Watched some of the Republican Convention. Boy, Zell Miller seemed angry, especially for a guy who, not that long ago, spoke so fervently for most of the opposite viewpoints. I can accept and even respect that a man might change his mind but not that he should show so much contempt for people who are only believing what he believed six years ago.

Aside from that, I thought most of the speeches were pretty awful. I thought most were pretty awful at the Democratic Convention, too. At both, I felt an overriding sense that the texts were written with a precise list of Talking Points…like someone told the authors, "Don't mention these six things, and mention these five as many times as you can." Maybe I'm expecting too much from something delivered from the rostrum of a political convention but it would be nice if someone felt their message was so strong that it won't hurt to fairly acknowledge some of the opposing viewpoints…or to even for the major speakers to admit where they differ from the candidate. I keep hearing people praise John McCain for "straight talk" and saying what's on his mind. Now, I don't think he does that all the time…just often enough to maintain the image of one who does that. Still, even if he's Mr. Candor, isn't it sad for an elected official to be commended for honesty? Isn't that like praising a doctor because his patients don't always die?

In the meantime, I've received a lot of nice e-mails from readers of this site who wrote things like Jason King did in this message…

I hope you don't mind the familiarity, but I feel like I've known you a long time. I first read your writing in early issues of Kamandi, picked up from my local drugstore. But enough nostalgia. I don't agree with your politics. I, however, don't think you're irresponsible or out-of-line in your opinions. Keep saying what you believe is true. You're unlikely to persuade me to your POV, but I will pay attention to it. People who are willing to say my side is wrong (as opposed to evil) get my considered attention. Like you, I don't believe my preferred candidate is perfect, but he comes closer to my views than the other guy. I get the impression from your posts that you are paying attention and giving both sides a listen. That's all I ask from people writing opinion pieces.

Thanks — to you and all who wrote similar messages. I wince at the use of the word "evil" for some of the trivial offenses to which it is applied. I think it should be saved for important things like Satanic possession, mass murder, and eating cole slaw. I've never felt one political party had a monopoly on either integrity or common sense, nor do I have much respect for such sentiments.

One minor point: I helped (sans credit) with the plotting of the first issue of Kamandi. Despite somehow getting my name on one later story, I never worked on another after #1. Didn't even read subsequent issues until years later when I was assigned to pen a Superman-Kamandi team-up for DC Comics Presents. I understand your confusion but I'm so fierce about not getting credit for Jack Kirby's work that I had to mention this. And I should also clarify that I was just kidding in the above paragraph. Eating cole slaw is not evil. Making it, however, is. Same thing with three-bean salad.

Since Garfield and Friends is now emerging on DVD, I'm getting a lot of questions about the series. One that turns up often is, "What's the deal with the Klopman Diamond?" For a year or three on the show, it seemed like we couldn't go a week without someone mentioning the Klopman Diamond and folks wonder what it was and why we kept talking about it. So here's the deal with the Klopman Diamond. It's from an old joke. If you Google "Klopman Diamond," you'll find dozens of sites that repeat the joke and…well, here. I saved you the trouble of Googling. This is the joke, freshly cut-and-pasted from the first site I just hit…

A businessman boarded a plane to find, sitting next to him, an elegant woman wearing the largest, most stunning diamond ring he had ever seen.

He asked her about it.

"This is the Klopman Diamond," she said, "It is beautiful, but there is a terrible curse that goes with it."

"What's the curse?" the man asked.

"Mr. Klopman."

That's the joke the way I first heard it on (I think) Johnny Carson's show. But I then heard it in a lot of places and it always intrigued me that the name "Klopman" stayed with it. As jokes get handed around and told and retold, they're often changed or embellished. Somehow though, those who tell this one seem to sense that they can't improve on the name of Klopman.

It's really the name that fits best and don't take my word for it. Do some scientific research. Rent a lab and a clipboard and some white lab coats. Pay people to come in for testing after first pre-screening them to make sure they haven't heard any jokes about diamonds. Then divide them into three groups. Tell the joke to Group A but make it the Fazzblatt Diamond. Tell it to Group B as the Lipsitz Diamond. Then tell it to Group C as the Klopman Diamond. You will get the biggest laughs from Group C…by far. Whoever devised the joke with the name Klopman really knew what he or she was doing.

The specificity of the name Klopman amused me so I stuck it into an episode of Garfield and Friends. Everyone in the recording session recognized the reference and laughed so I added it to another episode we were recording the same day. Everyone laughed again so it became a running gag for a while. I even did a whole episode about the Klopman Diamond. I don't know why it's funny but it is. If you rent the lab and run the test, see if you can figure it out.

Four or five times a week, I get an e-mail asking me my opinion of Tales to Astonish, a recently-issued biography of Jack Kirby by "Ronin Ro." I've avoided answering because I've been having a hard time figuring out how to phrase my response, and because every so often, I pick up my copy, re-read a section and find myself more conflicted. There is no doubt in my mind that the book has an awful lot of inaccuracies and that the over-all portrait it draws of Jack is not the Jack I knew…and you'd think that since I feel that way, reviewing it oughta be easy. But I also think its author is undeserving of that kind of curt dismissal because, first of all, he did uncover a lot of facts about Jack's life that have previously gone unreported. Also, a few of his errors come from believing things Jack himself was quoted as saying.

Kirby had many talents but giving clear, accurate interviews was not among them. It wasn't so much that he got things wrong but that he got them confused and a diligent researcher needs to look at certain statements and say, "Oh, I get it…here where Jack was talking about Captain America, he actually meant Captain Marvel. Then it makes perfect sense." Having struggled with this problem myself for decades, I cannot bring myself to fault "Ronin Ro" too much for taking some statements at face value. Or for not knowing a lot of things about Jack that have simply never been recounted anywhere.

I was interviewed for the book by a gent who (I guess) is the person who wrote it under the pen name. The interview, done by phone with some e-mail follow-ups, surprised me in its brevity. If I'd been him and I had a chance to ask me questions, I'd have asked a lot more than he did. As I page through the finished volume, I find myself impressed by him knowing a couple of things that I know I didn't tell him…but also annoyed about a number of things that I could have corrected if he'd run them by me.

So here is my problem and why I've declined several offers to do formal reviews. I don't want to dump on the book because I think the author made a sincere effort and because I think he did a better job than I'd have imagined from a guy who was so far removed from Jack. At the same time, I don't want to endorse everything in it, nor do I want to go page by page and cite things that I think are wrong…and I mean "wrong" either on a factual basis or just in conveying the sense of what was transpiring at a given time. I also believe that in the latter category — the interpretation of Jack and his life as opposed to the cold, hard data — there's room for other views than mine…and I do agree with a number of conclusions. I finally decided just to say I have mixed feelings about Tales to Astonish and that I don't discourage anyone from purchasing it. I'd just discourage them from, if they do read it, believing everything they read.

Those who write to ask me what I think of this book also ask me how my biography of Kirby is coming. Answer: It's coming. I've written over 250,000 words (the chapter on Sky Masters alone is 23,000) and I haven't even put in any storylines. Like, I write about the creation of Fantastic Four and then I insert a little note to myself that says "insert plot of F.F. #1 here" because I can go back and do that later, after I finish the stuff that involves interviews and plowing through crates of files and Kirby's personal papers and such. Over the next year, I hope to fill in those notes and to circulate a draft manuscript to a couple of already-selected (please don't volunteer) Kirby friends and historians for comments. I also still have at least a dozen folks on my "to be interviewed" list.

So the book will come out. I just don't know when. I just know that once it is published, everyone will understand why it took so long.

Here's a message I received that I think is worth answering at length…

Let me start by saying that I am a big fan of your writing. I loved POV when it was in CBG and try to check your site everyday. I also have every issue of Groo. But…come on now with your anti-Bush campaign. Do you really like John Kerry? I don't think so. Do you really think he would be a great president? No, I doubt it. I think you just HATE Bush.

I wish that entertainers such as yourself, Peter David (whose site lately has been very similar to yours, anti-Bush) Michael Moore, Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam, etc. would simply try to entertain us. I don't think you should try to use your "fame" to try to falsely influence others. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are Republican Stooges? Over two hundred men who served with Kerry are trying to smear Kerry. Why? What is the truth about what happened? John Kerry has told three different stories about what had happened. His own report contradicts his story today.

And if the demonstrators are any example of the kind of people who support Kerry, God bless the Democratic party and good luck in November. Still a fan, but not of your politics…

This is kind of interesting…first off, because of the definition of "fame" here. Peter David and I are less than .01% as famous as Springsteen so if Improper Use of Fame is the alleged crime, what we do is barely a misdemeanor. Secondly, anyone in the world can set up a weblog like the ones Peter and I have. Apparently, the argument here is that because we're a smidgen better known than some people, we oughta have less right to express ourselves. I can't say I understand that attitude. In the past, I've seen folks complain when celebs sprinkle their TV, movie and concert appearances with their political beliefs but I now have here the suggestion that a personal journal should also be free of them. Odd. Hey, just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the actor, Ron Silver, making a speech at the Republican convention? Is he using his "fame" to falsely influence others? Or is this only a principle that applies to those with whom you disagree?

On to your other points: No, I don't hate Bush. I don't really hate anyone in this world but I certainly don't hate anyone I've never met, and I've never met George W. Bush. I think he's been a very bad president who has harmed this country in many ways, only a few of which I've mentioned on this site. Perhaps there has been some elected official you felt did their job so poorly that they did not deserve re-election. If so, maybe you can tell me some way to express that viewpoint without that person's supporters trying to dismiss you as a "hater."

Do I think John Kerry would be a great president? No, though I probably have more respect for him than a lot of people who are going to vote for Bush have for Bush. As I look around at people who stand a chance of getting into the White House this year or maybe even next time, I don't see anyone who I'm confident would make a great president. That's how it usually is for me. I vote for the guy or gal I think represents the best chance of doing right by his or her office. At the moment, for the presidency, I believe that's Kerry. Show me a better candidate who has a real chance of winning and I'll vote for that person.

I've read over an awful lot of the Swift Boat Vets stuff, including plenty of their side. I don't see that Kerry has contradicted anything except — and you have to really stretch to view this as a contradiction — his reported Cambodian excursion. And I'm not sure they've even proven that's wrong. I think there are two elements to the claims against him. One is the question of whether he earned his medals. The other is the propriety of his later anti-war activities. On the first question, the views of most of the "over two hundred" are hearsay. Most weren't there…or at least, weren't close enough to the events that their testimony trumps that of the men who were present, and whose accounts correspond to every surviving bit of documentation. The propriety of the medals is disputed not by 200+ but by a small group of guys whose stories are full of holes and who can't, in some cases, even rebut charges that they were not present at the events they describe.

Perhaps you're confused because the 200+ are mad at Kerry for his anti-war efforts and they seem to have decided that since they are, they'll endorse the accounts of the small group of alleged witnesses. I think they're wrong in how they view Kerry's campaign against the war (and in some cases, how they excerpt his remarks before Congress) but they certainly have a right to their opinions. What bothers me is the attempt to blur the facts and make it seem like all 200+ were present for the incidents when Kerry earned his ribbons…or even that all 200+ knew him that well back in Vietnam.

Getting back to your main topic: If you believe I'm using my prestigious position as author of the Groo the Wanderer comic book to swing the election, maybe you'd be happier not reading this site. I could also direct you to a few hundred sites that like Bush a lot less than I do. If you think I'm a Bush-hater, I wonder what you'd call some of them.

Over at Slate, William Saletan is reporting from the Republican convention and making some pretty sound (I think) observations about the empty rhetoric of some of the speeches. I suggest everyone read this piece and also his weblog.

I've received a number of messages not unlike this one from a reader who signs himself "Jim"…

I imagine the goal is to provide an alternative voice to the around-the-clock Republican love-fest that will otherwise dominate mainstream coverage during this convention. If the protests remain peaceful, and if the networks cover them, it will remind undecided voters that everything is not quite as wonderful as Bush and his newscasting toadies would have you believe.

Sure, there could be violence and that wouldn't be good, but the alternative is to do nothing until November 2nd, while Bush's minions produce more "Swift Boat" lies for you to present both sides of.

Bush's boys are using every dirty trick in the book, and they've been hugely successful with them in the past. The protesters are just trying to do something about it…anything.

If you have an effective alternative to peacefully protesting, let's hear it. We're all ears.

Well, as I've said here previously, I think the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are a bunch of Republican stooges who are out to smear John Kerry with claims that are, at best, questionable. And the more I read their assertions since then, including the chapters of the O'Neill book excerpted on the Washington Times site, the more I think they're full of Bandini. The testimony that supports Kerry's version is of eyewitnesses who were definitely present for the events they describe. They have never wavered in their stories and their accounts match all of the available documentation. The testimony that questions Kerry's version is of guys who may not have been there, or been as close as they now claim, and whose accounts are contradicted by the documents and in many instances, even by their own past statements.

The one area where I'm not convinced they're wrong is on this statement by Kerry about spending Christmas Eve in Cambodia…but even if the Democratic nominee has exaggerated there, I think it's a trivial matter. If someone wants to convince me that Kerry is lying and that it's an example of a deep character flaw, they're going to have to also explain George W. Bush's statement that on 9/11, he saw the first plane hit the World Trade Center on live TV or the line about the majority of his tax cuts going to the "bottom end of the spectrum."

Jim may be right that the protests are reminding undecided voters — assuming there are any — that Bush's rosy portraits of the war and the economy are a bit far from reality. On the other hand, I worry about the idea that the protesters are "trying to do something about it…anything." That's the Bush plan to combat terrorism, isn't it? Let's just do something…it doesn't even have to be the right action just as long as it's decisive.

I don't have a good feeling about the protest demonstrations that have already commenced in the avenues of New York. I think people have the right to protest, and there are times when they almost have the obligation…but I'm not sure I understand the goal here. Is the idea that the folks massing in the streets will cause either George W. Bush or the leaders of the Republican party to change policies? That ain't gonna happen. Or maybe the idea is that as Bush and Co. are inside Madison Square Garden, the protesters will be reminding America that a lot of G.O.P. claims — that they have the Iraq situation in hand or that we've "turned the corner" on the economy, to name two — are unsupported by the facts. That might make sense except that the Republicans will have little trouble arguing back that the marchers are a bunch of unAmerican lowlifes. (Five points to the first Fox News commentator who comments on their hair length, sexuality, drug use or personal hygiene.)

At a time when this country is appallingly polarized — what was that about being "a uniter, not a divider"? — I fear the protests will ratchet up the angry rhetoric, and maybe not in a constructive manner. A certain amount of America wants to believe in the institution of government over mob rule in the streets. If the choice is "Bush versus Kerry," they can get behind the idea that Kerry might be more competent because swapping a Republican for a Democrat does not threaten the very structure of our nation. But if it comes down to "Bush versus those rioting in the streets," emotions and sympathy can easily go to the guy in power. During the Vietnam War and its protests, I saw an awful lot of people gravitate to Johnson and then Nixon…and not because they really thought those men where leading the country in the right direction.

This was especially the case when protests turned violent. Even if the current ones don't, somewhere, someone's gonna take a swing at someone else. Somewhere, there will be blood to photograph. The press is dying to cover a riot because that makes for gripping television. And the G.O.P. is dying to portray the protesters as the kind of radical scum that Middle America abhors and to make the election be about that. I hope I'm wrong but my gut is telling me we're about to go back to '72 and the silly argument that a vote for the Republican incumbent is a vote against anarchy.

I enjoyed watching Frazetta: Painting With Fire, a documentary on the great illustrator, Frank Frazetta, which is now turning up on the Indepedent Film Channel. (Next airings: September 7) The 105-minute film features interviews with a couple dozen artists and Frazetta friends and families, including Neal Adams, Dave Stevens, John Buscema, Bill Stout, Al Williamson and Ralph Bakshi. They all talk at length about how great Frazetta is. There are a lot of chats with Frazetta himself. He talks at length about how great Frazetta is. I've always been a bit dubious at the suggestion that painting barbarians, even as well as Frazetta has, represents some high water mark of 20th century art…but once the film gets past that, it's an engrossing, sometimes touching portrait of an amazing artist. Of particular interest is the segment on Frazetta's struggle to keep creating art after a series of strokes robbed him of motor control in his right hand. He switched to his left and went on being Frazetta…and he's still better at it than all the others who've tried being Frazetta.

Last Friday evening, police in Toronto swooped down on a comic book convention, closed down one booth and arrested its operators…and not, like you might imagine, for selling Groo. Here are the details.

Comic book Superheroes can survive all sorts of attempts on their lives when in magazines and graphic novels but they often don't fare so well when someone tries to adapt them into animation. One notable exception — maybe the best attempt ever in television — has been the several (six, I think) shows from Warner Animation featuring Batman. Many folks deserve a hunk of the credit for this excellent conversion but high on the list would be my pal, writer-producer Paul Dini. Tonight, a new episode of Justice League Unlimited airs on Cartoon Network. The script by Paul spotlights the Caped Crusader and his relationship with the lovely Zatanna. More importantly, it represents Paul's last work on that incarnation of Batman, at least for now. After twelve years of fine work, I thought this was worth noting.

It won't do you a bit of good to know this since there are zero tickets left for the last few performances this weekend…but I had a wonderful time last night visiting Brigadoon. This is the Reprise! revival up at the Freud Playhouse up at U.C.L.A., which like all Reprise! revivals, re-creates some great musical with minimal sets and rehearsal but maximum talent. The show in this case is the 1947 Broadway offering by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe all about a mysterious city in Scotland that pops into existence every hundred years. A glorious cast (including Jason Danieley, Marin Mazzie, Larry Cedar, Deborah Gibson and Orson Bean) more than did justice to the wonderful Lerner-Loewe score. Danieley and Mazzie stopped the show with "Almost Like Being in Love" and it was one of those thrilling moments when the audience is clapping its fool head off, thanking the actors for an unexpected tingle. If this production ran a few more weeks, I'd probably go back to see it again, if only for that one number.

'Twas especially nice to see Orson Bean trodding the boards again. He played Ben Franklin a year or three ago in the Reprise! version of 1776 but this time, he actually looked like Orson Bean. If you get past the silly stage name, Orson Bean is one of the great treasures of show business — an extremely witty man who's had a long, successful career. It would have been even more successful if not for the Blacklist but he overcame that by merely surviving and continuing to do fine work. (It just this moment dawned on me that maybe there was a subtle joke to them casting him as Franklin. That role in 1776 was originated by Howard da Silva, one of the more notoriously blacklisted actors. Funny I never made that connection until just now.)

Everyone else in the show was good, too. Wish you could see it. Heck, I wish I could see it again.

A fine comic artist named Stuart Immonen offers 50 Reasons To Stop Sketching At Conventions.

Speaking of spending money on DVDs of cartoons from the Warner vault — as I did, just the other day here — I neglected to mention the second volume of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection, which comes out at the beginning of November. Not much hard sell needed here: More than 60 well-chosen, well-restored vintage WB cartoons, accompanied by appropriate commentary and documentary material. It doesn't get much better than that. Click right here to pre-order a copy from Amazon.

I would hate to think John Kerry would lose the election but I'd really hate to think he'd lose the election because of the "Swift Boat Veterans" campaign. Just as I hated the thought that Michael Dukakis lost because a lot of Americans believed he would give prison furloughs to convicted murderers or that Al Gore lost because folks thought he was a liar who claimed to have invented the Internet. I'd have a lot less problem with George W. Bush winning if it seemed like voters knew exactly what each man was all about and preferred him.

This is not to say I think Kerry is going to lose. I think it's going to be up and down for a month or two, in the press if not the polls, and we seem to be entering a "down" time for the Democrats. This will change when the campaign gets back to issues of the economy and Iraq. (It will have to. There's too much airtime to fill before Election Day.)

The thing that bothers me most about the Swift Boat Veterans campaign is the blurring of the line on two separate matters. There is the question of whether Kerry deserved those medals…and it seems to me the evidence is pretty overwhelming that he did. Then there's the question of whether his activities after he left the service honored or dishonored the war effort. I think he was pretty heroic and more accurate than will ever be admitted by some who've never come to terms with how the Vietnam war turned out, and who was to blame for that. But certainly, I can understand that there's another, deeply-held opinion on that point.

On the first question, the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have a handful of witnesses with no physical evidence and very dubious accounts. On the second question, they have a few hundred folks who say they "served with John Kerry" (many, only in the sense that they were in the same war at roughly the same time) and they're only really relevant to the second question. I wonder how many Americans — because the campaign seems calculated to induce this impression — think the few hundred had personal experiences with Kerry in combat and therefore can attest that he was a craven, lying leader who didn't deserve those medals. It would be interesting to see a poll on that number…because if the Swift Boat Vets are doing any real damage to Kerry, I think it's predicated on that bit of misdirection.

This evening around 8:00 Eastern time, C-Span will be running John Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress with regard to the Vietnam War. I recall watching this when it first aired, which was at a time when I was making a difficult transition. I had been a supporter of that war, or at least a person who felt the protesters were misguided and not helping things. By '72, I was one of those protesters, even working with the leadership of a group that was more or less behind all the marches and demonstrations within a few miles of U.C.L.A. I don't recall Kerry's speeches or his appearance before the committee having any impact on my conversion but when I saw excerpts of it a few weeks ago on some channel (probably C-Span), what struck me was his restraint and maturity. Since it is now divorced from all the other Vietnam rhetoric of 1972, it may seem exaggerated and excessive. My sense is that on the topic of that war, darn near everything said on either side in 1972 was drenched in hyperbole and overstatement, and that Kerry was calmer than most. I also suspect that he was more accurate than will ever be admitted by those who are still angry at how Vietnam ended and somehow want to blame it more on Jane Fonda than Robert McNamara.

I think some people have forgotten — or are in denial — as to how much government wrongdoing has been uncovered and even admitted. McNamara started his book, In Retrospect, by saying, "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why." It was a stunning confession when he made it, as were many in that volume, but almost no one wanted to hear McNamara cleanse his conscience and "explain why." Everyone on both sides had long since made up their minds about the history of that unfortunate war and there was no room in anyone's version for new evidence. I wish more folks would follow the example of Kerry and John McCain when they worked together to try and put Vietnam behind them. In fact, I wish they'd do more to follow their own example.

In a way, I'm sorry C-Span is running Kerry's testimony now since it won't be viewed as an important part of history, nor will it be judged against things like McNamara's confessions of ineptness and deceit. It's just there so the anti-Kerry voters can use it to promote the notion that it was treasonous to say what he said, and so Kerry's backers can see what it is they have to defend. I believe Kerry's testimony is completely defensible and depending on your definition, maybe even heroic. But in the current environment, it will just be a question of whether sound bites are being taken out of context or whether what actually occurred is being accurately summarized. So far this year, the past has just been something that can be judiciously excerpted and spun, one way or another, to maybe win an election.