On the South Side

CAPTAIN AMERICA was my third Marvel series. It was being considered for cancellation when I got it, because it had no reason for existence. Stan Lee had written it for years, and it was clearly his least favorite book; the stories had become not only lackluster but repetitive. Gary Friedrich had picked it up a year before and done some interesting stuff, but he hadn’t stayed long; then Gerry Conway did two issues as a stopgap; and then I got it. The problem across the board at Marvel was that this was the 70s - prime anti-war years - and here was a guy with a flag on his chest who was supposed to represent what most people distrusted. No one knew what to do with him.

Me, I had been honorably discharged from the Army two years earlier as a conscientious objector - but I was supposed to also be a writer. So I did something for the first time that marked everything I’ve written since. I said, “Okay, if this guy existed, who would he be?” Not “Who am I?”, but “Who is Captain America?”

Six months later, the wayward book slouching toward cancellation was Marvel’s Number One title, and I seemed to have found my career. I’d also found an artist, Sal Buscema, who could draw exactly what I envisioned, so it was all good.

So I had asked myself “Who is Captain America?”, and had found an answer for the man. Thing was, America was moving from the overarching Vietnam War toward the specific crimes of Watergate.

I was writing a man who believed in America’s highest ideals at a time when America’s President was a crook. I could not ignore that. And so, in the Marvel Universe, which so closely resembled our own, Cap followed a criminal conspiracy into the White House and saw the President commit suicide.

And that was the end of Captain America…

And, just for fun, here’s a scan of an ad from one of my Captain America comic books circa 1970..

West Wing and the ‘08 Election November 1, 2005

I was watching The West Wing the other night, a program I started watching just to have something to talk to my father about, and in-between all my complaining I ran right over a moment when I thought, “yeah…good point.” It was towards the end when the Democratic candidate was talking to a women’s rights advocate. This woman was threatening to throw her support to the Republican candidate because, since they were both pro-choice, why not support the better man? The big issue was not over abortion itself but over restrictions on abortion. Since, as I said, both were pro-choice, the argument was over who favored which restrictions. The Republican candidate favored parental notification and was 100% against partial-birth abortions while the Democratic candidate’s position was no restrictions at all. As the Democratic candidate and the woman were arguing, he said to her, (I paraphrase from memory) “do you favor abortion based on race?” She, of course said no. He continued, “do you favor abortion based on IQ?” She said no again. He spoke so fast, I wonder how many people caught what he was driving at. He concluded by telling her that it looks like she does favor some restrictions on abortion as does he, but it is not our place to put our restrictions on others and therefore, he votes for no restrictions at all.

I commend the writers for going this far. How many of us have considered what our restrictions would be? For instance, if homosexuality was found out to have a genetic root, what if a couple decided to abort the baby because they found it to be so? What if a woman decides to abort the baby because it’s going to have a cleft lip? Where do you draw the line?

Now, on the elections: It’s possible that the Republicans will nominate a pro-choice candidate in Rudy Guliani. Why? How? Well, it’s because the issue, as illustrated in the TV show mentioned above, has come a long way in recent years. I believe, thanks to George W. Bush. The first words I ever heard come out of his mouth were, when asked about Roe v. Wade, he said simply that he wasn’t interested in overturning the law; he was interested in changing people’s hearts. I can accept a pro-choice candidate because if I were king of the world right now, I would not overturn Roe v. Wade. I want something much bigger. I want the world to know that abortion is bad; just like I want the world to know that divorce is bad. I don’t know which is worse sometimes. The family in this country is falling apart.

OK, enough ranting. Here’s my free advice for Democrats in 2008: First, the race has already started, so get it in gear. Second, you are not running against Bush or Cheney! Figure out something positive to say about you. Tell us what you’re going to do about the war in Iraq. You may wish you can run away from it, but you can’t. (nobody can) If the Republicans put up a pro-choice candidate why should anyone vote for you? Keep watching The West Wing for the answer!

Maybe… October 6, 2005

A quote from Peggy Noonan today:

Here are some maybes. Maybe the president has simply concluded he has no more elections to face and no longer needs his own troops to wage the ground war and contribute money. Maybe with no more elections to face he’s indulging a desire to show them who’s boss. Maybe he has concluded he has a deep and unwavering strain of support within the party that, come what may, will stick with him no matter what. Maybe he isn’t all that conservative a fellow, or at least all that conservative in the old, usual ways, and has been waiting for someone to notice. Maybe he has decided the era of hoping for small government is over. Maybe he is a big-government Republican who has a shrewder and more deeply informed sense of the right than his father did, but who ultimately sees the right not as a thing he is of but a thing he must appease, defy, please or manipulate. Maybe after five years he is fully revealing himself. Maybe he is unveiling a new path that he has not fully articulated–he’ll call the shots from his gut and leave the commentary to the eggheads. Maybe he’s totally blowing it with his base, and in so doing endangering the present meaning and future prospects of his party.

Hey Peggy, I’ve got one you forgot to add: Maybe Ms. Miers is a smart, conservative cookie and she’ll make a great Justice.

Supreme Deflation October 5, 2005

This is the first time I’ve disagreed with so many conservatives. I’m talking, of course, of the nomination to the Supreme Court of Harriet Miers. Most conservative pundits; and that is most, not all, have been “deflated” as a result of this nomination. I use the word deflated because it seems to appear most in the editorials I’ve been reading, and I think it describes what all these conservatives are feeling. “Angry” is another word; yes, cheated and angry.

They don’t know where she stands on abortion? Oh, gosh, let’s see… I’ll bet she’s pro-choice! Yeah, right. But she’s never been a judge! Good, I say. It’ll do the Court good to have someone who’s worked for a living serving. And besides, it won’t be the first time a nominee has never worked as a judge and it won’t be the last time. It’s cronyism I tell ya! Oooh, that one really hurts! Why, I’ve never heard of such a thing! (Do I sound like Jon Stewart yet?) She’s a single woman, never married, no kids, was the first woman to do about ten different things in the country of Texas, and then she became the President of the United States’ lawyer; surely that counts for something.

Besides, it’s the Senate’s job to confirm her or not to confirm her. They are elected representatives. If the don’t like her, fine; vote her down and let’s do it again; no problem. I’m willing to be that they’ll (and most Americans) will love her.

Election 2008 update: I just wanted to re-establish where I stand on the next presidential race: Since just after the 2000 election (that’s 2000, not 2004), I’ve been predicting the race between Guliani and Clinton. Ask Wally if you don’t believe me. Anyway, at this point, I have no reason to change my mind. That’s who I think will be your candidates in 2008. Guliani will win. Now, having said that, I would gladly eat my words if my candidate would run. I don’t think he will, but a boy can hope. The smart Bush boy, Jeb.

Where to start? September 5, 2005

Where to start

There are a very few people in this world that can comprehend the magnitude of the catastrophe that is the flood of New Orleans. The mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana are not two of these people. Nor should they be. That would not be a reason they would or should be elected. It is not to their discredit that they were completely overwhelmed. Before I say anymore, allow me to break this issue down into the two natural components. The first is the Hurricane itself with the wind damage and the storm surge damage that has inflicted hell on most of the Gulf Coast. The second is, of course, the flood of New Orleans. Though the hurricane caused the flood, they must be looked at as two distinct events for any of this to make any sense. So, for example, if the flood doesn’t happen, you have the “normal” hurricane clean-up stories in the news. Major damage was done to Biloxi and Gulf Port and these are indeed worthy news stories, but not the kind of drama we saw unfold at the Super Dome and Convention Center in New Orleans. That was close-up, human drama that makes great TV. My point is that without the flood, there is no “Blame Bush” story. Blame him for global warming maybe, but not this week.

So that leaves us with the flood. I was at work when I read on Drudge that the levee had broken. It was about mid-day. I went straight into my boss’s office and said, “The levee has broken in New Orleans; should we add more newspapers for tomorrow?” His response was something like, “let’s wait and see what happens.”

“Huh?”

Didn’t everybody know that the levees might break? Didn’t everybody know that if that happened, it would be…well, big? Didn’t everybody know that the whole city could be flooded? The whole city!?

Yes, everybody knew that.

A few quotes to remind you:

(The New Orleans) TIMES-PICAYUNE published a story on July 24, 2005 stating:
City, state and federal emergency officials are preparing to give a historically blunt message: “In the event of a major hurricane, you’re on your own.”Staff writer Bruce Nolan reported some 7 weeks before Katrina: “In scripted appearances being recorded now, officials such as Mayor Ray Nagin, local Red Cross Executive Director Kay Wilkins and City Council President Oliver Thomas drive home the word that the city does not have the resources to move out of harm’s way an estimated 134,000 people without transportation.”"In the video,made by the anti-poverty agency Total Community Action, they urge those people to make arrangements now by finding their own ways to leave the city in the event of an evacuation.

And here’s a pull from the actual evacuation document for the city, most recently revised in 2000. On page 13, paragraph 5 it states:

The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating.

And then this from New Orleans On-line from 8/28/05:

Previous hurricanes evacuations in New Orleans were always voluntary, because so many people don’t have the means of getting out. Some are too poor…

Stop and think about that one for a bit. And remember, after the President called, the order was given for a mandatory evacuation.

I’m asking everyone to stop wondering and worrying about blaming somebody. Or, go ahead and blame every resident of New Orleans, every mayor, every Governor of Louisiana, this President and the thirty before him. No, accept the frail condition of humanity, physical and spiritual.

Now, back to the real story: THIS IS A HUGE CATASTROPHE! No amount of adjectives would do it justice. As I stated in my opening comments, very few people in this world could be prepared for something of this magnitude. I’m reminded of huge battles in huge wars with famous generals in charge. Eisenhower, McCarthur, yeah, these guys could get their minds around a problem this big. Not a mayor or a governor, though. It’s just not fair to expect that from people like that. And guess what? You or I couldn’t do it either. And you or I can’t even begin to grasp the logistical problems of something this big. Were there “snafus?” Of course there were. Please read the details of any major battle campaign to see a list of errors and misjudgments that will make your heart sick.

People are doing the best they can. What can we do to help? As usual in domestic catastrophes, the churches are on the front lines. That’s simply because they’re already there with a network of people who are familiar with what it means to “help people.” I suggest giving to the relief arm of you favorite church. Here is mine:

http://www.methodistrelief.org/site/pp.asp?c=bhKNI4PHIpE&b=876335

Everyone was so nice August 26, 2005

Everyone was so nice with their comments from last night’s post, it really made me feel better and I really appreciate it. But now what to write about? I don’t know. It’s not that I have nothing on my mind; it’s just that as priorities go, most everything is way down on the list, you know?

OK, this has been on my mind today: In Canton, Ohio, there’s a high school with 490 female students, of which 65 are pregnant. Here’s a quote from the story:

“School officials are not sure what has contributed to so many pregnancies…”

Now, I know what they meant by that, but you have to admit that it’s kind of funny. So, they’ll do a study to find out why the rate is so much higher there than the state or national average. I could save them some money though, if they’d just ask me; I’ve got a hunch as to what caused the pregnancies. Read the story here…

Bob Woodward agrees with me August 10, 2005

I know most you don’t care about this, but I’m putting down this in writing now so you can see just how brilliant my political acumen is. I was having dinner with my dad well over a month ago, so he can verify this. We were talking about the Republican Presidential nominee for 2008. The usual cast of characters include: Rudy Guiliani, Jeb Bush, Condi Rice, Bill Frist and maybe George Allen. I told my dad, “There’s a dark horse candidate. Can you think of who I talking about?”

“Hmmm…” he said, “Nope.”

“Vice-president Dick Cheney,” I said.

“Noooo…,” said he.

Well, Tuesday night (8/9/05) in Aspen CO, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post predicted that the race would be between Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney. So, there you go. And, who will win this race? President Dick Cheney? Get used to it.

Life, death, the Pope and Terry Schiavo April 2, 2005

One of the things I’m responsible for at work is to electronically send the “Draw” down to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Newspaper for all “Single Copy” outlets in the greater St. Louis Area. “Draw” is just newspaper-speak for “request for papers” and “Single Copy” just means retail outlets, boxes that sit on the street and “hawkers,” which are the kids that sell from the corners. So, yesterday (Friday), in addition to the entire world being focused on us due the NCAA Final Four being hosted by St. Louis, the Pope was sliding towards death. Since it sounded for a while that he might pass during the day on Friday, the Post-Dispatch understandably wanted to print more papers for the Saturday edition. If he died. I had to have both scenarios ready for the final decision by the Post that would come at around 10:45 pm. I left work thinking that he was going to die before then and Annette and I went out to eat. During that time I really got the feeling that he was going to live through the night or at least the Vatican would not announce anything until Saturday. So, we stopped by work on the way home and I switched the scenario to Pope not dead (that’s what I named the file) and that’s the way it finally turned out.

All of this got me reading a lot of news stories (on the web, of course, not the newspaper!) and that got me thinking about a lot of things concerning life and death, especially since I’d been meaning to write a few thoughts on the Terry Schiavo case in Florida. One thing I wanted to comment on was something that I read between the lines in many, many articles and commentaries. That is the lack of understanding, on the part of the media and possibly many Americans, of basic Christian doctrine concerning life and death. I’ll just run down these quickly:

1. The physical body and the “spirit” or “soul” go together. They were created together and do not get separated except by physical death. If someone is physically alive, like Terry Shiavo, her soul is still there. If a baby is in the womb, the soul is there.
2. Death is an event when the body quits functioning and the soul goes off to “heaven” or to be “with God.” This, however, is not where it belongs as we were created body/mind/spirit creatures and these things do not exist apart from each other. I don’t know what it’s like, but I believe it may be like the time before you were conceived. I can just say that you were “with God.”
3. Eternity is forever, but there will be an “end of time” when the soul is united with the same body you had before. Then you’ll live forever in the presence of God.

Now, I know I left some details out. If you’re really interested I can suggest some reading material for you - let me know. The main point I wanted bring out is, what I think a big reason many people don’t understand the Christian point of view, and that is what can be summed up by the oft heard phrase, “the sanctity of life.” God didn’t create us to by “spiritual” beings. He breathed life (spirit) into a very physical body, a body that the Bible and science tells us is just made up of the stuff laying about. He meant to do that. He meant to create us just the way He did as body/spirit beings.

We all agree that murder is wrong. Our “modern” society has blurred the edges of the act. Whether it be in “right to life” battle like we saw recently in Florida or euthanasia, or abortion; the lines get blurred by “individuality” and a loss of respect for life itself.

I’ll leave you with a case in point: If a woman has the right to an abortion, then she has that right no matter what you or I think of her. It doesn’t matter what you think of her circumstances, she make the decision. Read this article and tell me what you think:

Doctors and health officials will consider whether more guidance on abortions is needed following the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to
prosecute two doctors who authorised a late abortion on a foetus with a cleft
lip and palate. read the whole article…