The Best of Intentions

When I started this blog, I really intended to be more regular in posting. What, after all, is the point to blogging if one does not blog?

And then, of course, life got in the way.

After spending several weeks writing catalog copy for Heritage, I found out that a book proposal I had submitted to MacFarland had been accepted. That's great news, and something I'm very excited about, but that means that most of my writing time is going to be taken up with the book (it's about monster movies, by the way). Blogging likely to be infrequent from here on in.

That being said, there are some things I'd like to get off my chest:

This stimulus bill just doesn't work for me, in spite of all the grandiose speeches and promises that are being made. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not some bitter Republican with an axe to grind, still grumbling that "my guy" didn't get elected. I support Barack Obama. I supported him in the elections, I voted for him, and I think that we, as a nation, made the right choice in putting him in office.

But I think he's succumbing to business as usual with this stimulus package of nearly $1 trillion.

He promised us a new way of approaching problems, a new paradigm for addressing the catastrophe that has engulfed our nation. And yet, when all is said and done, this so-called stimulus package is no different than virtually any other government spending bill. This bill needed to address the immediate crises that face our nation, like unemployment, rising healthcare costs, and an increasing rate of home foreclosures. And it needed to do it now.

Unfortunately, our lawmakers, led by our new President, opted to fund projects that, if they address these issues at all, will do so down the road (18-24 months, according to many analysts). That's fine if you're a Congressman, whose healthcare - along with a generous salary - are provided to you by the American people, but what if you're one of the more than 3.5 million unemployed who can't afford your mortgage payments or your diabetes medicine? You don't have 18-24 months to wait, you need something to happen now. And the number of people in situations like this is growing every day.

To be fair, many of the projects earmarked in the stimulus bill are worthwhile, and should be pursued. They include:

*$350 million for research into using renewable energy to power weapons systems and military bases;

*400 million to help state and local governments purchase efficient alternative fuel vehicles to reduce fuel costs and carbon emissions;

*$500 million for energy efficient manufacturing demonstration projects;

*$6 billion for broadband and wireless service in underserved areas;

*$462 million to enable CDC to complete its Buildings and Facilities Master Plan, as well as renovations and construction needs of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health;

*$50 million for monument and memorial repairs at Veteran's cemeteries;

*$400 million, including $200 million to address the deterioration of the National Mall, such as repair of the Jefferson Memorial's collapsing Tidal Basin walls; $150 million to address the repair backlog at the Smithsonian; and $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.

And that's just a small sample. Now, like I said, there's no doubt that these are all worthy projects, and in a time of strong economy and employment, I would cheer the funding of each and every one of these. But is this really where we want to be putting our money in a time of National Crisis? Imagine your house is on fire; is your first priority trimming the hedges? Of course not.

Last night, during President Obama's speech, he talked about giving more money to the banks so that they could make more credit available to people to buy houses or cars, or support small businesses. It's a laudable idea, but several months ago we gave an enormous amount of money to America's banks for exactly the same purpose, to absolutely no effect. The result was a bunch of banks hoarding our money, not giving it out in loans as was intended. Why would anyone think this handout will be used any differently?

Even worse, we're hearing just now about Northern Trust bank, the recipient of $1.6 billion of our money, throwing a massive golf tournament and party, complete with entertainment by Sheryl Crow and Earth, Wind, and Fire, expensive hotel rooms for employees and guests, Tiffany gift bags, fine dining, and more, all to the tune of millions of dollars. When pressed, a spokesman for the bank replied that the money used was the bank's money, not the bail-out funds (how does one distinguish between the two?), and said that Northern Trust was a "healthy" bank that didn't really want the government's money, but accepted it as it "agreed to the government's goal of gaining the participation of all major banks in the United States." The translation: we'll take your money and do what we damn well please with it. Merry Christmas to us. Making matters worse is the fact that Northern Trust isn't the first, nor is it likely to be the last, bank to spend our money in such a questionable way.

Knowing that, why does anyone think it's a good idea to give the banks more money? Haven't they proven that they can't be trusted to spend or invest that money wisely? Aren't these the very practices that got us into this mess in the first place? I'm not necessarily advocating the nationalization of banks, but someone has to step in and do something here. Throwing more money at them and hoping that, somehow, these greedy, arrogant bastards have grown a conscience - or at least a sense of fiscal responsibility overnight - seems incredibly short-sighted.

But this is the way government works. It's a big boy's club in which the wealthy and powerful belly up to the trough and are rewarded for being wealthy and powerful. It's Voodoo Economics, and the disastrous continuation of Ronald Reagan's "trickle down" theory. If the last several decades have proven nothing else, they've proven that money doesn't "trickle down." Give money to the people at the top, as Reagan did and as Obama is doing now, and they keep it. It's simple human greed. If you want to infuse money into the economy, you have to put money into the hands of the people, as money flows up. When they have it and times are good, people spend. And that money inevitably makes it's way up the chain, benefitting everybody on its way by. Giving money to banks and corporations and government agencies is just business as usual, a plan that is doomed to failure from the start.

I still think that, if Obama really wants to change things in a powerful and immediate way, he should take that stimulus money and put it directly in the hands of the American people. How about this: Every taxpayer who filed a 2007 return showing less than $250,000 in income gets a check for $200,000. It's simple, it's direct, and it would have an immediate effect on the economy. People could pay off their homes, but new cars, buy health insurance coverage, or whatever. They could blow it all at Wal-Mart or at Choctaw, for all I care. The point is, that money would flow back into the economy, strengthening businesses and creating jobs. 

Of course, the government has tried this before, but on a much smaller scale. Let's face it, $300 isn't a significant amount to most people. That's like throwing a homeless guy a quarter and expecting him to turn his life around on that amount.

Obviously, the money exists for a plan like this if we're spending close to a billion on things like refurbishing tombstones, but it's not the way government does business. Never has, never will. The government is invested in making the American people believe that it, and it alone, can save them. Rather than putting the tools for success in the hands of actual working Americans, government has traditionally taken a controlling role. That's business as usual, and it shows no signs of changing in this new administration.

I understand that Obama is new to the office, and many will cry, "You have to give him time." That's all well and good in good times, but these are not good times, and Obama knew that when he took office. Thanks to the previous administration, there is no time. America, and many of her people, are on a collision course with ruin and disaster. Something must be done now, without all the political posturing and deal-making that has been a hallmark of our government for far too long. Rather than playing partisan politics, as far too many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been guilty of for far too long, this is a time for bold, decisive action. Rather than catering to special interests and lobbyists, which this stimulus bill obviously does, it's time to consider the welfare of the American people. Rather than feeling secure in the salaries and benefits provided to them by the taxpayers, it's time our lawmakers felt a sense of urgency about this crisis, and moved to act as if it were their homes and their families in jeopardy. Nothing else is acceptable.

I had high hopes that night that Obama was elected. I really believed that a sea change in the way our government functioned was imminent. Now I'm not so sure.

Puppy Mills are Evil

For the last several days, we've been baby sitting two dogs for my sister-in-law's family while they're off at Disney World. Now, Judy and I have always had dogs. We're no strangers to the requirements of our canine friends. We're also big advocates of rescue dogs, and we've always gotten our animals from rescue organizations, the pound, etc. In our view, it's just the responsible thing to do, and we've gotten some great dogs that way.

One of the dogs we're watching is Sparky, a one-year-old Australian Shepherd that was purchased at a pet store, and originated in a puppy mill. Sparky's a sweet dog, but, because of the way he came into the world, he has issues.

If you're not familiar with the concept of puppy mills, these are large-scale dog-breeding facilities that produce puppies as quickly as possible and sell them to pet stores, creating a number of problems for the dogs and their owners.

Before going any farther, I think it's important to differentiate between puppy mills and legitimate breeders. Puppy mills are a high volume business that treat dogs as commodities, with no care for the animal's welfare whatsoever. Legitimate breeders, more often than not, specialize in a specific breed of dog, and are concerned with producing good, healthy dogs for responsible owners. While I personally think that there are more than enough good dogs out there, in pounds and shelters and foster homes, to satisfy every potential dog owner, I can't really fault the legitimate breeders. At least they're concerned with the health and well-being of the dogs they produce.

Not so the puppy mills. Imagine an area crammed with cages, each one holding more dogs than it comfortably should. Imagine that the cages are filthy and not well maintained. Imagine that the dogs aren't given enough food or water, aren't exercised, aren't provided with proper veterinary care, and aren't given any love or attention. Now imagine that when the puppies are born, they're left with their mothers for only a very short period of time - a healthy dog stays with his mother for at least eight to ten weeks  - and is then ripped away so that the mother an go into heat again as soon as possible, to be transported and sold, if they're "lucky" enough to survive. Often, these dogs are sold as purebreds, although the lax and indiscriminate breeding practices at puppy mills makes it almost impossible to guarantee this. If you don't see the above as cruel and horrendous, imagine what the reaction would be if people were routinely treated like this. In fact, substitute people for puppies in the description above, and it's tragically parallel to the way that Africans were brought to this country at the height of the slave trade. Ripped away from their families with no regard for their happiness, stored in filthy, overcrowded conditions with minimal food and water and no medical care, and then sold to people who saw them only as property. Dogs are thinking, feeling creatures. If we wouldn't treat people that way, why should we subject dogs to that kind of treatment?

The result of these mass breeding practices is, sadly, dogs that are doomed to a life that is difficult, at best. Right out of the box, they start with two strikes against them. Because they were torn away from their mother's side at such an early age, these dogs tend to be badly socialized with both other animals and humans. We see it clearly in Sparky. He's a sweet dog, but incredibly fearful of strangers and more than a little neurotic. He's also been very hard to train, and, at a year old, still isn't housebroken. He's failed puppy training classes several times, often on the basis of poor socialization skills. These aren't traits that typically endear a dog to a new family, making the poor animal's life even harder. Additionally, dogs from puppy mills tend to be more prone to health issues later in life. It's a bad situation all around, and one that should not be tolerated. Like I said, Sparky's a great dog, but he's obviously badly damaged.

In these so-called "enlightened" days of sensitivity and compassion, we like to think of ourselves as socially aware and, especially in America, champions of justice for all mankind. We invaded Iraq ostensibly to liberate the Iraqi people and give them a better life full of hope, prosperity and freedom. We went into Vietnam for many of the same reasons (at least that's what we were told. Whether that's truly the case or not is entirely another discussion). But we turn a bind eye to the suffering of innocent animals. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those PETA whackos who want to call fish "sea kittens" so that no one will eat them, or who believe in a totally vegan lifestyle. I believe in the food chain and am happy to participate in it. But there's no excuse for wanton cruelty for no other reason than blind profit. The practice of puppy mills is reprehensible, and should be stopped. Period.

 

There are plenty of places to go for more information about what goes on at puppy mills, and how to stop this cruel, inhuman and barbaric practice. Two good places to start are the Humane Society and the ASPCA. But if you really want to help change things, and eliminate this hateful, obscene practice, start by talking to people about puppy mills, urging them to boycott pet stores, and begging them not to buy puppies over the Internet. I encourage people to have dogs; they're wonderful friends and wonderful companions, and make a great addition to the family. If you're interested in a specific breed, try the rescue organizations. A Google search using the breed term and the word "rescue" should give you plenty of options. Or go to the local dog shelter or pound. There are a lot of great dogs there that really need a good home. These difficult economic times have seen a marked increase in the number of abandoned and released dogs, as people are forced to move from houses into apartments that don't allow pets.

Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

Random Thoughts

Here are a couple of topics that have caught my attention lately. Feel free to discuss:

1. Fanboy Panties in  Bunch Over The Dark Knight

Okay, so the Academy Award Nominations are out, and the only major nod given to The Dark Knight is a sympathy nomination for the now-dead Heath Ledger. Fanboys across the world had themselves convinced that this was their year, when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would finally recognize one of "their" movies as the Greatest Cinematic Experience of All Time.

Didn't happen.

Frankly, I'm pleased that the movie got passed over, as I'm one of the few people on the planet that thought it was only an okay film. I can see why all the little fanboys wet themselves over this: it's dark, it's gritty, and it's incredibly nihilistic, just what the little comic zombies seem to go for these days.Unfortunately, it's also unpleasant, too long, and badly filmed.

First of all, let's talk about Heath Ledger's performance. I make no bones about the fact that I've never been a Heath Ledger fan. I thought A Knight's Tale was god-awful, The Brothers Grimm was even worse, and The Order was a steaming pile. In my not-so-humble opinion, had Ledger not died just before the opening of The Dark Knight, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. He was, at best, a B actor who someone made it into a couple of A movies.

Ledger's Joker was a one-note character, who simply moved the plot along by destroying things. He had no motivation, no reason, and no goal in mind; he just was. Proponents of the film hail his characterization as "a force of nature," or "an anarchist spreading chaos through fear." 

Whatever.

The fact is, the cinematic world is filled with "forces of nature" like this. Just look at Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, Leatherface, the Aliens, Godzilla, etc., etc. These are all characters that kill for the sake of killing. They are plot devices that serve to provide something for the hero to contend against. As cool as they are, they are not three-dimensional, well-rounded characters. Ledger's Joker was over-the-top all the time. There was no shading to his character, and nothing that required any kind of acting skill. It was a competent performance, but nothing more. Ledger's performance didn't leave us with anything to think about or ponder, outside of, "Gee, I wonder of you really could kill a guy with a pencil like that?" 

I've heard the movie called "revolutionary," "groundbreaking," and "important," but I don't see how any of these adjectives fit. Birth of a Nation was groundbreaking, in that it helped establish a new cinematic language that had never been seen before. It was revolutionary in that it demonstrated that movie-going audiences would embrace a feature-length film (most pictures before Birth were one- or two-reelers). Terminator 2 was groundbreaking in that it introduced a level of CGI that had never before been seen in the movies. The Dark Knight was none of these. It was unrelentingly brutal and mean-spirited (as well as being confusing and meandering), but it certainly wasn't revolutionary, groundbreaking, or important. Only obsessed fanboys with no sense of cinematic history could believe that.

The Academy's charter in awarding the Oscars is to "reward the previous year's greatest cinema achievements as determined by some of the world's most accomplished motion picture artists and professionals." It is not simply a popularity contest. Box office success, or failure, should not influence the voting of the Academy's members one way or the other. 

So does the Academy always get it "right?" Of course not. But simply screaming that The Dark Knight should receive Best Picture, Director, Actor, etc. nods merely because it was a box office hit is ludicrous. Box office has nothing to do with the quality or achievement of a movie, as we all know. I really wish the legion of fanboys who are so up in arms about this "slight" could just relax and revel in the fact that so many comic book movies are being made today. Iron Man was great (far better than The Dark Knight in telling a compelling story with believable characters), The Hulk was a definite improvement over the Ang Lee version, and we have Watchmen to look forward to in a few months. Let's face it folks: we won. The geeks have inherited the Earth, and we should be celebrating that fact, rather than bemoaning the fact that TDK hasn't been canonized as the Most Transcendental and Uplifting Film in the History of Mankind.

I don't really want to go into a long discussion/critique of the film's weaknesses, but looked at critically, there are quite a few, from bad acting to sloppy storytelling to bad cinematography to a seriously excessive running time. Was it a good summer action film? Apparently so. Was it Oscar worthy? I say no.

2. Teaching Creationism in Public Schools

Apparently, the religious right is at it again, rallying in Austin to demand that Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") be taught in public school science classes right alongside evolution.

What a load of crap.

Why are we still having this discussion? You'd think that we were living in Salem, Massachusetts during the time of the witch trials. We're talking about science classes here, classes with a mandate to teach science. Not mythology. Are conservative Christians so weak in their beliefs that they can't abide any opposing argument be heard? 

And why, when they talk about providing a "fair and balanced" approach to generative issues, are they only concerned with teaching the Christian doctrine of creation? Would they agree that a fair and balanced approach would also necessitate teaching the Muslim creation myth, or the creation stories of the various Native American tribes, or the creation myths of other, even more obscure and uncommon cultures? Of course not. This is nothing more than a totally transparent attempt to shove their particular religious beliefs down the throat of a public that doesn't necessarily want anything to do with them.

The issue here is that Creationism (or Intelligent Design, if you prefer) isn't science. There's absolutely no physical or objective proof that some outside intelligence created the world and everything in it. It doesn't stand up to scientific rigor in any way, shape, or form. It's faith, pure and simple. Yes, I know it's in the Bible, but that's no more proof of the existence of God than Action Comics is proof of the existence of Superman.

The proponents of Creationism are insisting that "the strengths and weaknesses" of evolution be taught in the classroom, yet they've never identified any of these so-called weaknesses. It's a weak position, and one that really shouldn't be argued anymore in this day and age of increasing scientific understanding. Do we really want to close our children's minds before they've even had a chance to be opened. 

That, simply, is why it should not be taught in science classes. Evolution is a scientific principle that we see in both large and small ways. Large, in that we can study the fossilized bones of extinct creatures and examine the way they developed over time. The development of the modern horse, descended from Eohippus, is a great example of this. Small, in that we can see cross-bred plants produce entirely new organisms and we can see the results of directed breeding in dogs throughout the years. Evolution is a fact, not a theory, and just because we don't have all the answers yet regarding the origins of life does not diminish the fact that evolution, the survival of the fittest, is the way things are.

But I understand that some people don't agree with the above, and they have a right to educate their children in the ways of their faith. That doesn't mean their specific belief structure has to be validated by the State Education Department. Thomas Jefferson advocated the separation of church and state for a very good reason. 

Here's a thought: if you're a Christian, and you want you child to learn about Creationism from the point of view of your faith, send them to Sunday school. That's an appropriate venue in which to teach them all about your beliefs. By learning about evolution in school and Creationism in church, your kid will be well-prepared to make an informed, intelligent decision as to what they personally believe when he or she grow up.

But that's not what these people want, obviously.

3. A Modest Proposal for Economic Recovery

Like many people, the current economic crisis is very much on my mind. I read about businesses receiving billions of dollars in Federal bailout money, but I have yet to see any positive results of all this governmental largesse. A large part of the reason for this is that the money was handed out under a corrupt administration with no strings attached. Why was the Federal government so hesitant to treat the banks in the same way that the banks have always treated their borrowers? It makes no sense to me. Now, of course, the auto industry has its hand out, and I hear that the retail industry is going begging to Washington to shore them up after a disastrous holiday season. When does it ever end?

Frankly, I think the wrong people are getting the cash.

Personally, I have no interest in bailing out a bunch of banking or auto execs, who knew exactly what they were doing when they put in place corporate practices that got them into this mess. The banks held a carrot in front of the noses of the poor and lower middle class, encouraging them to take out mortgages they could never afford, under terms that only benefitted the lenders. Did they really think that someone making $50,000 a year could really afford the mortgage on a $500,000 house? And yet they pushed those mortgages out there anyway, with balloon payments that looked good for the first year or so, but quickly became a monster, threatening to devour everything in sight. And these same banks that are now asking to be kept afloat on a raft of taxpayer money made a fortune sending out pre-approved credit cards, looking to hook the public into easy money with exorbitantly high interest rates, knowing that the vast majority of people would get themselves into trouble. But did the banks care? Not as long as they were making money.

And what about the auto execs, who insisted on making large, gas-guzzling, high maintenance vehicles, even during a time when consumers were telling them they wanted smaller, more fuel-efficient, better built cars. Hummers? Are you kidding me? The fact that auto sales for Ford, GM, and Chrylser are in the toilet should come as no surprise to anyone, least of all these corporate big shots who knew exactly what they were doing when they kept on rolling out Ford F-150s that got 12 miles to the gallon. And now they want us, you and me, to bail them out and ensure that their bloated corporate salaries and benefits packages stay intact. The writing was on the wall years ago, and they chose to ignore it. Now they want us to take the fall for their bad decisions.

I think we need to cut these guys loose. They've proven that they can't run a business, and the days of what amount to Federal grants to the exceptionally wealthy should be over. Here's what I propose instead:

Instead of giving the money to the guys at the top, give it to the guys at the bottom. Roosevelt's WPA programs in the 1930s are a good model, but we have to reinvent them. During the Depression, America's economy was largely built on labor and manufacturing. Therefore, when FDR instituted a policy of public works, which included building new roads and structures, it was perfectly suited to a time in which a large percentage of the workforce were laborers. 

Today, however, we are an information-based economy, and with that realization comes the need to find a way to employ people who are not laborers in the traditional sense. Computer programmers, for example, aren't going to be your best road workers. WPA-like projects to improve our infrastructure should definitely continue, but they can't be our only solution.

There is a way to create jobs and put people to work in a variety of areas, however. I'd propose that the Federal Government make available non-taxable grants to anyone on, or eligible for, unemployment who can outline a plan to use the money constructively. For example, say you're unemployed and you want to go back to schoool or write a book or make a movie or start a business or whatever. When your plan is accepted, the government would, in effect, fund you for one year. At the end of that year, you would have to show some sort of measurable result (i.e.: a B average if you were in school, a completed manuscript and evidence of submission to publishers, an established business, etc.) or be required to pay the money back. This way, it would be clear that the government was not funding you to sit on your ass for twelve months, but would be actively looking for results, much like an employer would. If you could show substantial progress, you would be eligible to apply for an additional year of grant money.

Freed from the necessity of finding a full-time - or worse yet, part-time -  job, these people would be able to better themselves and make a contribution to the life of society at large. They would also be able to spend money, putting it back into the economy and fostering growth. They would be able to work with their strengths, which should be the goal of any public employment program.

To properly implement this new program, it would be necessary to establish offices in all major cities, staffed with enough people - experienced in various disciplines - to process and turn over applications quickly. This would create a large number of Federal jobs in addition to all the people that would be helped by the grants. Jut by taking the amount of money spent on the ridiculous bailout package, we'd be able to help almost 1 million people with a plan like this, not counting those that would be put to work administering the plan.

We've seen that money flows in just one direction: up. Reagan's voodoo economics program - the "trickle-down" theory - was an utter and abject failure. when you give money to the people at the top of the pyramid, they keep it for themselves. Very little of it "trickles down" to the people it was intended to benefit.

When you give money to the people at the bottom of the pyramid, however, they spent it - on things like rent, food, cars, entertainment, etc. - and circulate it throughout the economy, benefiting people at all levels of society. This seems like a simple concept, yet few of those in charge seem to have a firm grasp of real-world economics, preferring to look down from the mountaintop rather than up from the valley.

So really, it comes down to this: who do you want to help - a relatively few wealthy individuals at the top of the food chain, or vast numbers of real, everyday people struggling to do their best and make a living in this fragile economy?

I know which group I choose.

A New Day...

Well, we have a new President. Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office this morning, and you could practically hear America breathing a collective sigh of relief. It's truly a watershed moment in American history.

I'm glad Obama won the election. I voted for him and supported his candidacy, and I truly believe the right man got the job. He brings a spirit of optimism to the country that we haven't seen since the days of John F. Kennedy. I know that I should be over the moon after this morning, dancing naked in the streets and jumping over bonfires. And yet...

President Obama has made a few troubling decisions in recent days. I realize he's just taken office, but he's certainly been in the spotlight since November 4, and some of the positions he's taken already are enough to make me go, "Hmmmm."

First is his decision to have evangelical pastor Rick Warren deliver the inaugural invocation. Warren was an outspoken supporter of California's Proposition 8 - a bill designed to deny simple human rights to gays and lesbians - one of the most heinous pieces of hate legislation ever put on a ballot. Legislating bigotry and opression like this is akin to putting a bill on the ballot that would reintroduce slavery. It's wrong, it never should have happened, and it needs to be reversed. Now. By giving an admitted bigot and hatemonger like Warren such a national forum, Obama gives tacit approval to his beliefs. Barack ran on a platform of inclusion and change; why embrace the ways of the past in such a straightforward and offensive way? It's not like there's a shortage of pastors, ministers, or preachers in this country. As Obama should know better than any President to come before him, civil rights is an important issue, but civil rights have to apply to everyone, not just a particular minority group. I'm all for someone being strong in their faith, but not at the expense of someone else's rights.

Even more disturbing is the report from CNN that Obama has stated that he has no intention of eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (one of his widely-quoted campaign promises), and that he has no interest in pursuing investigations into illegal activities by Bush staffers and administration, specifically regarding their actions concerning the Department of Justice. If these people, or anyone in the Bush administration, broke the law and betrayed the public trust, they should be held accountable, just as any public citizen would be. That is, ideally, how our system of government works, that no one is above the law. To ignore their crimes for the sake of political expediency is reprehensible. There are many people who would like to see former Vice-President Dick Cheney held responsible for authorizing torture at Guantanamo Bay, for example. The chances of that actually happening seem slimmer and slimmer.

Of course, Obama has just been sworn in, and anything can still happen. I voted for him and I intend to support him. But that doesn't mean that I won't be the first to cry "Foul!" or criticize the man when he loses sight of the reason he was elected. We put him in office not because he was young, and not because he was black, and not because he was polished. We put him in the office because we truly felt that he was the best possible person to lead us out of the dark pit of despair in which we've found ourselves, back into the bright light of hope. He has a House and a Senate that are solidly behind him. Now, after today's festivities are over, Barack Obama needs to hit the ground running and begin the process of healing, rebuilding, and inspiring this much-maligned nation. He needs to do this not for the black community, not for the evangelicals, not for the wealthy and powerful. He needs to do it for everyone, and he needs to do it fast.

Let's hope he's up to the task he's undertaken.

Commentary Track

I've been told by at least one person that posting comments to this blog has been problematic. Hopefully, after tweaking some of the default settings on Blogspot, that problem has been addressed. 

So go ahead and comment away. Both of you.

Book Review: The Dexter Trilogy (Darkly Dreaming Dexter, Dearly Devoted Dexter, Dexter in the Dark) by Jeff Lindsay

I admit it: I'm fascinated by serial killers. From Ed Gein to Henry Lee Lucas to Ted Bundy to Jeffrey Dahmer, those individuals who commit gruesome murders, often according to some kind of pattern or design, intrigue me. I'm not sure how one gets to the point of being able to eliminate other human beings without any seeming sense of remorse or regret, but there's something inside these people that obviously makes that possible. And that's the fascinating part. These people regularly cross a line that the vast majority of us find untenable, placing themselves outside of "normal" human society. They're a dark mirror, revealing to us a dark part of ourselves that we ordinarily keep suppressed.

Of course, serial killers, both in fact and fiction, make up some of the darkest icons of our collective unconscious. Who hasn't heard about Jack the Ripper, and the horrific murders he committed in London's Whitechapel district in 1888, or Thomas Harris's greatest literary creation, killer and gourmand Hannibal Lechter? Even such cinematic favorites as Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, and Freddy Kruger take their inspiration from such real life fiends as Andrei Chikitillo, Albert Fish, and Danny Rolling.

And then there's Dexter, the creation of author Jeff Lindsay. By day, Dexter Morgan is a blood spatter analyst for the Miami Police Department, but beneath his charming, laid-back exterior, Dexter harbors a horrific secret: he's a serial killer, far worse than most of the people he helps send to jail. Dexter is no ordinary serial killer, however. He only kills those who have, in turn, murdered others and somehow gotten away with it. He's a serial killer with a code, a code he takes very seriously.

That's what makes Dexter an interesting character, a new take on the old serial killer model. Most serial killers, real or fictitious, prowl the nights, stalking their innocent victims whose only crime might be to have long, straight brown hair, or to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Not so Dexter. He actually performs a public service, eliminating undesirables from the community when the courts fail. Like Batman or Daredevil, he rids the world of vermin that have been placed beyond the reach of the law, and, believe it or not, we love him for it.

And therein lies the strength of Lindsay's writing, that he makes us care about this bloodthirsty human being. It's not easy to find a serial murderer likable and charming, especially when you're fully aware of his extracurricular activities, but somehow, Lindsay pulls it off.

The majority of the first two books are told through Dexter's interior monologue, which displays both the strength and the weakness of Lindsay's writing. The choice of narrative focus allows Lindsay to, literally, get into Dexter's head, which makes him a fascinating character. We see the world through Dexter's eyes, as if we were tagging along with him on his gruesome journey, and we experience, with him, the thought processes that occur before, during, and after one of his murders. It's an intriguing perspective, albeit a fictional one. 

The cost of this singular POV, however, is to the secondary characters, especially Dexter's sister, Deborah, his girlfriend, Rita, and his assortment of friends, none of whom are as well developed or as interesting as Dexter himself. They all run through the book, going through the motions that Lindsay requires, never becoming more than two-dimensional caricatures. We never develop an attachment to them or really care about their ultimate fate, because they're no more real than cartoon characters, included as mere window dressing.

It's for this very reason that this becomes that rarest of instances, a time in which the adaptation (i.e. the Showtime series) is actually better than the books upon which it is based. With such wonderful actors as Michael C. Hall as Dexter, Julie Benz as Rita, and Jennifer Carpenter as Deborah, these characters finally take on three-dimensional life. Deb and Rita actually become well-rounded, realistic characters, as do other members of the supporting cast through the wonderful moments and subplots given to them by the series' writers. The biggest beneficiary of this development is Deb; in the books, she's nothing but an eternally angry cop, there simply to feed information to Dexter and to allow him to solve the case. The Showtime series actually makes her a real character, with feelings and ideas and a real backstory. She actually helps to move the plot along, rather than just existing as a talking signpost. By doing this, Dexter seems even more removed from humanity, and thus more terrifying.

As for the books themselves, Lindsay writes in a pulpy, potboilerish style that keeps the plot advancing, resulting in a fast, easy read. The first two books are stylish and thrilling, but the third veers off into some bizarre territory involving supernatural elements that might have been best avoided. Although all three books are fun, the third is definitely the weakest of the lot.

Lindsay's biggest problem as a writer is in the payoffs of his novels. By the time one reaches the end, it feels as if the author has grown bored with his story, and wants to wrap it up as quickly as possible. This makes for a highly unsatisfying conclusion, especially given all that the reader (and Dexter) have gone through to get to that point.

So, finally, the books are certainly recommended as something different in the area of serial killer fiction, but the Showtime series carries an even higher recommendation, especially for the performance of Michael C. Hall who, by all indications, is certainly an actor to watch.

Book Review: Doc Savage #23: Mystery Under the Sea & The Red Terrors

I first discovered Doc Savage in 1974, through the reprint series presented in paperback by Bantam Books. Doc was the creation of Lester Dent (writing under the house name of Kenneth Robeson), one of the most prolific pulp writers of the 1930s and 40s, and was rivaled only by the mysterious Shadow in sheer popularity. 

A physical and mental marvel, raised from infancy for his task of aiding and serving humanity, Clark Savage Jr., more familiarly known as "Doc," was an unrivaled surgeon and inventor, a perfectly developed physical specimen, an expert in virtually every field of human endeavor, and even a noted concert violinist. With the help of his five aides - Andrew Blodgett "Monk" Mayfair, Theodore Marley "Ham" Brooks, John "Renny" Renwick, William Harper "Johnny" Littlejohn, and Thomas J. "Long Tom" Roberts - Doc traveled the world righting wrongs, helping the oppressed, and punishing the guilty.

More super than Superman, more accomplished than Batman, smarter than Indiana Jones, more dashing than James Bond, Doc served as inspiration for all those iconic characters and more. His adventures were fast-paced and exciting, ranging from lost jungles to the depths of the ocean to the far-flung Polar regions and beyond. Wherever action and adventure presented itself, Doc and his "Fabulous Five" were there. In the days of the Bantam reprints, it was a thrill to anticipate the publication of the next "supersaga," much as it must have been for the original readers during the Great Depression.

Now, modern readers can experience that same sense of excitement, as Sanctum Books (in cooperation with Nostalgia Ventures up until recently), is reissuing these classic tales of adventure, two stories at a time, in attractive trade paperback editions. Edited and spearheaded by Anthony Tollin, each volume contains a pair of Doc adventures, along with commentary by Tollin ( a long-time pulp historian, whose Shadow Scrapbook is required reading for any fan) and historian/author Will Murray that provides valuable insights into the tales presented. 

I've read all of the 182 Doc supersagas presented by Bantam (181 is the official count, but Bantam also published The Red Spider, a novel written by Dent but never released during the official run of the pulps), but I'm enjoying this new series for several reasons. First, of course, is the commentary. Tollin and Murray have access to archives and documents that provide fresh insights into these classic tales, and the information they provide is always worthwhile. Like DVD commentary tracks, these supplemental features provide invaluable information that makes the stories even more entertaining. 

Second, Murray and Doc-fan Scott Cranford have, in many cases, restored material that was edited out of the original versions, creating a sort of "Director's Cut" of the stories he reprints. In the recent volume, for example, nearly 7,000 words of Dent's original text, cut by editor John L. Nanovic's assistant Morris Ogden Jones in order to make room for a supplemental short story, have been restored. That's a fair chunk of original material - most of Dent's Doc novels ran about 60,000 words -  that has never before seen the light of day. Even to a confirmed fan like myself, there's always something new to discover in this wonderful series.

Third is the presentation. Tollin includes copious original illustrations, giving the book the feel of the pulp from which it comes. Many of the volumes sport two covers, a choice of either the original Walter L. Baumhofer cover from the pulp, or the James Bama cover from the Bantam reprints. Either version is a winner.

This latest volume in the Doc Savage series presents Mystery Under the Sea (originally published in February, 1936) and its sequel, The Red Terrors (originally published in September, 1938). Both deal with lost underwater cities and civilizations, and both are filled with the rollicking action that Doc was known for. Although the quality of the Doc novels suffered somewhat during the later part of the run (especially when the full-sized pulp became a digest during World War II and beyond), these two stories are from Doc's prime period, when Dent was at the peak of his writing powers. Everything you could want in a Doc adventure is here: a baffling mystery, a heinous villain, an exotic locale, deathtraps aplenty, solid pacing, and more. Doc's stories rarely had sequels - one could argue that The Devil Ghengis is a sequel to The Fortress of Solitude, as both feature the villainous John Sunlight, the only one of Doc's adversary's ever to make a return appearance - making this volume particularly noteworthy.

Dent devloped an outline, a "master plot," as he called it, that he used throughout most of his career, one that, he said, was guaranteed to result in a sale to an editor.  "The business of building stories," he said, "seems not much different than the building of anything else." If this is true, then Dent was, surely, a master architect, as his stories, like the best buildings, have stood the test of time. The use of this outline is clearly seen in these two stories, as Dent piles exciting event upon exciting event, all driving towards a tremendous climax. Rather than feeling formulaic, however, Dent keeps his stories fresh by presenting his material in new and different ways. Even with two stories as thematically similar as Mystery and Terrors, you never get the feeling he's rehashing old ground or recycling old material. And that, of course, is why Dent was one of the premiere pulp writers of his age. 

If you're a fan of pulp literature, or if you've never heard of Doc but have enjoyed movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, you owe it to yourself to check out this outstanding reprint series. At $12.95 per volume, this is easily one of the best values around. Tollin and company are also publishing similar reprints of The Shadow - another series I'm following avidly - with other pulp characters in the works for 2009. Available at your local comic or bookshop, these are enthusiastically recommended to anyone who enjoys a good, exciting story.