Monthly Archives: February 2008

The Horrors of Yesterday: How United Airlines can get you from Los Angeles to San Francisco in about the time it would take you to hop there on one foot.

Today, Saturday and Sunday, I will be at the WonderCon in San Francisco. I'll be hosting some terrific panels…and you can see a list of them here. Find out all about the WonderCon over on this website and show up there. It's going to be quite rainy in S.F. this weekend so the event might not be as crowded as you'd expect and dealers might be more willing to give bargains. If nothing else, you can enjoy the pungent aroma of Wet Fans.

I'll be signing copies of my new book, Kirby: King of Comics. Yes, it's out and I'm told most major dealers should have their supplies next week…but they may not have 'em for long. My publisher says that every last copy of the first printing has been ordered by merchants or distributors, and they're hurrying to get a second printing on the presses. We'll be fixing a few teensy typos for it…and I should mention that in a week or so, I'll be opening a section of this website devoted to corrections and amplifications on the book.

I'll also probably be signing copies of the new issue of Will Eisner's The Spirit which came out this week from DC Comics. It's the first to be written by the awe-inspiring team of Sergio Aragonés and Your Obedient Weblogmaster, trodding in very large footprints. Mike Ploog and Mike Farmer did a superb job with the illustration and there's a wonderful cover by Jordi Bernet. Next issue is drawn (and drawn well) by Paul Smith. Also at some point during the con, Sergio and I will be over at the Dark Horse booth signing copies of the current Groo mini-series. (By the way: I'm currently assembling the letter column for the last issue of that mini-series and I'm short a few letters. Here's your chance, people.)

On Monday, I will be teaching a half-day class in Animation Voiceover Acting at Voice One, which is a respected school and recording studio. If you're in that area and interested in doing cartoon voices, you might want to check it out. Here's a link with all the info.

End of advertisements. We now return you to our regularly scheduled blog.

Duke Haring makes two points and I'm going to respond to them one at a time. Here's the first one…

First, the subtle but salient point Mr. Morris fails to distinguish is that Bill Clinton was not impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. He was impeached for lying about it under oath. Certainly, I don't live in John McCain's head, but I believe that was the basis for his impeachment vote.

I don't live in McCain's head either but after hearing him discuss it a few times in interviews, I got the feeling that the basis for his impeachment vote was that if you want the Republican nomination for president, you'd better not cross the extreme right wing of that party. Maybe it's just me projecting my viewpoint but McCain sure seemed to think the whole accusation against Clinton was nonsense and I remember him saying several times a conviction was impossible. But he still voted to let the process go forward and supported it and I guess I was disappointed that he went along with it. I'd like to think the John McCain of an earlier time would have parted company with the Republican mainstream on this. He used to do that once in a while when he thought they were wrong.

In one sense, you're right that it was about alleged lying, not alleged infidelity. But I think in a larger sense, it was about seeing how much they could embarrass Clinton and lower public opinion of him by trotting out as many details of salacious conduct as possible. And if Democrats applied the same sleazy manuever, they'd gin up some investigation of McCain's contacts with lobbyists and use that as an excuse to dig up and publicize every detail of the man's supposed affair. That would be wrong but it would be quite comparable to the process McCain endorsed in the Clinton/Lewinsky matter.

Here's the other part of Duke's message…

Secondly, while I am no fan of Sen. McCain — my vote went to Ron Paul — I find it interesting that the New York Times sat on this diddling the lobbyist story until after its endorsement helped McCain to effectively lock up the nomination. If the Times had run the story when it first had it, we might now be talking about the possibilities of Obama vs. Romney — not that this is any improvement in my mind. I'm just sayin'.

I doubt the story, at least in the tepid version the Times published, is going to do any harm to McCain's chances. It may even help him win over the kind of voter who thought the Times endorsement was a good reason not to vote for McCain. But it is odd that the Times endorsed the guy while it sat on this story and then released it now. The whole thing seems puzzling to me. What I'd like to know is: Do they think he had this affair? If so, why publish the story if you're going to tap dance around that? If not, why publish the story at all? If you aren't sure, why publish it now?

Jeremy Morris reads my little comment on the McCain "affair" story (item before last here) and writes…

…under normal circumstances I'd agree with you. But there are two points that I think are salient here in the case of John McCain that make this event actually worth considering:

1. McCain's reputation is for "Straight Talking" and for "Campaign Finance Reform". He's the one who made these two things the centerpieces of his run for office and his Senate career respectively. Cheating on your wife puts a lie to his whole "Straight Talking" persona that he's wrapped himself in. Now, granted he probably only got into Campaign Finance Reform as a cause after his participation in the "Keating Five" scandal, but still – Campaign Finance Reform is one of his hobbyhorses. If he's having an illicit affair with a lobbyist, that shows that his championing of Campaign Finance Reform is a sham. Which you may be expecting, but there are still many people in this country who expect their politicians to actually believe the things that they say. The more examples of this sort of thing, the more that expectation can be lowered and the more people will hopefully pay attention to what the politician actually does instead of just the words they say.

2. McCain voted to impeach President Clinton based on Clinton's sexual conduct while in office. Had McCain stood up and called out his own party for the stupidity of it all, I'd have more respect and more sympathy for the Senator. As it is, this is a classic example of one being "hoisted by his own petard" – if he didn't want to play by these rules he shouldn't have put them on the table when the board was setup. Any Republican who voted to impeach Clinton in the Lewinsky matter deserves to have their sexual closet thrown open and have all of the moths shaken out. And if they didn't realize the Pandora's Box they were opening when they cast that vote then they are fools who doubly deserve what they get. (Personal bias note – I considered myself a Republican up until the whole impeachment circus. So I may still be a little bit bitter that the party that I supported at the time turned out to be a bunch of corrupt little children intent on scoring political points about trivial issues instead of actually governing like adults.)

I don't know that I can disagree with most of that. McCain's support for the impeachment of Clinton was, for me, the moment he vaulted the proverbial shark. It was when he stopped being a Republican I could see myself voting for and entered the phylum of "He's just like all the others." Where I guess I differ a bit with you is that I think the part of this story that obviously interests most people — Ooh, John McCain was cheating on his wife! — doesn't seem to have been nailed down with sufficient evidence, nor would it be the real wrong. If he's doing improper things to help out lobbyists, that's the sin, whether he's in bed with one financially or literally. I suppose one could argue that the sex angle to the story is a good thing because a story that just said McCain lets lobbyists manipulate him like he's Topo Gigio would not get as much attention…but you kind of hate to see it work that way. I do, at least.

From Chris Dosevski…

Your announcement of a surprise birthday party for Larry Storch gives me a great opportunity to notify you and your readers that the Encore Westerns Channel is playing this month a 1957 movie called Gun Fever which features Larry Storch in the role of a vicious Mexican outlaw named Amigo. It's hard to reconcile Larry's comedic role in F Troop with the serious role he plays in this adult violent Western. I was amazed to see Larry shoot down a man in cold blood, beat another man nearly to death, and get into fistfights. Larry affects a Spanish accent in this movie which is so indescribably bad that it's good. For Larry Storch fans, this movie is not to be missed.

And you can "not miss it" on Sunday, February 24 at (on my satellite dish) 10:40 AM. Consult some listing to tell you when it's on in your area. That's assuming you even get that channel.

Well, I think I can give up on Deal or No Deal again…and after last night's show, it wouldn't surprise me if much of America did, as well. As you may recall, they've never had a million dollar winner in this game, the whole point of which is to see if someone can win a million dollars. To coincide with sweeps, they launched the "Million Dollar Mission" during which more and more of those cute little briefcases contained the yearned-for amount…the idea being to weigh the odds to make a million buck win likely. Didn't happen, as we all knew going into last night's show. (How did we know it? Because if it had, the producers and network would have made darned sure we knew in advance so more folks would tune in to watch.) Even with half the cases on the board containing $1,000,000.00, the contestant wound up with less than half that.

Still, you could tell the producers thought it would all end with the Big Win. The show has gotten way too manipulative for its own good, trotting out deserving contestants and reminding us over and over how deserving they are, bringing on their friends and family members to say it every three minutes. They even had the prize models saying "You're my favorite contestant ever" and getting emotional about it. Last night's contestant — the one who was picked to play in a game calculated to make her a millionaire — needed the loot in order to have more children and to continue all her fine charity work, and you certainly wanted her to succeed. The producers sure expected it.

They started this running theme with The Banker (the show's unseen Bad Guy, who's somehow regarded as evil for offering players a guaranteed, often huge amount if they elect not to gamble) proclaiming that he was going to beat her and that he'd consider anything less than a million dollar win for her as a loss for her. The lady kept saying, "I always win," which was clearly untrue. A person who always wins would not be poor enough to be an appropriate contestant on Deal or No Deal. Anyway, it came down to this silly dramatic undercurrent: If she won the million, it would prove that she was, indeed, one who always wins. If she went home with anything less — say, a measly $800,000 — she was a loser. That was the premise the producers felt they had to lay in there to ratchet up the suspense…since it seemed so obvious going in that she'd win the mill.

Plus, they added this out of left field: Her husband was afraid of heights..so The Banker added a new, one-time rule to the game. Hubby was strapped onto a platform and incrementally raised into the air on wires. Each time she opened a case containing a million, thereby dropping the odds of her winning that amount, he'd be hoisted another level. Why? Just to add more drama to a show that seemed to have a foregone conclusion.

But at some point in the taping, the producers must have realized it wasn't going as expected; that they'd configured the game around an expected finale that might not be achieved. With no explanation, they called off the stunt with the husband and started back-pedalling on this lame insistence that she was a loser if she didn't head homeward with all the marbles. And indeed, it finally came down to this: She had two cases left. One contained a million smackers. The other held $200. There was an offer on the table of a little less than half a million.

Therein lies the problem with this game. To be interesting, it has to be played by contestants who are somewhat needy and for whom a million dollar win is life-changing, allowing them to buy that new house they need, send their kids to college, help out those less fortunate than even themselves, etc. That kind of person should not and (if they have a lick of sense) will not turn down half a million on a 50-50 chance of either winning twice that amount or going home with bupkiss. You'd hate them if they did. You'd hate them and you'd hate the show and you'd even hate yourself for watching the show for an entire hour, rooting for that person. Even if they won, the player would have won after being foolish and reckless with their family's future.

The lady last night didn't, of course, do that. She went home with a nice piece of change. It turned out she did have the million dollar amount in her case so even though she won big, the conventions of the show treated her as a bit of a loser. I sure felt like one for investing any of my time in the whole enterprise. Even recording the show on TiVo and fast-forwarding through all the padding, I still felt like I'd listened to a long, long joke without a punchline…and not because the lady didn't win a million dollars. But because of all the contrived dramatics it took to get there.

Earlier this evening, I attended a terrific surprise birthday party for the great comic actor, Larry Storch. That's Larry at right in the above photo, posing with his F Troop co-star, Ken Berry, who was among the friends of Larry's in attendance. There were a lot of great comic actors present, including Chuck McCann, Jackie Joseph, Marty Ingels, Hank Garrett, Warren Berlinger and Ron Masak. There were also top cartoon voice actors like Wally Wingert (who threw the shindig) and Katie Leigh, plus I got a hug from Stella Stevens. That alone was worth the drive out to the valley.

Among many others who were present was Lou Scheimer, who used to co-own and run Filmation Studios. Lou often hired Larry as a voice actor (The Groovie Ghoolies, for instance) and for on-camera live-action (The Ghostbusters). And I got to meet one of my favorite composers, Neal Hefti, who expressed disbelief that I knew the obscure lyrics to the title song from a movie he scored, How to Murder Your Wife. He quickly learned otherwise, and the look on his face was almost as good as a hug from Stella Stevens.

Larry Storch has, of course, been doing wonderful work for most of his 85 years on this planet. I probably first knew him as a recurring character on Car 54, Where Are You?, one of my favorite shows. (Hank Garrett was a regular on that series. He may be the last person alive who was.) I always thought Larry was screamingly funny as Corporal Agarn on F Troop, which is one of those rare shows that looks better with each passing year. He was also on a short-lived, unjustly-forgotten series called The Queen and I, which I would love to see again.

Not much else to report except to again wish Larry a happy birthday last month. One reason he was so surprised by the surprise party is that his birthday was in January. But no one cared. It was just nice to see him and to get all those people together in one room.

You may remember a few years ago, a big deal was made in the Blondie newspaper strip about Mr. and Mrs. Bumstead celebrating their 75th wedding anniversary, complete with guest stars from other strips.

That was all well and good…but over in an Internet newsgroup, historian D.D. Degg has pointed out that today is actually their 75th anniversary. Blondie and Dagwood were married in the strip that ran on February 17, 1933. Here's a link to the original art for that historic strip so you can see for yourself.