Category Archives: Uncategorized

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."

September 20-21 in the showroom at the Suncoast Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas: "Martin & Lewis Cannot Appear But Their Sons Can," starring Gary Lewis and The Playboys, Ricci Martin and "The Pack." Hey, I'd pay money to see that. But then I've been up all night writing cartoons so what do I know?

Why did Fox News sue Al Franken? They must have known they (a) had no chance of winning, (b) would look like laughingstocks and (c) would boost the sales of his book with all that lovely publicity. So why did they do it? Well, according to this article in The New Yorker, it was just a matter of appeasing the demands of Bill O'Reilly, who refused to be talked out of it.

Here's one sentence from this AP wire story on the race for governor of California…

"He said four words to me — we have to work harder," said Bustamante strategist Richie Ross.

One hopes Cruz isn't letting this guy add up his polling data for him.

Jimmy Breslin on presidential lying. No one gets outraged quite the way Jimmy Breslin gets outraged.

Got a slightly-angry e-mail from a casual acquaintance who was upset that I hadn't responded to an e-mail he sent me a week or so ago. I am way behind on answering e-mail, so a lot of you are in that category, and I apologize.

But I'm not apologizing to this guy. First off, everyone does get behind, or allow the occasional e-mail to go unanswered. It happens and we shouldn't get peevish about it. Secondly, he sent me another copy of the message I'd ignored and I saw its Subject Line. As a joke, he'd written in, "Generic Viagra and Penis Enlargement." The message had no mention of either of those related topics but since I can't find his original on my hard disk, I'm guessing either I or my Spam filter deleted it without reading.

In his complaint to me, he wrote, "I'm sick and tired of rude people not responding to my e-mails." I can suggest one reason why they do.

No…come to think of it, I can suggest two.

A new Los Angeles Times poll has Cruz Bustamante way ahead of Arnold Schwarzenegger, 35% to 22%. Following them are Tom McClintock with 12%, Peter Ueberroth with 7%, Bill Simon with 6%, Arianna Huffington with 3%, and Peter Camejo and Larry Flynt tied with 1%. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3%.

I don't believe this poll is any more valid than the one the other day that had Bustamante slightly ahead, or the one that had Arnold ahead. For emphasis: I don't believe any of these tell us how folks will vote in October.

However, there's one interesting thing here. The California Broadcasters Association has announced a debate, to be held September 17, of candidates on the second part of the ballot. Gray Davis will not be invited, they say, but they will ask the top six contenders, as determined by non-partisan polling in the coming weeks. If any of the six decline, they say, a chair will be left empty for them.

Now, if they choose to use the L.A. Times poll as their guide, the top six would be Bustamante, Schwarzenegger, McClintock, Ueberroth, Simon and Huffington. I have a hunch they picked six as the cut-off because they figured it would be those six; that the joke or fringe candidates like Flynt and Gallagher would be far enough behind the sixth place contender to justify excluding them. But Simon has dropped out…so does he get included? Why leave an empty chair for a guy who says he's not running? But if you leave him out, you have to include Camejo…and LARRY FLYNT! That's right: We may have a crippled, "loose cannon" pornographer in our gubernatorial debate. This could be very entertaining, and make the whole recall look even sillier than it already does.

They may have to include Flynt, anyway. He's within the margin of error of Huffington, and can afford lawyers who can certainly argue that he can't be excluded from a debate that includes her. Between now and the 17th, he could easily get 2% or 3% in some poll and even be ahead of Simon…so then how do they keep the publisher of Hustler's Hometown Honeys out? I don't know either, but I bet they try to modify or apply the rules so they don't have to build a wheelchair ramp to the stage.

Here's a simple legal explanation of why Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama (who's now been suspended) is wrong to argue that he doesn't have to remove that big stone monument of the Ten Commandments. And this article doesn't even attempt to argue about Separation of Church and State.

You should always read Joshua Micah Marshall's weblog, Talking Points Memo. But this latest entry may be the most important thing he's ever posted.

The polls on the recall seem to be all over the place. Schwarzenegger and Bustamonte seem to be out in front, and if you take the margin of error into account (as almost no one does), they're neck and neck. Polls also say that Californians are ready to boot Mr. Davis, though perhaps the tide is turning in his favor. Maybe.

It strikes me that all this polling is pretty meaningless. There are still a lot of undecideds, at least with regard to the second part of the ballot, and voters don't know very much about what either Arnold or Cruz intends to do. Before election day, each will probably have a "scandal" or two, and that may affect things, as may voters coming to understand more about the procedure. In the last week, I've explained to three separate friends, all of whom I would rate as quite intelligent, that no matter how they vote on Part One of the ballot, they can still vote on Part Two. All three thought that if they voted to keep Davis, they'd have no say in his replacement. If that's widespread, that could signal major shifts in the weeks to come. This kind of balloting is utterly unprecedented and that further cripples the polling process, which is based on taking current samplings and plugging them into models of past elections. Since there's never been an election quite like this one, the pollsters are flying blinder than usual.

My gut feeling at the moment, which is almost as worthless as the polls, is that the first half of the ballot will be a squeaker, hinging on which side is more motivated to actually cast ballots. I feel Davis will do better than a lot of people expect, but that's only if he doesn't do something real stupid before October 7. And I sure wouldn't bet money that he won't. At the moment, he looks like he's running against George W. Bush and a Republican effort to undo elections. That will only get him so far, which probably won't be far enough. At the moment, the person out there making the best case that Davis doesn't deserve to be blamed for the state's fiscal crisis is Peter Ueberroth, and no one's listening to him.

Bill Simon, who I saw on TV yesterday vowing he would never drop out of the race, has dropped out of the race. His spokesperson said, "There was absolutely no pressure, no phone calls — this was a decision made by Bill Simon based on rational conclusions," and of course we don't believe that for a minute. In any case, most of his support will probably go to McClintock. If McClintock stays in to the end and splits the Republican vote, we're probably looking at Governor Cruz. If McClintock gets out, then the race is Arnold's to lose, and he might do just that. The Republican base can't be that wild about a guy who's pro-choice, in favor of some gay rights, thought the impeachment was a sham, makes violent movies, smokes dope, has more rumors of marital infidelity than Clinton ever had, etc. It won't take a lot of sizzling revelations to discourage those folks from flocking to the polls.

But who knows? I have an uneasy feeling that the end result will be a governor who has a lot less support than Davis. That is, Davis will lose because only 47% of the state wants to keep him…but then he'll be replaced by a guy who's wanted by 28% of the state. That such an outcome is even possible ought to alarm some people. Is this the kind of Democracy we want to bring to Iraq? But I keep reading articles by folks who think any process that gets rid of G. Davis can't possibly have anything wrong with it.

Some articles are now saying that Rob Reiner seriously considered entering the race. If you think you're sick of "Terminator" references dominating the election coverage, just imagine how looney it would be with "Meathead" on the ballot.

And I just read that Gallagher is trying to get himself included in some of the major debates. If he gets into one, and if he will answer some question about the budget by smashing a watermelon, I swear to God I will vote for him.