Armored divisions

IDW is known for publishing some high quality art books — many involving artist Ashley Wood in some capacity — and World War Robot would fit quite well along side of them with its full-page and multi-page art spreads.

But there's a story here too, which is what I was looking for. I started seeing WWR-related toys being produced by three A toys, and had to pick up some Squares from the line. Intrigued by the whole back story, I was glad to see Wood had already put out the WWR book.

You do get some back story with WWR, but it comes in the form of short snippets from journals and letters home from the battlefront. The battle in question involves Earthling colonizers of Mars vs. the stay-at-home Earthlings, with a bunch of war-wreaking robots thrown into the mix. Also involved are the mad genius Rothchild who's behind the robots' creation, selling to both sides from a moon base; mercenaries; and — based on the toy line — zombie soldiers.

You don't get a full-on story with the text pieces accompanying the art in WWR, but writer T.P. Louise gives you enough in the letters and news pieces to develop a pretty cool world. (Well, a pretty cool world for the reader, not so much if you live in it.) Whether it's a SNAFU Mars mission, or a Terran tale of a 'bot left behind, you get human tales from a fucked up world gone robot.

And while the book is short on text, what's there is compelling enough to want more. I guess that's where volume 2 will fit in.

Wood's work varies between a light, thin lined, often colorful pencil style, and a heavy, thick oil painting style — often employing both in the same books. WWR is done completely in the latter style, and while I usually prefer his former style, Wood's dark paintings here are as badass as you'd expect considering the material.

Looking forward to the next volume, and the arrival of my Squares.

The price of Famous

Comedian/actor Patton Oswalt is a funny man, who once semi-famously labeled KFC's Famous Bowl as a "failure pile in a sadness bowl." His bit was funny, but Mr. Funny Man had to know he was painting himself into a Kentucky fried corner, and would one day have to stare down the inexplicably popular pile.

Well, the day arrived in early 2008 via an AV Club Taste Test. The results were, if not epic, very funny.

Case in point:

KFC calls it their version of the shepherd's pie. Shepherds in Kentucky must be full of rage and slathered in confusion. They must hang their fat, skin, and muscles from bones carved with runes of surrender.

And:

The cheese had congealed. Even in the heat and steam of the covered Famous Bowl, it had congealed. I stabbed it with the tines of my spork and it all came up in one piece. I nibbled an edge, had a vision of a crying Dutch farmer, and put it down.

Oswalt is a great writer, and several more examples can be found at his site. He also just had a movie — Big Fan — in Sundance that I want to see. It's about an obsessed New York Giants fan, featuring Michael Rapaport as an obsessed Eagles fan. Rapaport as a Birds fan could go either way, frankly, but I still want to see it.

Oh yeah (SPOILER), Oswalt did not die eating the Famous Bowl. Not yet, anyway.

Welcome to the Dollhouse

Fervent fanboy/girl spawner Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy and Firefly/Serenity and writer of the great first Astonishing X-Men arc, has a new show called Dollhouse set to start Feb. 13 on Fox.

What's that? You remember hearing Dollhouse was one of the highly expected new shows set for last fall's lineup? Yep. Apparently there's been quite a few hold-ups, including a reshooting of the pilot episode.

If that doesn't sound encouraging, it may well not be. But Whedon, on his Web site, gives what reads like a pretty honest and revealing look at what's held up the show and his dealings with Fox.

They're not wrong. Oh, we don't see eye-to-eye on everything, but wanting the first episodes to be exciting and accessible is not exactly Satanic. Being Satan is, but that's in their free time and hey, there's no judging in the Dollhouse. This kind of back and forth has happened on every show I've done, so if you liked those, chances are that was a part of why. And the need to focus on the essentials of what makes this universe tick - and which wire to cut to make it stop - really does bring up our game.

I'm not a Whedon fanboy — I thought his Astonishing X-Men run and Serenity were really good, but could care less about Buffy and Angel, etc. So I really had no interest in this show before reading this post.

Having read it I'm sort of intrigued, though. Plus, he's talking up the work of Reed Diamond, an alum of one of my all-time favorite shows, Homicide: Life on the Street, so I figure it's worth a look.

Playoffs?!?!

That's right, Jim "Coors Light" Mora, we're talking about the playoffs, or the lack of them in college football. Aside from the lower three divisions, of course, where they've been running quite fine, thank you.

But anyway, Dan Wetzel at Yahoo Sports offers the best argument I've seen yet for a playoff system for Division I-A (no, I'm not going to call I-A and I-AA whatever they call them now). Onto some high points.

A playoff would give teams from small conferences at least a shot to win a championship on the field. Unlikely? Yeah, but then I just watched Utah from the Mountain West beat SEC power Alabama — ranked #1 for several weeks — in the Sugar Bowl to cap off an undefeated season.

Perhaps the most memorable college football game of the last few years was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasn’t supposed to win. When it did, in dramatic fashion, it became the talk of the country. There would’ve been historic interest in seeing if the Broncos could do it again the following week.

Why wouldn’t college football want that?

The BCS said Boise State had no shot at a national title in 2007 because either 1) it wasn’t any good in 1977 or 2) wasn’t geographically or politically situated to be in the proper conference. As illogical as this is, that’s the system.

And maybe a smaller conference team never does break through to win four of those games, but watching such an upset in the context of a playoff is a lot more fun than just seeing an isolated upset that ends up meaning nothing for either team, as is the case for Utah and Alabama.

Oh, but the bowls. How will America survive without them? Now, I'll usually watch the big bowl games, and mix in some random, smaller bowls pairing teams I could care less about because sometimes those are fun to watch (and on TV when nothing else is, but that's a good thing).

But are there any bowl games — meaning the bowl itself, regardless of who's playing in it — that means anything anymore? I'll give you the Rose Bowl. Any others? I don't think so. And as a graduate of a Big 10 school (albeit latecomer Penn State), I can say I'd have no qualms about the playoffs doing away with the Rose Bowl and all the rest.

Can they still have bowls and a playoff? Sure. But the bowls should not be any past of a playoff. And be assured, it's not the tradition of the bowl games that's holding up a playoff, unless that tradition is the stacks of cash at stake.

BCS bowl games are the single worst deal in American sports. College football’s [continually willing] to be fleeced by outside businessmen, who gleefully cut themselves in on millions in profits ...

Just about every idea you’ll hear or read will use these bowls for the quarterfinals and these for the semifinals and all of it is ridiculous.

The travel demands alone on teams and fans for three or four weeks of neutral sites make it implausible. Going neutral site makes seeds meaningless. This is exactly what the apologists want the debate to be about, a non starter of a solution.

The solution, however, is to ignore the bowls.

The next bit in Wetzel's piece addresses higher seeds getting home games, which would be amazing. Of course, I'm picturing a raucous Beaver Stadium in December, the Nittany Lions running onto a snow-covered field, and the fans hurling snowballs at, well, whoever. Throwing snowballs is fun.

And yes, even if I'm still feeling the sting of Penn State's Rose Bowl loss to USC, I think many non-USC fans would like to see them repeat their usual Rose Bowl domination-fests on the road in December, outside the sunny confines of Southern California or the fluorescent confines of a domed stadium.

Hosting games would be a boon to the schools and the campus communities — literally tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.

It would also reward the higher seeds (again placing value on the regular season) by providing the distinct advantage of playing at home. To be a top two seed, and host through the championship game, would be a monster reward.

This would also placate complaints from northern teams that are seemingly always playing bowl games near the campus of their opponent.

We’ve seen, say, USC have its way with Ohio State and Michigan in Pasadena, but what if the Trojans had to travel to Ohio Stadium on a cold and snowy day? Perhaps USC could prove it has grit not just talent. Intra-sectional games have all but died out due to recent scheduling philosophies, but the idea of them returning each December and January, famous jerseys in famous faraway stadiums can warm any fan's heart.

There are yet more excuses, and that's all they are.

Not enough time with classes, etc.? Too many games? Yeah, because in the month between their last game and their bowl those teams aren't practicing and scrimmaging every chance they get. At least they'd be playing for something now. And lose early, you get a nice holiday break with the family.

They'll miss exams, or their exam schedule will be interfered with? Pffft. Please, as if schools give a crap.

The best arguments, though, are the most sensible — you'd have a champion determined on the field, and it would be more fun for everyone involved. Except possibly those bowl organizers (I'm picturing the rich Texan on The Simpsons) who may be out a cash cow. But screw those jerks.


I should note that Wetzel's was the best argument for a playoff I've read or heard since I had to write an argument for my Speech Comm class in college. That class sucked, but I killed it on this assignment.

My roommate Orlando was such a fan (desperate for a topic), he later used my speech (parts or all, I'm not sure, but I suspect all) for his own Speech Comm class at a satellite campus. And if I recall correctly, the A-minuses abounded. A two-fold triumph!

Crack reporting

I don't really have any interest in reading his book — and if I did, it would have to wait until I wade through the piles of unread stuff laying around my apartment — but this is a pretty interesting article on New York Times columnist David Carr.

Carr, a former crack user and lots of other things apparently, wrote an autobiographical drug addict memoir soon to be released. I never heard of or read the guy up to this point (that I can remember), but what I found most interesting about the article was writer Jennifer Senior's descriptions of the man and journalist working today.

In one bit of insight, that doesn't sound like it necessitated a whole lot of insight, Senior describes Carr as having "a crackhead's approach to news," substituting new job-related addictions for old ones.

He’s just had three big stories run in the space of 24 hours, totaling 6,300 words. “There’s something to the theory of mania replacing mania,” he says. And compulsion replacing compulsion, he might have added: When he recently wrote a media column slamming Fox News, he got 450 e-mails, and he answered each and every one. “And why would I do that?” he asks. “There’s a weirdness to it. Like if I don’t, flying monkeys will attack.”

I've seen several drug addict movies and liked many, so if it goes to the big screen I'll probably see it eventually. Reading the book may take one of my more up-to-date reader friends to tell me to read it, though. I'm still working on stuff I got for Christmas, after all.

Oh, enjoy the bonus Woody Harrelson.

You bleww itttt!

Glenn Greenwald in a column at Salon.com raises some interesting points in the wake of Bruce E. Ivins' suicide, reportedly committed after Ivins learned he was about to be charged for the anthrax mailing attacks following 9/11.

Most notable is the fact that:

If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks.

So, an American working with anthrax for the government in a government lab, killed Americans and tried to make it look like Islamic militants did it. Hmm. (But it looks like it might have been worse than that. More further down.)

Of course, even while politicians and pundits (subtly or outwardly) were using the anthrax attacks in their arguments for invading Iraq, the FBI's investigation did center on a guy from the same Maryland lab. It was just the wrong guy. In doing so they also overlooked some pretty strange behavior from Ivins.

This strange behavior, according to Greenwald, included some letters to the editor of his local paper that I'd term as being of the right-wing nutso variety.

I used to get similar letters from one reader at my former job, and while I'm pretty sure he was retired, had I known he created anthrax for the government, transported plutonium for nukes, was developing a weather dominator or some such very dangerous, sensitive job, I'd of been on the phone to the FBI pretty quickly. Though, when you have people like Dubya, Cheney and Rumsfeld with their hands on the chicken switch, it's not hard to believe nutsos with silly, ignorant beliefs can hold down government jobs.

But more on Ivins in a bit, because Greenwald goes into depth about erroneous reports by ABC News at the time about testing on the anthrax used in the attacks. Reports stating government testing of the anthrax used in the attacks showed the presence of bentonite, which might have indicated Iraq's involvement.

ABC News went with these "exclusive" reports despite the fact the White House denied their accuracy. Repeatedly. They eventually reported bentonite wasn't found in tests, but never acknowledged the fact they screwed up the story (I completely agree with Greenwald here).

The fun part is that ABC News credited "well placed" sources close to the testing as feeding them the information, meaning sources (or source - I don't necessarily believe ABC had multiple sources just because they say so) in the Fort Detrick lab where the tests were conducted. And since the story was completely wrong, the sources obviously lied. Sources from the same lab Ivins worked in.

Greenwald is careful to point out Ivins hasn't been charges or convicted of anything yet. And based on their handling of the previous anthrax case, I wouldn't be surprised if he never is. And with his suicide, perhaps we'll never know if he was responsible.

Greenwald stops short of stating what seems a logical implication, assuming Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks, that Ivins was a (or the) source for ABC News on their erroneous stories.

The guy who may have made the anthrax attacks lied to ABC News, leading to stories implicating Iraq in the attacks, helping lead to the ongoing war in Iraq. All just a theory, but if true, what a massive story that would be. A massive story, if true, ABC News is sitting on.

Whether or not Ivins was involved, the identity of the sources of the erroneous ABC News reports would still be a huge story. And that story ABC News is definitely sitting on. A massive, massive story they won't report because it would include the mention of their embarrassing mistake? A mistake they're still not owning up to (see Greenwald's correspondences with the ABC News boss).

Greenwald rightly nails them for this:

ABC News knows who concocted the false bentonite story and who passed it on to them with the specific intent of having them broadcast those false claims to the world, in order to link Saddam to the anthrax attacks and -- as importantly -- to conceal the real culprit(s) (apparently within the U.S. government) who were behind the attacks. And yet, unbelievably, they are keeping the story to themselves, refusing to disclose who did all of this. They're allegedly a news organization, in possession of one of the most significant news stories of the last decade, and they are concealing it from the public, even years later.

They're not protecting "sources." The people who fed them the bentonite story aren't "sources." They're fabricators and liars who purposely used ABC News to disseminate to the American public an extremely consequential and damaging falsehood. But by protecting the wrongdoers, ABC News has made itself complicit in this fraud perpetrated on the public, rather than a news organization uncovering such frauds. That is why this is one of the most extreme journalistic scandals that exists, and it deserves a lot more debate and attention than it has received thus far.

I can understand ABC News not wanting to point out their mistake, but I'd think such a massive story would take precedent. It would be an exclusive, afterall. Considering the competitive nature of the news game, I can't believe the rest of the media (aside from Greenwald) isn't raking them over the coals on this one. I'd think that would be good fun.

Greenwald goes on to question ABC News' citing of sources for another story, further emphasizing how this practice has gone beyond the breaking point, in my opinion. Using unnamed sources is necessary, even quite often, but it gets abused left and right these days.

Go read the whole Greenwald piece, and all his connected posts. Great stuff.

Oh, this post's title comes from De Niro in Cop Land, in case you didn't see it. Story via.

Obullshit

Since right-wing mouthpieces act like there's never been criticism of the president on the scale experienced by G.W. Bush by the mainstream media (read: "liberal media," or not them), conservatives can probably now rest assured the Daily Show will live on should Obama be elected.

Should still be plenty of fodder.

I posted about the FISA bill's troubles before, but now the bill — which would grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies for their help with illegal spying by the government — is back and guess who signed up in support? Obama.

Apparently the Democratic apologists are out in force so as to clear any criticism of the gentleman from Illinois from his path to the White House. Pathetic, but sadly not surprising.

Glenn Greenwald skewers Obama, and his apologists, as well as you can. A couple gems include:

There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism — "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" — and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.

And:

What Barack Obama did here was wrong and destructive. He's supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it. What's more, as a Constitutional Law Professor, he knows full well what a radical perversion of our Constitution this bill is, and yet he's supporting it anyway. Anyone who sugarcoats or justifies that is doing a real disservice to their claimed political values and to the truth.

I can't stomach the thought of McCain winning, and want the Republicans out of office as much as anyone, but not at the expense of being able to criticize McCain's opponent. And especially not if it means giving the next president the same unchecked (begging to be abused) power as Bush.

A bad sign of things to come? Probably. He is a politician, folks. Via.

Wal-Mart whoops

Usually watching or reading the news is a surefire way to piss me off, so it's nice when such an amusing story comes along, especially when a heartless corporate monolith is the butt of the joke.

Seems Wal-Mart hired a guy in 1970 to tape its annual meetings, big sales meetings and other doings. This continued until 2006, when the relationship was terminated. What wasn't terminated was the 15,000 tapes made in the meantime (even though Wal-Mart, good cheapasses that they were, suggested videographer Flagler reuse the tapes to save money).

So now the video company's new owners, having turned down Wal-Mart's $500,000 offer for all the material, are ready to sell to anyone. I don't know if they'll ever make $500,000 off the tapes, but turning down the offer definitely makes for a better story. And as Wal-Mart will likely forever be involved in lawsuits, the tapes could prove most valuable — assuming Wal-Mart's perfunctory legal challenge on the tapes fails.

The tapes surfaced, so to speak, via a lawsuit against Wal-Mart in which a kid was injured by an exploding gas can.

The plaintiff's attorney Diane M. Breneman says that when she first laid eyes on the racks of tapes, "I thought, 'How could anyone in the world allow this to exist?'" The videos, she says, deal with "everything anyone would want on Wal-Mart ... They've got 30 years of people winging it."

Ouch. That's gotta sting.

Here's hoping lawyers, as well as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, put this stuff to good use.

Super for Siegels, not so much DC

A federal judge this week ruled the heirs of Jerry Siegel own part of the copyright to Superman, co-created by Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Now, this case mainly involves the first Superman story in Action Comics #1, which Siegel and Shuster sold to DC (for $130!), and the character points and story elements therein. But how much of what DC did with the character since was based out of that story? It could also only pertain to money being owed the Siegels for product only after 1999, when DC's copyright protection would have terminated. But that's a ton of product and money at stake, and product decisions could conceivably have to be OK'd by the Siegels and Shuster estate holders (after 2013).

Comic book writer Warren Ellis is not one for hyperbole, but called the ruling "fucking immense."

There's been numerous cases of comic book creators, or their heirs, challenging publishers over the rights to characters, especially with the boom of comic book-based films. Although the specific cases differ, and most may not be able to overcome the work-for-hire hurdle as was done in the Siegel case, most of these people were royally screwed. Hopefully this will lead to more getting their due.

It is amazing to think about Superman product possibly having to be run through the Siegel and Shuster estates — not unlike Star Wars comics, games, etc. running through Lucas — and further down the road, the Superman copyright being in the public domain. Assuming copyrights aren't extended by then. It's no accident Mickey Mouse isn't already public domain.

I'm no lawyer, but the detailing of the ruling and possible ramifications make for interesting reading. The article at the top breaks it down in non-legalese. More here, with some interesting comments in the forum. Yet more here.

Note: The image at the top is from All Star Superman #8, which came out Wednesday, the same day the ruling was announced. All Star Supes is written by Grant Morrison. Is this more Morrison magic via comics at work?

And the law won?

Well, not yet it didn't. And even if much of his remaining time in office is spent on vacation, Bush has nine months to figure a way around a House bill disallowing immunity for telecom companies who helped the government spy on Americans. But still, the House made a good call, and it apparently puts Bush in a bit of a quandary:

President Bush has repeatedly claimed that there's an urgent national security need for new spying legislation. But he also says he'll veto any surveillance bill that does not grant retroactive immunity to the companies that turned over phone records and access to internet cable fibers to the government.

Bush argues that the participating companies were patriots, and that they would stop complying with lawful court orders in the future if not freed from the lawsuits accusing them of conducting illegal surveillance for Bush.

But it will likely be politically difficult to veto a bill containing new spying powers Bush himself says are vital to American's security, simply because a couple of deep-pocketed corporations are facing lawsuits for violating federal privacy laws.

So a tough decision. Lucky for Bush he's the decider. Via.

Exiting The Wire

Normally a review of a TV show episode might be fodder for my other blog, but this AV Club review of the final episode of The Wire is a good read, with good insights on the fifth season overall too.

Reviewer Scott Tobias takes issue with aspects of the Scott Templeton story, in which a Baltimore Sun reporter fabricates elements of or whole stories. I'd agree that even the biggest toolbox managers at a paper would not just dismiss Metro editor Gus' claims about the made up information, out of fear of embarrassment if nothing else. Tobias sees the portrayal of the two managers of the paper as the thinly-disguised rage of creator David Simon toward his two former bosses at the Sun. Maybe so.

I'd agree that overall though, the Sun story hit the right notes in terms of the corporate-run office environment — the "more with less" pep talk bullshit, morons making the decisions, good people pushed out or canned. I can't speak as to the focus on awards in big city papers, but it wouldn't surprise me, especially as a vehicle for advancement for the senior editors as well as the people actually doing the stories.

In interviews before the fifth season started I saw Simon and other former journalists attest to the fact fabrication occurred (though maybe more so back in the day), and not just the big cases everyone knows about. I'd think this would be easier to pull off at a big paper like the Sun or the Philadelphia Inquirer, where the subjects may be less willing to call and complain about small fabrications, and the machine may be too big to keep track of. Small fabrications would obviously be a lot harder to catch, and thus more realistic than in this season, but the story was consistent with other stories in The Wire in that respect. It might have been overblown for effect, and for the sake of plot, but Hamsterdam, Omar and several other elements of the show could be viewed similarly.

That the Sun storyline caught as much flack as it did in the media, to me, was just because reviewers worked in newspaper and magazine offices. They didn't know shit about street drug dealings or the inner workings of a big city port, so overblown plot elements in those settings got off easier.

McNulty fabricating the homeless killings, at first, actually bothered me a lot more until put in the context of some of the other over-the-top elements in the show. I was flinching along with Bunk when he starts manipulating the body of his first phony victim. Also, I still don't completely buy Freeman being OK to make busts on completely false paperwork. Interesting that as smart as Freeman was set up in the show, Levy (with a little help from Herc, who turns out to maybe be the biggest influence on the season's events while getting very little screen time) quickly figures out the cops' ploy, and would have made all that police work for naught if his own dirt wasn't in play.

Anyway, check the last episode review. I haven't been to the AV Club in a while, but will have to check it more often. Good stuff.

Oh, if wondering about the significance of the last episode's "-30-" title, someone in the comments on the article points out that's what reporters, I assume at the Sun, would stick at the end of their stories when filing them.

Chris Ware posts up

As soon as I saw this cool poster for The Savages I recognized the work of writer/artist Chris Ware who, based on his work and the from what I know of the film, seems a good fit. He talks about it briefly here.

Raaaasl, daaaasl!

Jeff Smith's new project, the self-published RASL, looks like it will be interesting.

The first issue introduces RASL, an art thief using a dimensional-hopping suit to aid him in his heists. The jumps take a toll, however. Not good when RASL discovers he's jumped to the wrong dimension where a gun-toting alien-looking guy's on his trail.

I never read Bone or Smith's Shazam mini from DC, but RASL definitely has a cool sci-fi vibe to it along with some sweet and simple black and white interior art. Promising stuff.

UPDATE: Interview and preview pages here. Also, how many comics about art thieves are out there? Give it a look.

Red light, green light

In his Lying in the Gutters column this week, Rich Johnston includes a Swipe File featuring art from a Spanish graphic novel and the poster for Vantage Point.

The Swipe Files can veer between literal and tongue-in-cheek, and I'd consider this one speculative. The images are very similar, but when I first saw the Vantage Point design (which I like) I felt like I might have seen a similar design before, and it definitely wasn't the graphic novel in question.

It's not so much there is an image within the cutout of a body, but that there's several hard panels within the body, themselves cut off by the outline.

Even if this item remains unresolved, there's always lots of other good rumors, reporting and comics industry shenanigans every week in Lying in the Gutters. Check it out.

UPDATE: Rich conveniently explains the origins and function of the Swipe File in his March 3 LITG.

McCain's pain

The "straight talker" didn't too much like this New York Times article about him, which offers some good reporting on John McCain and his (un)ethical history.

The second graph — the one McCain's people are having a conniption over, despite some serious business in the rest of the article — basically says people in McCain's camp thought he was having an affair during his 2000 run for president. It doesn't say he was, likely because the Times couldn't prove it. But it feels like they were being told by these anonymous McCain camp people that he was having an affair. But the Times couldn't go with that, so we get what was printed.

The gist of the rest of the article is that McCain continually seems to court ethical improprieties while maintaining a stance against the influence of lobbyists and corporate interests, though that stance seems not to be a priority in this campaign.

Hey, it's easier to just say you're a "straight shooter" than come up with an actual issue, especially when you can be called on your shit on the issues.

But anyway, why has he courted ethical problems the way he has? He's a dumbass? Probably has a lot to do with it. He'd still rather get things done in Washington instead of being a man alone, fighting the system? Maybe. He just like helping lobbyist buddies too much to really walk the reform walk? Looks like it.

He may be all about governmental reform now that the Republican bid is pretty much assured, and to take some of the sting out of Obama's campaign, but he wasn't making a righteous, indignant spectacle out of himself concerning the Bush administration/Congress in recent years when he could have, when it would have meant something beyond campaign pap.

Back to the article, near the end the Times circles back to this possible affair, and drip the hammer a little harder, writing:

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

Yeah, great, but the Times didn't have it. The implication’s clear as to how McCain behaved "inappropriately" with this one lobbyist. They attempt to cover themselves by never coming out and saying it, but this feels like an all or nothing situation. You either have it and report it, or you don't, and don't.

The McCain campaign's response to the Times is worthless as expected, especially as it counters facts in the story disputed by no one, which leads to my reaction on the story.

There's plenty of good reporting in there, and they actually could have hit McCain harder I think. How many times did he request the FCC or other bureaucrats to expedite proposals not submitted by his lobbyist buddies? They say reform hasn't been a big deal in his current campaign — point out how (and thus, how hokey and meaningless his campaign has been).

But the inclusion of the "implication" will end up detracting from the rest of the piece. Speculation suggests the Times rushed it to print so they weren't scooped by a The New Republic story on the Times' handling of the investigation, and it feels like that may be the case.

UPDATE: Though the Times denied it, the McCain camp alleged the story came out as is because The New Republic was working on a story on the Times' reporting (delaying?) the McCain story. This was discussed on Charlie Rose Thursday night, with someone from the TNR saying he took the Times' at their word in that the TNR didn't affect their decision on the story. So now I have to go read this TNR piece.

TNR's Noam Scheiber also offered that "The story reads to me like it had originally been much more ambitious, but had its guts ripped out somewhere along the way," to which I'd agree.

UPDATE 2: Go read the TNR piece, it's great stuff. I wonder what it would have looked like before the Times went ahead and ran the McCain story.

Freakin' A

Warren Ellis and artist Paul Duffield launched a free, weekly web comic today called FreakAngels, which looks to be a post-apocalyptic, steampunky tale set in a flooded future London. More info here.

First six-page installment looks pretty good.

Catman, shhhhhhh, secrets

Secret Six was a pretty decent miniseries follow-up to Villains United, the best of the Countdown to Infinite Crisis minis, and the Infinite Crisis one-shot from a few years back.

I'm not really up on all the DC universe history — including most of the the characters' backgrounds, their House of Secrets headquarters, etc. — it's just kind of cool to have a book featuring a team of villains. As their main adversary is the Society which, founded by Lex Luthor, includes much badder guys, the Six come off more like good guys who don't mind robbing banks. Or killing people in their way.

Lineup-wise we still have Catman (not this guy, though he looked like this in Green Arrow during Kevin Smith's run), Deadshot who I liked since the post-No Man's Land Batman stuff, Ragdoll, Scandal, Knockout and the Mad Hatter, replacing the dead Parademon. They're facing a bunch of people, but mainly Society holdover Dr. Psycho and Vandal Savage, one of the best comics villains ever.

There's some interesting bits here. I like Deadshot calling to tell his wife she and his kids won't see him again as baddies tracked him through his family — click. Ragdoll keeps the deceased and stuffed Parademon in his room. And instead of just making hats to control others, the Mad Hatter made himself hats programmed to create bliss, and has become a hat addict.

Dale Eaglesham's not back as interior artist, replaced by Brad Walker who's solid if not spectacular. It's keeping with the general look of the previous series, though. Villains United one-shot cover artist Karl Kershl returns.

It's a year after publication, but as requested I'm letting DC know I want more Secret Six, if for no more reason than to see Catman track down the pilot in the first issue who makes them jump from the plane early.

Get Into it

Employing a thorough, journalistic style, author Jon Krakauer does a great job chronicling the road odyssey and last days of Chris McCandless in Into the Wild.

The synopsis for this true story hooks you — "In April 1992 a young man from a well-to-do family hitchhiked to Alaska and walked alone into the wilderness north of Mt. McKinley. He had given $25,000 in savings to charity, abandoned his car and most of his possessions, burned all the cash in his wallet, and invented a new life for himself. Four months later, his decomposed body was found by a moose hunter."

Krakauer admits to an obsession over McCandless' story, but succeeds in offering as much insight as seemingly possible into why this happened. Some of the best bits don't even involve McCandless, including Krakauer's detailing of his own near-fatal Alaskan adventure and the story of Everett Reuss, who disappeared in Utah in the 1930s.

Great book, and another movie I want to see. I'm guessing you can see the movie first and still get a lot more out of the book too. You may also want to check out the episode of Iconoclasts on Sundance Channel featuring Krakauer and Sean Penn, director of the film version.

No County no joke

You could see how someone would read this and want to make a movie right away. Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men hurtles along at a breakneck — or rather, a compressed air-powered stun gun pace, with only the reflective ruminations of Sheriff Bell offering a breather.

The setup: In early 1980s Texas near the Mexico border, Vietnam vet Llewellyn Moss comes across a drug deal gone bad, and helps himself to a suitcase full of money.

McCarthy doesn't present the internal thought process of the characters, aside from the Bell bits at the beginning of chapters, which come into tighter focus as the book progresses. So while we know why he takes the money (it's a lot of free money), we don't know what makes him return to the scene of the drug deal. He's not stupid, but this was a stupid decision, and the shit hits the fan.

Some weird things: The sheriff's name is Ed Tom Bell, and people actually call him Ed Tom. I guess the two-name name (Joe Don Baker) has gone the way of the bubblegum disciplinary issues in America's schools, as Bell might say. Also, the intentional run-on sentences, and the contractions without apostrophes. OK.

This was supposed to be McCarthy's most accessible work, and I want to check out Blood Meridian which was recommended to me by Tim Jim McGlynn (hey, there's a two-name name), which he said was stranger but better.

Having seen the movie's trailer, I thought the bad guy might be too cartoony, but I didn't think so reading the book. I have a feeling the end of the film won't be as much of an issue if you read the book first, though it definitely slows bigtime. But the last bit of Bell's police work continues to offer insight into some of the overall themes — drug buyers are as much of the problem as dealers (whether we're talking about drugs or not), and stakes keep getting higher.

Awesome crime fiction. You really don't want to put it down, and I knocked it out in two days. Bring on the movie.

Ultimates 3, still ultimate?

Not so much, no. Not really feeling The Ultimates 3, the third series featuring the Ultimate version of the Avengers.

I was pretty pumped when I heard Joe Madureira would be penciling Ultimates 3, even if his art style was a large departure from that of Bryan Hitch. Marvel needed big guns on this book, and going in a totally different direction seemed OK to me. Ironically, it was during Joe Mad's run on Uncanny X-Men (back when I was buying one book a month — ha!) that I first saw Hitch's art in a fill-in issue, and really disliked it. I came to appreciate it during his runs on Stormwatch and The Authority, and definitely on The Ultimates. But with Joe Mad out of the game for years, I was down to see him in action again.

And for the most part the art is pretty sweet, aside from two issues. The digital painting over the pencils (I'm assuming that's how they did it) give the art an unfinished feel at times. More importantly, however, the flat, washed out colors don't complement Joe Mad's art at all. I want to see vibrant, full-on cartoony goodness popping off the page. I feel like they dulled down the colors in an attempt to keep things gritty and realistic. But if you're gonna sub in Joe Mad for Hitch, go all the way.

But the art's hardly the problem through issues 1 and 2 of Ultimates 3, it's the story from Jeph Loeb.

I mostly agree with Blair Butler's points on the first issue. In issue 2 we have some interesting things, Magneto and The Brotherhood on the scene (cool), Cap vs. Sabretooth (hell yeah). But the issue starts with an annoying, comic book cliche battle between Hawkeye and Spider-Man. And before that Spidey, swinging through the Manhattan night, enters the fray when he hears of a shooting over the police radio, which must have been pretty loud as it's clearly snowing, so the police car's windows are up, but Spidey hears the call while swinging through the air. He doesn't have super hearing, does he? Yeah, it's a comic book, but previous Ultimates series stood out for their realistic vibe. This silly stuff wouldn't fly previously. And where the hell's Black Panther? We're told he's on the team in issue 1, but he gets thrown into a park and we don't even see him in issue 2.

Ultimates 3 has generally been getting panned, and while I'm not loving it to date I can hang in for three more issues of the five-part series to see how it develops.