Thursday, July 2, 2009

Health of a Nation

My math skills were never great. They began to atrophy when I got my first calculator and I lost another chunk after I gained a Business Manager. So there's a large part of the health care debate is that just, as Mr. Obama would say, far above my pay grade.

Still, I can see that something has to be done about all the folks in this country who have no insurance, all the people who do have insurance but discover (usually at the worst-possible moment) that it won't cover what they need it to cover, and the sheer fact that most health care is just too damned expensive. In intolerable numbers, people die and/or go bankrupt because of the system. In the absence of a fix, it'll eventually get so bad that even rabid Republicans will be wishing we'd passed the Hillary Clinton plan.

I follow as much of it as I can...as if anything I might say or do will ever make a difference. Two of the best sources of news and analysis I've found online are Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn. These are Liberal voices but so far, I haven't come across a Conservative take on health care that wasn't based on either or both of the following premises: That anything the government touches is invariably going to be a disaster and/or that it would be a shame to see the insurance companies not make every possible nickel off your Grandma's arthritis.

Opponents of revamping health care are losing ground every day. Every poll says that even G.O.P. voters want it fixed and you have entities like Walmart demanding health care reform. I can't believe something won't get done. But then again, I also can't believe we have Senators and Congressfolks acting like the system is fine or, at worst, just needs a little Bactine and a band-aid. Or maybe a loving mother to kiss the boo-boo.

• Posted at 11:43 AM · LINK

Harvey Wallbanger

There are two major awards voted each year from work in the field of comic books. One is the Eisners, which are handed out at the Comic-Con International in San Diego. The other is the Harveys, which have lately been given out at the Baltimore Comic Convention. This year, I'm up for two Eisners and the other day, I seem to have been nominated for two Harveys for my book, Kirby: King of Comics.

I say "seem" because one is in the category of "Special Award for Excellence in Presentation" and I'm not sure if that's for me or for the folks who designed the book, one of whom was an uncredited (for that) me. This is not a point that needs clarification; just something I mention to underscore how nebulous these things can be. I am occasionally congratulated because Groo the Wanderer has repeatedly won the Harvey in a category called "Special Award for Humor in Comics" but I don't think that award was for me. It's gone to my collaborator, Sergio Aragonés.

I also don't think the distinction matters because awards, though nice, don't make you any better and the absence of them doesn't make you any worse. They have a slight marketing value and they please certain people in your life. The first time I was up for an Emmy, my father was still alive and the only reason I cared if I won was because I knew how happy it would make him. Oh — and maybe because the statue might (emphasis on the "might") have given me a little more clout on my next project.

I don't mean to disparage anyone's award because winning any such trophy is not at all a negative unless, as a few unfortunates do, you take it as incontrovertible proof you're a genius and needn't listen to others. There's also nothing negative about being nominated unless you overdramatize it to the point where you'll be crushed if you lose. Anyway, I've learned to just say thanks and to otherwise pay no nevermind to awards. The first time I won an Eisner, I carried this to an extreme. I didn't even know I was nominated, didn't attend the ceremony, didn't find out until years later that I'd won and never got the actual trophy, which I think was then a certificate.

Tom Spurgeon and others are making the case that the Harveys are redundant and ill-administered and that they oughta be put to sleep. As a nominee this year (and I believe but am not sure, other years), I'm being asked what I think about this. What I think about this is that I don't think a lot about this. I completely buy any argument that the absolute best work is not being selected but I kinda feel that way about every award in every field. Perhaps given the response to the current list of Harvey nominees — and I hope, not because I'm on it — their process does need some fixing if it's going to retain any credibility.

But really, discussing whether or not to abolish an award is almost treating it with too much seriousness. It's suggesting that the ones you don't want eliminated do a highly efficient job of zeroing in on The Best and the Brightest. Each year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doles out a lot of Oscars that elevate one film or contributor above others that do not seem directly comparable or often, to me, less deserving. I don't see it as an injustice that demands correction if the Harvey Awards do this. It also wouldn't change all that much if either set of awards went bye-bye.

We all have a chance to vote on this. We cast our votes with whatever amount of attention we pay to a set of awards. If we afford them none, they'll fade away. And if we get excited about them and talk or write a lot about them, then they probably deserve to continue. It's all blue smoke that means as much as you want it to mean...no more, no less. The administrators of the Harvey Awards may have some problems to solve but we don't, except to decide how much, if at all, we care.

• Posted at 10:35 AM · LINK