Elayne Riggs (who has a wonderful weblog, by the way) writes to suggest I write a response to the article Christopher Hitchens wrote for Slate, which says little more than that Bob Hope was never very funny. I don't think I will, and for two reasons…

1. Hitchens, like many authors of all stripes, has never struck me as particularly ingenuous. I think he writes that which he thinks is outrageous enough to get attention. His well-known hit piece on Mother Teresa was amazingly bald on substance, but it helped to cut Hitchens away from the herd. He sure never convinced me it had any other purpose. Coming out now and saying "Bob Hope wasn't a good comedian" is easy and irreverent and largely meaningless. So Christopher Hitchens — a man of no known credentials in the fields of comedy or entertainment criticism — didn't find the guy funny. So what? A gutsier, more substantive dance on Mr. Hope's grave is presently being performed by Bill Maher, who is now mentioning on talk shows what was well-rumored in Hollywood for years; that Hope's posture as a good husband and symbol of family values was, by and large, a fiction that the press helped him maintain. That the media does this for some and not others is a topic of some importance. But Hitchens' piece isn't important at all. It's just an article that claims he has better taste than the millions of people who laughed at Bob Hope.

2. Some criticisms aren't worth writing, let alone rebutting, and I've always felt "he isn't funny" is usually one of them. If a guy's on stage and people are laughing at what he's saying, he's funny. End of argument. It's like you measure two people, find that one is 6'1" and the other is 6'5" and then go on insisting that the first guy is taller. In terms of comedy, you can certainly criticize something as tasteless, derivative, plagiarized, condescending or cowardly…and Hitchens' assertions that Hope's moves were "safe and antique" are correct, but only with regard to recent years. Hope's early moves weren't safe. Breaking the fourth wall, mentioning the competition, riffing on his sponsor and other brazen things he did in radio and movies were anything but safe. By and large, they became safe about the time Hope reached Legend Status, but he didn't change his act. Everyone else just caught up with him.

Thereafter, sure, he did safe, offend-no-one material. That was what audiences wanted from him. They didn't want innovative and edgy, anymore than they want Tony Bennett to bag that San Francisco song and become a rapmaster.

I have never believed that success equals quality or even that it doesn't. But long-term success clearly counts for something, and it counts especially in comedy, where failure is painfully obvious. When no one laughs, you've failed. And when audiences laugh as much as they laughed at Hope, it's kind of pointless to dismiss him as "an unfunny man," which is why I don't want to take Elayne up on her suggestion.

Oh, wait. I guess I just did.

As we all know, the late Jack Kirby was one of comics' few authentic geniuses — an amazing artist, an amazing thinker and a just plain wonderful guy. A lot of us have felt the responsibility to carry on his name and tell a new generation who he was and what he was all about. Stepping briskly to the forefront of that movement, claiming his birthright, is Jack's grandson, Jeremy. He doesn't draw but certain other virtues appear to be alive in the Kirby bloodline. We're discussing a couple of Kirby-related projects that you'll hear about soon enough and in the meantime, Jeremy has set up a website devoted to his grandfather at www.jackkingkirby.com.

He has some rare photos and artwork over there, a message board and all sorts of stuff. He even has a little marketplace where he's selling some prints and other items that were found in Jack's own files after he passed away. If you're interested in Kirby — and almost ten years after his death, more people than ever seem to be — you'll want to click on over to Jeremy's.

A week or so ago, some serious restructuring was done in the editorial division of the Marvel Comics Group. Why hasn't this hit the fan press yet?

My pal Michael Reaves suggests we might all want to sign up for The 3rd Annual Nigerian EMail Conference.

Gray Davis may survive as governor not because anyone likes the job he's doing but because enough Californians come to see the entire recall as a colossal waste of time and money. Today, Larry Flynt entered the race, as did Angelyne, a local glamour girl who is famous only for being famous. By the time voting day rolls around, they could be among the more qualified names on a ballot the size of the Yellow Pages. Also today, some state officials said that the cost of the recall, which already seemed high to some at $35 million, could reach $60 million or more. The stupider and more expensive this thing gets, the more folks are going to vote to retain Davis just to not see this procedure succeed.

This article in The Sacramento Bee suggests that it may have cost the anti-Davis forces between two and three million dollars to force the special election. That's not a lot of money especially when you start thinking of guys like Larry Flynt who — and this is not an exaggeration — have sometimes dropped that much on a trip to Vegas. Does anyone think that if he's of a mind to, Flynt couldn't (or wouldn't) throw a few million around to force a recall of any governor he chooses? The Recall Proponents spent a little less than two bucks a signature to get this thing moving. Suppose Flynt got a lot of cute Hustler models, put them in sexy outfits and sent them out to get petitions signed, promising three dollars a signature. Do we think they couldn't collect 900,000? If Davis is kicked out and Riordan gets in, Flynt could easily buy enough signatures to recall Riordan. And it'll be another 60 million for that one, if not more.

Davis announced today that if he beats back the recall, he won't seek reimbursement from the state for his expenses. He may be legally entitled to them but among the issues he's going to campaign on, obviously, is that the recall is wasting money that could have gone for education, building roads, etc. By saying what he said today, he avoids having his opponents say that it will cost millions to keep him. Why couldn't the man have been that shrewd with our money?

Like all of you, I don't think much of Gray Davis…though Bill Maher made some good points in this article last week. Davis is not wholly to blame for California's economic woes. He may be to blame for covering up some of the bad news at election time, and for not being smarter in preventing energy conglomerates from bilking the state. But there's plenty of bad economic news out there that can't be blamed on him, and probably can't be solved by anyone else in that job in the next few years. If he can sell enough Californians on that concept, he's safe, because a lot of people are going to vote to retain him just because they don't like the process.

And, oh yeah: He needs to have one other condition to win. He needs there to not be a vastly more-appealing Democratic candidate on the ballot. If there is one, Davis is probably toast.

What's in the 28 redacted pages in the Congressional report on 9/11? Well, according to this article, a lot of ties between Saudi Arabia and the terrorists. The article goes on to say…

The Bush administration has, of course, good reason for not wanting to ruffle the Saudis by declassifying the 28 pages. Saudi Arabia sits atop 25 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and, through its dominant position in OPEC, essentially controls the global energy market. In addition to stabilizing world oil prices–most recently during the run-up to the war with Iraq–the Saudis also directly subsidize American consumers by offering oil at lower prices to the United States.

I dunno if this is true. But if it is, this may be what the next presidential election is all about: Bush phonied up the evidence and took us into a war against a nation that couldn't attack us while covering for one that helped support the hijackers but also supported the oil industry. He'd better come up with a way to knock that one down fast.

Here are some statistics from the Institute of Southern Studies…

• Percentage of the 108th U.S. Senate that engaged in combat while serving in the armed forces: 9
• Percentage of homeless men in the U.S. that have engaged in combat: 40
• Percent of lower ranking army personnel that experience "substantial financial difficulties": 40
• Percent of first-year members of Congress that are millionaires: 43
• Average tax cut to millionaires in President Bush's tax package: $93,500
• Number of children in military families that won't get the new child tax credit: 121,000

I don't guarantee their accuracy but if they're true, some of our priorities are seriously askew.

If you search the news sites, you'll find about fifty stories saying that, according to those close to him, Arnold Schwarzenegger has definitely decided not to run for governor of California. (Reuters: "Schwarzenegger to Terminate Governor Bid.")

You'll also find another fifty in which his official reps deny that he's made up his mind. (New York Times: "Schwarzenegger and Top Ally Mum as Filing Deadline Nears.")

I still think he won't run. I think he's milking this to get as much publicity as possible, to screw around a little with the press, and perhaps to get maximum attention when he tells his supporters that he won't be a candidate but wants them all to support his pal, Richard Riordan.

The filing deadline is Saturday, August 9. The current plan is for Arnold to appear with Jay Leno on Wednesday, August 6, to announce his decision. This is a smart move by Arnold to get attention and a smart move by Jay to get ratings. (Not that either needs it. Leno's ratings are through the roof lately. Near the end of Letterman's first year on CBS, that network's publicists were encouraging journalists to write articles that said the Late Night Wars were over and Dave was the once and future victor. Now, NBC's publicists are quietly hinting that the same story should be written, but with some nouns reversed.)

If Riordan runs, I'll probably vote for him to become the new governor. I can't think of anyone, Democrat or Republican, who's likely to be on the ballot I would prefer. But I'm also planning to vote "no" on the whole recall idea because I think it's an affront to the election process.

Paul Krugman on why we have a budget crisis in California and why, in his opinion, the federal goverment has most of the same problems.

A man named John Andrew lost his job. Okay, that happens. Then Bush's economic advisors did a tour that brought them near where John lives and used to work. Read what happened over at www.jobforjohn.com.

Kevin Smith is scheduled to be on The Tonight Show tomorrow night (Friday) with tape he shot at the Comic-Con International in San Diego.

Timothy Noah on why Condoleezza Rice's explanation doesn't make sense.