Banned Books Week 2015

The last week of September is celebrated as Banned Books Week across these United States. The American Library Association and the Office of Intellectual Freedom report on those books in the past year that have been challenged most often in public libraries or public schools. "Challenges" include everything from a parent calling or writing that they find a book objectionable to full-blown movements to get something pulled from the shelves. (The specific terms the ALA uses is requests for books to be "restricted" or "removed.") So it's kind of a cheat to say that these are "banned books," as nothing has actually ever successfully been banned in this country on more than a superficial (i.e. local) level.

Hiroshima 70 Years Later

The world entered the Atomic Age seventy years ago today, when the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese port city of Hiroshima.

A Letter From The Editor

Hello, folks!
If you are one of my long-term readers, thank you! If you accidentally found this site for one reason or another, welcome! I hope you click on some icons there on the right and find things worth reading.

Academy Award Best Pictures The Lists

Now that I have watched all 87 Academy Award winning Best Pictures, it's time to wrap this series up with a few Best of The Best lists....!

A Beautiful Mind (Best Picture 2001)

A Beautiful Mind is another of the films that I never got around to seeing when it first came out. I didn't remember specifically why I hadn't seen it until I started doing research for this review. Then I was reminded that I had had an issue with this so-called "biography" that used real people's names and situations, but fictionalized or white-washed the story. Luckily for the film, when I did finally see it just recently, I had forgotten all of those issues and accidentally thought that it was wonderful.

Happy Birthday To Me

Funny, I don’t FEEL fifty.

When I was a kid in junior high and high school in the late Seventies I used to think that the year 2000 was SO far away. I couldn’t wait to move forward into the 21st Century….to turn sixteen…then eighteen…then twenty-one. Eventually, however, we entered the New Millennium and I turned into Jack Benny; I wanted to stop at age thirty-nine.

As a younger person did you ever look at a certain celebrities and think, “he’s old!” As a kid everybody is older than you, but some “look” older to you, right? And some never look their age. Jimmy Carter was 52 when he was elected US President in 1976. Tom Bosley was 47 when he started playing Howard Cunningham on TV’s “Happy Days” in 1974. And Julie Andrews was 29 when she won an Academy Award for “Mary Poppins” in 1964.

Speaking of age 29, traditionally that was the age of Superman, Batman, and Aquaman. DC Comics had announced that their heroes were in their late 20s because they didn’t want to break that psychological barrier of having them turn thirty. And when I turned 30, I actually stopped and realized, “Wow, I’m now older than Superman.”

Now I guess I’m as old (or nearly as old?) as Jonathan and Martha Kent, the foster parents of Superman! 

I always thought James Dean was young when he died at age 24. George Reeves, who portrayed Superman on TV, died when he was 45. Marilyn Monroe died too young at age 36. Robert Kennedy was murdered when he was 42. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr was murdered when he was only 39 years old. Flo Ballard, one of the original Supremes, died at age 32.  Elvis died at age 42, but let’s face it, by that point his body was physically much older than that. Three years later John Lennon was murdered at age 40. Marvin Gaye was murdered when he was 44.

The Beatles appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show Feb 9, 1964

And every time I surpassed these celebrities’ ages I thought, “Wow, I’m now older than (that celebrity) was when s/he died.”

 

Schwerner, Chaney, & Goodman, murdered June 21, 1964

Not to be maudlin, but is it natural to think about these things as you get older? Or am I just weird?

Closer to home, my paternal grand-mother died when my father was in high school. So she died relatively young. However, my paternal grand-father and maternal grand-parents all lived until they were quite old. My mother died last year at age 79, although my father is still alive at the same age. I’m the youngest of four kids, and my older brother and sisters are all still quite well. So it’s not like I’m exactly at Death’s door. I recently saw the movie “Annie Hall” and Woody Allen’s character went off on “fear of death” soliloquies twice in that film; his character was age 40. That isn’t me.

Shinkansen unveiled Oct 1, 1964!!

So here I am, looking at “the twilight” of my years. It’s been a great life, and hopefully I still have a lot more years of fun and friendship to enjoy. There are stories I want to tell, movies I want to watch, books I want to read, places I want to go. I realized years ago that I will never have the chance to do every single thing I wanted to do in or with my life. Don’t we all get *there*? But I relish every single day, and every experience, and I appreciate every one of you who are out there supporting me. Looking over my fifty years I don’t have any particular regrets. Although I’m reminded of the song “Jack & Diane” (Life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone), I am also reminded that “it’s really been a wonderful life.”  I guess I’m pretty lucky to be able to balance that dichotomy.

If you’re reading this because you meant to (you’re not here by accident to read, say, a review of “The Deer Hunter”) then this is addressed to YOU: Your love and friendship has helped make my life worth living, and I appreciate you more than I can possibly say. Thank you for being there for part of my fifty years, and I look forward to many more adventures with you. Happy Birthday to Me gets a Thank You to You.

By the way, the reason I arbitrarily picked out Jimmy Carter, the late Tom Bosley, and Julie Andrews for my example above is because we all share the same birthday: today! 

Dr. MLK, Jr receiving Nobel Peace Prize Dec 10, 1964

On Seeing CAPTAIN AMERICA 2...

I saw CAPTAIN AMERICA 2: WINTER SOLDIER last week. There were a few reasons why I wanted to see it: Captain America is one of my favorite super-heroes, I like Chris Evans as an actor, I liked the idea of seeing his story of being "a man out of his time" explored more on screen, and I had heard that the movie was good.

Here's the skinny: I still like Cap, I still like Chris Evans, and I hated this movie. I hated this film for what it was compared to what it wasn't or what it could have been. In fact, I hate it so deeply on that level that I don't believe I will be watching any more Marvel films for the foreseeable future.

There may be spoilers in this review, but not in the traditional sense. "Spoilers" should be something revelatory, like "Rosebud is a sled!" or "The narrator is actually the murderer!" In my opinion, telling you that Cap is not a traitor should not be considered a spoiler. If you watch this film and at any time begin to actually entertain the idea that Cap might be a traitor, you're watching the wrong movie. Also, you're a super-hero idiot.

So that's my first, and most important, complaint: that the story is built around a huge fault line. The story involves the evil organization HYDRA trying to take over SHIELD. This is a fine idea for a story. However, the minute that the film tries to suggest that the heroes are part of the conspiracy, and actually want (expect?) you to consider it....? Now they're *making* the wrong film. It boils down to this, people: between Captain America, Black Widow, and Nick Fury on one side and a big-name politician and bureaucrat on the other, is it *really* a mystery as to who the traitors are? Riiiiiiiight.

However, we all know that a movie with a stupid plot can still "pass" on the "large" scale if it succeeds at all its "little" scenes. So let's move past the inanity of the basic plot to look at my second complaint: the inanities of the overall script. A few examples:

As mentioned above, HYDRA has infiltrated SHIELD, setting up what you might expect as a nifty spy vs. spy scenario, right? Nope. Once it is hinted that SHIELD has been compromised, we get scenes of police officers destroying civilians' cars, SHIELD agents shooting up downtown Washington, and SHIELD agents trying to arrest/kill Black Widow and Captain America. In only *one* scene do we get even an inkling that the whole place is not a cauldron of HYDRA spies. So if you're working for an international spy agency and you don't notice that it is infested with traitors committing wanton acts of destruction, you probably need to be in another line of work. Or threaten the writers to write you a better script. SHIELD is absolutely incompetent in this film, which doesn't make me want to watch the TV series or any more Marvel films...

The Falcon (Anthony Mackie) is introduced as a trained military flier, with his own nifty jet-pack and wings. Personable and visually appealing, he's a great addition to the story. However, in his big action scene he is told to fly to one of the rogue hovercraft carriers and switch out some software to re-program the laser guidance system. You would expect him to fly in covertly, as stealthily as he could, and get the job done, maybe meeting up with some HYDRA agents and having an aerial fight of some kind as he attempted to get away. You would be wrong. He flies into the sky to draw as much attention and gun-fire as he possibly can, *then* tries to find the software portal. I guess this was supposed to be "cool," but all I could think was "one stray bullet and bye-bye Falcon!" Besides, most of this "action" featured computer graphics, so what was the point? This isn't drama, this is a computer game.

Another example is the Winter Soldier himself. He stays in the shadows during the first third of the film. As soon as Captain America sees his unmasked face, however, he discards the mask and starts standing around in the daytime, posing. This is a character who has been a "ghost" for 60+ years, but now all of a sudden he isn't shy? This doesn't make any sense. Of course, this change is because Marvel paid Sebastian Stan plenty of money to be the Winter Soldier, so we want to see his face. This is the same reason that Chris Evans tends to keep his mask off, too, and why Scarlett Johansson and Anthony Mackie are never given masks: lots of fans paid to see Chris Evan and Scarlett Johansson etc, and not just part of it behind some silly comic-book mask. That's fine for Hollywood, but it's not good Marvel story-telling. And not to beat a dead-horse, but WTH is wrong with the traditional Captain America costume? Why does Hollywood have to change it? I don't understand it.

Speaking of Winter Soldier and Captain America, their last fight is because Cap wants to change the software on the third aircraft carrier, but Soldier has been ordered to stop him. So they fight. And they fight. And they fight. Mostly in extreme close-up and at super-fast exposure. Finally (!), Cap is shot and left for dead but STILL manages to change the guidance system AT THE LAST POSSIBLE SECOND. Yes, there is countdown, and on "zero," Cap makes the switch. This isn't drama, this is comedy, and the joke is on us.


Now, I do want to take a few minutes to talk about some of the things about the film that I *did* like. It definitely did have its share of "moments." I just wish there had been more of them. In fact, I was hoping that the film would be more intimate and personal, perhaps showing us how Steve Rogers is coping with being a man from the wrong era. Every scene where Chris Evans is with Anthony Mackie as the Falcon, trying to build a friendship away from "work," was excellent. Scenes with him and Scarlett Johansson as they work at actually becoming friends are likewise terrific. The scenes between him and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, arguing politics or grappling with their mutual trust issues, were also great. In one scene the Falcon talks to him about who Marvin Gaye is, and at the end of the conversation Cap pulls out a notebook and says, "I'll add him to the list." THIS is more of what I wanted to see. Instead we get a lot of big explosions. Boom.

Lastly, too much time is spent on the Winter Soldier and his back story without ever really resolving anything. He is the center of the entire conspiracy and history of HYDRA, but at the end...what? He doesn't get a huge dramatic "I'm broken!" scene, nor does he get a "It's too late to save me!" scene. We know or can guess what happened to him to turn him into this cyborg (?), but at the end he knocks Cap out and simply walks off, leaving us with the plot of Captain America 3. No, thanks.

The last thing I want to tell you is my favorite scene in the movie. Robert Redford as the  head of some UN Security Council organization is interviewing someone in his home. When he opens his refrigerator, we can very clearly see that he has a jar of Paul Newman pasta sauce sitting there. Great in-joke and tribute to the great actor.

Happy Birthday to FRIENDS of JUSTICE!

I started writing this blog on July 8, 2011. I'm not sure WHY I started it on that date...probably I was in the middle of my Fourth of July summer shut-down and had time to spare?
But here is my very first post:

Hajimemashite (Nice To Meet You!) 

Well, I'm gonna do it! I am starting this blog in order to make myself scan and organize all of my bilingual JUSTICE LEAGUE comic-books. I wrote and drew 31 issues between 1990 and 2001. For the past few years they have not been available ANYWHERE so I finally decided to jump in the ocean and start saving them here. 

So now here I am two years to the day later starting to post my last issue (#31). Funny how time flies.

I guess this is a good time to announce officially that I have started working on NEW Justice League stories! I've had so much fun re-reading these old stories, and remembering some of the possible stories I wanted to do with these characters, that I finally decided I would commit to creating some more!

The other reason I want to do this has something to do with the original reason I had for doing this in the first place: at the time I started this series, there was no place to read new adventures of the JUSTICE LEAGUE I grew up reading and enjoying. So I wrote my own!  Since then, of course, there have been many wonderful JLA stories, but....recently, I think we are kind of back where we started, and not in a good way. The darkness of DARK KNIGHT and MAN of STEEL and The New 52 makes me sad. These characters are HEROES that we should look up to, not f'ed up psychotics we should be afraid of. So "my" universe, while serious, will never be DARK. Think Curt Swan and Fred Hembeck, not Peter David and Judd Winick.

Now my return won't be immediate....not only do I want to "take a break" to represent and respect the 12 years that have elapsed since the series ended, I also want to get a large chunk of stories done or near done before I start uploading them. On the other hand, when the series does come back it will be basically the week or month after the end of *this* issue (#31). These characters are timeless, after all, so that shouldn't be a problem.

I'll still be doing the other FRIENDS of JUSTICE posts: Music Mondays, TV Tuesday, Wednesday Comics, and Film Fridays. And I will try to write more essays and columns as I can find the time to string words and ideas together in to semi-coherent thoughts.

In the meantime, I leave you with this teaser image....

National Library Week

This week is National Library Week. If you've been to this site before you know that I LOVE my local library. Although I live in a suburb outside of Columbus, Ohio my library is in the Metropolitan Columbus Library network. This means that I have access to every book, CD, DVD, magazine, and video in the greater Columbus area. And not only that; if I can't find something in any of the twenty-one libraries in this network I can make a special request to find the item I want any place in the state of Ohio! Needless to say I visit my library about once a week. I visit the library homepage probably three times a week. I have memorized my eleven digit library card number; THAT is how much of a library geek I am!

If you do not have a library card, I don't know why you wouldn't. Besides books, most libraries have music and movies you can borrow. If you could borrow a DVD for free, why wouldn't you? Also, most libraries have magazines. I recently borrowed three issues of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC to do some research. The cost to me? Nothing!

To help celebrate libraries, this week I will be writing about various books I use as resources for my various themes. For example, on TV Tuesday I will be writing about some of the television books I read. Hopefully, I will mention some book you will want to check out at YOUR local library.

The 21 libraries in the Metropolitan Columbus Library network.
Mine is at the lower-middle right off of E Main St

Aquaman Is My Hero

Aquaman is my hero.

I am a Japanese translator at an American automobile company. I'm not an engineer; I can't fix any of the machines or run any of the tests. I'm not a quality specialist: I can't analyze a faulty design and make suggestions to fix it. Yet in my own small way, I like to think that I am important.

Usually I'm content to stay in the background. I don't have a big red "S" or a big bat on my chest to call attention to myself. I want to go in, help out, and step aside. It's not about the glory.

Most of the time, most people don't even notice I'm there. I get left off meeting invitations and email lists. Then a whale will beach itself, or a  document will need translating, and suddenly I'm everyone's first call.

I make it look easy. I don't explain my tricks or use pseudo-science to get my job done. I do what has to be done and say what has to be said. I have a killer right hook and a  wonderful vocabulary.

I have the respect of the people I work with and the curiosity of the masses. "Yes, but what does he DO?" is asked all too often about me by people who simply do not understand. I am a friend, a colleague, and a peer. Co-workers ask for me by name. They know that they can count on me to get the job done. I'm not about magic rings and spider webs. My goal is communication. If you haven't communicated, then I've failed. And I don't like failure.

I don't get angry except under extreme conditions. If I do get angry, you had better step aside. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

I have a loving wife and we have a wonderful child. I had a young man as an exchange student a few years ago who thinks of me as a surrogate father and a the big brother he never had.

I'm not always the first person you think of, but I will always do what needs to be done. I'm not afraid to step up, to ask for help, or to step aside and get the work to somebody more qualified.

Sometimes you can work without me. Sometimes you don't need me at all. And sometimes, I'm the only person who can get the job done.

And Aquaman is my hero.

(Based on an article originally published in THE AQUAMAN CHRONICLES # 13, Sept 2004)
Illustration is by the author, based on a photograph of diver Greg Louganis by Annie Leibovitz

Revising & Updating Seigi-No-Nakama!

If you have been to my blog before today than you have probably noticed that in the last few days I have added more icons to the right column. And today, I finally updated/revised my header, the graphic on the top of this page.

I started this blog on July 8, 2011. Mostly I started it to post all of my bilingual JUSTICE LEAGUE comics. I had gotten requests to post these stories and because I didn't have any better place to upload them, I decided to start a blog for them.

Since then, I gradually began to write additional posts that had nothing to do with my comic-books. Now that I am almost finished posting my JLA adventures I had to decide if I was going to retire this blog or not. I wanted to be a writer when I was a kid, and as everybody knows, a writer WRITES. So I decided to keep at this blog stuff.

As part of my review I went through the 600-plus posts from the past two years. I found my recurring themes, and the things I would like to keep doing (and the things I decided to stop).

I've added the icons HAPPY BIRTHDAY and PASSAGES to celebrate those people who are or have marked my life in a profound way. Similarly, I made HISTORY more clearly linked to posts that won't or can't fit anywhere else. I've made my comic-book related pages more easy to find, breaking them up by the two main publishers, DC and MARVEL. And I've added an icon for my favorite super-hero, who I will be commenting on when I have nothing else to talk about, haha! Actually, I want to showcase all sorts of AQUAMAN merchandise and odds'n'ends that I think will be interesting. I hope you will agree.

Popular Culture has been broken up into TV TUESDAY as well as FILM FRIDAY. From TV TUESDAY I also have created specific TV show icons for those shows that I have enjoyed especially. I still need to add a few more icons. I feel like right now TV is heavily in the past; I need to make a concerted effort to add posts (and icons) for more of my more recent favorites. So look for this section to be expanded even more in the near future.

As for Music, because I only have a few die-hard favorites, mostly I will be upkeeping MUSIC MONDAY. The groups I really love will be represented here. Besides THE BEATLES and THE MONKEES, I am going to add either MOTOWN or various/specific Motown acts. I am still thinking about this decision, which is why The Supremes still represent "MY FAVORITE THINGS." This may be changing; keep an eye out. Also, I have begun a new sub-topic, MUSIC MEMORIES, about how certain songs have come to represent more than just what they initially meant. I will try to write a new column on this topic atleast once a month.

FILM FRIDAYS has been here for awhile, but I haven't done much to keep up with it. I promise to do better from now on. Similar to BOOKENDS, I will try to write more about the recent movies and books that I have seen or that I have read. I have two posts done for these topics already, and I hope to keep up with them. I read and watch a lot of movies, so this should be relatively easy.

MAGNIFICENT SEVEN was supposed to be my "Best" lists, so I hope to write one of these every month. If possible, it would be posted on the 7th of every month. Help keep me honest by reminding me about this, and eventually it will become second nature to me.

Because POGO was difficult to do, it has dropped to "co-star" billing here on the blog. When I find something to write about, I will be posting. I just found it difficult to come up with regular post ideas.

As KENBUNKI is also ending soon, the energy I expanded on this column should transfer easily to some of the others. Atleast, that is the plan.

As always, if there are things you would like to see here, let me know. I want to keep my audience happy, you know. :-)

The Devil We Know.....

As America heads to the polls on Tuesday, I would like to take this opportunity to use my last pre-election blog editorial to explain who I am going to vote for. I should not have to say this, but I will: I believe that either man will do the best that he can if elected. I certainly do not think that the United States is going to fall into some sort of zombie apocalypse if  "my guy" doesn't win. As I have been saying for four years, "We survived eight years of Bush. We'll survive whoever wins in November."

Today I would like to explain why I am NOT going to vote for Governor Mitt Romney.

1. I don't believe what is said about President Obama. 
I don't believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. I don't believe that the President is a Muslim terrorist. (If he was, wouldn't we all already be dead?) And while I don't believe that he is the greatest President who has ever lived, I don't believe he is the worst, either.

2. I do believe the things I have heard Governor Romney say. 
Maybe he has been misunderstood, but I watched the video where Governor Romney said he isn't going to care about "those people." I have heard him say that he is going to work to over-turn Roe vs. Wade. I have heard his own voice say, "Planned Parenthood is going away." Again, maybe he was misunderstood. But if that is the case, then do we really want a President so apt to make these types of "slips"? Hell, we already had eight years of Bush-isms. No, thank you.

3. Little things mean a lot. 
President Obama struck the right chord with me when he sat down for a beer with the university professor and the policeman who tried to arrest him. The President has never wavered in his support of Israel, even if he hasn't always gotten along with Israeli President Netanahyu. The President understood that what happened to Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. On the other hand, Governor Romney sat his dog on the roof of their car when he took a 12-hour road trip. During the mid-1960s Romney went to France on a Mormon mission and got student and ministerial deferments from the Viet Nam draft. Worst of all, in my opinion,  Romney politicized the Benghazi attacks on Sept 11, 2012 while they were still going on.  Even allowing that President Obama was making mistakes on that day;  especially if President Obama was making mistakes on that day, it was not the time to be calling him out on them! During the third debate Governor Romney accused President Obama of being weak. In my opinion it's politicians like Governor Romney nipping at the heels of our leaders who really are weak.

4. The last four years were not totally President Obama's fault. 
"We can't afford four more years of Obama" rings false against the counter argument, "We haven't had enough time to clean up this mess." (Is the entire election balanced on which of these statements you choose to believe?) I think it is obvious that many of the issues facing our country are not wholly the fault of the President. In my opinion, this is true:

Republican Obstructionism + Democratic Lack of Leadership = Current Mess

We can have the debate that "Obamacare" and other Democratic budgets will eventually bankrupt the US, but really, isn't that the same discussion we have every two years or so? Regardless of where you stand on some of the social programs and budgetary decisions President Obama pushed through (or tried to), you have to admit that things were pretty bad four years ago. Yes, I am better off than I was in 2008, thank you for asking.
And this segues into my next argument:

5. Governor Romney's experience is not what we need.
Governor Romney, before turning to public service, made his millions as a venture capitalist. Those are people who stake large amounts of money on small companies that want to start-up or expand. His company invested time and money in high risk enterprises and then, when profitable, walked away with a huge chunk of those profits. So that seems like a fine job for a capitalist, but how does it help give him experience to be a good Chief Executive? President Carter ran a successful peanut company, but that didn't help him be a good President, now did it? President Reagan was not an actor of any particular talent, but he was a huge success as President. I just don't see where the fact that Governor Romney has millions of dollars is supposed to be some sort of huge advantage to help lead us.

6. I don't trust Governor Romney. 
This is almost the deciding factor. I'm not sure why, but Governor Romney reminds me of President George Bush (the first). It seems that the Governor wants to be President because....he wants to be President. He seems to suffer from the same "vision thing" that President Bush suffered from. The main point of the Romney campaign seems to be, "Vote for me because I'm not Obama." Shouldn't he be saying things like, "As President I want to do this," or "As President I want to do that," instead of re-acting to what the President is doing? Do we really want a President who wins running against things instead of running for something? 

and my most important reason for voting for President Obama:
7. I didn't vote for Ted Strickland.
Two years ago we had an election here in Ohio for Governor. Ted Strickland was faced by challenger John Kasich. I agreed with the Republican campaign that the incumbent had not kept his promises and done all of the things that he had said that he would. However, I did not know Kasich at all, so instead of choosing to vote for him I simply chose not to vote at all. So Ohio got Governor Kasich, and with him, quarrels about teachers, police, fire-fighters, and other "free-loaders." I came to regret my non-vote. So I may not fully support President Obama, but I will not simply hand the Presidency to Governor Romney by not voting.

So there are my reasons. I am definitely not as enthusiastic in my support of Obama-Biden as I was in 2008.  In 2008 I had a sign in my car! This year I don't even have a sign in my yard. I waffled all summer as the Republicans shot themselves in their collective feet. I seriously looked at Ron Paul! I am not as enthusiastic in my support for the President, and I honestly think that my way of thinking is the prevalent trend this year. However, I predict a squeaky victory for Obama-Biden, with them taking Ohio and the victory.

No matter who wins on Tuesday, my sincere hope is that in the next four years a new breed of candidate emerges. I would love to see candidates on both sides who are level-headed and passionate and who can negotiate with the other side without calling them traitors or idiots or worse. We all love our country! I hope that this election represents the bottom and that we never have another one as bad as this one was. 

E PLURIBUS UNUM!! 

We Go POGO by Kerry D. Soper

Any one who reads this blog on any type of regular basis knows that I LOVE "POGO" by Walt Kelly. Hell, I just wrote a commemorative article about Walt Kelly on the anniversary of his death last week! It should not come as any surprise that I go to places like ebay and amazon and type in "POGO" just to see if there is anything new (or newly available).

Which is how I found the topic of today's article, WE GO POGO by Kerry D. Soper. Professor Soper is an associate professor of humanities, classics, and comparative literature at Bringham Young University. He is the author of Garry Trudeau: Doonesbury and the Aesthetics of Satire. 

While I'm quoting the back of the book jacket, how about this for a write-up?
Walt Kelly (1913-1973) is one of the most respected and innovative American cartoonists of the 20th Century. His long-running POGO newspaper strip has been cited by modern comics artists and scholars as one of the best ever.....WE GO POGO is the first comprehensive study of Kelly's cartoon art and his larger career in the comics business. Author Soper examines all aspects of Kelly's career...from his high school drawings; his work on such animated Disney movies as DUMBO...; and his 1930s editorial cartoons for LIFE....Soper taps Kelly's extensive personal and professional correspondence and interviews with family members, friends, and cartoonists to create a complex portrait of one of the art form's true geniuses.

Which is all well and good, except....it aint' true! In the immortal words of Albert the Alligator: Rowrbazzle! This is a tedious, badly-written book about a subject that should have been...well...ANIMATED, for crying out loud! I tried....really I tried...to read this book. I got as far as the second chapter, Comedy and Satire in POGO, page 98, before I had to give up. (The book is 218 pages of TINY print 42 lines per page and sparsely I say *sparsely* illustrated!!) (To which Churchy would say, "I's prefers rutabeggas to sparsely in my salads," and Owl would say, "What's that you say? Who's a beggar? Homeless, here in the swamp!? We need a program, I tell you! Stamp out homelessness!")

If you are possibly thinking I am exaggermatating the extent of the boringness of this boring book, I quote again, verbatim verbiage from the vernal villain:
In addition to behaving like a Shakespearean fool in this respect, Pogo also takes on the pedigree of a satiric minstrel or griot. The truth-telling minstrel figure has deep roots in the European tradition; like the jester or fool, the minstrel in some cases had special license to criticize authority figures or parody the official voice and texts of the culture. West African culture had its own version of this privileged social critic, the griot, the feared but protected community jester who "combined the talents of the musician with those of the innovative poet (weaving "his own comments, moral judgments and isolated poetic images into his songs") and the clever trickster-jester to accomplish his ends." (Watkins 64) (page 84, University Press of Mississippi edition)

To this I say:
Deck us all with Boston Charlie, Walla Walla Washington and Kalamazoo!

If you like POGO and/or are a fan of Walt Kelly, DON'T buy this book. It's by some professor who is trying to use half-dollar words when the five and dime variety would suffice just as well. The jacket says it's about Kelly, but I read the Introduction and The Short Biography and there were very few quotes. Just a lot of talk by Professor Soper. You don't need a lot of words to understand and appreciate POGO. Here, let me show you: 

THIS is what POGO was all about (click to en-biggen).

I repeat, don't buy this book. Borrow it from you local library if you think you'd like to validate my opinion. But if you're going to buy something about/by Walt Kelly, buy THIS instead!!


Addendum 12-21-12
I got the following comment from Professor Soper himself, and it made me feel a *tad* harsh in my criticism. I'm not going to back-pedal in my criticism of some of his word choices ("griot"? really!?!?) but perhaps I should have been more clear in my main criticism: it ain't the book I thought it was going to be. And that is my problem, not Professor Soper.
Honestly, I have been thinking I need to buy this book just because I want to have it in my collection.
So.....go to your library and borrow it. Read it. Then send Professor Soper a comment asking him to write more lively the next time he writes about something so inherently fun.

Worst Comic of The Month?

Okay, so the title of today's post may be a bit on the hyperbolic side, but let me explain. Last month I rushed into my comic-book shop to pick up the three or four comics I buy regularly. One is AQUAMAN, of course. The others are FIRESTORM (insert random link to The Fire and Water podcast), EARTH-TWO, and JUSTICE LEAGUE;  the last two because I have always loved the JLA and the JSA. Neither of these classic groups are actually alive in current continuity so are not currently IN either of these books, of course, but I can still hope, can't I? ;-)

So I grab up those four comics and rush home. Later, I notice that this is Captain Marvel on the cover, but I think, "Okaaay, Shazam must join the JLA in this issue....?" Because the book is called JUSTICE LEAGUE I kinda expected to read about, oh, I dunno....the JUSTICE LEAGUE!!! Instead I read pages and pages about the annoying brat who is the current Billy Batson and how he most undeservedly receives the power of SHAZAM. And...then the book is over.

WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?

How in the world can DC think that it is okay to print some Captain Marvel-wannabe crap in the pages of a book called JUSTICE LEAGUE, with absolutely NO JLAers present in the story!?!?!

I take it DC is not interested in long-term plans to continue to rape my wallet, as I will be even more careful about what I buy in the future! THIS is why you don't want to just order books and pick them up without looking at them, because if I had taken a moment to check I would NOT have paid for this toilet paper.

DC, what happened?? You used to be such a great company. Come back!!    :-(

We, the Purples....

I am constantly surprised by the poison that I hear and read spewing from both Conservative and Liberal camps. For every "Romney is a liar or an idiot" there is a "Barack Hussein wasn't born in this country."

Can we please just stop it!?!

As a patriotic American I have had enough. I see simple disagreements turning into animosity and hate, and I don't like it. The election is in two weeks, but the feelings are going to go on for a long, long time. I'm not naive enough to believe that I can change things. However, if after reading this article just one person stops re-posting over-the-top pictures or comment, then I will consider it a victory. You know who you are.

This article exists because I read one too many articles purporting to explain "The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals." The one article in particular I am referring to likened Conservatives to The Knights of the Crusade and Liberals to The Godless Hordes. I am sure there are articles painting the sides the opposite way, but I don't read them and my Conservative friends don't send those to me. I got so frustrated by the ugliness of this particular "entertainment" that I decided to use it as this week's theme.

And don't misunderstand me. For those of us who consider these things "funny" or "entertaining" or, worse yet, "informative," I want to slap you up-side-the-head and yell, "Don't do it!" It's not funny calling Gov Romney a liar. It's not funny calling President Bush an idiot. It's not funny to say President Obama is a Muslim. It paints us all as childish. it's embarrassing.

There are Conservatives who believe that the President is a terrorist who was not born in this country.

There are Liberals who believe that Governor Romney will slice up the country and give the profits to his rich buddies.

If you believe either of these things, please leave. Go hang out at Fact Check dot org. You're not wanted here.

For the rest of us, I think many of us are uncomfortable with our current "Party" affiliations. I consider myself a Liberal, but I also believe that VP Biden was incredibly rude to Mr. Ryan. I also believe it is not OK to characterize the moderator of the Hofstra debate as Jabba the Hut. Party affiliation should have nothing to do with these types of observations or comments. I am not a Republican Red, but sometimes I am not a Democratic Blue, either. I guess...I guess I am a Purple.

We the PURPLES believe that individual Americans have the right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that they have the right to go hunting with whatever weapon is most sportsmanlike. We believe that the right to own guns cannot be taken away by anything short of a Constitutional amendment; in other words, never. We believe that guns should be treated the same way as cars: they should be registered and controlled, and children should never ever be allowed to touch them. We disagree with Liberals saying Guns = Evil. We also disagree with Conservatives who say Guns = Good.

We the PURPLES believe that we should live in a color-blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his/her character. Until we reach this Utopia, however, Liberals believe that programs that  encourage older white males to include groups besides themselves are not bad. Conservatives would rather err on the side of caution and not make any racial quotas whatsoever. Right Wing Nuts believe that we already live in a world where the only racism that exists is against them. Left Wing Nuts believe in universal brotherhood; all we have to do is be forced to live and work together and the world will erupt in peace and love.


We the PURPLES honor capitalists who amass great wealth through their own efforts (or with some support from the government, haha). Conservatives believe that anyone who is rich is Good; Liberals believe that rich people amass their wealth by taking advantage of the workers. The truth is obviously somewhere in-between.


We the PURPLES believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child. However, we don't want to outlaw all abortions. We support first trimester abortions, and working to prevent unwanted pregnancies via contraceptives and counseling. Conservatives value the life of the fetus-baby-child over all else; Liberals value the life and/or quality of life of the mother over that of the fetus-baby-child. Conservatives want to repeal abortion rights, which they believe were created from whole cloth by the Supreme Court. Liberals will brook no negotiation of any abortion laws, which they believe would signal a crack in their armor.

We the PURPLES believe the creed, "All Men are created equal." We believe that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is none of our damn business. We also believe that if Adam and Steve are in a committed relationship that they should not be treated differently from Liz and husband # 5 at any time. To be treated differently is prejudice, pure and simple. Conservatives believe that homosexuality is a choice, and like murderers and rapists, homosexual Americans should not be allowed to "practice" this "activity" as legitimate members of society. Liberals believe that "Gay Rights" is the same as "Civil Rights."


We the PURPLES believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm US citizens. Conservatives are not only willing to play Gary Cooper in HIGH NOON, they prefer it. Liberals prefer to be Henry Fonda in TWELVE ANGRY MEN, building international consensus. We PURPLES believe in both options.

 

We the PURPLES believe in fair tax rates, balancing the federal budget, and getting the country out of debt. Conservatives believe that it is vitally important to reduce the size of government, i.e., get rid of any programs they do not support. Liberals believe it is vitally important to increase the efficiency of government, i.e., throw more money at programs that they support. We PURPLES know that "Pork Barrel Politics" is done by both sides.

We the PURPLES want better government. Conservatives believe that a government that governs least governs best. Liberals believe that in order to prevent the weakest from being taken advantage of by the unscrupulous that there must be things like The Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security, and Unemployment Insurance, among other such government "safety nets." We PURPLES recognize that in the real world, No Government Watchdog = Bad Guys Do Bad Things.

We the PURPLES believe in God and know that the USA has been blessed. We knot that his country was founded by people looking to celebrate religious freedoms, not to restrict them. Conservative Christians believe God should be celebrated everywhere in US society; Liberals are more sensitive to non-Christian Americans and the possibility of them feeling isolated by preaching that is better appropriate to your neighborhood Church. When Liberals say "Happy Holidays" they want to be more inclusive; Conservatives see this as rejecting Christianity. Conservatives believe Liberals = Atheists. Liberals believe Conservatives = Moral Majority (in a bad way). We PURPLES believe that they are both wrong.

We the PURPLES are patriotic and are always looking out for the good of our country. Anyone who says that Conservatives or Liberals do not love their country or are trying to destroy it is an idiot and a traitor. We know that patriotism is not a political issue.
 

Trillions & Trillions of Dollars in Debt

So I keep hearing that President Obama has put the United States more than $11 trillion dollars into debt. This is a bad thing. However, doing a little research I found that if dollar values were equaled out to a standard 2011 value, the amount of debt per GNP was actually higher in the 1940s and 1950s.

However, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I think a budget deficit is good. I am a bit surprised to hear that both President Obama and Governor Romney are saying that they need to balance the budget, though. D'uh!! No shit, Sherlock. The question isn't yes or no, it's HOW??!


Imagine that you have a monthly credit card bill. For most of us, this isn't a stretch. Well, besides the special AQUAMAN SPECIAL #1 you bought last month that you did not actually intend to buy you have the recurring charge of Blue Jacket tickets, the Target bill, groceries, gas, water, gasoline, etc etc. And if you only pay off a little bit or skip a payment completely this month, the service charges and interest increases regardless. This is the situation we are in, multiplied by the trillions.

So how do we get out of it? There's gotta be three ways.
1. Stop or lower some of the recurring charges. 
So instead of paying every month into Social Security or Medicare or the Defense Department or PBS,  cancel them or lower the amount we pay. In some cases, ask users to pay more of the fees.

2. Stop adding new charges. 
I know how much you want to buy 1,000 new Super Duper Energy Hummers for the troops, but you'll have to wait until next payday to buy them. That's just the way it is.Stick to your agreed-upon budget.
3. Pay off more of the charges
Instead of paying the minimum $39.26, pay off $50,000. That would help in the long run.

So when either of the candidates say that we have to balance the budget, think of your own budget. Most of us buy things on credit, but we have every intention of paying the charge off. The US government has to be held accountable, too.

I'm against a Balanced Budget Amendment or anything like that. In real life, we get hit by sudden needs (our own personal disasters) when we have to buy a new car or computer we hadn't budgeted for. That's what credit is for! We just have to sign on the dotted line to have a payment plan in place.

Here's a few of my suggestions:

1. Cut the pay and services available to all politicians. Houses and/or apartments in Washington can be assigned (if they aren't already) and paid by the State. For example, the house in Arlington belongs to the great state of Vermont, and not to the Senator from Vermont. So when he loses his re-election, he leaves the house to the next guy. I think this happens some already, so make it mandatory. I know "cost of living" in Washington DC area is high, so take out rent and then the need to have a high salary is decreased. Each  politician would get a set "allowance" and nothing more. (May I suggest the salary from, say, 1980?) No health care package for the rest of their lives. No special perks or benefits. They are supposed to be OF the people; let them be!  If they don't like it, they can resign. There should be NO financial benefits for being a politician. None.

2. Cut every program in the federal budget by 2% to 5%. Yes, every program. Some will be easier than others, but perhaps people who want to keep funding PBS, for example, can contribute to that fund instead of to either of the candidates. We are all in this together, and there is no reason that any "special" fund should be singled out as "untouchable."

3. Establish a rule that says each candidate can only acquire so much money for their election campaigns. If you take in more than the set amount, you have to give that money to a charity of your choice. Socialist? Communist? Call it what you will, but it should be a crime that President Obama's re-election campaign has millions of dollars to play with while veterans' benefits are being slashed. If Super PACs have millions of dollars to give to a candidate, that money could be better spent by going to Food Banks.

4. Put actual Accountants in the Department of the Budget. Whenever there is a Disaster or some other urgent need, have an actual plan for when that money is going to get paid back. Kind of like what we did with the automotive "bail out" last year. Say the federal government pays Florida $6 million for damage caused by Hurricane Xavier. The Accountant in Chief would tell the citizens of Florida that driver license fees in the entire state would go up by $1 for the next four years or until the money is paid back, whichever comes first. That money would be paid by the Floridians to their State Government, who would then pay back the Feds.

Frankly, I don't see that the debt is a real election issue. I could be wrong, but I think both parties are equally guilty of either ignoring the issue or blowing it all out of proportion, depending on who it is.

The Right of the People to Own Guns

We're talking about the Second Amendment today.

And when I say "Second Amendment" I'm not talking about sound-bites from either side that says "it means this!" or "it really means that!" What it actually does say is this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Twenty-seven words.

There is also another official version that has another comma in the phrase immediately after the word "militia." In my opinion, that comma really doesn't make any difference. You see, the whole sentence is terribly written regardless! Let me break it down and analyze it with you.

On first reading "A well regulated militia" appears to be the subject of the sentence. The subject appears to be followed by an adjectival phrase describing the "militia." If this was high school grammar you would then have to have a verb. Then it would mean, "A militia, because it is necessary, must/has to/should/shall....".

Obviously, that is not what it says.

So what if the "militia" part is not the subject? That makes it a badly-written adjectival phrase meaning: "Because the well-armed militia is necessary....the right to bear arms is guaranteed."

So in my opinion, the amendment clearly (?) links the militia to the right to bear arms. With me so far?

So what the hell is a "militia" anyway? American Heritage Dictionary says this:
an army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, on call for service in an emergency. 

Okay, we don't really have that any more. If we are calling The National Guard (the descendant of all of those great Revolutionary Militias) a "militia," know that since 1903 they have been officially part of the Department of the Defense. That isn't the same thing as a group of citizen-soldiers, in my opinion. But okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that The National Guard is the equivalent of "the militia."

However, if the National Guard is the equivalent of "the militia," how does that allow for individual gun-ownership? Do National Guards use automatic and semi-automatic weapons in their work? They don't use hand-guns or deer rifles, I'm pretty sure. I suppose they *could*, but the point I'm trying to make is that in the USA today there IS no militia.

So what if the amendment means to imply that if/when a militia is required, the already armed people of this great country can form and create one? I call this the "Red Dawn" theory. It may sound like I am making light of this idea, but I am not. I actually believe this is very close to what our founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the amendment. They knew that dictatorship could sprout at any time, AND they were just over a well-fought battle for their own independence. So my guess is that what the amendment is really saying is: "we need to allow arms to be available in case the people ever want to overthrow their government."  

Which brings us to the actual verbs in the amendment: keeping, bearing, and infringing.

I think we all understand what "to keep" and "to bear" mean. How about "to infringe"?

Again from American Heritage Dictionary, "infringe" is defined as:
(1) to transgress, violate (2) to encroach; trespass

That doesn't really help; what the hell is "transgress" or "encroach," right? Back to the dictionary:
transgress: to go beyond or over (a limit)
encroach: to take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily

NOW we're getting somewhere. I have heard many people say that if we try to write up any gun control legislature it would begin "the slippery slope" towards total gun control, meaning gun prohibition. And you know who was all for gun control, right? Adolf Hitler. Yada yada yada.

HOWEVER, let's look at this logically and not emotionally. If you want to follow the above train of thought to its extreme conclusion, the gun makers should be GIVING AWAY weapons. If I'm an American and I want a gun, who are you to tell me I can't have one? That's encroaching on my Second Amendment rights!! 

I hope everyone understands that I am being a bit extreme there. My point is this: CONTROL is not SUPPRESSION.

The best example I can think of is this: you are free to own/drive a car.
You have to be 18.
You have to have the money to purchase the car.
You have to have and keep a valid driver's license.
You have to register your car with the state where you live.
In some states you have to have auto insurance.
You have to make sure the car is in good working order.
Etcetera, et cetera, etcetera!! 

Are these regulations encroaching on your right to own a car? Some people may say so, but I hope the majority of people understand that these regulations are in place to CONTROL the number and ability of drivers  out on the road. This is not automobile prohibition: it is automobile control.

So why can't we ask for a little bit more "CONTROL" of firearms?
Actual, true registration.
A license to buy bullets.
A lock on every gun so kids can't accidentally shoot their own brains out.
Punishment by fees or by suspending a license if a firearm is used illegally or improperly.
Just as examples off the top of my head.

My suggestion is simple: look at all the regulations for cars or motorcycles or power tools or something similar and cross out the word "motorcycle" and write in the word "firearm." 

Sure, the paranoid people out there are going to go bat-shit crazy. But if you really DO own your rifle/pistol/handgun legally, what is the problem? If you are NOT legal, then you SHOULD be in trouble.

I am in no way standing here saying we should take away the rights given us by the Second Amendment. If you've read this whole thing and still think that is what I am saying, you need to stop visiting my site, thanks! I am a pragmatist who is sick and tired of reading about crazy people with guns or little children killing themselves with Daddy's gun. What I am saying is that the situation as is is *broken.* A little more regulation and licensing I think would help. It certainly wouldn't hurt.

What do *you* think?

"Banned" Books

If there is anything that makes me think "That's Un-American!" it's the idea of banning books. Sure, there are plenty of books that I would hate to *have* to read (just ask my Victorian British Poetry professor, haha). On the other hand, I cannot understand...nay, that is too weak a word...I cannot FATHOM how you hating a book makes you think *nobody else* should read it, either.

September 30 thru October 6 is National Banned Books Week in the United States. Every year at about this time the American Library Association issues a list of those books that have been asked about the most in the last twelve months. The list runs the gamut from "I wish you didn't have these in the library!" to "Get this filth out of my library!" Of course, most of the books are not actually banned from public libraries. (You need over-zealous School Superintendents for that type of illogical decision).  I first noticed this list a few years ago and now I look forward to it every year. If there is a book on the list that I have not read yet, I go to my library (Columbus Metropolitan) and reserve it. So far, none of the "banned" books have not been available in Columbus.

Challenges to library materials explains the process. You could have one concerned individual come up to the librarian on duty and voice their concern about the appropriateness of some book. Or that person could write an official letter to the library board. Or, that person could organize a demonstration or group to get something banned or moved out of the open stacks. And as far as the ALA is concerned, any decision to restrict/control the availability of the content above and beyond what the local library decides should happen is considered Censorship. 

I can understand that. I used to borrow anatomy books to learn how to draw the human figure. Once when I was a kid I came across a book that was in the system but was not available on the shelves. Turns out that some of the models were nudes, so the book was on "lock down." I had to ask for it specifically. It wasn't "banned" per se, but it was definitely controlled.

Then I went to college and at the college library I found quite a few anatomy and art books with plenty of nudes in them. (Not that I checked them all out and took them back to my dorm room in a dirty way, haha!) The idea, I think, was that the people using the library were 18-plus year old students or faculty, so it was okay to leave this type of material out on the stacks for us to find by ourselves. Atleast,  that's what I figured was what was happening.

Unfortunately, most of the times I hear about "book banning" (the more correct term is "book challenging") is when religious nuts complain about the sorcery in HARRY POTTER or overly protective parents challenge the sexual content in Judy Blume books like FOREVER. Sexual education books are always on the list, and for several years the true story of two male penguins at the New York Zoo raising a baby penguin was on the list because it showed that there are such things as nurturing *gay* penguins! (The book is AND TANGO MAKES THREE. I am not making this up.)

The saddest part of these lists are when bonafide classics such as HUCKLEBERRY FINN, CATCHER IN THE RYE, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, and BRAVE NEW WORLD are included. Banning HUCK FINN  because slavery was legal at the time the story is set?! Obviously the "n" word is going to be used. Likewise, in MOCKINGBIRD.  How can we understand what used to constitute "normal" if we aren't shown explicitly how evil it really was? How can we understand the true ramifications of "utopia" if we can't see all that it entails? And CATCHER....? Whoever challenges that was never a teenager. 

And that's the reason, I guess. Parents don't want little Johnnie or Joanie to read about crazy Holden Caulfield or sexually active Gossip Girls. Or gay penguins.

I shake my head at the whole idea of book banning. Eventually your little darlings are going to fly on their own. Why not arm them with knowledge, instead of trying to protect them in some way from big bad ideas different from your own? It's a losing proposition, and it is un-American.


Doing research for this article I came across the 2011 list of Challenged Books. I haven't read some of these, so as soon as I'm done here I'm heading over to make some book reservations. I hope you will do the same.  If/when I see the 2012 list I will post it, too.
1. TTYL (series) by Lauren Myracle
(read this; thought it was immature)
2. Color of Earth (series) by Kim Dong Hwa
(never heard of this!) 
3. Hunger Games (series) by Suzanne Collins
(not going to read this; I read Battle Royale, the original!)
4. My Mom's Having A Baby
(do I really need a refresher course, haha)
5. Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie
(I read this a few years ago; I liked it)
6. Alice (series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
(not going to read this or Gossip Girl below; I think I know what type of stories these are: junior Harlequin with a touch more sex and "hipness")
7. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
(this? really?) 
8. What My Mother Doesn't Know by Sonya Sones
(I read this a few years ago....not great literature, that's for sure)
9. Gossip Girl (series)
(see (6) above)
10. To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee 
(this must have made it because it's celebrating its 50th anniversary)

47 Percent?

Today I would like to just say a few words about the recent "47 percent" comment made in a speech by Governor Romney.

Originally, I figured he must have been mis-quoted. I figured that he may have said that he didn't care about the 47 percent of the US voters who are going to vote Democratic, no matter what. During the election, sure, it makes sense that he isn't going to care about die-hard Liberal voters. Why should he? But you know what? I actually listened to what he SAID. And while he started off talking about not needing to craft an election message to 47% of the voters, what he ended up saying was that these people are free-loaders and lazy. Now, again, he may have mis-spoken. I think he mixed up the 47% of the voters who will absolutely not support him with another 47% of people who pay no income tax. In reality, these are not the same groups of people. However, in his eagerness to make a point he *seemed* to be saying that they are the same 47%.

Disagree with me? Watch/listen to it yourself. Was this clip edited? It could have been, but it sounds pretty one-cut to me.

My gripe is pretty clear. If Governor Romney is in fact saying that he believes anyone who is supporting the President is a loafer or expecting entitlement of any kind, I am livid. I have been employed every day of my life since I graduated college. I am not a loafer and I do not expect any hand-outs. Did the government offer me student loans? Then I will take them, happily. (And I have already paid mine back, thank you very much.) Did the government offer me a tax break when I had a daughter between a certain age? Then I will take that tax break, willingly. Does the government allow me to save millions of US dollars in an untaxed Swiss bank account? Then if I had that money, Governor Romney, I would do what I could *legally* to take advantage of the system. Wouldn't.... Don't you?

More so than the insult that he tossed at all Democratic supporters, I am dismayed that he is basically saying that IF elected, he would not even try to represent the entire country. It's not his job to worry about 47% of the American public? Wow. When was the last time we had a President who *actively* worked at representing everybody? President Reagan, maybe? More recently President George W was everyone's President for about six months after Sept 11. All too soon he wasted the public's good fortune on some mistaken idea that Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda. And then it was back to normal, i.e. political hatred.

I know that during elections each party says things they don't mean or promise to do things they aren't going to do. But after the election, it's time to get back to One Country. I haven't seen that happen much since I came back to the US (in 2001). I know two people who tell me to my face, "President Obama is not MY President." That kind of talk really burns me up. Now we have Governor Romney appearing to say, "These people are not my people." Shame on you, Mr. Romney. Shame on you.

Again, if he mis-spoke then he needs to fix this. It sounds like he called 47% of the US population dead-beats, and that is NOT okay.

Like Little Kids in a Sandbox

Foreign policy has been in the news lately because of the attacks on US embassies in the Middle East and with Governor Romney's visit to the London Olympics. Having lived abroad (in Japan, for 14 years) I think I may have a different take on foreign policy than the average American. Read what I have to say and let me know if you agree or not.

In general I find that when it comes to foreign policy, most US politicians behave like only-children at a kindergarten playground. They are so used to being The Only Child at home that when they have to deal with other children on a relatively equal basis they don't know how to do it. European countries, in contrast, have had hundreds of years of dealing with each other. They tried killing each other off, but because that didn't work,  they're committed to working together. The US is so used to doing things unilaterally that when we face criticism or objections from the global community we take it personally. I hate hearing Americans say things like, "Those Socialist bastards in the UN!" or what have you. News flash, people: the UN represents the rest of the world that isn't us; in other words, more than 6 billion people. Do you really want to argue with 6 billion people, or would you rather try to understand their point of view and try to get along?

I DO think the majority of US citizens want to get along with the rest of the world. How many times have you thought, "Why can't we all just get along?" Let's face it, there will always be rogue countries like North Korea and competitor-rivals like China and Russia. But even if we're all friends or friendly, that doesn't mean we all have to agree on everything. Think of your own friends: won't they tell you if you are wearing stripes with plaid? Friends are not just there to stand with you when you're right, they're there to pull you aside and tell you when you're wrong. Another news flash: we're not always right, and neither are our allies. Do we "owe" Israel blind allegiance, such as when they unilaterally and controversially claim Jerusalem as their capital? Or do we attempt to negotiate with their neighbor states and the Palestinians to try to reach some sort of compromise that we can all live with?

I am not out to make this The United States of Earth. I doubt most Americans are. I am also against creating some sort of United Nations-run world government until/unless aliens come to Earth and want to deal with one single governing body. :-)  What I *am* suggesting is that we work on more respect between sovereign nations and less on "America First" arrogance. In that regard, President W. Bush got better over time, and President Obama seems capable (as a Senator he had a modicum of experience before becoming President). Governor Romney has no foreign policy experience at all. This isn't to say he could not learn "on the job," but the initial feeling I have is that he is one step behind on this issue. He certainly hasn't shown any particular aptitude for foreign relations yet, but obviously, if he is elected President he will have to get with it pretty quickly.