Monthly Archives: November 2001

The morning of November 7, 2000, the Gannett News Service carried the following handicap of one of the most eagerly-watched competitions…

The Hillary Rodham Clinton-Rick Lazio Senate race, which most polls show will be close, follows the tradition of tight races in the Empire State.

Less than 24 hours later, Ms. Clinton defeated Mr. Lazio 56%-44%.  In other words, the vote wasn't close.  We use the word "landslide" to describe closer elections.

I think it's important to remember things like that when we watch political discussions these days.  I keep seeing predictions about what will happen in the next presidential election (3 years from now) or even when Hillary's up for re-election (5 years from now)…and not only predictions but confident, can't miss predictions: Bush can't lose, Bush can't possibly win, Hillary has no chance…

As Tom Snyder used to say on The Tomorrow Show, "You wonder what goes through their minds."  We don't, at this moment, know if Hillary Clinton will run again, who her opponent might be, what shape the country will be in then, what she may or may not have accomplished in the next five years, et cetera.  But folks who, 24 hours before her last election, were sure she'd lose are now insisting that their projections for the next one should be taken seriously.

The interesting thing is that, in the above-quoted Gannett story (which you can read by clicking here, though it isn't necessary), they say that the polls in the Clinton/Lazio race vary to show Hillary with anywhere from a 2% to 12% edge.  To me, this translates to "could be close, could be a rout," but no one is ever paid to write that the polls are meaningless, and the author of this story started with the premise that elections in New York are always close.

Well, maybe they are.  The one the other night was pretty close — and, significantly, the pollsters didn't think so until just a few days before voting.  I'm just real skeptical about any samplings more than about a week prior to an election.  Most people think they're worthless…and I think they're a lot less valuable than that even.  And I'm really sick of folks wasting bandwidth and insulting my eminently-insultable intelligence by saying that certain elections far in the future are definitely going to go their way.  Do a search for "Bush 2004" and see how many people are trying to convince everyone that it's already decided.  Once upon a time, and a lot closer to Election Day, his pop was a shoo-in for that second term.

I mean, can't we declare some kind of cyberspace moratorium on handicapping the 2004 presidential election until we at least have some clue who'll be running?  Call me crazy but I have a feeling that might affect the outcome.  At least a little.

Also, I have the following comment on the New York mayor's race: I get a couple of New York TV channels and both those men should be deeply ashamed of the commercials they ran.  In fact, no one who would allow such swill belongs in public office.

A fine comic book/strip artist named Gray Morrow died on 11/6, reportedly taking his own life after months of despondency over months of illness.  Morrow was a true gentleman and a fine illustrator who got into comics a few months too late to be part of the legendary crew at EC Comics.  They almost certainly would have hired him because he fit in well with their tradition.  He later distinguished himself as both interior artist and cover painter when Creepy and Eerie started up, reuniting most of the EC craftsmen.  Later on, he did work for DC and Marvel, and had recently been drawing the Tarzan newspaper strip.

Morrow was one of those artists — and sadly, there a number in this category — who are universally admired but often unhired.  Editors who thought his work was beautiful often feared it was too realistic and well-crafted to sell comics.  Of course, the books done by most of the artists they do think are commercial aren't selling either…but the biz is often lean in logic once it decides something won't sell, and Gray remained a great, untapped resource.  I didn't know him well enough to say, "I'll miss him" but I'll sure miss his work.

• Operation Enduring Avarice by Arianna Huffington
• FBI Claims Bin Laden Inquiry Was Frustrated by Greg Palast and David Pallister, Guardian
• America's "Either/Or" President by Troy Headrick, Democratic Underground
• The Counterwar Redirected by William F. Buckley, Jr.
• 2 Months Later, It's "Same-Old, Same-Old" on Airport Security by Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times

Someone — are you reading this, Leonard? — oughta write a book called something like Flawed Masterpieces, all about films that came thisclose to being great.  As good an example as any was a movie I found myself watching on satellite-via-TiVo this AM — The Comic, a 1969 comedy/tragedy written by Aaron Ruben and Carl Reiner and directed by the latter.  In it, Dick Van Dyke plays an arrogant, unsympathetic silent comedian named Billy Bright, whose story combines elements from the lives of Stan Laurel and Buster Keaton, with a wee bit of Harry Langdon tossed in.  Mickey Rooney plays his sidekick and some of the scenes from Billy's later life (like the talk show appearance depicted above) actually play out like Mr. Rooney's last few decades.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if Mssrs. Van Dyke, Reiner and Ruben were well aware they were basing scenes on Rooney while he performed in the film, oblivious to this.

The film has a stellar cast that included Michele Lee, Cornel Wilde, Pert Kelton and Nina Wayne, among others.  The best joke belonged to a character actor named Ed Peck who managed to turn up at one time or another in every situation comedy of the sixties, and quite a few movies.  He usually played some serious authority figure — a general or a cop — who turns out to be a cross-dresser or who gets a pie in the face.  In The Comic, it was a pie.  (One memorable exception: On an episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show, he played Buddy Sorrell's rabbi…but in another episode, he played a serious Army Captain who revealed that, deep down, he wanted to be a choreographer.  That was the typical Ed Peck role.)  He passed away in '92 and since then, Hollywood has lacked a good actor who can play an intense, all-business FBI agent who later turns up in drag.

Those of you who are into Cartoon Voices or Industrial-Strength Trivia take note of the following: Paul Frees can be heard dubbing at least four parts in the film, and June Foray dubs one or two lines for the little boy playing Billy Bright's son.  Also, the venerable Silent Movie Theater (subject of this article) is the backdrop for one poignant scene.

That The Comic was not a hit, I can well understand.  I seem to recall it playing less than one week in the first-run theaters of Westwood.  I think I saw it on a Friday, recommended it to a friend on Saturday and when he tried to go the following Tuesday, it had been replaced by something else.  The hero is unlikable in many of the wrong ways and the narrative places him pretty much in free-fall with few surprises en route to his inevitable end.  Van Dyke is superb in the comedy scenes; not quite as wonderful when made-up, at times unconvincingly, as an old man.  Still, enough treasures abound to make it all well worth an occasional viewing.

Buzz Dixon also sends along this link to Monster Kid Magazine, an online "publication" in the spirit of the old Famous Monsters of Filmland.  It's put together by Kerry Gammill, whose artwork is sadly missed these days around the comic book business.  You might especially enjoy Bill Warren's article about visiting the set of one of Boris Karloff's last films and meeting the man himself.

An old pal of mine, Jay Zilber, is running a good political/news commentary web page and I've placed it on my "check out almost every day" list.  If you'd like to sample it so you can consider adding it to yours, click right here.

Let's all thank Ed Golick for calling my attention to a great article on Soupy Sales so I could call it to your attention.  It's in the Detroit News and you can read it by clicking here.

A few years ago, Playboy Magazine ran a pretty good interview with Albert Brooks.  An Albert Brooks fan site has posted it; in fact, they have a version of it that includes some stuff that Playboy trimmed for space.  Here's that link.

• In Defense of the '90s by Jacob Weisberg, Slate
• Ours to Lose by Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic
• Bush Team Wallows in Self-Praise by Bill Press, CNN
• Keynote Address by Bill Moyers
• And How Much Blame for the Fourth Estate? by Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate
• Bad News Bearers by William Saletan, Slate

My pal Buzz Dixon recommends this link to an article about things like bio-terrorism, chemical warfare and other so-called weapons of mass destruction. It's by a retired military weapons expert who says that such tactics are not as easy nor as lethal as some think. In other words, it's a fear-calmer, and it's about time someone wrote one.

In a week, it'll be two months since we all stared open-mouthed at the scenes of destruction on "The Day of Infamy." Is it just me or do phrases like, "Everything has changed," uttered as gospel at the time, now seem a bit overwrought and hysterical? Things have changed in the sense that things always change, and we have a lot of issues before us that weren't there in the good ol' days of Gary Condit and Monica. But I think we're a lot closer to normal now than we thought we'd be…and probably also farther from some sort of satisfying victory over the Forces of Evil.

I mean, a few days after 9/11, when it became clear that this Bin Laden guy was the baddie, did you think we'd be sitting here, almost two months later, hearing the Secretary of Defense saying, in effect, "Well, maybe we won't catch him"? I sure didn't.

Things seem amazingly normal to me. We've had the World Series, we've had the Emmy Awards, the Republicans are finding ways to shovel more of the treasury at wealthy Americans (especially those in the oil/energy business who gave money to the G.O.P.) and the Democrats are doing little more than saying, "Shame, shame."

One of the all-time great comic books — and a rare example of individual style and statement over a long run — was Sheldon Mayer's Sugar and Spike.

Mr. Mayer was one of the pioneers of the industry as an editor.  He was one of the first to see the potential of a little thing called Superman and he later presided over some of the best super-hero titles, like Flash and Green Lantern.  But he came to hate editing and wanted to get back to his first love, which was cartooning, and DC Comics finally allowed him to do so.  He did wonderful work with Scribbly, The Three Mouseketeers, Doodles Duck and a few others…but Sugar and Spike was his magnum opus.  He wrote and drew the tale of two baby-talking children for 15 years.

For years, a small but fervent band of fans have lobbied DC Comics to reprint the strip, preferably in some kind of fancy "keeper" volume.  They're not going to do that but, next May, they're coming out with a facsimile reprint of Sugar and Spike #1.  And the same month, their toy/novelty division (DC Direct) will be releasing soft toys of Mayer's irresistible moppets.  The pic above is not of the final versions, but it's close, and I'll sure be buying the set.  You might want to alert your comic shop owner that you want one, too.