Kurt Busiek gets news from a betrayer of the right
He linked to an item attacking Republican Ted Cruz, from a site run by a former ally of the right who startlingly changed overnight 5 years ago:
So he's not bothered by any attempt Obama could make to cripple the internet? What a shame. Cruz has a point; it's basically an attack on businesses too. Guess Busiek doesn't have much faith in the internet. Sigh.
That aside, it's interesting Busiek now takes news from that site, whose blogmaster used to be right wing, and then inexplicably went 360 at the time Obama was elected. He even broke away from the folks whom he'd helped launch Pajamas Media with several years ago, and one guy who knew him suggested he was weirdly jealous because various other bloggers were now gaining more popularity than he once had. Patterico was mighty let down, as were Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, whom he turned against as well. It was pretty sad, because he'd probably served as inspiration for some conservatives, was one of the bloggers who popularized the term "fauxtography" during the 2nd war in Lebanon, and then he insults everybody's intellect by going the nasty betrayal route, heading back to the leftist doctrine he once upheld. I just didn't get it why Johnson would sink so low into crazytown.
If he were still on the right, would Busiek consider him a great source of info? And is Johnson's turn away from reality the reason Busiek's taken to reading him now? Even before the official meltdown in 2009, he was beginning to make clumsy accusations that certain Europeans against jihad were supposedly fascists themselves, and he may have posted some global warming nonsense too. Ironically, he did exhibit some bizarre tiltings that Busiek might've found appealing even years before. But in the end, what good did it for him? All it got him was what Andy Warhol called 15 minutes of fame, with many on the right let down, and even the left lost interest after a short time.
Since we're on the topic, Busiek also posted a picture of an Avengers card signed by Ronald Reagan, of all people:
Now isn't that fascinating. A guy who's proven himself aligned with the left is still pleased to have merchandise signed by a famous guy on the right nicknamed Gipper. During his administration, the comics medium wasn't very favorable to him, even though he was far better than the two Bushes who succeeded him later. There were a few respectable examples, but negative sentiments towards Reagan, even if only indirect, were probably more noticeable, and much as I respect Jim Starlin for his past work, he may have offered up the worst depiction of Reagan in Batman towards the end of Ronald's run. Why did anyone on the left have a problem with Reagan when he helped bring down the Soviet structure, and even leftists at the time weren't fond of communism, recalling there was more than a modicum of anti-communist positions in comicdom in past decades, with Stan Lee being one of the most notable to voice opposition. Incidentally, it was a Republican administration who gave Lee a lifetime achievement award 6 years ago.
I don't know if Reagan was ever a serious admirer of comic book literature himself, but today, few leftists in comicdom are likely to credit him for that. Busiek probably does, despite his standings, but then, he'd be one of the very few willing to do so, in contrast to what they might think of Obama for the comics he collected. And yet, if he's so against what Cruz is protesting, doesn't that kind of contradict any admiration he has for Reagan?
What a surprise that Ted Cruz’s idea of freedom means profit for big business more than equality. http://t.co/lPdcbvfhqA
— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) November 10, 2014
@Snakehoof So let’s make ‘em pay more, or throttle their access! If you don’t let that happen, you’re “messing with” the internet!
— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) November 10, 2014
So he's not bothered by any attempt Obama could make to cripple the internet? What a shame. Cruz has a point; it's basically an attack on businesses too. Guess Busiek doesn't have much faith in the internet. Sigh.
That aside, it's interesting Busiek now takes news from that site, whose blogmaster used to be right wing, and then inexplicably went 360 at the time Obama was elected. He even broke away from the folks whom he'd helped launch Pajamas Media with several years ago, and one guy who knew him suggested he was weirdly jealous because various other bloggers were now gaining more popularity than he once had. Patterico was mighty let down, as were Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, whom he turned against as well. It was pretty sad, because he'd probably served as inspiration for some conservatives, was one of the bloggers who popularized the term "fauxtography" during the 2nd war in Lebanon, and then he insults everybody's intellect by going the nasty betrayal route, heading back to the leftist doctrine he once upheld. I just didn't get it why Johnson would sink so low into crazytown.
If he were still on the right, would Busiek consider him a great source of info? And is Johnson's turn away from reality the reason Busiek's taken to reading him now? Even before the official meltdown in 2009, he was beginning to make clumsy accusations that certain Europeans against jihad were supposedly fascists themselves, and he may have posted some global warming nonsense too. Ironically, he did exhibit some bizarre tiltings that Busiek might've found appealing even years before. But in the end, what good did it for him? All it got him was what Andy Warhol called 15 minutes of fame, with many on the right let down, and even the left lost interest after a short time.
Since we're on the topic, Busiek also posted a picture of an Avengers card signed by Ronald Reagan, of all people:
My Avengers IdentiCard. Signed by Reagan. I’ve been a member for a looooong time. pic.twitter.com/A23vdEb7Qh
— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) November 13, 2014
Now isn't that fascinating. A guy who's proven himself aligned with the left is still pleased to have merchandise signed by a famous guy on the right nicknamed Gipper. During his administration, the comics medium wasn't very favorable to him, even though he was far better than the two Bushes who succeeded him later. There were a few respectable examples, but negative sentiments towards Reagan, even if only indirect, were probably more noticeable, and much as I respect Jim Starlin for his past work, he may have offered up the worst depiction of Reagan in Batman towards the end of Ronald's run. Why did anyone on the left have a problem with Reagan when he helped bring down the Soviet structure, and even leftists at the time weren't fond of communism, recalling there was more than a modicum of anti-communist positions in comicdom in past decades, with Stan Lee being one of the most notable to voice opposition. Incidentally, it was a Republican administration who gave Lee a lifetime achievement award 6 years ago.
I don't know if Reagan was ever a serious admirer of comic book literature himself, but today, few leftists in comicdom are likely to credit him for that. Busiek probably does, despite his standings, but then, he'd be one of the very few willing to do so, in contrast to what they might think of Obama for the comics he collected. And yet, if he's so against what Cruz is protesting, doesn't that kind of contradict any admiration he has for Reagan?
Labels: Avengers, marvel comics, moonbat writers, politics, technology
You know the Avengers Identicard isn't ACTUALLY signed by Reagan, right? In fact, the signature says "Ronald Ray-gun."
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:04 AM
Well it wasn't easy to see at first, because handwriting can be a difficult thing to spot. But now that I've looked more clearly, I see it does look like "ray-gun". But Busiek seems determined to claim it was signed by Reagan, and he's the one who spells it out that way. In that case, should we wonder why he says Reagan, whether the Gipper signed it or not?
Posted by
Avi Green |
9:15 AM
I don't think we have to wonder -- he's simply pointing out how old the card is (because, in the comics, they were signed by the national security liaison and the sitting president).
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:08 AM
Whatever, let me just note that Busiek said the card was signed by Reagan. I didn't.
Posted by
Avi Green |
10:30 AM
Busiek's point may be that he's had the card since 1988 or earlier, but the fact remains that he said it was "signed by Reagan." (And the signature DOES say "Ray Gun," no matter what Busiek says.)
And Ted Cruz is right about so-called "Net Neutrality." Just remember, the people promoting it are the same people who were behind the "Affordable Care Act," which resulted in millions of Americans losing their medical insurance. (After Obama promised, "If you like your current plan, you can keep it.")
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:12 PM