Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Starr Reporter

Last night, GSN ran an episode of What's My Line? from 1955 (I believe) where one of the contestants signed in as Mrs. Dale Strom. She was introduced that way because one or more of the panelists might have recognized her maiden (and professional) name, Dale Messick, as the creator of the comic strip, Brenda Starr. Dale, who will be 99 years old in April, began drawing the adventures of the intrepid lady reporter in 1940 and, it is said, never missed a deadline — not even to birth her children — until she handed the strip off to others in 1980.

Brenda Starr was a popular feature that never quite made it onto the radar of comic strip buffs. I'm not sure why. It was drawn with great energy and humor, and the writing stands up far better than many strips of its era. Years ago, afforded the opportunity to read long runs of classic funnypage faves, I found some were readable and some were not. Li'l Abner was, Flash Gordon wasn't...though with Flash Gordon, looking at the pictures was sometimes enough. The Phantom, I could read. Mark Trail, I could not...and Harold Gray's talky, preachy Little Orphan Annie actually induced some form of Attention Deficit Disorder in me. I would read Panel One and literally forget everything about it while making the brief trip over to Panel Two.

But like I said, Brenda Starr was fun and while it's probably not on anyone's short list of Comic Strips That Deserve To Be Republished In Their Entirety, the way Peanuts is now being reprinted, you could do a lot worse. Seeing its maker on What's My Line? last night prompted me to suggest that there's a strip worthy of more attention. (The current version by June Brigman and Mary Schmich ain't bad, either.)

• Posted at 8:34 PM · LINK

Jacko Justice

"Stavner" (that's how he signs his e-mails) writes to ask the following...

RE: Michael Jackson: Could you please be more specific about why you think he'll walk?

I can't be that much more specific about why I think The King of Pop will go unconvicted...and it's certainly not something about which I feel certain. (There could still be one of those startling Perry Mason-style revelations, either way.) It's more of a hunch, taking off from the fact that there seems to be no paucity of evidence that the parents of the allegedly-violated lad are of low moral fibre and perhaps not above trumping up a molestation charge to get cash. That doesn't mean Jackson didn't molest the kid but it goes a long way to helping his attorneys cast reasonable — or maybe unreasonable doubt.

The case against O.J. Simpson (you remember him) was an overwhelming case. For God's sake, his blood was found at the murder site. Still, a well-financed defense squad managed to sell the idea that there was "something wrong" with that case in unspecified ways. They never offered a coherent theory as to how and why all of this evidence could have been phonied up and planted. No one ever has. In fact, the most serious attempt I ever saw didn't even come from Simpson's lawyers. It was a website — no longer up — that tried to explain every damning exhibit and circumstance in pro-O.J. spin. It yielded a conspiracy wherein about a hundred different people with no motive whatsoever decided to frame Simpson and made a series of incredible guesses as to how to accomplish this...and, of course, were damn lucky that no evidence of the "real killers" was found and that O.J. just happened to not have an alibi for the time in question.

Simpson's actual legal team didn't even do that. They just convinced the jury that a frame-up was in the air, and if the facts said Simpson did it, the facts could not be trusted. It's starting to smell like something similar is happening in the Jackson case. His lawyers can't possibly explain every bit of evidence against him but they can come up with questions on some, alternate theories on others...and for the rest, they've got the argument that the D.A. is pursuing a personal vendetta and that the parents are just the kind of people who would phony-up a case.

Today, the brother of the supposedly-molested boy testified about Jackson giving them alcohol and playing sex games with them. Then, on cross-examination, Jackson's side got the witness to admit he'd lied in a lawsuit the parents once filed against J.C. Penney. So now the argument will be that if he'd lie in that case, you can't trust what he says in this one. That raises a doubt and if the jury decides to give Jackson the benefit of that doubt, he'll go free. I'm not suggesting it's inevitable; just that it's starting to feel like things are drifting in that direction. And who knows? Maybe that's the truth of the situation. Maybe Jackson is innocent, at least of this particular accusation. I just think it's unfortunate that if he goes free, it will be because they put the parents on trial, the same way the O.J. lawyers turned things into a trial of the L.A.P.D. Over the years, studies have shown that a lot of rape victims decline to report the crime or testify because they fear their morals will be impugned and misinterpreted. Somewhere out there, there's a set of parents who will feel much the same way if their child is abused, especially if it's by someone rich and powerful. They won't even call the police because they won't want to find themselves in a trial that's all about them and their motives.

• Posted at 7:16 PM · LINK

Good News

The Internet Movie Database has decided that Joe Barbera did not pass away last year and has removed the date of death from his listing.

In other non-dead news, I see Abe Vigoda is still alive.

• Posted at 10:30 AM · LINK

March 9, 2005 • Current • March 7, 2005