Alan Moore Is a Fuckwitardiot

Look, I'm 'aving tea 'n biscuits. I'm Bri'ish after awl, yes?

Correct.

Alan Moore, the much beloved and be-bearded "genius" that is Alan Moore, who about 30 years wrote one of the most highly over-rated books is a Fuckwitardiot.

Since the book was written, Moore hasn't stopped telling the world how much it "changed the comic industry". He's also never stopped telling us how he wrote "lots of other stuff, like uhm, Marvelman".

Alan Moore can't stop talking about himself, and the movie gave him an even bigger platform to spew his weird, acadamia style egotism.

Listen, people have moved on. Everyone bought your book and said they loved it because the zeitgeist states they must.  Unless they like it they don't understand comic book history or something like that.  You must state that Watchmen is in your top 10 list of great comics of all time and then state it changed comics forever and you're allowed into the comic book club. 

Alan Moore and his garbage books are like that Phish fan everyone knows.  They love to tell you how amazing they are.  That Trey Anastasio is one of the "best guitarists ever".  And that if you don't listen to them or like them, "you just don't get it" or "you've got a closed mind".

Bullshit.  It's crap.  Watchmen was one of the most difficult books to get through in my life.  I felt like I was doing homework.  The problem is...it's a cliche filled piece of crap that becomes more and more predictable with each page turn.  Other than a giant vagina crashing on NYC...the allegory and metaphors were so easily accessible, it was plain ass boring - and not mention entirely way too long. That store could be told in a 3 issue mini.  But Moore loves to hear his own voice, so he overwrites and it's hundreds of pages of drivel about pirates and Vietnam and Nixon.  Wow, so edgy and deep.  :eyeroll:

But SHUT THE FUCK UP! You want nothing to do with the comic book "industry" then stop fucking talking about it you narcissistic freak.

Jason Aaron, who has written more readable stuff in 5 years than Moore did in his entire career, said it better than I could.  And Aaron grew up actually liking Mooreon.

My Pull List for August 10, 2011

Dan Slott is killing ASM, in a good way.  This has been one of the best ASM eras if all time.

What a tragic, cliched ending to one of the greatest comic runs in history.  Angry white man hates Black Panther.  Bleh...  I've got basically every DD issue, so for completeness sake I'll be getting the last few issues.

God I love this book.

Get ready to "Fallout" of my pull list USM.

The Backlash to the Backlash of a Multiracial Spider-Man

Coming from a bi-racial family, I'm usually pretty interested in things dealing with race.

So the new Ultimate Spider-Man is going to be half-Black and Half-Latino.

Some people are questioning why Marvel is doing this...it's no different than when creators change any other character: some people like it, some don't. People talk about it.

But why are those that are questioning why change Spider-man's race being told to "sit down and shut up"? No one acts that way when Robin became the new Batman...some people hated it, some people loved it.

It was stated by Marvel's Axel Alonso himself that he was "...inspired by President Obama". So there's a political element driving this decision.

Yet why is one side not allowed to question it AT ALL? Personally I want to know why they felt the need to kill one character to give a minority a chance in comics. It seems like a statement to me...no?

But I'm not allowed to ask those questions. One side of this issue has the notoriously PC MSM and a bit of white guilt on their side to force people not to ask questions. To just accept it and move on.

Why?

Why are we not allowed to even discuss it? We're told "Get over it, it's just a comic book", "You must be racist", "Who cares so shut up about it".

As I said, there's obvious political elements to the decision at Marvel. Politics = out tax dollars. Buying comics = our expendable income. People sure get their pants in a bunch when church and state are combined but what about our choice to either use or not use or expendable income when the entertainment business uses politics and "inspiration" to kill a character for what, appears to many, as straight up tokenism.

Who is one side or the other to tell us to not feel one way or the other on this?

Could they be trying to force their way of political correct thinking on us?

If so, real issues of race will never be able to be discussed in a civil manner if one side is immediately put in the "Nazi" column (See Goodwin's Rule).

If a group of people say they dislike Barry Bonds or Barry Obama because he's done things they don't like, but are then told they HAVE to be racist if they don't like this person/choice/decision.

Move past the divisive little nuggets like Spider-man the Keith Olbermans and Rachel Maddows of the world throw at you - then one day we can get passed any perceived "racism" and one side won't have that card to play anymore...and true progress will be made - and the truth of things will be revealed.

Or maybe that's what they don't want: the truth.

Speculators All Over Ultimate Fallout #4

So, Marvel killed off Ultimate Spider-man, in case you've been living under a rock.

And unless that rock that you're living under is itself ALSO living under a rock you know that the new Ultimate Spider-man is half black. Marvel "spoiled" this in Tuesdays edition of USA Today.

Wednesday, being new comic book day, Ultimate Fallout #4 was released poly-bagged - as if to keep the secret a real secret.

Marvel obviously leaked the new character's race a day early to create buzz and get non-comic book collectors into stores to buy the issue, in hopes that they'll swap it over onto ebay and make $4,000 dollars on it (which they won't, but Marvel will get a ton more $3.99 than they usually would have gotten).  Much like the above blogger states they did with Obama appearing on the cover of Amazing Spider-man.

The recent Thor movie saw a Norse god portrayed by an African-American actor.  The upcoming Superman movie has Laurence Fishburne, an African American, cast as Perry White a character that has existed for over 60 years as a Caucasian.  The Thor one I found most distasteful.  Directory Kenneth Branaugh knew exactly what he was doing...I mean the guy made a complete, word for word production of Hamlet.  He knows what source material is.  And he knows what straying from it means.

Marvel is obviously using race to generate manufactured controversies and get people talking.

But what's the true controversy? Marvel' tokenism of using African-Americans in movies and comics? Or Marvel using African-Americans to sell comics?

Ask one side and they'll tell you how little representation African-Americans and non-Whites have in comics. Do some research and you'll find the Marvel universe rich in diverse cultures. Three of Marvel's hottest titles have a black man as the leader (Thunderbolts, Avengers & New Avengers).  Nevermind all the other races that can be found in many of the other titles: Asians in Academy, Hispanics in Daredevil, Indians in Amazing Spider-man and Native Americans in Secret Avengers, Ghost Rider and DC's Jonah Hex.

But a specific demographic would like you to think that isn't true when someone objects to the new Spider-man, the Thor movie...or Perry White.  They've gotta be more open and tolerant than the next guy.  The scariest thing in the world to most white boys is to be called a racist.

So, again, what's the real controversy?

My Pull List for August 03, 2011

Obama has QUADRUPLED The Deficit

From his election on January 20, 2009 to today Obama has quadrupled the deficit. #facts #tcot

Holy fucking shit this guy is a failure.

Now he's up on every podium in sight telling us what an accomplishment this was.

All he did was push it off until 6 months from now.

You people that voted for him deserve this.  I hope California drifts of into the Pacific.

The Little Liberal Fail Graph

There's a cute little graph going around, that only extreme Left-Wing Fundamentalists believe anymore, that all this debt was accumulated by George W. Bush.

First thing that popped into MY head when I saw it: Where's the $800,000,000,000 in Obamacare? Oh, that's a "fact". Liberals leave those out, because it simply makes their argument wrong as soon as they step to the plate.  Facts will always prove a liberal wrong. A liberal political thought or liberal philosophical idea will always lead to a dead end when followed with basic logic.

Check this out, thanks to heritage.org:

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
• President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.