The folks at Mezco Toys have brought out a line of terrific Popeye action figures — two different ones of Popeye the Sailor Man, one each of his friends and foes — Bluto, Olive Oyl and Wimpy.  All are well designed as per the best of the Fleischer cartoons.  These are all in the (approx.) 6" size and seem to be most available at Toys R' Us and Tower Video.  There's also a larger, 12" Popeye figure that is only obtainable from Amazon.com, where it goes for twenty bucks plus a special $5.00 shipping surcharge.  If you click here, you will not only be transported to the page where you can order but POVonline (that's us)  will get a tiny cut of the money you spend while you're there.

And, speaking of the Spinach-Eater: My pal Jerry Beck has announced, over on his splendid Cartoon Research website, that Cartoon Network will soon commence a Sunday evening series that will run vintage Popeye shorts, uncut and with their original titles.  That's the good news.  The bad is that it's on at one o'clock in the morning but, hey, that's why God invented the TiVo.  Set yours for the wee hours of Sunday, October 29 (Monday morning, actually) and every week thereafter.  If you don't have a TiVo, they sell them at Amazon.com and the 30-hour model is currently down to a new low price, plus we get our little cut if you go there by clicking here.  End of commercials.

And let's note: Slowly but surely, Cartoon Network is sneaking more and more uncut cartoons onto their schedule.  The Bob Clampett Show, The Tex Avery Show, The Chuck Jones Show, Late Night Black and White and Toon Heads all run unexpurgated films and, since they seem to be garnering no complaints and no sponsor defections, this trend will likely continue.  The latter two shows, by the way, have been running some superb, rarely-seen goodies.

I'm posting this and then I have to go work on the third issue of the forthcoming Groo mini-series, which is subtitled Death and Taxes.  The first part comes out in December, and we hope people will understand that the first two chapters were written and drawn, and the plotline of the whole story was formulated before September 11.  Part Three, which picks up where the second part left off, opens with the citizens of one village demanding that their government go to war and kill the enemy…even though they have no real idea as to who that enemy may be.  Are we timely or what?

I've really been enjoying the reruns of Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In that have been running on the Trio satellite channel — though, as is too often the case on cable, they're rerunning episodes they've already rerun, long before they've cycled through all they could run.  The shows hold up pretty well, perhaps because, in trimming to allow more commercials, someone has excised some of the topical references that are now lost to obscurity.  (On the other hand, one of the charms of these reruns is the occasional quote of a then-current commercial or catch-phrase, or jokes about the now-forgotten Everett Dirksen or William Proxmire.  Recently, we hit a week of shows wherein every third joke was about Twiggy's lack of a bustline.)

One of the things that makes the shows work (and this was sadly absent on a Laugh-In knock-off I once worked on — taping in the same studio, no less) was that the cast had a tremendous sense of family and fun.  As a kid, I sometimes went over to NBC to watch them tape Laugh-In and to see this spirit in person…but it clearly bled onto the screens, as well.  With the occasional exception, the performers enjoyed doing the show, especially when performing as themselves or while doing one of Billy Barnes's clever special material numbers.  There have been shows since that fired a lot of jokes at the audience but without much impact.  There have also been shows that looked like the cast was having fun — often, too much to care about entertaining us at home.  But this one was a hit, I suspect, because it found the middle ground.  And also because Goldie Hawn and Judy Carne were so cute.

If you don't get Trio, which is more than likely, there's a big VHS/DVD home video release about to come our way.  (And, by the way, one can also order DVDs of old Johnny Carson highlights over at www.johnnycarson.com.  Johnny probably needs the money because he hasn't worked lately.)

Several folks e-mailed to ask if, in light of the screening of a restored, stereo print of All That Jazz recently (discussed here), they could expect a DVD release soon.  I'm sure one will be along soon enough but, no, I haven't heard it announced.

The Screen Actors Guild is fighting the good fight to prevent laws from being changed that would allow agents to own or have fiduciary interests in the production companies to which they sell talent.  Here's a link to some recent testimony in Washington by the likes of William Daniels, Richard Dreyfuss, Richard Crenna and others who make a compelling case.

Here we go with more articles I recently found interesting.  As always, I do not concur with every word of them but feel that — well, you know…

• Never Trust Anyone Who Says "Afghani" by Timothy Noah, Slate
• Does the Fate of Politically Incorrect Really Matter? by Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler
• Rush to Conform Endangers Liberty by Joe Conason, New York Observer
• Fighting the Forces of Invisibility by Salman Rushdie
• Thugs Make Unreliable Allies by Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times
• Remember Florida? by Seth Mnookin, Inside.Com
• What Bush Said and When He Said It by Howard Kurtz, Washington Post

I started to write one of my little political insight pieces for this page but I realized that the pieces above by Mssrs. Conason and Somerby said what I wanted to say but, of course, said it far better.  Somerby's piece is especially interesting.  A lot of newspapers reported the remarks of White House press secretary Ari Fleischer commenting on what Bill Maher had said.  Unless I missed it, none of the reports included the simple, relevant points that (a) Fleischer admitted to not having seen or heard the remarks he was criticizing and (b) that he was basing his remarks on a completely inaccurate paraphrase by the person who asked him about the alleged statement.  I expect to be rolling this one out repeatedly in the future to explain my problem with the press these days.

KOMIX is a Disney comic magazine published in Greece.  In theory, it's supposed to focus on "classic" Disney comics and their creators, featuring the works of Carl Barks and his most faithful successors, as well as articles about such folks.  That all makes wonderful sense.  What doesn't is why they have recently purchased the rights to reprint Space Circus, a four-issue mini-series that Sergio Aragonés and I did last year for Dark Horse.  The editors of Komix are attempting to make some sort of "inspired by Barks" connection, I suppose, and the first issue that did this (that's the second, pictured above) had a long article about me which I can't read but which I gather focused on my days writing Disney comics.  It still doesn't seem right to me and seems very, very wrong to some Disney/Barks fans who are understandably irate.  Sergio and I would like them to know we're as puzzled as any of them.

One more correction to my foreword in the just-released Volume 1 of The Blackhawk Archives.  The little bio of me says I've collaborated with Sergio Aragonés on more than "60" issues of Groo the Wanderer.  That should be 160.  And, hey, wasn't this a great time to be bringing out a reprint collection of comics about the days before the U.S. entered World War II?

As you may have noted, we've done another facelift of this site's design…last one for a while, I promise, I hope.  (If you want to see one of the best-designed websites around, go to George Harrison's allthingsmustpass.com.  See what you can do when you have enough money to get Terry Gilliam to design your page.)

• Perils of the Blame Game by Joshua Micah Marshall, New York Post
• Crushing a Contrarian by Jill Stewart, San Francisco Weekly
• Democracy Held Hostage by David Talbot, Salon
• Eulogy In Honor of Mark Bingham by Senator John McCain, R-Arizona
• Racial Profiling at the Airport by Michael Kinsley, Slate
• Falwell Should Have Listened to the Feminists by Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times

And let's note that a prediction made here a week or so ago has already come true: Folks are finding ways to link Osama bin Laden to George W. Bush's oil deals.  Here's a link to an article that may or may not be true.  And here's a link to a Judicial Watch press release which, since it's Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch, probably isn't.

My long-time friend Joe Brancatelli has been writing important articles about the airline industry for years, and they were (note the past-tense) available at www.biztravel.com.  But don't click there to go read any since that on-line travel agency went under last week.  Joe's fine pieces are now available at his own website.

And now, remember what you paid to get in, as we present more musings on what's been happening…

• The current in-the-stratosphere popularity ratings for George W. Bush are interesting because, of course, they have little to do with George W. Bush or anything he's done.  He's read a few speeches well and ad-libbed poorly, but does anyone really know, let alone approve of, the White House strategy for coping with Osama bin Laden and his merry band of suicidal terrorists?  That Americans would rally around their President at such a time is unsurprising — though I have to wonder if President Al Gore, doing and saying the exact same things, would have the same support.  Seems to me we'd be hearing a lot of complaints that it's been more than two weeks and we haven't bombed anyone into oblivion.  Just as Nixon could go to Red China without arousing the ire of Conservatives and Bill Clinton could trim welfare without a lot of Liberal outrage, a Republican prez can take his time about charging into military action.
• Bill Maher may wind up being the poster boy for a frightening disease that is seeping through our still-reeling population.  It has to do with labeling as "unpatriotic," not only any criticism of our military but, in some cases, any facet of the Executive branch of government, as well.  I have never been a big fan of flag-waving, not because there's anything wrong with singing "God Bless America" but because it too often accompanies a kind of jingoistic, unreal form of denial.  As others have noted, saying "I love my country" is pretty much the least one can do, and a real patriot does things for his or her country that require a little more sacrifice than putting a $6.95 flag on one's car.  A solution to the current crisis may begin with that kind of thing but if it ends there, nothing will get fixed.
• Right now, a lot of the conservative press seems to be railing against what it calls the "Blame America First" crowd, and those who are opposing our President.  Trouble is, there doesn't seem to be much of a crowd there.  The examples they cite are trivial and inconsequential, and there are so many straw men being erected, Ray Bolger's estate should be getting royalties.  I can only surmise that the self-proclaimed "Real Americans" are getting in practice because they know that a lot more criticism is possible, if not probable.  What we've seen to date is something of a preemptive strike.
• In the meantime, the travel industry is in chaos.  I'm getting e-mails from Vegas hotels offering me rooms for nothing or next-to-nothing, and National Airlines — which was already in bankruptcy — is offering tickets for $25-$50.  Here, however, is the problem: I have no fear of flying but it's now become understandably inconvenient.  If I have to get to LAX two hours before my one-hour flight to Las Vegas, I might as well drive.  That way, I don't have to worry about being searched and probed to see if I'm carrying nail clippers.  (But the truth is that I probably won't go at all.  Vegas doesn't sound like a lot of fun these days…)
• I fear we're in for a tasteless spate of movies, TV shows and even comic books that fictionalize the events in and around the World Trade Center disaster, all seeking to make coin or poach on the emotions but hiding behind the moral cover of "tribute."  Even though some of the authors may have the best of intentions, I wonder if the greatest tribute is not to leave the whole, tragic event in its grim reality.  It will be especially easy for super-hero comic books to make this mistake.  For years, disasters of this sort (or worse) have occurred or been prevented about five times a week in the nation's funnybooks.  The whole notions of cataclysm and heroism, as they relate to the world in which you and I reside, are wildly out of skew in a mythos where whole universes get eradicated and thousands of people can fly and tear down brick walls.  Comics can pay Lip Service to the victims or, more likely, the "real super-heroes," (i.e., rescue workers) and that may impress those who cream when their super-hero comics connect at all with Real Life.  But I'll bet most of it will be morally indistinguishable from jacking up the prices on American flags these days.

Back in the days of silent comedy, it was not uncommon for cartoonists to write gags for films, or even to get in front of the camera and perform them.  The great Harry Langdon once drew cartoons for a living and so did Larry Semon and several others who worked only as gagmen.  One of the behind-the-camera gents was Ernie Bushmiller, who wrote for a number of comedians — most notably, Harold Lloyd — before settling down to this life's work.  That life's work involved writing and drawing a comic strip that we now know as Nancy.

He did not start the strip; not exactly.  In 1922, a cartoonist named Larry Worthington launched Fritzi Ritz, which was about a flapper (i.e., a single, fun-loving lady of the twenties).  In 1925, Bushmiller began writing and drawing it and, a few years later, introduced the into the feature, Fritzi's frizzy-haired niece.  As Elzie Segar found when his squint-eyed sailor character began crowding all others off the stage of his Thimble Theater, a great supporting player has a way of taking over.  Increasingly, the jokes in Fritzi Ritz were about the niece and, by 1938, the quiet takeover was complete.  Just as Segar's strip became Popeye, Ms. Ritz's feature was renamed for its new star.

Bushmiller produced his strip until his death in 1982, although the last few years were a morass of recycled or reprinted gags, many of them redrawn by ghosts.  Al Plastino drew it for two years imitating Bushmiller, then it was handed off to Mark Lasky and Jerry Scott and from them, to its present proprietors, Guy and Brad Gilchrist.  I like the work of the latter two regimes but something is missing…some core simplicity that made Bushmiller's Nancy a favorite, especially of the very young.  Elsewhere on this site, Charles Schulz is quoted as saying:

Something amazing happens every time a newspaper tries to drop Nancy.  Readers don't just get angry…they get militant.  When a paper drops Li'l Abner or Brenda Starr or Dick Tracy, they get a lot of complaints.  No matter what the strip is, it's someone's favorite and they complain.  But when a paper drops Nancy, they don't get complaints.  They get death threats.  People get so upset, the paper has to put it back immediately.  That strip is such a part of people's lives…their childhoods.  For a lot of them, it was the first strip they were ever able to read.  It's like your old playground.  You may not want to go back to it and swing on the swings or climb on the monkey bars…but you like the idea that it's still there.  Everything in this world changes so much it's nice when something doesn't…

I believe that.  It was, in a very odd way, a great strip…and it also makes for a great game.  My pal, the prolific Scott McCloud, has a great website at — where else? — www.scottmccloud.com.  Somewhere in there, and I'll let you find it for yourself 'cause everything there's worth a browse, he has the rules for Five Card Nancy, a card game that uses Nancy panels to build non sequitur (or sometimes even sequitur) continuities.  I've played it and it's really quite fun…though once, I played against a fellow who cheated.  He had a couple of Sluggos up his sleeve.

If reading Scott's explanation makes you eager to get into a game, Dave White has invented an online solitaire version.  You can get to it by clicking right here.  It's not as good as playing with actual clipped panels but it's a lot cheaper and less sacrilegious than cutting up old Nancy comic books.

Here's a mystery that perhaps some fellow animation buff out there can help me solve.  It involves the 1949 Tex Avery cartoon, The House of Tomorrow.  The film is narrated by Frank Graham — all but for one short gag for which the narrator momentarily turns into Don Messick.  Then, when they get to the next bit, he's back to being Graham again.  If one studies the music and art style, one concludes that the Messick-narrated segment was done later — probably years later.  There's an abrupt jump in the music, suggesting that the bit was inserted after the cartoon was completely scored.  (Also, Messick and Daws Butler both always agreed that Don got his first cartoon job, which was with Tex, after Daws was already working for the director.  House of Tomorrow was made some time before Daws's first work in the field.  Graham died in 1950.)

Anyway, the inescapable deduction here is that the cartoon was completely filmed and perhaps even released…and then, years later, someone — probably not even Tex; probably Hanna and Barbera — went in and replaced one joke with a different one.  This may have been done for a re-release.  And the inescapable questions are, assuming all this is true, what was replaced and when and by whom?

I have a couple of corrections and an apology to make here.  This week, DC Comics brought out Volume 1 of The Blackhawk Archives, a collection of early stories of what was just about the first — and for many years, most popular — war strip.  I did the foreword and because I was rushed, I made two dumb mistakes in it.  One is that I identified Chuck Cuidera, who drew the early Blackhawk comics, as the creator of the super-hero character, The Blue Beetle.  Chuck claimed that at times but his claim is arguable, at best, and I should not have repeated it the way I did.  There are other claimants, some of whom seem to have at least as much evidence on their side, if not more.  So I take no position on who created The Blue Beetle.

The other mistake involves an apology to Dan Thompson, who operates The Unofficial Blackhawk Comics Website, which you can reach by clicking on that name.  Rushing my deadline, I grabbed a quote off his website (with his okay) but in my hurry, I edited it badly and…well, here's a note Dan sent me that explains it all:

I just picked up my copy of the Blackhawk Archive. Naturally, I read the forward immediately since you had mentioned that you were quoting me about the Skyrocket. Boy, I sure wish I'd had a chance to read that before it was published. You took my statement out of context and completely changed the intent and meaning. It sounds like you did not actually read the entire article about the Skyrocket on my website. If you did, I don't see how you could have missed the fact that I was arguing that the "common knowledge" that the Skyrocket was a poor aircraft was completely wrong. The Navy did not adopt it because it was a poor performer but because of logistics concerns and the Navy's outdated ideas of the proper size for a carrier plane. This is what my website says about the Skyrocket:

It is common knowledge in the comics community that the F5F-1 was a failure but it was used for the Blackhawks because it looked cool. It does have a unique look, but it was not the failure commonly believed. The F5F-1's test pilot, "Connie" Converse, in 1980 recalled "the flying qualities for the XF5F-1 were good overall. The counter-rotating props were a nice feature, virtually eliminating the torque effect on takeoff … single-engine performance was good, rudder forces tended to be high in single engine configuration. Spin recovery was positive but elevator forces required for recovery were unusually high. All acrobatics were easily performed, and of course forward visibility was excellent." In 1941, Navy pilots tested the Skyrocket in a fly-off against the Spitfire, Hurricane, P-40, P-39, XFL-1 Airabonita, XF4U, F4F, and F2A. LDCR Crommelin, in charge of the test, stated in a 1985 letter to George Skurla, Grumman president, "for instance, I remember testing the XF5F against the XF4U on climb to the 10.000 foot level. I pulled away from the Corsair so fast I thought he was having engine trouble. The F5F was a carrier pilot's dream, as opposite rotating propellers eliminated all torque and you had no large engine up front to look around to see the LSO (landing signal officer) … The analysis of all the data definitely favored the F5F, and the Spitfire came in a distant second…ADM Towers told me that securing spare parts…and other particulars which compounded the difficulty of building the twin-engine fighter, had ruled out the Skyrocket and that the Bureau had settled on the Wildcat for mass production." It is true that the Skyrocket had some developmental problems, but no more than any other aircraft of similar radical design. The Navy was also concerned that the F5F was overweight, but this was more a problem of their expectations than reality. The Navy was used to comparatively small, light biplanes. The newer, high performance monoplanes were all overweight by that standard. The F4U Corsair weighed more than the F5F, even though it had a single engine compared to the Skyrocket's two.

The purpose of the whole paragraph is to show that the "common knowledge" described in the first sentence, the one you quoted, is not true. I'm afraid this has diminished some of the enjoyment I anticipated in seeing this book. I guess the only good thing is that I do have the website as a forum to explain that I was seriously misrepresented and point out the real story. Of course, it will only be seen by a small percentage of the people who read this book, but it's the best I can do.

This is M.E. again: Having been misquoted and mis-excerpted myself on many occasions, I am embarrassed that I accidentally did it to Dan.  So I'm posting the correction here and I'm going to run it in my Comics Buyer's Guide column.  And if anyone can think of any other way I can bring it to the attention of those who purchase what is a very fine book, by the way, please suggest it.  And again, Dan, my apologies.

This evening, I attended a screening of the 1979 Bob Fosse film All That Jazz at the Motion Picture Academy.  A brand-new, restored print — in stereo, which the original release was not — was followed by a brief panel with some of those involved in the film's creation.  Unfortunately, the movie was preceded by a long, condescending speech by some U.S.C. film professor who didn't seem to realize we weren't there to hear him explain the film to us…and badly, at that.

After about ten minutes of him telling us what was in this movie we were about to see, the house was getting audibly restless.  You could hear muttered remarks and, pretty soon, everyone began applauding every time he came to the end of a sentence, hoping he'd get the hint and stop.  On and on, he went, oblivious to the fact that he had long since worn out his welcome at the mike.  Finally, he said, "Lastly…" and there was a huge burst of cheers and applause — but still he soldiered on, concluding only moments before we would (don't ask me how) have gotten our hands on tar and feathers.  Unfortunately, since he consumed so much time at the outset, the panel at the end was truncated, and most people left before it started, anyway.

In-between, we saw the film, which I discussed in an article here on this site.  Seeing it with an audience, as I haven't done since its initial release, I'd forgotten how funny so much of it is…and how so many wonderful moments occur just because of the slightest look or reaction on Roy Scheider's face.  It was really a film meant to be seen on a big screen and with a big audience and, viewing it that way, I found myself enjoying it much more than I ever have on home video.  I still have mixed feelings about the basic propriety of Fosse's portrayals of himself and those around him…but it really is an amazingly effective film.  One of these days, I hope to write a really long article about it.  If I do, I promise not to try and read it to a theater-full of filmgoers waiting for the movie to start.

Of all the late night comedy hosts who made heartfelt, moving speeches upon their return to the airwaves, one moved me more than any other.  Letterman and Leno were fine, but if you tuned in The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, you saw Mr. Stewart give a wonderful, from-the-gut summation of what he was feeling and what it all meant — certainly one of the most eloquent things I've seen on TV in the time since the towers fell.

If you missed it, the text is currently up on the Comedy Central website and, yes, I'll provide you a link to it.  However, if it's still available when you go there, I would suggest clicking the video link on the same page, because Stewart's emotional delivery is half the eloquence.  It's long — about eight minutes — and it may moisten your eyes.  But at a point in my week where I felt I was starting to get numb to talk of the tragedy, it renewed the chills.

I'm trying not to think a lot about you-know-what but every now and then, I browse Ye Olde Internet for interesting comments and facts, and here are some more pieces I found interesting…

• The Enemy Hates What We Are by Joshua Micah Marshall, New York Post
• No Time For Partisan Pleaders by E. J. Dionne, Washington Post
• Hijackers Targeted Pentagon, Data Shows by Don Phillips, Washington Post
• No Taxation Without Reregulation by Joe Brancatelli, BizTravel.Com

The cover above is from a combination comic book and military fact magazine that Dell Publishing issued in 1941.  No, I don't know who wrote or drew it or anything else about its publishing history.  It just seemed like a good time to post it here.  And here we have a few more links to articles that I thought said something that needed to be said about the tragedies of the other day and what might happen next, even if I don't agree with every word of them…

• Right, Left and Just Wrong by Joe Conason, New York Observer
• Has Everything Changed? by Michael Kinsley, Slate
• bin Laden Seeks Islamic Uprising by John Diamond and Mike Dorning, Chicago Tribune
• Truth or Consequences by William Saletan, Slate
• Where Were the Lobbyists for the Public Good? by Arianna Huffington, Los Angeles Times Syndicate
• Invoking God's Thunder by William F. Buckley

Here are some more random thoughts from me which I offer here for whatever they may be worth…

• There's an old saying that I just made up and it goes like this: The insufferable thing about Conservatives is that they always act like they have an exclusive on faith and patriotism.  The insufferable thing about Liberals is that they always act like they have an exclusive on intellect and compassion.  In the coming days, we shall see my just-invented old adage proven, time and again.
• Since I got started "reviewing" the late night shows' returns, I might as well finish up: I thought Jay Leno's first show was quite good and admired his not-unsuccessful attempt to offer up a monologue the second night.  I have a casual acquaintance with Jay and, for what it's worth, find him to be a much smarter and more sincere person than the straw man with a big chin that some of his detractors have erected.  I wish though that, instead of rolling out one of his motorcycles to auction for a charity auction, Jay had found a non-self-serving way to remind us that he and his wife have been donating and raising money to fight the oppression of the Taliban for years now…and that maybe, if more folks had, the problems America now faces would be a little less acute.  But perhaps there was no way to say that.
• Conan O'Brien, whom I usually think is terrific, is doing fine now but he disappointed me with a shallow, nervous opening talk his first night back.  Like Craig Kilborn the previous night, he seemed to think that the most pressing problem confronting America today is how to resume doing a late night comedy show.  I don't think any of these guys have to apologize for being back on the air, or to alibi that the President asked them to go back on.  They're back because that's what they do and an increasing percentage of America wants to try and normalize their lives.
• Which is as it should be.  We have an unfortunate tendency in this country to feel like, when someone close to us dies, we have to sick ourselves up with mourning to prove that the deceased was important to us.  It's like, "If I can go on without him or her, it trivializes the loss."  No, it doesn't.  What happened last week is depressing but you can only cry so much before you begin extending the damage.  Broadway shows are closing prematurely because, The Producers aside, no one's going.  Businesses of all kinds are suffering in other ways.  We can't undo what happened to the World Trade Center but we can prevent, or at least minimize, further destruction of the restaurant down the street by going out for dinner.  It sure beats sitting home, watching (a) people on the news talking about their lost loved ones and (b) political point-men trying to spin this thing to their advantage.
• About the latter: I have a little directory in my Internet Explorer of websites that embrace extreme, opposing political opinions.  Like, I have one bookmarked that is maniacally for Gun Control and one that is just as adamantly against.  I have one for abortion rights, one against, and so on.  There are about fifteen corresponding pairs and I often find their blindness fascinating…though usually not in a good way.
• Tuesday morn, when the buildings were crumbling and we were all still trying to figure out what was happening, I was trying to get to a news site but I blundered into the wrong directory and got one of those web pages…either the pro-gun or anti-gun, I forget which.  (They're more alike than their operators would ever agree.)  I don't think the second tower had even collapsed and there were already messages up, trying to say, "Well, this proves conclusively that our cause is right."  Before the day was out, every single site in that directory would be trying to turn the tragedies to their advantage, essentially demanding unconditional surrender from those who had ever argued against them. (I once visited a site whereupon people debated who was the better dancer — Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire.  It doesn't seem to be online anymore but if it were, there'd be someone saying, "The tragedies of 9/11/01 are the responsibility of all you morons who refused to accept that Fred could out-dance Gene any day of the week…")
• Therein, I believe, lies one of the dangers ahead for America: Our inability to settle or even suspend emotional, unresolvable arguments.  Jerry Falwell tried to use the occasion to bash gays and the A.C.L.U., and had to back off and apologize.  Unfortunately, most will not get called on it when they try to score similar, contemptuous points.  I even came across one ultra-conservative site that was demanding that, in the name of patriotism, everyone who ever said George W. Bush was dumb should admit they were wrong and apologize.  (Fifty bucks says this person would not be faulting those who, in the corresponding situation, criticized President Gore.)
• Frankly, speaking just for me, I think it's going to be a long time before I'd be secure in any opinion of President Bush.  Certainly, an awful lot of things that his predecessors did now look smarter or dumber than they did at the time, and Bush is so far being evaluated, not on results but on photo-ops and speeches.  I think those things and all the stuff about his garbled vocabulary are trivia.  If the executive branch winds up doing the right thing, vis-a-vis the terrorist situation, he'll deserve to be hailed as a good or even great president.  If he doesn't, he doesn't.  Ultimately, the words will pale in significance compared to the results.  I'd like it if he seemed more able to inspire confidence but, in the long run, I don't think any politician's public image is as important as what he or she actually does.

That's all that occurs to me at the moment.  The next time I update this page, I'm going to try and talk more about comics and animation, less about people dying.  Let's see if I make it.