Leftist moonbat makes pathetic attempt at insulting me

Now that I've dealt with that post regarding Glidden, let's turn to one of her apologists, a would-be politician who's into comics named Brett Schenker, who works out of Washington and is a database director for a politician named Brian Moran, and even once worked for John Kerry in 2003. He was unhappy I attacked his lip service to that British writer named David Hine, and became very disliking of me after I slammed him outright. He most recently attacked me for my criticism of Sarah Glidden, and while it's not like I don't make mistakes and shortcomings - indeed I do - he didn't do much better himself, becoming nasty and arrogant, and only succeeding in giving me an honor just like the Daily KOS gives to Pamela Geller, even if he's less significant than they are. I was actually rather hoping he'd pick up on a few of those posts I did - as it enables me to explore just what a leftist can be like, and to play my Spider-Man to his J. Jonah Jameson.

I've looked around his rather boring blog, Graphic Policy, and let's see what tasty items he's given me to comment upon. For example, his pretty resentful response to the one about X-Factor's intellect-insulter, where, in reply to my argument how Islamofascists wouldn't exactly think highly of mutants, he says:

Well, Green right there contradicts himself. He talks about how Muslims would hate mutants, and then says they’d only hate non-Muslim mutants. We rebut, it’s MAKE BELIEVE! Mutants don’t exist, it’s a story.

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

And to my use of the phrase, "moderate Muslims but no moderate Islam" first used by Mark Steyn, for example, he said:

What does this even mean? If you have moderate followers of a religion, by definition you have a moderate version of that religion.

Not only doesn't he even consider that what I was using was a phrase coined by Steyn, if anyone, I'm afraid it's not that simple to say that any particular version of the religion is moderate when they all stem from the same vile man, Muhammed, who forced the 9-year-old Ayesha to marry him. Why didn't he try to research Steyn's phrase properly?

He also says:

Well, at least Green realizes not all Muslims wear burqas. But, why not paint an entire religion and belief based off some of it’s member’s beliefs. Judaism doesn’t force men and women to sit separately, and observant Jews refuse to touch women (you never know when they’re on their period). Christian religions don’t subjugate women, refusing them roles of leadership or forcing their own dress standards. Those things don’t happen at all, cause if you did, you’d have to condemn those religions and followers as well.

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

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

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

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

In a followup to that post, he says in reply to what I noted about Muhammed:

Marrying underage women is absolutely wrong and so is assault of any type. That’s why I’ve also condemned Catholicism for it’s rape and molestation of young boys and girls, and it’s subsequent cover up. Also, we can pretty much set aside all of Christianity if we’re looking at assaults. The rise of Evangelical Christianity in Africa has caused an increase in attacks on homosexuals including arrests, torture and murder. Websites with supposed homosexuals allows extremists to easily track them down and dispense “justice.”

I don’t condemn an entire religion due to the actions of a few, as shown above, we’d have to write off a lot more than just Islam.

Notice how he doesn't clearly condemn Muhammed or acknowlege his own actions, like he wants to avoid an actual condemnation of Islam's "prophet" or recognize that Muhammed's beliefs are what Islam itself was built upon, and from what I can tell, seems to consider Christianity more of a problem. He seems oblivious to how, as this study tells, many of the priests who committed the rapes were gay, and apparently is more comfy to damn Christianity as a whole. On homosexuals, on the other hand, it appears he's taken a PC route. And look at that, he takes the "tiny minority of extremists" view. It's not that simple, I'm afraid, especially when Islam is as much an education system as a religion. That's why his review of The Infidel doesn't help matters; he keeps being too negative to conservatives to really score. And how do we know that Christianity in Africa is responsible for homophobia? The Wash. Post isn't exactly a reliable source. On the other hand, does he consider Islam's own hostility to gays and lesbians a concern? Or what about the weird double-standard held in the RoP where, as Phyllis Chesler notes, there's also Muslims who molest young boys? Biggest problem though, is that he's implying that religious-based violence is no big deal while simultaneously making Christianity out look like it's more the problem.

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

Also worth noting is that some time after Christianity was created, Judaism outlawed stoning of adulterers. It may be possible that we learned an important lesson from Christianity about why, as bad as adultery is, it's NOT something that calls for death. In Islam, unfortunately, it still prevails.

Mr. Schenker even starts getting personal when he says:

What I don’t take serious is close minded hate mongers who would rather focus their rage against an entire religion, instead of the extremists amongst them. How about taking that rage and focus it on politicians who fought against giving the brave men and women, those first responders, the medical care they deserve? I see 0 posts on that subject when searching your site.

Umm, care to back that one up, sonny? He didn't provide a link to any story about this particular thing, and I can't tell whether these are Republicans or Democrats he's referring to either.

In this topic, where he gets even more nasty, he says:

I’d absolutely support a graphic novel based on the life of Debra Burlingame.

Really? Does that mean he apologizes for his attack on the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque? Because Burlingame is one of them, and by attacking the crowd against the GZM, he's turning against her too. Unfortunately, I get the feeling he's just trying to self-bolster.

And by the way, regarding Omar Sharif:

Omar Sharif was born into a Christian Arabic family but he converted to Islam many years ago.........no doubt simply out of pressure

From what one of my own relatives once figured, yes, it does appear that way, sadly.

I looked at his older review of Sarah Glidden's moral equation, and he said:

The book had me asking my own beliefs having been raised Jewish and no longer practicing and I came out thinking through the prejudices I hold and my own views on the conflict and it’s resolution. I felt like in the end I myself had a better understanding of my own faith, the history and political landscape. This graphic novel is an education as well as a tale.

Well now this is certainly telling something! So he's basically of the same background as I am, only a different political stance. It certainly is an education, that there's 2 states instead of 1, when, as noted in the earlier post, it was Roman Emperor Hadrian's renaming of Judea.

In this post, he attacks me for leaving out a panel about an Iraqi Christian who didn't have a problem going to America, but doesn't actually mention that or consider how the Christian community there is probably more sensible. But here's where he really begins to slip up, in his attempt to counter my argument on Iraq's education:

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

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

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

Before Saddam Hussein's reign, Iraq was considered the model for education in the Arab world. But now only half of the country's students graduate high school. And it may take some time before literacy can catch up with the years of tyranny.

"It's a huge challenge to be able to de-Saddamize and de-Baathize the curriculum," said Richard Dekmejian, professor of political science at the University of Southern California. "All of the textbooks have to be changed, all the educational materials, all the videos, the visual aids, all that has to be changed."

The Bush administration has hired the Washington, D.C.-based firm Creative Associates International to start reforming Iraqi schools, providing supplies and a curriculum that is more fact-based than the pro-Saddam propaganda previously taught. [...]

Coalition forces fighting in Iraq were careful not to destroy public buildings like hospitals and schools. Some buildings were damaged in the fighting, of course. And more than a quarter century under Saddam left Iraq's education system in shambles.

Middle East expert Jerold Green, who works for the Rand Corporation, says Iraqi schools became storerooms for ammunition and showrooms for Saddam. The despot's face was in every book, his philosophy in every lesson.

Students even became spies, snitching on parents in exchange for food. Schools went without basic supplies and often without teachers, who fled for fear of offending the regime.

So many believe it wasn't the 25 days of war that crippled the Iraqi education system, but the 25 years of the Baath party.

"Iraq in general needs to be de-Baathified," said Green. "I think the speed with which the Baathism and the Saddamism disappear from Iraq is going to be amazing."

Now what can we learn from this? Well if anything, that education in Iraq was government controlled, pure commie style. Mr. Schenker, why didn't you link to this when you wanted to prove a point? Is FOX not lefty enough for your tastes? If I wanted to research the engine for a Citroen C4 Picasso, Wikipedia sure wouldn't be my first choice. And for someone who accuses another of blind hatred, why do you keep using collective terms like "the right does this/that"? He even gets personal again when he says:

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

Taking out of context and cherry-picking, as usual. What I was alluding to there was that the terrorists who went on a rampage even against their fellow Muslims were causing the chaos she accused the US of. And look at that, he even confuses my argument about tracking down and stopping terrorists with additional destruction. Sigh.

He then drops a most telling clue about what kind of mindset he's got:

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

Whoa. Not only has he gone beyond the pale into profanity and dislike, he's even confirmed he buys into the myth of a palestinian Arab people, and is apparently oblivious to Emperor Hadrian's use of the name. I guess it wouldn't matter to him that Zionism is synonymous with patriotism either. It could explain why he never spoke about Captain Israel, though in fairness to Comic Book Resources, they did. But if this is what he thinks, then Jewish or not, I can't for the life of me figure out why he would ever want to read the creations of a community he otherwise belittles, and when he's got so much more in common with J. Jonah Jameson. If I were Siegel or Shuster or even Joe Simon, I'd be dumbfounded.

And now, here's one more thing he bought 3 years ago that really raised my eyebrows:

Identity Crisis – I enjoyed Brad Meltzer’s DC Universe: Last Will and Testament, so I felt I’d give this collected series a shot.

Oh my god. He was willing to purchase that misogynist screed 4 years after any and all the arguments made against it, Peter Sanderson's included? Well well well. That he would even remotely support such a sick book speaks volumes. No wonder I was so disgusted with his standings.

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

Mr. Schenker may rest assured, however, that this will decidedly be my last word on him and his Volkswagen of a site. He has given me an honor similar to those Pamela Geller's got, and that is reward enough. I do have one more thing to say that might amaze him though: what would you say, Mr. Schenker, if you knew that my family once knew Dave Medved, the late father of film critic Michael Medved, years ago? That's right, the guy who took on Marvel's anti-American stance in Captain America in 2003. We used to know Dave more than a decade ago; a very nice man. Michael himself isn't perfect, and has made mistakes, but while he wasn't exactly an inspiration for me, he does have some interesting ideas, and he was a comics fan himself in his childhood. And for any flaws he could've had, I did find his confrontation of Marvel's leftism admirable.

While I don't expect this to impress upon you, I'm sure it will leave you feeling quite startled to know this guy you don't like was once friends with the dad of a legend. Thanks very much for the honor of clashing with me, and happy Independence Day!