Suddenly, we're hearing a lot about Congressional "earmarks." I don't see this as an issue that has ever concerned a lot of voters. We all detest wasteful government spending but there's so much more that doesn't fall into that category and is going undiscussed. (Is anyone the least bit interested in the billions of bucks that were supposed to go to fight the Iraq War and which have simply vanished, presumably into someone's pocket?) On some level, I think voters see earmarks as all part of the game. Your state pays a lot of money in federal taxes and if it doesn't get a few earmarks, it forfeits the chance to make sure some of that is put to work in your state.

But now everyone's talking about earmarks, if not as a matter of policy than as of personal integrity. It's a little difficult to sort out the facts but this article in The Wall Street Journal seems to have a grasp on them.

Just got one of those phishing/Spam/whatever-they-call-them e-mails telling me my bank account had been compromised and I should click on their link to log in and reactivate it. You must get hundreds of those. They're scams to get info out of you — your password, your account number, personal data, whatever. (I've never fallen for one so I'm not sure what they ask of you.)

What impressed me about this one was that it told me my investment account with Lehman Brothers was being locked down because of the current financial crisis there and that if I didn't log in, I might lose everything. I, of course, do not have any investments or any monetary connection with Lehman Brothers…but you have to admire the timeliness and ingenuity. Most of America has no clue what's going on but the Spammers are up on the financial news.

Looks like it's going to be an "interesting" week around Wall Street.

Lehman Brothers is is deep trouble, Merrill Lynch is being taken over by Bank of America for distress prices and the world's largest insurance company, American International Group Inc., is looking about as sound as Willie Nelson's pension plan. I can't wait to hear those who want to continue the Bush economic plan tell us how well it's all going.

Me, I'm not worried. I've invested half of my money in a chain of Simon Cowell Charm Schools and the rest in a self-service massage parlor.

Just to remind you and also myself: Next weekend, the people who bring you Groo the Wanderer will be guests at the Mo-Kan Comics Conspiracy in Kansas City, MO. Those people are Sergio Aragonés, Stan Sakai, Tom Luth and myself. There will also be some fine guests who have nothing to do with Groo. One of them, Marvel writer Gary Friedrich, will be interviewed by me on some sort of panel. There will also be a panel about Groo, of course, and for an odd change of pace, I'll be giving a talk and answering questions about Jack Kirby. If you're anywhere near Kansas City, come see us.

This is my first time in that neck o' the woods so I'm looking forward to seeing the usual smidgen I see of any city when I travel for a convention. I will be sampling a couple of local barbecue shrines and reporting here on the rib situation, as well.

In one of the many quotes that John McCain probably wishes he could take back, and probably denies he ever uttered, the Republican nominee for prez said, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book." It strikes me that this probably summarizes why Alan Greenspan is as powerful as he is. Very few people in power understand economics as well as they should so they just defer to Mr. Greenspan.

I don't understand economics well enough to say whether or not Greenspan does…but when I hear him speak, I always suspect that he doesn't. He's just stuck acting like he does because he can't defer to Alan Greenspan.

On several occasions, McCain has suggested that if elected, his economic policy will be basically to bring in Alan Greenspan and do whatever he says. This plan may change since Mr. Greenspan is now saying the country can't afford the tax cuts McCain is proposing…not without a helluva lot of cuts in government spending. The spending slashes McCain has mentioned are vague in the specifics but would not come anywhere near the necessary level. Even the tax increases that many lower- and middle-class Americans would pay under McCain's health plan proposal wouldn't come within miles of offsetting his proposed tax cuts…which are, of course, weighted towards the wealthy.

This probably won't matter to a lot of people. They hear "tax cuts" and they begin salivating. Never mind the deficit or how much money we're borrowing from countries that we otherwise fear. Never mind the disproportionate cuts that favor the upper class. They won't even notice the hidden tax increases that McCain has in mind.

Not that it'll matter to these folks but I hope someone presses McCain to be more specific and expansive with his ideas of how he'll reduce spending. He'll probably say he's going to have Sarah Palin go around and say "thanks but no thanks" to thousands of bridge proposals.

Forbes Magazine loves lists…and I don't think they always care if they mean anything. Someone needs to do a list of the Top Ten Stupid Lists appearing in Forbes Magazine.

Near the top would be their new list of Hollywood's Most Overpaid Movie Stars. Numero Uno, they say, is Nicole Kidman. For every dollar she was paid to appear in films last year, the films only earned one dollar. She's followed on the list by Jennifer Garner, Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz.

This might be a fair way to measure "overpaid" if, for example, Nicole Kidman was supposed to be the only reason for her movies' success or failure. Is it possible she did her job to perfection but customers stayed away because the director did a bad job? Or the writer's script sucked? Or the studio bungled the advertising and marketing? A major variable in how much a film grosses is its competition…what else is released at the same time. Ms. Kidman has no control over any of that.

It might make sense to gauge a star's financial value by looking at what kind of advance sale the film received. Did theaters rush to book it? Did foreign distributors bid for it? That's where the strength of a star's name has some serious impact. But if the movie turns out lousy and people stay away in droves, that's usually not the star's fault.

Whatever a star brings to a film is fairly consistent but their grosses sure aren't. Samuel L. Jackson, who I'm guessing is paid a nice piece of change per movie, has starred in some pretty lucrative ones. Jurassic Park brought in $920 million and Pulp Fiction bagged $212 million. But in-between those films, Jackson appeared in Loaded Weapon 1 ($27 million), Amos & Andrew ($9 million and change) and Menace II Society ($27 million). And after Pulp Fiction, he had Losing Isaiah, which brought in a measly $7 million. He was probably just as good an actor in each of these films and maybe even just as popular. His fans wanted to see him in some of these films and not in others.

Is Samuel L. Jackson overpaid? It depends what you're making. If it's Pulp Fiction, probably not. If it's Amos & Andrew, maybe you're just making a movie that not many people want to see, even with Samuel L. Jackson in it. Put him or Nicole Kidman in the right movie and whatever you pay them will seem like a bargain.

Well, let's see…She didn't say "Thanks but no thanks" for the Bridge to Nowhere until it was a dead issue. She didn't sell the state's private jet on eBay at a profit. She doesn't really have a history of opposing earmarks. She didn't really visit all those foreign countries she was supposed to have visited. She hasn't cooperated with that state investigation of her she promised to not impede.

You get the feeling that any day now, we'll find out that Sarah Palin was never the Governor of Alaska?

DirecTV has put a Houston TV station, KHOU, on DirecTV Channel 361 so folks around the world can watch local coverage of Hurricane Ike. I have it on and for the most part, they're not just showing us newspeople being blown around and rained upon. They're offering serious meteorological information (they have a weatherguy who seems to know his stuff) and hard news. If I were in that area, I'd be grateful for the service they're providing…that is, if I could see it. Much of what they're reporting is how many people are without electricity.

There's really nothing to say beyond the obvious and how we feel badly for all the folks whose lives and homes have been impacted by this thing. If their plight moves you to give money, let me remind you about Operation USA, which is my charity of choice. They're enormously skilled at taking your cash, spending as little as possible of it on administration and putting almost all of it where it'll do the most good.

I have to stop watching this thing and go to bed. It's too depressing.

Shortly after I posted the previous message, I spotted a Breaking News headline on a news site. A Metrolink commuter train out in Chatsworth collided (some are saying head-on) with a freight train, making for an ugly scene, several deaths and quite a few injuries. All the local channels are broadcasting live from out there, grabbing worried relatives of those who were on the Metrolink and asking them to share their ordeal with the home audience. That's not literally what they're requesting but it's what it comes down to.

It's horrible, simply horrible. I mean the train wreck, not the news coverage…though the news coverage isn't helping a whole lot. Reporters: We don't need to see the pain of people who've lost or fear they may lose loved ones. We need to know what happened, how it happened, what it means, how to prevent it from happening again, if anything can be done to minimize the damage…things like that.

(When I started typing this, they were saying four dead. Now it's five and they're hinting that's not the end of this.)

We waste so many of our resources in this country — time and money. Even if you think the Iraq War is a noble effort that will accomplish something, you oughta be horrified at the billions of dollars that have simply vanished. Someone pocketed it and they're going to get away with it. No one will ever look for that money. That's cash we could have spent in this country to alleviate pain and suffering…to shore up levees in hurricane-prone areas and have better disaster preparation…to do a better job of preventing accidents. (No one knows what caused the train wreck but there must have been something that could have been done.)

Sorry this is so serious-sounding but if you're watching what I'm seeing on my TV right now — a train wreck intercut with warnings of Hurricane Ike — you understand. And the death toll now stands at "six and expected to go much higher."

Hurricane Ike looks scary. Damn scary. Why do we even spend five seconds in this country discussing lipstick on pigs when we should be spending that time preparing for things like Ike and figuring ways to minimize the loss of life and property?