Recommended Reading

If you, like me, think Congresslady Michele Bachman is a few eggs short of a Grand Slam Breakfast, you'll enjoy this item on why she's apparently stopping demonizing the U.S. Census. She was telling people to refuse to fill it out…but now it's looking like Minnesota may lose a house seat if the census determines the population had dropped enough. And guess whose seat would probably be eliminated!

Today's Video Link

Hey, let's drive around L.A. with Jay Leno. You'll probably enjoy the ride more if you take this one full-screen…

VIDEO MISSING

Loose Ends

I heard from an awful lot of folks about the definition of a decade. Quite a few of you asserted, and I don't think you're wrong, that a decade can be any ten consecutive years. True…but when someone writes that we're starting a new decade or they speak of the end of an old decade, that's not the definition they're using. That news story about twins who were born in separate decades was presuming that decades were rigidly-defined groupings. If you're going to speak of a time as a series of ten-year units, there seems to be a lot of wiggle room as to whether we just ended the 2000-2009 decade or if we're in the last year of the 2001-2010 decade.

And a pretty large number of e-mails arrived telling me that one can hear Esperanto in the movie Incubus (1965) starring William Shatner. There you have two very good reasons not to seek out the movie Incubus.

Recommended Reading

Rush Limbaugh said that the treatment he received at that hospital in Hawaii was terrific and a fine example of how good American health care can be. Okay, fine. He's just endorsed unionized hospitals and close-to-socialized medicine. Read this.

Finger Pun Goes Here

billfinger01

Each year at the Comic-Con International, we give out something called the Bill Finger Award. Actually, we give out two Bill Finger Awards each year — one to a great writer of comic books who is deceased and one to a great writer of comic books who (happily) is still around to come in, pick up his award in person and be honored.

Bill Finger (1914-1974) was, of course, one of the great writers in the early days of comics. He was the co-creator of Green Lantern and that alone is pretty impressive…but he also had another big credit. Mr. Finger was, you see, the main writer of Batman in the forties and for a decade or two after. He was the guy who set the tone, the style, the feel of the stories. He was also the creator of many key Bat-elements and supporting characters and, some would say, the unjustly-uncredited co-creator of the Caped Crusader, himself.

As a matter of contractual fact, Bob Kane is credited as the sole creator of Batman and all the characters in the Bat-Universe…even the Joker, who Kane himself said in his autobiography he did not create. Kane said it was Finger's idea. Everyone else seems to think Batman's main nemesis was the creation of Jerry Robinson, who was Kane's main art assistant at the time. But the point is, Kane said he didn't create The Joker. Still, if you buy a Joker toy, it will say "created by Bob Kane" on it.

Since Finger's name does not appear prominently in connection with the character of Batman, it seemed like the least some of us could do was to slap it on an award. The Bill Finger Award was conceived and established by Jerry Robinson — who, by the way, drew the above sketch of Mr. Finger. Oddly enough though, unbeknownst to Jerry, the award had been proposed a few years earlier by longtime comic book writer Arnold Drake, another friend of Mr. Finger's. Arnold had the idea but couldn't get anyone to act upon it. Then Jerry thought of it on his own and he got it established. I am presently the administrator of the accolade and before I get to the main point of this discussion, I want you to understand what we — and by "we," I mean those of us who have helped select the recipients each year — intend by it.

It's a lifetime achievement award for a writer of comic books who has not really received proper recognition and reward for his or her contributions. Writers often are overlooked and this is an award, to some extent, for being overlooked, either in terms of financial advantage or sheer fame or both. Of course, the person has to have done work that should not have been overlooked in at least one of these ways…and as I said, we give two each year — one to someone who's alive and one to someone who isn't.

The first year, 2005, we gave the posthumous one to Jerry Siegel and the "alive" one to Arnold Drake…who, sadly, would now qualify for the posthumous one. The second year, we gave the posthumous award to Harvey Kurtzman and the "alive" one to Alvin Schwartz, who I'm glad to say still qualifies. So do the rest of our living recipients.

In 2007, we gave the posthumous to Gardner Fox and the "still with us" award to George Gladir. In '08, it was Archie Goodwin (deceased) and Larry Lieber (not deceased). Last year, the posthumous trophy went to John Broome and the there-to-accept plaque went to Frank Jacobs. And this coming year, we're presenting the awards to…

Well, that's where you come in.

This is an open call for nominations, especially for the "still breathing" honor. Because this is a lifetime achievement award, the judging committee doesn't want to start giving it to folks who got into comics in the seventies and eighties just yet; not until we're sure we've exhausted every worthy soul from comics' earlier days. The deceased award is easy because there are plenty of good dead writers…and there's no rush to give it to any one of them in particular. None of them are going to get any deader and there will be more where those came from. What we're looking for is whether we've overlooked some overlooked living writer from Comics' Golden or Silver Ages.

The awards will be presented at the Comic-Con International in San Diego this coming July and if there's any way we can get him or her there, we'll bring in the winner who's still with us and also some family member or other appropriate accepter for the departed honoree. If you can think of someone we might have forgotten, please send me an e-mail within the next month or so.

Go Read It!

MTV polls comic book folks, including Yours Truly, on their plans for the new year. I should have resolved to say something cleverer than I did when asked for my plans for the new year.

Oh, well. At least they didn't list my credits as lettering X-Men.

Recommended Reading

General agreement with David Brooks on how Americans react to the threat of terrorism. I find it hard to believe that any of the extra theatrics we're now subjected to when we get on a plane have stopped anyone who was determined to get explosives or weapons on board. And the added inconveniences won't either…but it's like the way a lot of folks view torture: "Never mind that it doesn't make us safer. Let's pretend that it does."

Sondheim Goodies

The New York Times has a terrific article up about Stephen Sondheim. It mainly has to do with the current trend of restaging his major works in small, mini-orchestrated productions. I don't know that I like this trend but I suppose it depends on the show and the cast and how cleverly it's all staged.

Also, the American Theater Wing — they're the folks who give out the Tony Awards — have posted a one-hour podcast conversation with Mr. Sondheim. You can download it over on this page or listen to it live there.

Today's Video Link

Much to the frustration of professional voiceover actors, a lot of the high-paying jobs these days are going to folks who are celebrities for their on-camera efforts. Here's a little quiz to see if you can identify twelve of them…

VIDEO MISSING

Late Lists

This is for those of you interested in the late night shows on your teevee. For almost as long as there's been an Internet, a lady named Sue Trowbridge has been compiling the guest lists in advance and putting them on this webpage as a public service. I don't know her at all but I gather she runs an independent record label and also designs peachy websites. Her Late Night Lineups page has proven very handy for me and it may help you out, too.

Something Else I Won't Be Buying

As a follow-up (sorta) to our earlier item about how prices in Las Vegas are all over the place: Let's say you're visiting the Venetian Hotel. Let's say you're craving something sweet. Well, how about one of those $750.00 cupcakes?

Recommended Reading

Many Democrats, Liberals and Progressives (those are not all exactly the same thing) are unhappy with the Health Care Reform bill not because it changes things but because it doesn't, in their view, change them enough. Hendrik Hertzberg has an interesting way of looking at the situation.

More New Non-Assignments

Ah, I seem to have more jobs from Marvel I didn't know about. Their site also has me down as the letterer of the upcoming X-Men Forever #19 and #20 and also Avengers Vs. Atlas #3…and I've apparently gotten better at this because I no longer need John Byrne to work with me.

Recommended Reading

Nate Silver discusses the charge that the Rasmussen Poll, which is generally favored by Conservatives, is too biased to trust. I think it is…but I agree with Silver that the real bias may be in how selectively it's quoted. I don't think any one poll has a monopoly on the truth but if you only quote one and not a range, you oughta consistently quote just that one and not switch pollsters because you like someone else's outcome better one moment.

Silver, who knows more about this stuff than anyone I've come across, says that Rasmussen did a pretty good job of calling the 2008 election. My impression is that he's measuring their final polling against the final results…and that Rasmussen showed a much more favorable picture for McCain/Palin until just a few days before we all filled up those ballot boxes. Then, suddenly, they "noticed" a huge rush of Democrats who abruptly became Likely Voters and their polls suddenly fell in the line with all the others. Was this not the case? I seem to remember Mr. Zogby — whose polling is so far off that I don't believe it even when it yields results I like — on some news show arguing once that, based on the outcome of some election, his poll was "on target." And in rebuttal, someone else noticed that it was off for weeks before and only became "on target" about halfway through Election Day.