Kang and Thanos couldn't forsee something horrible like this as possible? US News doesn't even mention how several supervillains showed up at the wreckage, allegedly to pay their respects even as they went right back to their old ways within the following year. Why would anyone - superhero or civilian - welcome Doom to the site after all the chaos he caused in past decades, including his attacks on the original Baxter Building? How does the tragedy suddenly give scum like him immunity from anger for his own crimes? And if he were really sorry this happened, why didn't he go after al Qaeda, who wouldn't stand a chance against his technology? Stracynski even injected left-wing propaganda about this supposedly being the fault of America for not listening to foreign sources, by which he probably meant Afghanistan and the Islamic world.

In the end, what turned that issue of Spider-Man into one of the worst exploitations of real life was that it trivialized the tragedy in a way no Golden Age WW2 comic ever could. And US News is making things worse with their lip service to people who don't deserve the platform on which to spew their propaganda, foisting it on unsuspecting audiences who shouldn't have to be fooled into buying their awful tommyrot.

COMIC BOOK BUFFS RIDICULE THE SPLC'S ATTACK ON BOSCH FAWSTIN

Front Page Magazine says the SPLC's denounced cartoonist Bosch Fawstin as a "hate groupie" because of the anti-Muhammed cartoons he's drawn. But he's not phased:

When reached by phone on Monday night, Fawstin said Sunday's incident made him fear for his safety, but he would continue his work.

"It definitely is concerning. You do your work and people out there want to kill you for it," he said. "I understand the threat, but I'm not going to be cowed by it. I still intend to go up there and I still intend to speak out."

Fawstin, who said he is atheist, laughed when asked about the law center's report: "So they want to put a cartoonist on there who doesn't act out violently? Go for it."

That's the problem with the SPLC today - all they worry about is non-violent people, and come off sounding more like crime supporters than people truly concerned about making this a civilized planet. Over at the Outhousers, one of the people writing about this said that while he doesn't side with Fawstin's view, there are still some interesting queries to make, like:

If Fawstin belongs on the list of hate groups, does someone like Frank Miller, who wrote a similarly-themed (but less well-received) comic about killing Muslims called “Holy Terror,” belong there as well?

If so, what does that mean for major Hollywood movie studios promoting movies based on his work, such as the upcoming Superman v. Batman: Dawn of Justice, set to launch a multi-movie franchise?

Or for that matter, for DC Comics, who promoted Miller’s return to writing Batman comics as a major event just last month?

What about Charlie Hebdo, which the world was pretty much unanimously celebrating in January after an attack on their building killed several cartoonists and editors, and whose defiant “Je Suis Charlie” slogan can still be readily be found on t-shirts and social media avatars.

How do Charlie Hebdo’s anti-Islam cartoons and drawings of Muhammad differ from Fawstin’s?

Those are good questions to ask (but which I'm sure the SPLC won't answer), to which I can add at least one more: does the SPLC think Will Eisner belongs there too because of his last graphic novel, The Plot? As a matter of fact, they might, but because of the high regard he had when he was still alive, that's probably why they'd leave him alone, though I'm sure they'd villify him if they thought they could. Some of the commentors at CBR also criticized the SPLC's poor conduct. For example:

Watching the Southern Poverty Law Center go from a group that fought the Klan to a group that attacks artists is just sad.

And that's why they're an irrelevancy today. Another said:

SPLC are some of the biggest haters around, and like many such groups, they’re total hypocrites.

For example, I wonder how many blasphemous depictions of Jesus you’d have to produce to get on their list.

What do you think? I’m guessing the number is somewhere in the quadrillions.

Yes, they're just hypocritical apologists, and nobody should donate money to them.

It's pretty surprising that DC still maintains a respectable relationship with Miller, because they have quite a few people working there now who'd surely want to ostracize him for his changed views, and there's no chance they'd ever let him write them a Batman story even remotely similar to what he wrote in Holy Terror. For all we know, he could end up being blacklisted for real one day, and that would be bad, although I will say that with the way DC's going now, he really doesn't need to do them favors by lending them his talents that could be put to better use at smaller companies like Dark Horse.

I'm glad to see that Fawstin's not letting the SPLC get him down. It's also flattering to learn Jim Shooter's one the people supporting his work.

BOSTON UNIVERSITY WRITES PUFF-PIECE ABOUT MUSLIM SUPERHEROES

The Boston University's site has written about an alleged comics expert named A. Dave Lewis, who's probing the rise of "superheroes" of Muslim backgrounds (via CBR's Robot 6 blog, where there's too few positives and far too many negatives). Interestingly enough, it begins by telling that:

In 2009, Image Comics issued a $1 book with a cover depicting Barack Obama landing a right cross on Osama bin Laden. The presidential punch pales next to bin Laden’s real-life end, but sure as radiation enlarges Bruce Banner into the Incredible Hulk, the al-Qaeda leader’s demise made the Obama-Osama cover a collector’s item that now sells for $100.

Funny, isn't it, that they never published a cover depicting Dubya or even a lower-ranking Republican doing the same thing? But the article starts to deteriorate with the following:

Comics expert A. David Lewis (GRS’11), who is studying for a doctorate in religion and literature, sees a bigger, more surprising development than a bonanza for comic book collectors. Lewis sees the emergence of the Muslim superhero.

This is what we have to hear about? Why don't we get an article where we wonder why there's no superheroes or supporting cast members of Armenian, Portuguese, Ghanian, Estonian and Burmese descent?

That aside, it's important to note that almost 6 years ago, Lewis attacked Michael Medved for criticizing Marvel's anti-American injection in Captain America during 2002-2004. He even used Wikipedia, the site anyone can edit, as his means of gathering "evidence" to support his limp argument. He seemed otherwise unconcerned about The Truth: Red White & Black's use of stereotypical artwork too. One can only wonder if he sees nothing wrong with Mexico's monstrous Memin Pinguin comic either.

The year after 9/11, Marvel Comics introduced Dust, a Muslim “mutant” (superhuman) member of the famed X-Men, only her eyes visible beneath her full-body burka. Born in Afghanistan, she can change into a blinding, skin-shredding sandstorm. Then there’s M, whose super strength, telepathy, and flight are the least obvious of her attributes (buxom and curvaceous, she’d shame Wonder Woman as an adolescent boy’s fantasy). M debuted in 1994. She revealed this year that she’s Muslim.

Oh good grief. Monet St. Croix is a fictional character, and can only be as curvy as the artist can draw her body. This sounds like an attempt to insult William Marston's classic creation and the fans of the Amazon princess. (Likewise, if any writers/editors turned St. Croix into an Islamist, they've done the same.)

Meanwhile, rival publisher DC Comics recently brought out Nightrunner, an Algerian Muslim immigrant recruited by Batman, drawing charges from some American readers that DC is PC. Batman, they groused, should have deputized a native Frenchman.

Guess again: they should've deputized an Armenian! Yes, that's what I think now. There's not enough Mannix variants out there in mainstream comics, so I don't suppose they might think of them for a change?

What’s up with the new Islamic heroes? Religion, once taboo in comics, now gives characters a foothold in readers’ experience, says Lewis (below), who has written comics and graphic novels and edited Graven Images: Religion in Comic Books and Graphic Novels, a collection of scholarly essays. His dissertation details depictions of the afterlife in comics and other pop culture.

Oh wow, what a laugh. Nightcrawler of the X-Men was characterized as a German Catholic Christian who fled from a mob in Germany to be recruited by Prof. Xavier. Since the Huntress was recreated by DC Comics in 1989, she's usually been characterized as an Italian Catholic too. Black Lightning was usually characterized as a Northern Baptist Protestant, and Marvel's Wolfsbane as a Scottish Protestant. And Kitty Pryde was written as a Jewish protagonist, though her observance of Judaism is not fully clear to me. In recent years, however, religious observance has become less clear for followers of Christianity and Judaism, as the companies seem more interested in depicting this or that character as Muslim at the Judeo-Christian's expense. (The same can be said when it comes to gays and lesbians, at the expense of most other ideas, though the main problem is that they won't allow any questions of whether homosexuality is a bad practice). And Lewis begins to derail when he attempts to hijack the X-Men with the following:

The comics are “already dealing with these incredibly fantastic characters: flying characters, alien characters, underwater characters,” he says. “There’s such a suspension of disbelief that they needed to ground them more in the readers’ real world” with religious references. He points out that both the X-Men and Muslims are victimized minorities.

Wow! So in Lewis's narrow vision, the Copts of Egypt aren't victimized, nor are the French, the Israelis, the Sudanese Christians, or even the Armenians during WW1, when the Islamic-led Ottoman Empire of Turkey slaughtered at least a million Armenians. Nor, I suppose, was Lara Logan when she was gang raped in Egypt back in February. What a most utter ignoramus. I guess he hasn't ever read the Koran either.

For much of the Cold War, Lewis says, mainstream comics avoided religion and tended to use communists when they needed real-life villains. Then the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the 1979–1981 Iranian hostage crisis turned the comics’ gaze toward the Middle East, and the Hulk embarked on global adventures that included evil Arabs. But if that’s your scenario, Lewis says, you “do also have to opt for at least the token opposite…a token superhero,” and in 1980, the Hulk series introduced the Arabian Knight, “our first headlining, Middle Eastern superhero,” replete with a flying carpet and a scimitar that fired force beams and could pierce anything. He lasted about five years. The comics’ interest in Arab characters receded along with the price of oil in the late ’80s and the shift in national angst towards the rising economic sun of Japan.

All of which might've worked out if they'd just acknowledge the Koran's jihadist, supremacist indoctrine. But the depiction of the Arabian Knight was superficial at best, and there was no comment made on his polygamy.

Then came 9/11. While American interest in Islam led to Muslim heroes, Muslim villains (fictional ones, anyway) have been rare, which Lewis attributes in part to publishers “playing it safe,” not wanting to muck with either Islamophobia or offending potential customers. Frank Miller, creator of the Batman Dark Knight series, announced in 2006 that he was writing a graphic novel pitting the Caped Crusader against bin Laden. He later announced that he’d substituted a new superhero in the book, which he targeted for publication this year. It’s unclear how he’ll proceed in the wake of bin Laden’s death.

Boy, I guess they really do have a negative leaning against Miller's project. As a matter of fact, he could do it somewhat more easily now, since bin Laden's dead. As for playing it "safe", I'm afraid that part is right in a sense: they've sunk into cowardice, but worse yet, into leftism, if we ponder any and all of the leftist propaganda publications with anti-conservative leanings they've produced this past decade, including - but not limited to - the very apologia that Medved criticized in 2003 and Lewis blatantly attacked him for doing, and not very cleverly.

What is clear is that Muslims on the comics pages confront the conundrum of their flesh-and-blood counterparts: their community views them with suspicion. Lewis says non-Muslim heroes wonder, “Can they truly represent the American way? Could they really be on our side? When Dust joins the X-Men, these persecuted American mutants don’t really know if they can trust her. The comic book creators can have it both ways. They can present an altruistic Muslim hero, but also reflect the Islamophobia.”

Very funny. The Koran doesn't promote altruism, so for any such character to present it wouldn't be doing it as per the Koran's teaching. But in a way, they're right about Grant Morrison's New X-Men title featuring "Islamophobia" via the X-Men themselves: at least one character acts so negatively, while Dust comes off more positively.

Lewis thinks our interest in Muslim heroes may wane if and when another global hot spot bumps the Middle East off the front pages, but for now it’s clear that the comic-book bug has bitten the Arab world. America invented the superhero comic book in the 1930s, but Kuwait’s Teshkeel Media has created a comics series about the 99, an international band of superheroes whose powers are the 99 Koranic virtues of Allah, such as wisdom and love. The company distributes a million comic books a month in Islamic countries. The creator read American comics as a boy while summering in New Hampshire, growing up to create his own heroes.

Um, what's so wise and loving about a religion that tells its followers in Sura 8:12, "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them"? And upon reaching this last part in the article, I found that the 2010 Atlantic interview they linked to contains something very scary about Naif al-Mutawa:

You've said that you hope that The 99 provides a less threatening face of Islam to non-Muslims. But what do you hope it achieves within the Muslim world?

A year ago, I gave a lecture at the medical school in Kuwait on the biological basis of behavior. I gave my students a copy of two articles--one from The New York Times and one from New York Magazine--but I removed the name of the reporter, the actor, where it took place. The first article was about a group who wanted to ban Valentine's Day. The second article was about a woman who was complaining that a man she didn't know started to talk to her, pinched her son's cheek, told her he was cute. Then he walked off and some vans pulled up; six bearded men jumped out and interrogated this woman.

I asked my students where they thought these incidents took place. They all said the first incident was in Saudi Arabia. For the second story, the students were torn between Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. It blew their minds when I told them that the first incident took place in India and the second one took place in upstate New York at an ultra-orthodox Jewish community. This is what broke my heart: In the situation in India, people being interviewed, called that behavior "Talibanization." In other words, this is Islam's influence on Hinduism. We don't act this way with Hinduism, said the people in the article. In the second example, the woman called the men "stupid Talibans." Again, this is not Jewish behavior; it is coming from the Muslim world. But my students said, "it is us."

This is what I fear. This is very, very problematic. With The 99, the idea is that we have gone back to the same places from where other people have pulled very negative one-sided fascist messages and created a multicultural theme park. When you have the happy-go-lucky stuff that is based on the same source as the extremism, your average is going to be pushed in a different direction. It confuses the system. That is where I think the impact will come from.

An important note should be made about the latter article they provided from NY Mag that al-Mutwa didn't explain: the women interviewed there left a Satmar community in upstate New York where she felt belittled. And as they say in the article itself:

“The Lubavitchers, they have a joy about them. The Satmars are nuts. They tell you the State of Israel shouldn’t exist because the Messiah hasn’t come yet, that the Holocaust was God’s way of punishing Jews for Zionism. It makes you sick.”

You can say that again! If there's any religious community that doesn't deserve to be called "Hasidic" if it derives from positive words, it's the Satmars. They really are a thorn in the side of Judaism and the Jewish state. It's their very twisted beliefs that are exactly why the Messiah is kept from coming. The Lubavichers/Chabad movement may not be perfect, but are a lot more respectable of freedom to choose how to run your life than the Satmars are.

And this is what al-Mutawa doesn't make a distinction about, otherwise making a cryptic, subtle statement that villifies Jews and Hindus while living in denial about his own Religion of Peace. Anyone concerned about al-Mutawa and his propaganda may want to take a good look at this worrisome piece from the Atlantic, which bears more than a hint of taqqiya about it.

And Mr. Lewis chose to put his head in the sand when it came to the publisher of The 99 in Kuwait too. This is not the kind of writer whose works I would recommend.

ARTIFICE WEBSITE CHOOSES EASY TARGET FOR ACCUSATIONS OF POLITICIZATION

The Artifice website wrote about politics in comics. They cite mainly Grant Morrison's take on Animal Man as a great example of the writer putting what may be his personal politics into his comics writing. Yet when it comes to Holy Terror, they seem to have quite the opposite opinion about Frank Miller:

That said, while Morrison may avoid the trap – for the most part – of converting Animal Man into a political diatribe, other authors have been less able to avoid such accusations. Perhaps the most infamous example is Holy Terror, a graphic novel that it’s writer, Frank Miller, expressly admits to being a propagandistic examination of terrorism and Islam in general. It is fair to say that the critics did not like it, and upon reading it, it’s not hard to see why. It’s brutal stuff, and as with any work given the label “propaganda,” it’s message – that Islamic terrorism (and apparently Islam generally, given that the author doesn’t go to any trouble to make a distinction) is a terrible, real threat to the freedom and security of the United States – is about as blunt as you can imagine.

Some leftist still has a problem with a book that's already at least 2 years old? And what a cheap, easy target he's choosing for calling a diatribe. What about all the leftist politics that make their way into comics far more mainstream than Holy Terror ever was? Including - but not limited to - Peter David's insult to opponents of the mosque that could've been built at Ground Zero, Mark Waid's propaganda, Ed Brubaker's attack on the Tea Party, among other lefty stunts of recent? How are those not diatribes? In fact, what if Animal Man is a diatribe and the Artifice writer doesn't have what it takes to admit that?

He also accuses Miller of not making distinctions without even acknowledging the content of the Koran and the verses that condone violence, and calls the book "brutal" without recognizing the subject matter is very serious stuff. I'm not saying Miller doesn't have flaws even on an issue like this, but when a buffoon like the writer for the Artifice fails to critique based on more valid points, it's clear he didn't write this up for sincere reasons. And citing critics as not liking it without being brave enough to admit the majority of detractors were leftists is another minus. I don't think it's fair at all. What he needs to look for is an exact reaction from a lot of the audience. He continues to say:

This isn’t the first time Miller has allowed his political views to enter a story, either; a less recent example would be his work on All-Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder, and his depictions therein of the killings of corrupt cops, the near-veneration of Batman’s violent and morally dubious vigilantism as “justice” and the characterisation of Wonder Woman as a brash, violent, hypocritical straw feminist whose assessment of her own powers and place in the world borders on narcissism – and really, given how unsubtle that last critique is, it’s pretty easy to theorise where Miller stands in regards to feminism, all in all. Miller has, in the past, received his fair share of accolades, but these works brought a lot of criticism, and even the most charitable amongst us would have to call them controversial at best.

I won't argue about Miller's depiction of WW, as I think it wasn't right to tear down on her under the excuse this was an alternate universe take on a classic heroine. But if he has a problem with that, what does he think of Brad Meltzer after he penned that 2004 atrocity, Identity Crisis, or Geoff Johns for writing up at least a few acts that could be construed as insulting to women, like the nasty treatment of Linda Park West in the Flash at the time Johns came up with a new Reverse-Flash? Why should just Miller be the controversial writer/artist here? Some cheap shots he takes.

Still, it's not like Holy Terror and Miller's opinions on Occupy Wall Street have affected his career much, since he's still in the business, getting another of his Sin City GNs picked for movie adaptations and even a TV series, and even drew a cover for Detective Comics. (Though in all due honesty, I'm not happy he had to do a job for an issue whose story contributors include Meltzer. Ugh.) This probably suggests most leftists have come to terms with how Occupy wasn't worth all the fuss, and see no point in resenting Miller for what he thinks of it anymore.

WHAT CULTURE RANKS FRANK MILLER'S PRODUCTS

And the UK magazine predictably decided to put Holy Terror at the bottom of the list of 19 or so stories he's written, in an obvious failure to appreciate the idea, any more than the finished product. They say that:

...the writing of Holy Terror descends into something more akin to a bigoted rant than an actual story.

Oh yeah, it's just like them to blurt straight off the bat that it's nothing more than some "bigoted" rant. Is that also what they think 9-11 Families who openly condemn Islamofascism are doing? Their weird little diatribe gets worse with the following paragraph:

It may not be as bad as seeing Batman punch out insurgents, but whatever the book amounts to is undeniably infuriating. Comics legends like Alan Moore and Grant Morrison – who had by turns lauded and cited as influence to earlier works by Miller – responded with outrage at the mere notion of Holy Terror, an outrage – not a polite disagreement between professionals, but actual anger – and it’s all something like the series could hope to fuel.

All those twosome managed to do was make it sound like they're against fighting crime and defeating violent criminals, and to lose my respect in the process. I guess if it's wrong for Batman to whack out "insurgents" then it's wrong for him to give the Joker - along with plenty of other violent thugs in Gotham - a smash to the face too, huh?

If they think the story itself isn't well crafted, that's one thing, but to say the idea of battling savages is reprehensible is only to deliver a whole slap in the face to what superhero comics are all about - fighting evil. If they don't like that, then maybe they shouldn't read any more superhero, fantasy or crime comics.

TOM BREVOORT SAYS KILLING TERRORISTS MAKES YOU ONE AS WELL

Just when you thought Brevoort couldn't stoop deep enough into the abyss, he does again. It began with some posts where he claims Batman killing the Joker would be wrong, even if it's to save an innocent life (strange, wasn't Daredevil shown killing a handful of villains in self-defense, possibly in Frank Miller's stories?), and veers close to acting like Batman is a real person. Now, he's gone overboard again with another stupefying argument against killing murderous offenders that basically says you're also a terrorist if you terminate them. He begins with:

I think this has as much if not more to so sub-textually with the audience wanting to feel good about itself.

I think Brevoort likes to feel good about himself. No wonder he's part and parcel of the crew backing the erasure of the Spider-marriage, and the awful treatment of Mary Jane Watson. And that's just one example of many embarrassments he's been involved with for over a decade.

it started a little bit in the 80s, but especially ever since 9/11, there’s been an underlying narrative throughout popular fiction that amounts to, “In order to fight terrorists, the only thing that can be done is to become a terrorist yourself.” And that seems to me to be a product of a society that knows that things like the abuses at Guantanamo Bay are wrong, but doesn’t actually want to change the behavior or demand accountability. In a world where even Superman can’t find a way other than to become a terrorist, it’s more all right for ordinary people to feel the same way.

What a groaner. All he's doing is blurring the differences between terrorists and counter-terror specialists, for example. You could easily argue he's insulting liberals along with conservatives too. How does he know the entire public agrees with his view of anything going on at Guantanamo, if it really did take place?

And what narrative has there really been in popular fiction that he claims? Not in the fictional stories he's been in charge of, that's for sure, and certainly not since 9-11. They took good care to ensure the narrative would be one of defeatism, and a dearth of creativity. That's why the Marvel Knights take on Captain America was truly awful.

I think grappling with hard moral choices, and the question of where heroism stops, at what point you become a villain, is definitely interesting–it’s certainly been the backbone of the storyline in AVENGERS and NEW AVENGERS for months. But I don’t think the example that was given fulfills that quandary. That isn’t a hard choice at all, not for a super hero–if it is, then they’re a piss-poor super hero, and will be dead on in prison soon anyway. No, it’s a false choice that we want to see go the other way because we’ve become societally convinced that doing so makes somebody a “badass” and worthy of emulation. And because, on a visceral level, we want to see the bad guy get theirs. But that isn’t justice, that’s vengeance.

Says who it's not justice? Only a lazy bum like Brevoort. He's long stopped being relevant. Besides, didn't they once try to make various superheroes into "badasses" over past decades? Wolverine's one of those too. But then, that could explain why they got rid of Logan in their recent publicity stunts, replete with a few tie-in specials to milk more money off of the gullible.

I have no doubt there's plenty of terrible messages to be found in the recent Avengers storylines. It's not all that new though. Marvel's surrendered the Earth's Mightiest Heroes to the worst of writers since 2002.

Thank goodness we didn't have anti-warrists like Brevoort around during WW1 and WW2. But tragically, we do have men like him around today, and they do not help one bit.

DETECTIVE COMICS ANNUAL 12: BATMAN HIRES AN ISLAMIST

I knew it was only going to get worse at DC Comics: in his continuing efforts to form Batman Inc, Bruce Wayne recruits an Algerian Muslim living in France, in Clichy-Sous-Bois, where the Muslim riots grew out of in 2005, over the death of 2 delinquents who electrocuted themselves by stupidly entering a power station, and the blame was laid upon at least 2 policemen who weren't even at fault and didn't even know they were there. How about that, Bruce Wayne goes to France where he hires not a genuine French boy or girl with a real sense of justice, but rather, an "oppressed" minority who adheres to the Religion of Peace. And this is a guy whose very parents were murdered at the hands of a common street thug!

And reading this review, it may be just the beginning of the problems:

Bruce reveals that he's aware of some bizarre assassinations taking place in Paris, and he wants to help. Still dubious, the cop shows Bruce a letter giving clues to the next murder, and Bruce deducts that a Muslim diplomat was the target of the assassin.

Really? Not a cartoonist like Kurt Westergaard or Lars Vilks?

Also, it's funny how someone who recruited an indigenous Japanese combatant for his operation can't do the same in France. Surely Saint-Flour in Brittany might have a couple of brave folks who could step up to plate? Now that this has happened, one can only wonder if Bruce Wayne will go next to the Gaza Strip and recruit a Muslim who thinks him/herself oppressed not by the Hamas, but by the Israelis, and even to Sweden, where he'll recruit a Muslim living in Malmö, which has long had troubles of its own with suburban jihadists.

When this was brought up on the Dixonverse forum, someone asked:

Does he bring justice to the Parisian streets by lighting dozens of evil automobiles on fire every night?

Here's an even more intriguing question: Does he condone or blandly tolerate some of the most horrifying verses in the Koran/Hadith like Sura 8:12? Or, more precisely, does the writer?

Thank goodness the JLA/99 special was a fiasco. We can only hope the same will be for this pretentious story. It certainly puts the lie to the whole notion that DC is "conservative". And it tells that they are really going downhill. I'm guessing that the writer, David Hine, is taking out his leftist anger on France for finally taking steps to fight back against creeping shariah and Islamic supremacism, by banning the niqab for starters.

Update: Bosch Fawstin had a special response to this kowtowing on News Real Blog a few months earlier.

WHAT PAMELA GELLER WOULD SAY TO GARRY TRUDEAU

The Washington Post's Comic Riffs section interviewed Pamela Geller about the DC Metro's banning political ads from their stations just so they can avoid running her own ads about Muhammed drawings. And here's what she'd tell Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau in response to his defeatism:

MC: Over the weekend, I spoke with, and listened to [via panel debate], “Doonesbury” creator Garry Trudeau — in Washington, coincidentally — on the matter of his belief that satire should strive to be “responsible,” and that free speech can be its own kind of fanaticism — and that Charlie Hebdo, in the context of France, was “punching down.” If you were debating Mr. Trudeau on this subject yourself, what would you first say in response to his statements?

PG: I’d tell him that he was making excuses for self-censorship in the face of violent intimidation. He never spoke about being “responsible” in regard to the crucifix in a jar of urine or other expressions of contempt for Christianity. He is only speaking that way about cartoons critical of Muhammad because Muslims kill over them. He is advocating surrender. And as for “punching down,” his claim that Muslims in France are a despised and oppressed minority is leftist fantasy. In reality, the killers were part of a well-financed, highly trained global network of jihadis intent upon murdering anyone who dares stand in the way of their goal of imposing Sharia in the West. They won’t have to murder Trudeau. He is already on his knees.

Trudeau's uninformed, contrived apologia reminds me of the 2010 Batman story where a Muslim was hired to be part of a Batman Incorporated group, written by a British scriptwriter who didn't seem particularly interested in being innovative. A few years later though, he seemingly changed, though even that can't be taken at face value.

MC: I’ve spoken with scores of American cartoonists about drawing Muhammad, and many who believe in the First Amendment as an absolute still decline to draw Muhammad. What do you think most motivated the cartoonists like Bosch who entered your Texas contest — beyond, of course, a $10,000 winner’s purse?

PG: First, a love of freedom. And courage, which those cartoonists with whom you spoke obviously don’t have, and a determination to show that we will not kowtow to thuggery.

Say, this just made me think of something. What about Erik Larsen? He's probably still part of same crowd referenced by Cavna, and has no intention of ever drawing Muhammed. That's why we shouldn't take his complaints about major publishers placating vocal minorities with practical outfits for women at face value. What's his point of defending the creations of fine folks more famous than he is if he can't defend other free speech values as well? I'd recommend to Geller that she pay attention to artists and writers of comic pamphlets too, to see how strong their support is or not for the kind of values she's championing, because what goes on in the comics industry can't be overlooked either.

DAVID HINE IS ACTUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT AFGHANISTAN'S PROPOSAL TO REVIVE STONING OF ADULTERERS

Hine, the British writer of Bulletproof Coffin, pointed to the following news:

Public stoning consideration is latest setback for Afghan women's rights @guardian no comment from US UN??!! http://t.co/lKlvLPLMsu
— David Hine (@HineDavid) November 27, 2013

UK minister urges Afghan president to block proposals to bring back stoning via @guardian http://t.co/JWZMgyipIf
— David Hine (@HineDavid) November 29, 2013

So he's worried about this, and wonders why the Obama administration hasn't protested (Pamela Geller offers a clue why neither they nor the UN said anything). I wonder if this means he now regrets the part he played in introducing a Muslim co-star in the Batman books, and missed a big chance to make the co-star Armenian? (France has quite a few Armenians living there.) I have no idea, but, if he really understands something is wrong, then he'll ponder that stoning of adulterers/women is part and parcel of the Koran/Hadith.

Maybe there is hope for some people in the UK - comics writers included - to wake up and smell reality. If Hine's come around and realized something is wrong with the Religion of Peace, then in the forseeable future, he'll avoid going for such cheapie stunts as he did in Batman a few years ago.

DHIMMI BATMAN COMIC STRIP AUTHOR, DAVID HINE, SPEWS MORE DHIMMITUDE

The British-born writer who wrote that whitewashy, morally equivalent story of Batman recruiting an Algerian Muslim in France gave an interview to the leftist Graphic Policy site, where he continues to be as insular as ever, and sees conservatives as merely manufacturing the news. He begins by defending his standings with the following:

I have lived in Paris and spent a lot of time there. My partner is French, my son attends French school here in London. So France, and specifically Paris, was the obvious location.

Well duh, plenty of British have spent time in France, and vice versa. The problem here lies within his political viewpoints, veering left on the superhighway at 900 miles per hour, and what he really thinks of the French as a whole. I've been to France too, but do I adhere to the kind of socialist leanings and contempt he probably has? Nope.

GP: During the creation of the character, was there any discussion at all as to how the public might react to him?

DH: Only within the fictional world of the story itself. There is a lot of hostility towards the French Algerian community from some sections of the French public and we planned to explore the complications that might arise. We certainly envisaged right wing and racist reaction to a character who, because of their prejudices, would not be regarded as a true Frenchman. We talked about a scene where Nightrunner would unmask and declare himself to be a proud citizen of France. For the moment he’s going to remain masked and anonymous. There’s an irony to his being viewed as part of the establishment by his own community. It makes for some interesting potential for the development of a conflicted character. Honestly though, it never occurred to me for a moment that the very fact of choosing a fictional character with French Algerian, or Muslim background would in itself be controversial.

Wow, he really thinks even I'd care if the character was Algerian. I don't care about his race and/or ethnicity. What I care about is his default religion, Islam, whose Koran/Hadith contains creepy verses like, "Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like" - Sura 2:223. And, lest we forget, there's also the matter of "prophet" Mohammed's marriage to a 9-year-old girl, Ayesha. (See also this topic and this one for more insight). I assume Hine considers that "normal"? If this were an Algerian Christian, maybe even an apostate from Islam, who was the protagonist, all this disgust at Hine and company's subtle insult wouldn't have been.

His ambiguous reference to "some sections" of the French public is insulting, as is his dislike of conservatives, and it makes no difference whether "Nightrunner" is thought by his own community as a member of establishment; it's the whitewash of Islam that's concerning, not to mention how the story otherwise depicts the French law enforcement as the aggressor (shades of how anti-Israelists depict our own authorities).

GP: In another interview you said you’d like Nightrunner be a character the French would like to see. How’s their reaction been to him? Has there been any controversy over his introduction there?

DH: We’ve had a lot of very positive reaction. Most people in France are very pleased to see their country get its own hero and particularly its own Batman. It’s always tough to depict a country and culture, as an outsider. There will always be nit-picking about how accurate our depiction of Paris has been, just as we British always examine every element of a comic written by an American, set in the UK. I did my best to make sure locations were accurate, although I’m sure a few errors will have slipped through.

And what's that supposed to mean? That the French are stupid and have no knowledge of how to judge a story, and will take what's offered no matter what? It figures that such a Briton would be so murky and otherwise contemptible. I may not be French, but if I were, I can assure you I wouldn't take kindly to this, and it's got nothing to do with whether or not the character is indigenous. It's just his chilling religion.

GP: What’s your reaction been to the controversy surrounding the character?

DH: It was really unexpected. The character doesn’t strike me as particularly controversial. I thought we had moved on from a time when a non-white Anglo-Saxon character might be seen as unusual. I realize this is part of an anti-Muslim sentiment in a tiny segment of the online community, as much as a racial thing. I get the impression that there are people who spend their time trawling the internet to find any mention of Islam that they can get outraged about. But it feels like a manufactured outrage and I don’t take it too seriously.

Again, he fogs it all up as "racial", in his failure to distinguish between race and religion. A man or woman who cannot distinguish between race and religion is not a very well educated person, IMHO. He should also consider the rage manufacturing his own country's spent its time doing, like that there was ever a "palestinian Arab people" who existed. Or how about what may be the first anti-Jewish pogrom in Europe, which, as Melanie Phillips wrote in City Journal, took place in none other than England:

[...] Britain has always had an ambivalent relationship with the Jews. Medieval England actually led the European charge against them. The blood libel is thought to have originated in twelfth-century England; and in 1290, after numerous pogroms against its Jewish citizens, it expelled them altogether. It was not until 1656 that, for a variety of economic and religious reasons, Oliver Cromwell allowed Jews to return to England.

This occured during the time of King Edward I of the Plantagenets, well before Spain and Russia instigated their own pogroms. On a related note, is this horror not something that requires outrage? Maybe he should take some time to think before he says we're not supposed to be angry about what a religion and Koran he clearly hasn't studied teaches and leads to. But I doubt he ever will.

Oh, and I thought we'd moved on from a time when it seemed as though indigenous Bulgarians, Ghanians, and Armenians didn't exist in entertainment, but do you actually see them seriously emphasized in entertainment today? Not really. Not even the Ainu of Japan seem to get much attention; it's as though they don't exist either! What's so special about a religion like Islam that isn't so special about a race like the Armenians? And why is Mannix one of the very few protagonists of his background in showbiz ever since the series ended its 1967-75 run on TV?

Hine goes on to say:

GP: Have you been following the bloggers at all? Or do you ignore such comments?

DH: Normally I would ignore them, but once this started spreading across the net, I did have a look at some of the sites. So much anger, so much hate, so much unfocussed rage and fear. I found them profoundly depressing.

Is that also his opinion on 9-11 Families for a Safe & Strong America and their opposition to the Ground Zero mosque abomination? No surprise he would merely dismiss the movement against the whitewash of Islam so cynically.

GP: The coverage of the story has been worldwide. Where the most surprising place you’ve seen it covered or had to do an interview with?

DH: I’ve been approached by all kinds of people, from the BBC to Arabic radio and TV, French radio and TV and even The Daily Show in the USA. I’ve avoided most of it, because I don’t think this is a truly controversial topic and is best ignored. But I am fascinated by the viral nature of the story’s spread. It even made Wikileaks.

But it didn't make sales, and hasn't really spread in media coverage that widely either. Not for long anyway. But I think he did appear on BBC radio, that most awful of the apologists for jihad.

The following Q&A, however, is really disturbing:

GP: With the tragic events in Arizona fresh on everyone’s mind, have you received threats over the character?

DH: No. It’s all hot air. A few verbal ‘insults’ have been thrown my way, but being called ‘Leftist’ or ‘Politically Correct’ doesn’t bother me.

What is this supposed to be? What's the tragedy in Arizona got to do with this? Is this some sort of attempt to hijack something unrelated as part of the left's effort to demonize the right over something that leftist ideology actually caused? But if that's how he and they feel, what do they think of the cases of Tea Party members who've been receiving death threats? I'm really disappointed, but not surprised, at how contemptible they are of people who oppose violent mindsets and the trivializing of the same, which is just what this pretentious man from the UK has engaged in.

As it so happens, it's very fortunate that he hasn't recieved any threats. Let us be clear: it would be wrong to do what the Islamofascists have tried doing to Lars Vilks.

One more thing: about that claim they were thinking of introducing a French crimefighter called the Musketeer? I'll bet he and they contrived that as a defense because of how goofy it could sound. If I were creating a French vigilante for a book like the Dark Knight's, "Musketeer" wouldn't be at the top of my list; I'd want it to be something more straightforward. Speaking of which, "Nightrunner" is actually pretty weak for a code name too.