I should mention that a past August 28 was also the birthdate of another man who helped me a lot when I got into the comic book field, a lovely man named Chase Craig. Chase was the editor-in-chief for Western Publishing's Los Angeles office and as such was responsible for countless Dell and Gold Key Comics, including the Disney and Warner Brothers titles. If you enjoyed the work of Carl Barks or Russ Manning or Harvey Eisenberg or any of the folks who wrote and drew those comics, you were enjoying a comic book edited by Chase Craig. He set and maintained a very high standard, lowering it only to allow me to work for him for a few years there.  As I look over my dubious knowledge of how to write comics, I have to admit that I learned as much from Chase as from Jack.

Chase was born August 28, 1910 and passed away in December of 2001. Western's books rarely carried credits, and I'm not sure Chase's name ever appeared in any of the thousands of fine comics he supervised. But leaving aside his momentary lapse of hiring me, he deserves to be hailed as a very important person in the history of the medium.

Had we not lost him nine and a half years ago, today would have been the 86th birthday of Jack Kirby. Part of me finds this hard to believe because I still find myself talking about Jack, writing about Jack, thinking about Jack. He remains as powerful an influence on many of us as he did when he was alive and we could go out to his house and talk to him, see him at conventions and so on. Part of this is due to the timeless quality not only of his work but of his wisdom. The former is easier to discuss. Jack's comic book work glowed with a certain kind of organic energy and even when the storyline involved other dimensions or Norse Gods, the emotions displayed had more to do with us as human beings than a lot of so-called "realistic" or "relevant" comics.

In 1975 when Jack returned unhappily to Marvel as writer-artist of a small group of books, his work was generally derided. Some Marvel staffers, in terms they now regret or deny, denounced his work as the ravings of a washed-up, senile old man. Many readers spoke ill of it, and though I loved Jack dearly, I didn't even like it that much and (cringe) said so in print. History is proving us at least partially narrow-minded, as that work is rediscovered, reappraised and even respected more than a lot of material we then thought superior. If Jack were the kind of person to laugh at others' comeuppance, he would have the last chuckle at that.

But I find myself increasingly thinking of Kirby the Man, as opposed to Kirby the Comic Book Creator. Jack's quirky, disconnected way of speaking often made him hard to follow, and therefore made it hard to realize that he was a brilliant man and a much deeper thinker than you had to be to draw super-heroes and super-villains punching each other across the page. I am not knocking those who just drew such scenes without a lot of philosophy and gut behind it; even at that, they were giving their employers a lot more than their employers ever gave them. But Kirby Art came wrapped in a worldview and a sense of humanity, and I increasingly find myself wishing Jack had been granted a venue where he could have done more than Marvel Comics, regardless of what company published him.

I wish someone had gone to Jack and offered him a gig like what Sam Glanzman had in back-up features in the DC war books. Glanzman wrote and drew a series called "The U.S.S. Stevens," which were simple autobiographical tales from his days in World War II. Kirby had wonderful stories of his own wartime experiences. Some were certainly true, some were embellished but all were amazing, and the only times Jack really had the opportunity to commit them to paper, he had to freely adapt them as episodes of Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos or The Losers. Even configured for those purposes, they were compelling but I wish they could have starred P.F.C. Jack Kirby instead of those gimmicky, less-real characters.

And I wish someone had commissioned him to do the kind of graphic novels in which his friend (and one-time employer) Will Eisner has excelled. Eisner is still kicking the heinies of much younger men with visual recollections of his childhood and maturation. Kirby did one effort in this vein, a tale called "Street Code" that left his close friends eager for more. But it was only the one story, it was only a few pages, and it was done at a time when his eyesight and drawing hand were impeding his creative output. Too little, too late.

And I wish some publisher had just said to Kirby, "Forget about what the marketplace currently thinks is commercial. Forget about what everyone is expecting when they pick up a Jack Kirby comic. Here's a nice salary. Do the book that takes comics where you see them going in ten or twenty years." That may sound risky but I think it would have been like if you were asked to spend two bucks on a lottery ticket where the odds were only 10-to-1 against winning a million bucks. I wasn't even a publisher then and I still regret that I never put up my own money to try and make that happen.

Most of all, I wish I'd just listened more to what he told me. I remember a lot of it, often verbatim, and I taped or took good notes on a lot of it. But I regret every syllable that is gone forever.

Jack: I don't know if they have a good Internet connection where you are. (It took Marv Wolfman until last week to get high-speed out in Woodland Hills.) But if you're reading this: We miss you. You have no idea how much we miss you. And I think at times, even we don't have any idea how much we miss you.

The L.A. Times and CNN are talking about holding a California gubernatorial debate on September 30. The idea is that they would invite any candidate who was at 10% in either the L.A. Times poll or the Field poll, plus Gray Davis. Those two polls are running far enough apart that it's likely Tom McClintock would qualify by at least one. That would probably mean the debate would be Davis, Bustamante, Schwarzenegger and McClintock. So you'd have…

• Two Democrats who seem to detest one another
• Two Republicans with wildly-different viewpoints
• Two guys who want the recall, one who doesn't and one who says he doesn't
• Three pro-choicers
• One guy who admits to having used marijuana and hashish, and to participating in public group sex…but is not Larry Flynt
• Three people with experience in government
• …and four completely different views of how much fiscal difficulty California is in.

That should be interesting. But what do you want to bet some enterprising station puts together an alternative debate with Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt, Gallagher, that porn actress and a few others? And that Arianna Huffington, Peter Ueberroth and Peter Camejo get shut out of both?

Here's an e-mail from a Rightwing Vegetarian…

…Ronald Reagan was a deeply spiritual man, but not a religious one. Do you understand the difference between the two? Peggy Noonan's book on Reagan details Reagan's spiritual outlook. In fact, Reagan often spoke of the power of PRAYER. I do it all the time (but I called it meditation). And no, I don't go to church either. Does this make me a bad person in your book?

Absolutely not. I think there's a whole raft of areas, including consensual sex between adults and spirituality, where the opinions of others are not only inappropriate but largely worthless. Only you really know what goes on in your heart and soul, and no one else has enough insight to judge it, nor do they really have the right. I don't think going to church makes someone a good person or a bad person, nor does not going to church. On the other hand, if you lecture people about the virtues of going to church and then don't go yourself, or if you don't go and you lie and say you do, you shouldn't be surprised if they question your sincerity and honesty.

Did he go back to the same classroom every week? The classroom would have to be secured for one visit, and anyone planning anything probably wouldn't be able to pull something off from one quick visit. If he goes to the same church every week, the secret service would have to essentially occupy and take over the church in order to secure it. I mean come on, you have to know better.

No, I guess I don't know better. It seems to me that if the Secret Service can make it safe for a President to go into a school full of children, they can make it safe for the President to visit a church. Or conversely, if it's dangerous for church-goers to be around him, it's irresponsible for him to go from classroom to classroom, thereby endangering those kids. It's not like it's a vital necessity for the President of the United States to get his picture taken with third-graders.

If varying the church from week to week would have made it safe, then Reagan could have gone to a different one each Sunday, which is I believe what Jimmy Carter did. And for those weeks when he didn't have time to go somewhere, Carter had a chapel set up in the White House, and another one in the Hickory Lodge at Camp David. The latter got a certain amount of attention during the famous Camp David Summit because both President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Begin of Israel used the chapel for their own religious services. Reagan, who could have snapped his fingers and had an army chaplain delivered to his doorstep to deliver sermons, chose not to. Which is absolutely his right. I think it's absolutely okay that Reagan didn't want to go to church. I don't go to church (for obvious reasons) and haven't set foot in a synagogue since I was ten except for funerals, confirmations and the occasional Purim Festival. Nothing wrong with it.

I just think the story's an example of the kind of false image that was built up about Reagan…one that folks like Peggy Noonan are doing their darnedest to maintain. And of course, I also think any president going to visit a school is a very frivolous waste of an important man's working hours. George W. Bush apparently had time to read stories to kids, but not to read all the intelligence reports on Al Qaeda to himself.

One more thing about this article about Jack Kirby in this morning's New York Times. I forgot to mention one other howling error in my earlier piece on it…

After going to DC Comics, the home of Superman and Batman, Kirby hammered together a new vision: an expanse of planets and the gods that controlled them called the New Universe, which unfolded in the "New Gods," "Forever People" and "Mister Miracle" comics.

No, that was called The Fourth World. "The New Universe" was a flop project at Marvel that Kirby had not a thing to do with.

A few hours ago, I posted this little physical game/riddle from Dawna Kaufmann. Why does it work? My friend Alan Light passed it on to a friend of his named Sokol Todi, who's a PhD candidate in the Neuroscience Graduate Program at the University Of Iowa. Back came this reply…

I think it is due to an area of the brain, close to the primary cortex (the pre-motor area, and the supplementary motor area), which works in part to excite the motor neurons responsible for moving both upper and lower extremities, at the same time. This area is usually responsible for designing and beginning to execute specific movements of different body parts. However, since it may act to design movements of both upper and lower extremities, it could be that it will be in conflict when you are trying to move your hand in one direction, and the foot in another. With long practice, and usually it works best earlier in life, these neurons in the primary cortex will eventually learn to divide the operation of the extremities into different parts such that it can be easier to move them completely separately.

You got that, everyone? Let's all start training those primary cortex neurons. No telling how it'll come in handy.

A friend just reminded me about another one of those instances where a politician embarrassed himself (I thought) with a visit to a classroom. I always assume they do them because handlers have told them it scores big with voters, and it's safer than facing a Press Corps that sometimes (admittedly, not often but sometimes) asks tough questions. But it's not always safer, as Dan Quayle discovered when he wound up judging a spelling contest where "potato" was one of the words. Then there was this one…

One day during the term of President Reagan it somehow came out that the Chief Exec was not much of a church-goer. He often extolled the necessity of regular worship in his speeches but rarely spent his own Sunday listening to sermons. No one really cared much if he did or he didn't attend. That was his business. But a lot of folks got momentarily irate because of the seeming hypocrisy, and because the White House started claiming a church-going frequency for Mr. Reagan that reporters knew was just not so. Asked about it, the President finally admitted he wasn't going as often as his aides insisted and said, "I haven't bothered to check on their [Democrats'] attendance, but I think they must be well aware of why I have not been attending. And frankly, I miss it very much. But I represent too much of a threat to too many other people for me to be able to go to church."

During this period, Reagan was making weekly visits to elementary schools. In one, a kid asked the president why he didn't go to church and our Chief Exec explained about being a threat to those around him. And supposedly (I'm not sure I believe this part), the kid then said, "So what are you doing here?"

Whether a kid asked that or not, it was a good question. If it was too dangerous for Reagan to go to church, why was he going to all those classrooms?

Over on Slate, Jack Shafer has an article that says a lot of things I've been saying here about how our political discourse is in the hands of a lot of people who can only see the opposition's lies and never those of their side. I agree with most of what he says.

There's also this piece by Christopher Hitchens in which, having once savaged Mother Teresa, he now goes after the Ten Commandments. I think Hitchens just naturally leaps to the negative, arrogant side of every argument but in this piece, he makes some interesting points. I agree with some of it.

Christopher Joshua Arndt writes…

Politics and opinions regarding Presidential propriety in the 9/11 situation aside, I was amazed that Russ Kick from The Memory Hole actually believes that he knows more about security than the United States Secret Service. If the SS weren't moving the President, one could be damn sure he's secure. I believe my illusion of the Secret Service's skills and abilities is a bit more realistic than Mr Kick's imagination regarding the merest possibility of situations occurring outside the school and in the immediate area thereof.

You're right that the Secret Service generally knows how to protect the president. I was endorsing the video link, not the accompanying commentary. I think the real issues here are (a) once protected, did Bush snap to action properly? And (b) are his handlers and supporters trying to write a new and fictional account of what he did at the time? The point of the video is that it proves that Bush didn't leap to take command of the situation, as some have insisted, and wasn't watching the news when the second plane hit, as he seems to have claimed. The latter discrepancy strikes me as one of those things that if Clinton had said it, Republicans would say that a lie of that magnitude proves moral unfitness to hold public office. But they'll ignore it in their guy, just as Schwarzenegger supporters are going to pretend Arnold didn't say that he'd participated in public group sex.

Actually, I think it's absurd that anyone thinks reading stories to school kids is a good use of any president's time, even when thousands of people aren't dying in a terrorist attack. It's nothing more than a cheesy photo-op. I felt that way when Carter and Clinton did it. I felt that way when Reagan kept bringing the Girl Scout who sold the most cookies to the White House for ceremonies. I'll feel that way when the next president tries to show us he's an okay guy by surrounding himself with singing children instead of working on the deficit and national defense. The guy I'd like to see in the Oval Office is a guy who'll probably never exist; who will get up in his victory speech on election night and say, "I will thank my supporters by devoting myself 24/7 to the important parts of my job — national defense, the economy, the environment…" and maybe one or two others; who'll leave the ceremonial parts of the job to the Vice-President and First Lady, and devote a minimum of time to vacations, fund-raising and frivolity.

I've never expected that person to ever be on my ballot. Then again, I didn't expect to see Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt and Gallagher on there, either. One nice thing about the recall is that it's given me faint optimism: If anyone can run for high public office, maybe someday the politician of my dreams will.

Because a few friends asked me to do this, and because it's a good way for me to settle things in my own mind, I'd like to explain how I will probably vote on the matter of the Great California Recall Circus.

As usual, I expect to be looking at a ballot where I'd prefer to vote, "None of the Above." I don't really like any of the front-runners and can't quite grasp why anyone does. These days, when I hear someone who claims to be enthusiastic about their candidate, I tend to assume they've picked the least offensive option and are trying to convince us that it's a goodie. Often, they sound like they've managed to convince themselves. The best measure of Gray Davis's unpopularity may be that even his backers don't seem able to convince themselves that they're fortunate to have him in Sacramento. It pretty much comes down, not to a defense of the incumbent but to a condemnation of the replacements and the replacement process. Let me know if you see anyone saying he's been a good governor.

However, that said, I don't believe he's as wholly responsible for the state's financial woes as his opponents make him out to be. Every state has many of the same problems, and I do think Californians have not gotten sufficiently mad at the shenanigans of companies like Enron in manipulating energy prices and looting the state treasury. On the other hand, Davis sure didn't do enough to protect us from this, and his naked connection of campaign contributions with government action is exactly the kind of thing politicians should be punished for, at the polling place if not in court.

Should he go? Probably. Should he go this way? I don't think so. I actually like the idea of the public recalling elected officials but the current California rules strike me as too sloppy and too undemocratic. Davis could be removed because he only has 49% of the voters behind him and then be replaced by some guy who has 22%. In what passes for a real election in this country, you don't need 49% of the electorate. You just need more than any of your opponents, and that often works out to 45-49%. But if Davis gets 49%, he's out.

This is a dumb way to pick a governor. And it's distressing that a lot of people who are eager to get their guy into office aren't more discomforted by the process and the precedent.

So I'm voting "no" on the recall. As for the second half of the ballot: If Richard Riordan had run, I'd probably have voted for him. I don't agree with a lot of his views but he was a pretty good mayor for Los Angeles, and he seemed good at crisis management. I don't believe experience is everything but I also don't think it's meaningless. Given our current problems, experience may be more important than if the candidate agrees with you on a lot of issues which may or may not even come into play at the state level.

To me, Arnold S. is Riordan without the experience. I doubt I'll ever vote for anyone who runs for a major political position as an entry-level post. There were plenty of reasons to vote against Alan Keyes, Jesse Jackson, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Al Sharpton, Ralph Nader and others in that category but to me, that was reason enough. If you want to be president, senator, governor or even mayor, start at the bottom. Run for the city council or something like that first.

There were only two ways I might have considered voting for Arnold. One would be if he pledged to bring the Enron-type looters to justice, even at the extent of embarrassing folks close to George W. Bush. But I don't see anyone, even Davis who let them rob us blind, doing that. The other reason might be if Schwarzenegger seemed to represent uncommon candor and honesty and a repudiation of the usual political bull. But now he's out there claiming he can solve the state's financial woes without raising taxes or cutting essentials, and I don't think he or anyone can…and what's more, I think they know that. If Arnold has a way, he's going to have to do a lot more explaining than he has. It looks to me like they sent Warren Buffett out to float the trial balloon of an increase in property taxes and from the response realized it would drive too many Republicans over to Tom McClintock. So now Schwarzenegger is distancing himself from that idea. To his credit, he's stopped running on a platform of recycled movie dialogue ("I, the Terminator, will go to Sacramento and tell everyone, 'Hasta la vista, baby") but what's replaced it is pretty typical political pandering. The state's budget is the worst disaster in the history of mankind but it can be solved without sacrifice. Right.

Of all the names on my ballot, the one who impresses me the most is probably Peter Ueberroth but it's hard to imagine him staying in the race 'til election day, let alone winning. So it looks like I'm going to vote for Cruz Bustamante. He has some experience, at least. Alas, the main argument for him seems to be that to defeat Arnold, the anti-Arnold voters have to pick one guy and concentrate their votes on him, and Bustamante is that guy. That's not a great reason to ever vote for anyone, but it seems to be the best alternative: No on the recall, Yes on Bustamante. Barring some candidate vowing to string up Ken Lay, that's how I'm marking my ballot.

Of course, if Gallagher can just get into the debates and smash a few melons, he has my vote. But I somehow don't see that happening.

My friend Dawna Kaufmann sends this, specifically to make me feel silly, which is never very difficult…

Here's a cool trick: As you're sitting at your desk, make your right foot go in clockwise circles. OK, good. Now with your right hand, air-draw the number six. Hey, how come your foot started going the other way?!

Anyway, I'd like to thank Dawna for the first bit of exercise I've had in three days.

I happen to believe that all prominent politicians lie, and that the ones who aspire to presidential level lie most egregiously. Some do it with enough charm, bravado and support from their supporters to (usually) get away with it. But they lie, and the followers who think that "their guy" is different are lying to themselves.

Here we find the Washington Monthly setting up something they call "The Mendacity Index" which lists and rates falsehoods from Reagan, Clinton and a pair of Bushes. It's a gimmick and one could certainly argue that the examples chosen could be more exhaustive. Still, it makes a good point.

Coming up just before this year's 9/11 anniversary is a Showtime feature called DC 9/11: Time of Crisis that claims to show what George W. Bush did on the day the planes hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. From all advance reports, the film deviates from reality in order to ignore some of Bush's more questionable actions during that crisis, so you can expect to see a lot of articles like this one in The Village Voice.

As I mentioned here before, I have very little respect for the man behind this film. And as noted, you can see the actual video of Bush when he got the news over at this website.

Which are the five oldest hotel-casinos that are still open and operating? This article will tell you all about them.

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.