Monthly Archives: August 2003

A friend just reminded me about another one of those instances where a politician embarrassed himself (I thought) with a visit to a classroom. I always assume they do them because handlers have told them it scores big with voters, and it's safer than facing a Press Corps that sometimes (admittedly, not often but sometimes) asks tough questions. But it's not always safer, as Dan Quayle discovered when he wound up judging a spelling contest where "potato" was one of the words. Then there was this one…

One day during the term of President Reagan it somehow came out that the Chief Exec was not much of a church-goer. He often extolled the necessity of regular worship in his speeches but rarely spent his own Sunday listening to sermons. No one really cared much if he did or he didn't attend. That was his business. But a lot of folks got momentarily irate because of the seeming hypocrisy, and because the White House started claiming a church-going frequency for Mr. Reagan that reporters knew was just not so. Asked about it, the President finally admitted he wasn't going as often as his aides insisted and said, "I haven't bothered to check on their [Democrats'] attendance, but I think they must be well aware of why I have not been attending. And frankly, I miss it very much. But I represent too much of a threat to too many other people for me to be able to go to church."

During this period, Reagan was making weekly visits to elementary schools. In one, a kid asked the president why he didn't go to church and our Chief Exec explained about being a threat to those around him. And supposedly (I'm not sure I believe this part), the kid then said, "So what are you doing here?"

Whether a kid asked that or not, it was a good question. If it was too dangerous for Reagan to go to church, why was he going to all those classrooms?

Over on Slate, Jack Shafer has an article that says a lot of things I've been saying here about how our political discourse is in the hands of a lot of people who can only see the opposition's lies and never those of their side. I agree with most of what he says.

There's also this piece by Christopher Hitchens in which, having once savaged Mother Teresa, he now goes after the Ten Commandments. I think Hitchens just naturally leaps to the negative, arrogant side of every argument but in this piece, he makes some interesting points. I agree with some of it.

Christopher Joshua Arndt writes…

Politics and opinions regarding Presidential propriety in the 9/11 situation aside, I was amazed that Russ Kick from The Memory Hole actually believes that he knows more about security than the United States Secret Service. If the SS weren't moving the President, one could be damn sure he's secure. I believe my illusion of the Secret Service's skills and abilities is a bit more realistic than Mr Kick's imagination regarding the merest possibility of situations occurring outside the school and in the immediate area thereof.

You're right that the Secret Service generally knows how to protect the president. I was endorsing the video link, not the accompanying commentary. I think the real issues here are (a) once protected, did Bush snap to action properly? And (b) are his handlers and supporters trying to write a new and fictional account of what he did at the time? The point of the video is that it proves that Bush didn't leap to take command of the situation, as some have insisted, and wasn't watching the news when the second plane hit, as he seems to have claimed. The latter discrepancy strikes me as one of those things that if Clinton had said it, Republicans would say that a lie of that magnitude proves moral unfitness to hold public office. But they'll ignore it in their guy, just as Schwarzenegger supporters are going to pretend Arnold didn't say that he'd participated in public group sex.

Actually, I think it's absurd that anyone thinks reading stories to school kids is a good use of any president's time, even when thousands of people aren't dying in a terrorist attack. It's nothing more than a cheesy photo-op. I felt that way when Carter and Clinton did it. I felt that way when Reagan kept bringing the Girl Scout who sold the most cookies to the White House for ceremonies. I'll feel that way when the next president tries to show us he's an okay guy by surrounding himself with singing children instead of working on the deficit and national defense. The guy I'd like to see in the Oval Office is a guy who'll probably never exist; who will get up in his victory speech on election night and say, "I will thank my supporters by devoting myself 24/7 to the important parts of my job — national defense, the economy, the environment…" and maybe one or two others; who'll leave the ceremonial parts of the job to the Vice-President and First Lady, and devote a minimum of time to vacations, fund-raising and frivolity.

I've never expected that person to ever be on my ballot. Then again, I didn't expect to see Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt and Gallagher on there, either. One nice thing about the recall is that it's given me faint optimism: If anyone can run for high public office, maybe someday the politician of my dreams will.

Because a few friends asked me to do this, and because it's a good way for me to settle things in my own mind, I'd like to explain how I will probably vote on the matter of the Great California Recall Circus.

As usual, I expect to be looking at a ballot where I'd prefer to vote, "None of the Above." I don't really like any of the front-runners and can't quite grasp why anyone does. These days, when I hear someone who claims to be enthusiastic about their candidate, I tend to assume they've picked the least offensive option and are trying to convince us that it's a goodie. Often, they sound like they've managed to convince themselves. The best measure of Gray Davis's unpopularity may be that even his backers don't seem able to convince themselves that they're fortunate to have him in Sacramento. It pretty much comes down, not to a defense of the incumbent but to a condemnation of the replacements and the replacement process. Let me know if you see anyone saying he's been a good governor.

However, that said, I don't believe he's as wholly responsible for the state's financial woes as his opponents make him out to be. Every state has many of the same problems, and I do think Californians have not gotten sufficiently mad at the shenanigans of companies like Enron in manipulating energy prices and looting the state treasury. On the other hand, Davis sure didn't do enough to protect us from this, and his naked connection of campaign contributions with government action is exactly the kind of thing politicians should be punished for, at the polling place if not in court.

Should he go? Probably. Should he go this way? I don't think so. I actually like the idea of the public recalling elected officials but the current California rules strike me as too sloppy and too undemocratic. Davis could be removed because he only has 49% of the voters behind him and then be replaced by some guy who has 22%. In what passes for a real election in this country, you don't need 49% of the electorate. You just need more than any of your opponents, and that often works out to 45-49%. But if Davis gets 49%, he's out.

This is a dumb way to pick a governor. And it's distressing that a lot of people who are eager to get their guy into office aren't more discomforted by the process and the precedent.

So I'm voting "no" on the recall. As for the second half of the ballot: If Richard Riordan had run, I'd probably have voted for him. I don't agree with a lot of his views but he was a pretty good mayor for Los Angeles, and he seemed good at crisis management. I don't believe experience is everything but I also don't think it's meaningless. Given our current problems, experience may be more important than if the candidate agrees with you on a lot of issues which may or may not even come into play at the state level.

To me, Arnold S. is Riordan without the experience. I doubt I'll ever vote for anyone who runs for a major political position as an entry-level post. There were plenty of reasons to vote against Alan Keyes, Jesse Jackson, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Al Sharpton, Ralph Nader and others in that category but to me, that was reason enough. If you want to be president, senator, governor or even mayor, start at the bottom. Run for the city council or something like that first.

There were only two ways I might have considered voting for Arnold. One would be if he pledged to bring the Enron-type looters to justice, even at the extent of embarrassing folks close to George W. Bush. But I don't see anyone, even Davis who let them rob us blind, doing that. The other reason might be if Schwarzenegger seemed to represent uncommon candor and honesty and a repudiation of the usual political bull. But now he's out there claiming he can solve the state's financial woes without raising taxes or cutting essentials, and I don't think he or anyone can…and what's more, I think they know that. If Arnold has a way, he's going to have to do a lot more explaining than he has. It looks to me like they sent Warren Buffett out to float the trial balloon of an increase in property taxes and from the response realized it would drive too many Republicans over to Tom McClintock. So now Schwarzenegger is distancing himself from that idea. To his credit, he's stopped running on a platform of recycled movie dialogue ("I, the Terminator, will go to Sacramento and tell everyone, 'Hasta la vista, baby") but what's replaced it is pretty typical political pandering. The state's budget is the worst disaster in the history of mankind but it can be solved without sacrifice. Right.

Of all the names on my ballot, the one who impresses me the most is probably Peter Ueberroth but it's hard to imagine him staying in the race 'til election day, let alone winning. So it looks like I'm going to vote for Cruz Bustamante. He has some experience, at least. Alas, the main argument for him seems to be that to defeat Arnold, the anti-Arnold voters have to pick one guy and concentrate their votes on him, and Bustamante is that guy. That's not a great reason to ever vote for anyone, but it seems to be the best alternative: No on the recall, Yes on Bustamante. Barring some candidate vowing to string up Ken Lay, that's how I'm marking my ballot.

Of course, if Gallagher can just get into the debates and smash a few melons, he has my vote. But I somehow don't see that happening.

My friend Dawna Kaufmann sends this, specifically to make me feel silly, which is never very difficult…

Here's a cool trick: As you're sitting at your desk, make your right foot go in clockwise circles. OK, good. Now with your right hand, air-draw the number six. Hey, how come your foot started going the other way?!

Anyway, I'd like to thank Dawna for the first bit of exercise I've had in three days.

I happen to believe that all prominent politicians lie, and that the ones who aspire to presidential level lie most egregiously. Some do it with enough charm, bravado and support from their supporters to (usually) get away with it. But they lie, and the followers who think that "their guy" is different are lying to themselves.

Here we find the Washington Monthly setting up something they call "The Mendacity Index" which lists and rates falsehoods from Reagan, Clinton and a pair of Bushes. It's a gimmick and one could certainly argue that the examples chosen could be more exhaustive. Still, it makes a good point.

Coming up just before this year's 9/11 anniversary is a Showtime feature called DC 9/11: Time of Crisis that claims to show what George W. Bush did on the day the planes hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. From all advance reports, the film deviates from reality in order to ignore some of Bush's more questionable actions during that crisis, so you can expect to see a lot of articles like this one in The Village Voice.

As I mentioned here before, I have very little respect for the man behind this film. And as noted, you can see the actual video of Bush when he got the news over at this website.

Which are the five oldest hotel-casinos that are still open and operating? This article will tell you all about them.

Just noticed that the New York Times piece on J. Kirby is accompanied by a slide show of Kirby illustrations. Here's a link to it. For some reason, it includes a photo of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, as if Kirby had ever had anything to do with that character.

By the way: The self-portrait there of Jack at his drawing table has a bit of history to it. It was the very first Kirby drawing that was ever inked by Mike Royer, who later became Jack's main inker. Not bad for a first effort, eh?

Also, here's a companion article in the Times about comic books. A former reader goes back to see how the neighborhood has changed. I'm told there's another piece that's either in the paper or soon to run about adult comics, but I haven't found it yet.

While I'm on the subject of Lee and Kirby, I should mention that I just received my copy of Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book, a new biography of Guess Who by Jordan Raphael and Tom Spurgeon. I was sort of afraid to open it because I have way too many opinions and knowledge about Stan, especially with regard to his relationship with Jack, and…well, Jordan and Tom are good reporters but that's no guarantee. It could have been a book where I'd feel compelled to condemn its conclusions, issue corrections and challenge the authors to fisticuffs. Happily, that does not seem to be the case. After an (admittedly fast) read, I found my quibbles with their factual recital to be minimal.

There are a few minor facts that don't coincide with mine, and a number of minor value judgments, but it's beyond the realm of possibility that anyone could write about Lee and/or Kirby and not have that happen. I don't even agree with all that I've written about them in the past.

The book seems to be a well-researched, even-handed effort, with what strike me as some very perceptive comments about much of Stan's life and career. No one book could capture everything but I was pleasantly surprised with how much they crammed into a little more than 300 pages. They successfully avoided and even debunked a lot of nonsense that has been published and commonly believed in the past. I'll probably write a real review for somewhere once I have the time to give it a slow read, but I wanted to say it'll be a positive review. And I also wanted to post this link in case you want to order a copy from Amazon. (That's where I got mine. They promised delivery in 6-10 days and it was here in two. Your mileage may vary.)

And to answer those who keep asking me when my biography of Jack Kirby will be out: It'll still be quite a while. It's presently about the size of the Encyclopedia Americana (unabridged) and there are still questions being answered. I can't begin to think of publishing it until the trickle of data ceases, and it doesn't show any sign of drying up yet. So please be patient and in the meantime, read the book by Raphael and Spurgeon.

It is rare when I feel Jack Kirby has gotten too much credit for something. Over the years, I've often felt my friend (and one-time employer) was not properly hailed as a creative genius, and I've winced as he went unmentioned or damned with faint praise during talk of his many co-creations.

But this article in tomorrow morn's New York Times comes close to overcompensating. In a discussion of The Hulk, Fantastic Four, X-Men and Thor, Stan Lee goes almost unmentioned. And, yes, plenty of articles have erred in the opposite direction, and the scale isn't close to balanced…

…but we all know what two wrongs don't make. Particularly excessive is that the article is illustrated with a drawing of the X-Men — not by Kirby, not featuring his version of those characters, and not noting that the current, money-making version is a couple of revamps removed from what Jack helped bring into the world.

(And a small point: Jack left Marvel and went to DC in 1970, not 1971.)

The quotes from Michael Chabon and Jules Feiffer are spot-on, and Jack deserves every ounce of praise for his unbounded imagination. As much as he brought to comics, I don't think we even got 50% of what he had to give. Still, it would be nice if we could sing his praises without turning his collaborators into mumbled asides.

Ninety years ago today, a family in Philadelphia named Kelly gave birth to a kid named Walter Crawford Kelly, Jr. They probably didn't suspect that he would grow up (to the extent cartoonists ever grow up) to become one of the most honored and loved comic strip creators of all time. It was many years after that that Walt Kelly, in turn, gave birth to Pogo Possum, Albert Alligator, Howland Owl, Churchy LaFemme, and other denizens of the Okefenokee Swamp…and what a swamp it was, teeming with personalities of every stripe and persuasion. Even on the days Pogo was black-and-white, its language and style made it more colorful than anything else that graced the Sunday Funnies. Walt put more personality into a drawing than any practitioner of the anthropomorphic arts, before or since, but it didn't stop there.

Their speech was vibrant, their wit unparalleled, their situations irresistible. Kelly is often remembered for his political content — and to be sure, it was unique and bold and the reason that so many adults felt they had to scan the comics page. But he was also just plain funny, which was maybe the best reason to cruise the Okefenokee. Even when I was too young to have a clue what those silly animals were talking about, I just knew it was something very special.

So Happy Walt Kelly Day, people. A lot of cartoonists can do slapstick. A lot of them can say pithy, on-target things. Some of them can even create characters that you just plain want to hang around. But darn few can put it all under one roof and in one strip.

I'd like to thank several folks who sent donations to this website today, specifically to be used in my "battle" against the evil towing company.

I'm not sure I'm going to engage in a battle. Unlike too many White House occupants in our past, I believe some wars aren't worth starting, especially if you aren't sure what would constitute a "win." I need to do a little more investigating to learn what, if anything, can be done. After all, I can't be the first person to get ticked off over this. I didn't have the chance today to make those calls since I'm finishing a script, plus I'm busy defending the 2.6 ton granite monument to the Ten Commandments I had installed on my front lawn. I bought it on sale at the 99-Cent Only Store, and I'm a little suspicious about a couple of these commandments. Like, IX is "Thou shalt not broadcast or transmit the pictures, descriptions, or accounts of this game without the expressed, written consent of the office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball." I always thought IX was something about not bearing false witness against thy neighbor.

But in the meantime, thanks. Donations to this website are always welcome and if I don't use the money to bring Doctor Tow to justice, I'll at least buy something fun on eBay with it.

And here we have a conservative writer bashing that justice who insists that he needs that huge monument to the Ten Commandments to "acknowledge God."