There are, to me, many fine reasons why John McCain should not be president. One biggie is that he has been a tireless advocate for the belief that the government should never interfere with anything that big investment entities want to do to try to get bigger, but that it should stand at the ready to bail them out — with billions of our tax bucks — whenever they crash and burn. To them, our government is like a demented insurance company that says, "Take whatever risks you like and if it doesn't work, we'll pay for it." McCain proclaims something quite different in many of his speeches but when it comes down to voting and using his position to advance causes, he always sides with the Enron crowd.

Robert Scheer calls him on it. The notion that Phil Gramm could be advising McCain, let alone be considered his probable Secretary of the Treasury, says it all. Gramm is to fiscal responsibility what Andy Dick is to manners.

A number of folks attending the upcoming Comic-Con International in San Diego are planning on boycotting one of the main hotels and gathering spots, the Manchester Grand Hyatt. There's a gentleman named Doug Manchester who (it is said) "built" the hotel — and presumably they mean in a financial sense, not by sawing lumber. Mr. Manchester is an occasionally-outspoken voice against gay rights and recently donated $125,000 to the cause of Proposition 8, a November ballot initiative in California that seeks to reverse the recent court decisions permitting same-sex marriages.

I happen to think full and total gay rights, wedlock included, are long overdue in this world. I also happen to think they're inevitable and that the folks opposing them are like the George Wallace contingent of the late sixties that thought there was still a chance to return racial minorities to the rear of the bus and separate but equal water fountains. (The analogy to racial minority rights is not exact in all aspects but the wrongheadedness of those who stubbornly refuse to grow up and accept reality is the same. Twenty years from now, if you suggest gays shouldn't marry, the reaction of most decent people will be like if you say today that interracial marriage is wrong.)

I've decided not to boycott. If it makes you feel better, fine. I think the impact on Mr. Manchester will be microscopic and it might even have the opposite effect. The Hyatt is not going to have a single vacant room during the con no matter what any of us do, and the bars will be pouring as much liquor as they ever have. As a general rule of thumb, I don't think boycotts are a good idea unless there's a decent chance of them yielding a headline, "Business suffers mightily from boycott." If you can't achieve that, you just reinforce the reverse: It seems to prove that the world doesn't oppose the position you're protesting, and that there's no economic downside to advocating it. After the con, Mr. Manchester will not be sorry he gave that $125,000 and there might even be press reports that will suggest it's because the anti-Proposition 8 movement isn't as strong as some think.

In truth, I think there's an ever-increasing chance he will be sorry, but not until November. The latest polls suggest Proposition 8 losing…and a loss in California could well mean the beginning of the end for the move to deny gays the right to marry in this country. There will surely be some states that will resist for decades — in Utah, they'll probably say you can only marry several people of the same sex but not one — but the momentum will all be towards acceptance. Gay Marriage opponents won't even be able to say that it's all a plot of immoral judges who legislate from the bench; not after the voters of the nation's most populated state have endorsed the practice and rendered it democratic. If gays are free to wed in California, they'll eventually be free to marry anywhere. Recent polls also suggest that Americans across a wide swath of age, politics and geography don't see what the big deal is about gays serving openly in the military.

Proposition 8 is not necessarily doomed to defeat. There are polls that show a closer race. But if it does lose, we who think it's antiquated bigotry will be quite happy it was put to a vote. We may even want to thank Mr. Manchester for throwing his support behind a bad initiative at a time when it was likely to get voted down. If I see him at the Hyatt, I may mention that.

Last night, a packed house at the Motion Picture Academy enjoyed the new, restored version of Mr. Disney's Sleeping Beauty. In fact, we saw it as no one else has ever seen it. The new digital restoration involves an even wider screen than the movie had when it was first released in 1959.

It was one of about five dozen movies made in the Technirama process which involved an extremely wide screen. The Disney craftsmen composed the movie for the ratio of 2.55:1 but for reasons I didn't understand (it sounded like some sort of technical screw-up) portions of the image on either side were lopped off and the film was released in the ratio of 2.35:1. There's nothing that important in the margins that have been restored for this new version but it was still exciting in an odd way to realize you were seeing more of Sleeping Beauty than anyone ever saw before. You can make up your own filthy-minded joke.

In his introduction to the presentation, Leonard Maltin said that we were in for a stunning visual treat. He was right. Boy, that's a great-looking picture. I guess it always was but the restoration is sharp and amazing. They're bringing it out on DVD and Blu-ray later this year and I guess we'll all buy it. But it's also getting some theatrical release — next month at the El Capitan in Hollywood for one night, then longer runs all over…and I don't care how big a TV monitor you own. Go see this one on a real big screen.

Leonard also remarked that at the time of its release, the film received some harsh reviews which called it cold, impersonal and confusing. Leonard thought this was wrong and he and I usually agree…but I think I side more with the critics who found flaws. I don't think the storyline works all that well, either as a love story or as a fantasy. Let me put up my SPOILER ALERT warning and then I'll tell you why.

As a love story, there's a problem: It's about a princess who was betrothed at birth to a prince. For years, she's unaware of this commitment or even that she's a princess…until one day she meets him by chance and, unaware he's her hubby-to-be, she falls instantly in love with him. And by "instantly," I mean it's about forty seconds of idle conversation and a few dance steps…so it all happens in the shallow end of the pool. But it's not really about finding love or about either of them ever maybe loving someone else because they never do. It's not a romance that really relates to anything that could ever occur to any of us since few of us are betrothed at birth. It's just a contrived problem that pertains occasionally to members of royalty.

As a fantasy, the scenario isn't much crisper. There's a horrendous villainess but we never know quite what makes her so rotten. She gets mad at not having been invited to a celebration but she was evil before that. Then she casts a curse that says that the princess will die at or around sundown of her sixteenth birthday. Three magic fairies decide (I'm not sure why) to forsake their magic for the next sixteen years and live with the princess in a cottage in the forest…and then they decide to start doing magic again and to bring the princess back just before sundown of her sixteenth birthday. Why don't they keep her away a few days longer? I have no idea.

The princess falls victim to the curse just as predicted (nice job of protecting her, fairies) but way back at the birth, one of the fairies cast a spell to alter the curse so that instead of the princess dying, she will merely sleep for all eternity or until her true love kisses her, whichever occurs first. This might be kinda interesting if she didn't have a true love around to kiss her but as it happens, she does. It's the guy she's been engaged to since the day she was born, the fellow she just happened to fall madly in love with about an hour before.

So all the fairies have to do is go get that guy and arrange for him to lay a big wet one on the title character. But before the fairies go fetch him, they decide to put everyone in the kingdom to sleep so that…uh…I guess I don't know why they do that. After the screening, I asked a few friends who were there and they didn't know, either. I assume there's a reason and maybe I read it in the comic book version or some novel adaptation way back when but if it was in the movie, we all missed it.

Finally, the prince has to battle monsters and spells and many near-death threats to go kiss the princess and save the day…which he does, though it seems like the three fairies do most of the heavy lifting.

Ultimately, I guess I didn't care about any of the characters in the film except maybe the fairies…and the movie really isn't about them. It's about a curse we don't understand and a princess we don't see much of. I still recommend the DVD and better still, a visit to an actual movie theater. Take a kid if you have one. One of the more delightful aspects of last night's screening was hearing the occasional "ooh" and other audible responses of the children present.

I think I see why this one was not regarded as the equal of some of the other Disney classics and why — in addition to the fact that it cost so darn much to make — it lost money. The reason I recommend it is that the animation and artwork is so wonderful. The screening was followed by a panel discussion and a display of artwork done for the film, and I believe the forthcoming DVD will have a considerable amount of such material. That's yet another reason to get it.

Creig Flessel, a pioneer artist of comics, has passed at the age of 96. He had suffered a stroke recently and that's all we know about the cause of death.

Flessel was born February 2, 1912, in Huntington, Long Island, New York, the son of a blacksmith. He attended Alfred University in New York, which is where he met the future Mrs. Flessel, graduating in 1936. One of his classmates, he always noted with pride, was Charles Addams.

His first job in comics was assisting cartoonist John H. Striebel on the newspaper strip, Dixie Dugan. This also brought him a career in advertising art, as Streibel was doing a lot of it at the time, mostly featuring the characters from the radio show, Vic and Sade. Over the years, Flessel would bounce back and forth between the two fields: When he wasn't doing comics, he was drawing for advertising, primarily for the Johnstone-Cushing agency. Over the decades, he did thousands of magazine ads and commercial storyboards, primarily but not exclusively in comic strip form.

His non-advertising cartoon appeared over the years in publications as diverse as Boy's Life and Playboy, but it was his work for the early DC Comics that made the most history. His first work for them appears to have appeared in More Fun Comics #10, cover-dated May of 1936. He drew a strip in the first issue of the historic Detective Comics and drew the covers for issues #2-17, along with many other covers for early DC titles. His work also appeared inside many comics for the firm, and he drew many stories of the Sandman in Adventure Comics, and created a character named The Shining Knight, who appeared in the same title.

In 1940, DC editor Vin Sullivan moved over to the newly-formed Columbia Comics, and Flessel began to freelance for him there, as well. In 1943, Sullivan formed his own company, Magazine Enterprises, and Flessel signed on as associate editor. He returned from time to time to DC, drawing for them again briefly in 1949, in the late fifties (mostly as an inker on Superman-related comics) and then in the early seventies, he worked on comics that Joe Simon was editing for the firm, including Prez.

All this time, he was primarily engaged in advertising art, though he occasionally assisted Al Capp on the Li'l Abner newspaper strip and from 1960-1971, he drew another strip, David Crane, which he took over from J. Winslow Mortimer. The National Cartoonists Society honored him in 1992 with its Silver T-Square Award for extraordinary service and the Cartoon Art Museum in San Francisco and Jeanne Schulz honored him just last year with the Sparky Award, named for Jeanne's late husband, Charles Schulz. Creig was also a nominee for this year's Hall of Fame Award at the Comic-Con International.

In 2000, he and his wife Marie (yes, the spouse he met at Alfred University) moved from the East Coast to a home in Mill Valley, California to be closer to their son Peter and several grandkids. (They also had a daughter, Eugenie, who followed in Dad's footsteps by becoming a successful illustrator.) Creig never stopped cartooning and was often a guest at comic conventions, where I had the pleasure of interviewing him and chatting on many occasions. He was a delightful man who acted like you were doing him a favor to ask for an autograph or to pose some question about his long, long career. Condolences to his family and also to us, his friends and fans.

Prior to a Comic-Con International, you always see a certain amount of grousing and complaining, most of it from people who wouldn't miss going for anything. There are absolutely aspects of the con in need of a good bitch-slapping but it seems to me that moaning about the sheer size of the whole affair is like complaining that you can't get a small-sized anything at Costco. That's the nature of the beast, gang. If you want something smaller, go to something smaller. There are plenty of tinier, more intimate conventions in this country. Some of them are quite enjoyable even if they don't have ninety zillion things to see and do.

Last year, one friend sent me several e-mails denouncing the sheer size of the San Diego event. There were, he deplored, too damn many people there — an oft-heard criticism. This year, the convention organizers, with plenty o' advance notice, capped attendance and announced that no tix will be sold at the door. The result? That same friend and others are upset that they can't get in. No pleasing some folks.

The con is what it is, and it ain't gettin' much smaller. The length and breadth is what makes it the important gathering that it is. Go…don't go…whichever you want. I'm sorry it isn't the same con you loved in 1978 or 1986 or whenever but it's as likely to roll back to the San Diego Con of your favorite time as gas prices are likely to drop to the levels of those years.

I also think it's pointless to complain about how much of the Comic-Con is not about comics. It's a sad, unadmitted reality of our business that the vast majority of people you could call Comic Fans (by any reasonable definition) are a lot more interested in the Batman movie than they've been in the Batman comic book, lo these past few decades. They're probably more interested in the non-comic movies, too. The San Diego Con, whatever its name at the time, has always been a multimedia gathering, as I'm sure its old Mission Statements will attest. They didn't have movie stars and big videogame exhibitors there in the seventies…because those folks and companies didn't want to be there. Now, they do.

What you need to do — and I tell this to everyone, not just you — is find the convention that interests you. There are many in that hall from which to select: A gaming convention, an original art exhibition, a cel collectors' paradise, etc. If you just wander aimlessly, you could easily waste most of your time there in the sections about which you couldn't care less. Study the website before you go, especially the Programming Guide.

Me, I like the panels, which is why I host so many of them. One thing I enjoy is the little spotlight chats I get to do with folks I like. I already mentioned the Mike Peters Spotlight. Today, I'll mention that I'll be doing conversations with Todd Klein, Al Jaffee, Al Feldstein and Len Wein.

If you don't know who Todd Klein is: He's the guy who seems to win every award for Best Letterer. No one is shocked by this because Todd's a true artist with his calligraphy, and very wise about the design of lettering and logotypes for comic books. I asked for some extra time on the schedule for this one because I want to inquire about the details of Todd's career but I also want to project a mess of covers (some by him but most not) and debate/discuss logo designs. I have my theories, he has his, and I respect his so much that I want to hurl mine against his and see which ones survive. If you are at all interested in lettering, this is one you won't want to miss.

Al Jaffee, of course, was this year's Reuben winner as Cartoonist of the Year. He's probably wondering why now, since he's been doing the same outstanding work for more than half a century. He's best known for the MAD Fold-Ins which appear in almost every issue of that magazine but I always liked a feature he does occasionally for them called "Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions." I'm also a big fan of a newspaper strip he used to do called Tall Tales. A collection of them, with a foreword by Stephen Colbert, will be out shortly. You can order a copy here.

Al Feldstein needs zero explanation to fans of great comics. He was the editor of MAD for 28 years, during which time it became one of the best-selling magazines in this country. But he was a legend of comics before he got that job, having been the editor-writer of classic EC comics like Vault of Horror, Tales from the Crypt, Weird Fantasy and Crime SuspenStories. I've interviewed Al before at conventions and he's always interesting. For the last decade or two, he's been doing western paintings that are quite stunning. If you get a chance, drop by his table at the con and see if he has some on display.

Len Wein, I've known since 1970. He's been a writer and sometimes an editor for many of the major comic book companies and has handled, at one time or another, most of the major superheroes…and created or co-created a few biggies. You probably know what they are and if so, you might enjoy hearing me grill him on his life and times. I know things about this man that would curl Howie Mandel's hair. If you wanna hear some of them, come to the panel. Here are the formal listings for these events…

Thursday, July 24
2:00-3:00 Spotlight on Todd Klein — Eisner Award-winning letterer and logo designer Todd Klein (Sandman, Fables) is joined by moderator Mark Evanier (Fanboy, Kirby: King of Comics) for a discussion of his 30-plus years in comics, from early days on staff at DC and lettering by hand to his present-day freelance career on many titles for DC, Marvel, and others, mainly on the computer. Focus will be on the intricacies of lettering, logo design, and more, as Todd and Mark show and discuss images of classic comics logos. Todd will also cover his recent self-published signed prints by Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman and give away several copies of each. Room 8.

Friday, July 25
3:00-4:00 Spotlight on Al Jaffee — He's definitely one of "MAD's maddest artists!" Al Jaffee's work — including his incredible "MAD Fold-Ins" that grace the inside back cover of the magazine — has appeared in more issues of MAD than any other artist. Mark Evanier interviews this comics legend, who is making his first-ever appearance as a Comic-Con special guest. (We promise not to try and fold him.) Room 8.

4:00-5:00 Spotlight on Al Feldstein — Continuing our mini "Als at MAD magazine" programming theme, the dean of EC Comics, triple threat editor/writer/artist Al Feldstein returns to Comic-Con. Feldstein — who edited the EC line in its glory days and took MAD to new heights of popularity — talks with Mark Evanier about comics, painting, that magazine, and much more! Room 8.

Saturday, July 26
5:30-6:30 Spotlight on Len Wein — The writer who gave us Swamp Thing, The New X-Men, Wolverine, Brother Voodoo, memorable runs on all the top DC and Marvel titles and many more, was one of the first fans to become a professional writer…and editor at both companies. Comic-Con special guest Len Wein joins moderator Mark Evanier for a discussion on Len's 30+ years in the industry as one of comics' most popular talents. Room 8.

There they are. As I cut-'n'-pasted the listings in, I thought, "Gee, these all sound like things I don't want to miss." Then I realized: I can't miss them. I'm moderator. But even if I wasn't moderating them. I think I'd attend. Hope you feel the same way, as I'd like to get a nice turnout for these gents. More panel previews tomorrow.

If you're at the Comic-Con next week and you want to know how many people are in the hall, it's real simple. Count the number of folks dressed as The Joker and multiply by six. I'm betting there'll be more Jokers there than you'll find in all the Video Poker machines in all the casinos in Vegas.

The Joker has always been a popular costume. It combines the three most appealing characteristics of a convention outfit: It's inexpensive to do, it gets you noticed and it makes you look like you're out of your friggin' mind.

Of those, "inexpensive" is probably the big reason. At Halloween time, you can buy everything necessary to be The Joker from the neck up for about ten bucks at your neighborhood CVS Pharmacy. You need a cheap green wig (the cheaper, the better), some white grease paint, a lipstick in some garish shade and maybe an eyebrow pencil to arch your own brows in some manic way. Then all you need is a really hideous outfit — anything as long as its colors clash enough to blind a hippie. You may already have one in your closet. It's a great opportunity to wear your gayest, zootiest suit in public.

Imagine what would be involved in building a really impressive Iron Man costume. I'm guessing weeks of labor and a few thousand bucks. Then imagine what it would take to Jokerize yourself. It's a no-brainer.

I usually see six or seven Jokers per convention. Once, I had my picture taken with three of them at once but I decided not to post it because I look like the odd one in the photo. This year, with all the fuss about Heath Ledger and the upcoming Batman flick, I'm guessing they'll be out by the dozens. They may even outnumber Klingons, which will be fine with me. Just so long as they don't outnumber good-looking women dressed as warrior princesses, jungle ladies and, of course, the original Supergirl.

Sunny most days with a few clouds Thursday morning, Saturday morning and again late Sunday. Highs around 72 degrees, lows around 62. A mild offshore breeze most of the time. Not much humidity. Overall, pretty decent con weather. It'll be up to five degrees warmer inland, away from the coast.

I just watched the debut of The Gong Show With Dave Attell on Comedy Central.

The is the fourth incarnation of The Gong Show. Who would have thought we'd ever refer to the original, the one hosted by Chuck Barris, as the "watchable" version?

You wanna know how inane this new one is? The person on it who retained the most dignity was Andy Dick.

And speaking of Mike Peters…next week, he'll be a Special Guest at the Comic-Con in San Diego where, if I know Mike, he will attempt to personally hug every one of the 120,000 guests in attendance. Years ago on one of his trips to L.A., I was driving him to the airport and we stopped off for dinner on the way. I took him to a favorite barbecue restaurant of mine and introduced him to the cook, who was a grizzled old western type who could have won a Gabby Hayes look-alike contest. (Do they still hold Gabby Hayes look-alike contests?)

Mike loved the cuisine and we got to talking…and suddenly, I looked at the time and gasped, "Mike, we needed to leave for the airport fifteen minutes ago!" As I bolted from the table, Mike said, "Wait! Before we go, I have to go into the kitchen and hug the chef!" And he did.

The man is a brilliant cartoonist as you can see over on his website, which seems to be down at the moment, probably due to a right-wing plot. You can see how fast and funny he is if you attend the Quick Draw! panel at Comic-Con a week from this Saturday. This is one of the most popular events at the con and I'm betting that this year's will be mobbed.

Imagine if you will: On the stage are three cartoonists, each sitting at a projector. Whatever they draw is simultaneously projected onto a large screen in front of you, the audience member. I am out in the audience with a microphone, having you help me come up with silly challenges for these cartoonists, asking them to whip out sketches based on our suggestions. It's always hilarious. Ask anyone who's seen it.

Two of the cartoonists are always Sergio Aragonés, who has been drawing for MAD since John McCain was a toddler, and Scott Shaw!, master of Oddball Comics, Flintstones and many other fun things. We've had some brilliant folks in the third seat but as long as we've been doing this, I've yearned to get Mr. Peters in that spot. When you see his pen in action, you'll see why. Here's the official-type listing…

Saturday, July 26
11:15-12:30 Quick Draw! — It's the battle of the cartoonists, featuring the one artist who may be the match for the reigning champs! Join Sergio Aragonés (the world's fastest cartoonist), the quick-witted and quicker-penned Scott Shaw!, and the new kid, editorial and syndicated cartoonist Mike Peters (Mother Goose and Grimm), as they place their pens to paper to do their fastest, most clever work, while you watch them draw on the big screen. Host Mark Evanier puts them through their paces in one of Comic-Con's most popular annual events. Room 6CDEF.

And if you find Mike as fascinating and funny as I do, you'll want to attend the following conversation between the two of us later that same afternoon…

4:30-5:30 Spotlight on Mike Peters — You may have seen them match wits at "Quick Draw!" earlier in the day. Now Mark Evanier and Pulitzer Prize winning editorial cartoonist Mike Peters sit down for an hour-long talk covering Mike's incredible career, including the hugely popular syndicated comic strip Mother Goose and Grimm (and cartoon show, better known as Grimmy). Room 8.

There are many things you'll want to do at the con. Make sure that seeing Mike Peters is among them. You'll get a chance to meet a brilliant cartoonist…and you may even get hugged.

I held off commenting on this just in case there's a big cash prize for being the one-millionth person on the Internet to comment on the New Yorker cover about Barack Obama…

Yes, you're offended by it. You're supposed to be offended by it. The question to me is whether you're offended by the fact that there are people in this country (people who will actually vote) who believe some or all of that about Senator Obama. Or are you offended by the New Yorker summarizing and satirizing that viewpoint? I'm with the first group and I think there's a value to the latter. There are plenty of folks in this country who are now more vocal than ever in denouncing the low I.Q. of those who believe this crap and/or those who know it's a lie and deliberately spread it. I kinda like that. Better to get it out in the open where it can be ridiculed than let it be spread unscathed via e-mails and whispers.

The other day on Talk of the Nation on NPR, three friends of mine — comedian Paul Mooney and cartoonists Art Spiegelman and Mike Peters — discussed the cover. The exchange between Art and Mike is interesting but I think I side with Art. The New Yorker didn't invent this view of Obama and I don't think that cover will convince anyone it's valid. It's more likely to debunk it. You can hear the broadcast on this page.

Ultimately, I think Jon Stewart got this one right. Obama should have responded by saying something like, "Of course I'm not offended. Muslim extremists get offended by cartoons and I'm not a Muslim extremist."

Last Saturday morning around 6 AM, two men attempted to rob a restaurant here in Los Angeles. The restaurant was Lawry's the Prime Rib, a fine institution where I often dined when I was eating larger portions than I now crave or could digest.

The men put a gun to the skull of one of the chefs and asked, "Where's the money?" Then they demanded to know where the safe was. When the chef told them he couldn't open the safe, the intruders got spooked (that's what it said in all the news reports) and fled. It turned out that the police had been monitoring the two chaps — they'd pulled armed robberies before — and as they left, they were immediately tracked by a police helicopter and pursued by units on the ground.

It all ended not far from where I live. One of the thieves was shot before they both surrendered and were taken into custody…a nice ending, of course. But there's something I want to know…

Why Lawry's? Of all the places in this city to pull an armed robbery, why Lawry's? At six on a Saturday morning?

How much could they possibly have gotten? True, a meal at Lawry's is not cheap. It's been years since I got out of there for under $40 a person and that's just meat, mashed taters and creamed corn. I'm sure with wine and dessert, it could run twice that…but this just suggests to me that most people pay with credit cards. How much cash might the restaurant actually have had on hand?

And what made the crooks think it would be there at six in the ayem or that a chef would have had access to it? The place doesn't even open until 4:30 in the afternoon on a Saturday. If they did collect any significant amount of cash the night before, would they be likely to keep it on the premises for the whole weekend?

Also: That guy who cooks and carves prime rib for a living probably has a pretty sharp knife within arm's reach and is very skilled at handling it.

I can understand not wanting to rob a bank. Banks have security guards and cameras and all sorts of anti-robbery devices. But the penalty for armed robbery is pretty much the same wherever you rob. Shouldn't you pick a place that's likely to have a large sum of greenbacks on hand? I'll bet they could have gotten more loot at a Denny's. Plus, at 6 AM, they could have gotten a Grand Slam Breakfast to go.