I probably shouldn't have to post this but I will: The articles to which I link and the websites I recommend will not necessarily show you viewpoints with which I agree or even "facts" which I believe to be true. They will, at best, show you articles that I think are worth reading, even if you (like I) ultimately decide they're full of mule excrement.

A couple of recent e-mails suggest to me that visitors to this page are confused, perhaps because so many sites out there link only to those with which they usually agree. Currently in my "links" listing, I have pages as diverse as The Corner and Tapped, as Media Whores Online and Free Republic. I dunno how anyone could think that I concur with the views of reality you'll find in those venues since they're pretty much mutually exclusive. But I operate on the theory that no side has a monopoly on the truth…and even when you find the truth, it can stand up to the perusal of other possible truths.

If I agree with something, I say so. And if I don't say so of a link to a specific piece, it generally means I think the piece is worthy of consideration. Even if you and/or I both ultimately reject it. Thank you.

It may not burst into the public arena in this form, but an argument is currently building in several companies that either publish comic books or syndicate comic strips or otherwise exploit and merchandise cartoon or comic book-style characters. The argument is over what the target audience is, and to what extent they can market their properties to one age demographic without losing another. For the most part, it's an argument about adult content. One division wants to use a character in a comic book [or movie project] full of extreme violence and/or sexy scenes. Another division says, "Whoa! We have a deal pending with this toy company [or cartoon studio] that's hitting the 4-12 age group and your project will scare them off."

This is not a new debate. In the early eighties, ABC was about to buy a Saturday morning cartoon show based on a popular comic book but they called it off when they saw how violent the comic was getting. The folks in the editorial division of the comic book company felt, probably correctly, that they were producing what their readers demanded. Others at the firm pointed out that the animated series and its inevitable merchandising would have generated a hundred times as much revenue as the comic book…to which the editors replied, "Our job is to sell comics. We can't do that while worrying about what might or might not kill one of your toy or TV deals." Usually, the decision in such disputes has been to at least try to have it both ways, but that doesn't always work. Merchandising and media deals have been scotched because the comic book seemed to be skewing "too adult." Comic book sales have sometimes been harmed because, it is felt, the book was being done for a young audience that buys toys and watches cartoons but doesn't buy comic books.

For the most part, this applies to super-heroes and comes down to squabbles over how much blood and mayhem the heroes can wreak, and how much skin the heroines can show. But it also applies to a few "funny animal" properties and to questions over whether their adventures should include jokes that younger viewers/readers may not comprehend. In some cases, an older property may be perceived as having a certain nostalgia appeal and that brings another set of concerns: Should we do the version of this character that folks who are now thirty recall from their childhoods, or should we do the version familiar to today's kids? And more importantly, can we do something that satisfies both?

As I said, they've generally tried to have it both ways but a number of recent clashes suggest this may not be possible much longer. The current interest in movies based on comic books seems to be inflaming the problem because the movie producers generally have a "rating" in mind. A very successful director is interested in making a motion picture based on a very famous, well-established comic book but he wants to do the film his way, which would doubtlessly incur an "R" rating for sex 'n' violence. That could make the owner of the property an awful lot of cash but it would also probably kill a proposed animated series and several toy licenses for the character. Conversely, there's a property that is wanted for an animated series and a master toy license…but maybe not if the character's comic book is going to keep featuring steamy scenes and aiming for an older audience. (Another question is that of crossovers. If you decide to position a given property for the younger crowd, can you then have guest appearances involving characters who appear in "mature" comics?)

So you have this discussion going on in many offices and there's no easy answer. Like it or not, a certain amount of revenue from doing comic books and strips and cartoons has always flowed from serving the youngest age brackets and no one wants to end that. But there's now more of an older audience than there's ever been for comic-oriented material. A comic book publisher can easily have different lines for different age ranges but a number of recent deals that have fallen-through (or may) have convinced many that they cannot exploit their star characters in all venues at once; that they may have to decide that certain characters are for children and some aren't. How they decide may determine how these companies will define themselves for the future.

Over at the New York Times (registration required), Frank Rich laments that the only artists who have been effective in categorizing 9/11 are those in the White House.

I don't usually recommend books I haven't read yet unless they're (a) by one of my favorite writers or (b) by one of my closest friends. Alan Brennert's new novel, Moloka'i, qualifies on both counts. Alan is a superb author of books, screenplays and plays and a helluva good guy, so I can't imagine not enjoying this effort, which I will read as soon as I get the chance to do so. Publishers Weekly describes it as, and I quote: "Compellingly original…poignant…Brennert's compassion makes Rachel a memorable character, and his smooth storytelling vividly brings 20th century Hawaii to life…a touching, lovely account of a woman's journey as she rises above the limitations of a devastating illness."

If that sounds good, you can order a copy from Amazon by clicking here or, if you're on the West Coast (extending as far west as Oahu), rush to one of Alan's bookstore signings. The whole list of them is available here. Or just go to any book shop and tell them you want the one that looks like Don Ho's undershorts.

Something bothers me about this whole "Arnold the Groper" story and it's something that I guess bothers me about politicking in general these days. In most elections, we hear a lot about the "character" issue, meaning what kind of man is this person seeking the job? Is he honest, courageous, etc.? A lot of the vitriol against Clintons and Bushes has to do not with what they've done so much as what kind of human beings they supposedly are.

I would agree that a person's strength of character is important but I also don't think any of us have enough information to truly judge the character of most famous people. This is especially true of public figures who employ whole crews of public relations experts. One of the things that always bugged me about Clinton-bashing was when people who'd had little or no direct contact with Bill or Hillary would take a few third and fourth-hand nuggets of gossip and then purport to explain and analyze the intimate details of their marriage. They always reminded me of a line from one of my college professors who often said to a student who offered some theory, "You don't have sufficient information to formulate a worthwhile opinion."

During elections, we sometimes hear talk of a candidate "defining" his opponent. They said George Bush (the first one) did a good job of "defining" Michael Dukakis. What this concept suggests to me is that one candidate is able to formulate an unappealing caricature of his opponent and to get the public to accept it as accurate. Last presidential election, the Bush side was able to convince a lot of people that Al Gore's plans for Social Security and Defense were irrelevant; the problem was the man himself. He said goofy, untrustworthy things about inventing the Internet and having inspired the book, Love Story, and you don't want to vote for a guy like that. The Gore forces meanwhile tried to sell America on the notion that George W. was a drunken fratboy. Neither side was completely unsuccessful but they should have been. Those portraits were drastic oversimplifications of complex human beings, and they were formulated by taking a couple of anecdotes of questionable accuracy and then spinning them for additional impact.

I've worked with some pretty famous people and it always amazes me, first of all, to see people who know them less well than I do (or not at all) feel qualified to "judge" them in a manner I would never have attempted. It's not so much that the outsider's view is right or wrong but that it's based on almost nothing. Paul McCartney has spoken of his "pizza friends." These are people, he says, who once delivered a pizza to the Beatles, were in their presence for under sixty seconds, then went out and gave long interviews about what he, John, George and Ringo were really like, based on the observations of that minute. When I hear pundits speak about what kind of man Bill Clinton is…or Bush or Arnold or any of them…I often feel like I'm hearing from "pizza friends." We buy these accounts, especially if they conform to pre-existing prejudices, because we don't like to admit that we really don't know. And also, they're handy to bash or boost the people we want to bash or boost.

Did Arnold grope those women? Probably. Is he therefore the slimy, arrogant pig that some are making him out to be? I dunno. There may be a lot more to him (and those incidents) than we know or than we're ever going to know. As I mentioned earlier, to the extent I'd be concerned about someone who did that, it wouldn't be because of his attitude towards women, per se, but because of his attitude toward general decency when no force can make him behave. Ultimately though, I don't think it would be fair to presume that's true of Schwarzenegger and to not vote for him because of that. Instead, I'm not voting for him because I have no reason to think he's any more qualified than any randomly-selected person off the street, and also because it bugs me a little that someone would try to treat the governorship as an entry-level position into politics.

I think that's a valid reason. It's at least a reason based on something I know for certain. I don't buy the claims of his supporters that he has true leadership capabilities and the ability to get things done. Those claims are the public relations constructs. They come from the same kinds of p.r. campaigns that told us O.J. Simpson was a great role model, John Wayne was a war hero, Rock Hudson was a ladies' man, etc. Sometimes, the public image is true, at least to some extent but often, it isn't or it's woefully incomplete. I think in the long run, we all might be better off to assume we don't know for sure and to pick our officials based wholly on what they've actually, inarguably done and what they say they want to do. And if they haven't done anything or won't say what they want to do, don't pick them at all. Which is the main reason I'm not voting for Schwarzenegger.

William Steig was a prolific author of children's books and he drew wonderful cartoons for magazines, most notably The New Yorker, for 70+ years. But the obits (like this one) will probably all focus on the fact that he wrote and drew the book, Shrek, which was freely adapted into the hit movie of the same name. If you'd like to know more about the other work he did, you might want to visit his website.

A few days ago, I wrote about a show in Vegas that made the audience extremely uncomfortable. What could be worse than that one? I dunno…how about watching Roy (of Siegfried and Roy) getting ripped to shreds by a tiger?

What an awful experience that must have been for the audience. I mean, it goes without saying it was horrible for Roy, and we can all hope it isn't as bad as the early news reports make it out to be. It was also obviously a shock to everyone backstage. But I find myself thinking about the poor people who paid $110.50 for what had to be a traumatic, ghastly experience.

News stories say the paramedics were called at 8:20. The show starts at 7:30 so the accident must have occurred about halfway into the proceedings. The show is full of wild animals coming darn close to the audience and several "fakes," meaning places where they make it look like something's gone wrong when it hasn't. When I saw it many years ago, there was one point where a befuddled lady was brought out of the audience and walked dangerously close to several lions and tigers.

She was a plant, meaning she was an actress on the show's payroll, but I don't think everyone realized that. Whatever, the audience last night (probably 30-50% children) had to have gone through great emotional whiplash, first thinking that Roy was being mauled by the tiger, then realizing it had to be a trick…then really realizing it wasn't.

And at some point, a lot of those people had to have thought, "My God…if they couldn't prevent that tiger from attacking one of the stars, maybe they couldn't prevent it from attacking someone in the first row." A lot of Vegas vacationers are probably not sleeping well at the moment.

The "Even Stephen" debate on Thursday's episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. If and when they post an online video clip, I'll link to it. (It's the episode with Rob Lowe as guest but nothing on any website tips me as to which reruns in the next few days might be that one. They seem to repeat whatever shows they like in whatever order strikes them at the moment.)

Looks like the Fantagraphics folks have a winner. Since I posted the previous message, I've received an even dozen messages saying, "I went over to their website and I can't find a place to order The Complete Peanuts." That's right, you can't. As I noted, they haven't announced the price yet. That obviously means they aren't taking orders yet. But when they are, I'll announce it here and we can all go over and sign up.

Just realized I haven't mentioned this. A lot of us are about to make a large monetary commitment to Fantagraphics Books, which is about to commence publishing The Complete Peanuts. Two hardcover volumes a year, commencing in April of 2004. Each will contain two full years of Charles Schulz's wonderful strip in chronological order (the first volume will contain more than that). The books will be in a horizontal format and each page will contain either three dailies or one Sunday page, both in black-and-white.

A surprising percentage of these strips have never been reprinted anywhere, not even in those wonderful dollar paperbacks some of us used to collect as kids. Subscribers will get their books early and receive bonus stuff, as well. They haven't announced the pricetag yet but I'll be surprised if we don't all think it's worth the cost.

The early volumes should be of special interest. Most folks are unaware how many changes Charlie Brown and his friends went through before Schulz figured out what he was doing. There are strips where Snoopy talks, wears clothes and is not owned by Mr. Brown. Linus and Lucy change ages faster than a Gabor sister, only in the opposite direction. I always thought Peanuts, like a great many strips, lost a lot of its charm when you got it one-a-day in a newspaper and got it back when the strips were collected to be enjoyed in a continuous read. So I'm looking forward to this and also to seeing the evolution of the characters and of Charles Schulz, as well.

What does it take to be a "Great American?" In this article, Art Buchwald tells us. And I have to admit that this is the first time in about eight years I've realized that Art Buchwald is still writing that column of his.

Here's another article by William Saletan on the implications of the ban on so-called "partial birth abortions." I think he's right.

In the interest of accuracy, I should clarify my earlier item that said the chairman of the Republican National Committee had agreed that the current scandal (regarding leaking) was "worse than Watergate." Here is the exact quote of what Ed Gillespie said on the MSNBC series, Hardball…

MATTHEWS: Well, of course, this whole thing started with something. Do you think this is bigger or smaller than a burglary, a third rate burglary? I mean, the fact that someone being caught exposed as a spy for the United States, do you think that's more serious or not than some burglary like Watergate? I mean, I'm serious. Don't you think it is more serious than Watergate, if you think about it?

GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative is abhorrent. And it should be a crime and it is a crime.

MATTHEWS: It would be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?

GILLESPIE: You know, I just…yes, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it.

I don't think the way I posted it was inaccurate but one person thought it was misleading. I see so many misleading quotes on the Internet that I wanted to err on the side of accuracy. Here's a link to the entire transcript if you're interested, but I thought that was the only significant thing said in the whole show.