2012 x 5: Five Pieces of Pop Culture Pleasure

Issue #1 of The Manhattan Projects

The Avengers: Widely hyped blockbusters are typically disappointing, the recently released Hobbit film being a glaring example. The years-in-the-making film version of Marvel Comics' the Avengers is the rare one that's every bit as good as advertised. The obvious object of praise is writer/director Joss Whedon, who found an ideal middle ground between characters and icons, but Whedon's success owes a lot to the magnificent casting done for the Marvel films that lead up to this one. Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark remains the clear favorite and gets most of the best lines, especially in a face-to-face confrontation with Tom Hiddleston as Loki, but the whole group is great to watch. The biggest surprise, though, was Chris Evans as Steve Rogers who does a terrific job of conveying Captain America' s absolutely un-ironic heroism without coming across as a cardboard cutout. Frankly, it shouldn't have worked, but then that was true of this movie in general. With eight lead-worthy characters in the mix, this should have been a terrible mess. Instead, it was the best comics adaptation I've seen, and a sequel can't come soon enough.

Joe Jackson at Strathmore Music Hall: The chance to check Jackson off my list of musicians I need to see live worked out by accident , but I couldn't be happier than it did. Jackson was touring to promote his new album of Duke Ellington songs, but he didn't short-change fans as far as his own songs. As good as Jackson is as a singer and composer, his gifts as an arranger are of anything more prodigious, and this show was no exception. Every song, including ones that were old before I was born, sounded fresh and alive. The closest thing to a complaint I can muster is that he didn't play my own personal favorite of his songs ("Home Town" from the album Big World), which for an artist with Jackson's body of work is no complaint at all.

The Manhattan Projects by Jonathan Hickman: Jonathan Hickman had a great run writing The Fantastic Four for Marvel the last few years. As good as some of those stories have been, though, they pale in comparison to his original series The Manhattan Projects, a collaboration with up-and-coming artist Nick Pitarra published by Image Comics. As the title suggests, the series is set in the 1940s around the Manhattan Project with a cast of characters that includes Robert Openheimer, Albert Einstein and Harry Truman. However, despite the presence of familiar people and and events, this series is far removed from the standard alternate-history approach. Put another way, Hickman is not dealing in what-ifs but rather WTFs. It's hard to summarize without spoiling the story, but a keyword is "multiple". The scientists involved are engaged in multiple projects beyond the atomic bomb, we encounter multiple US presidents and Doctor Openheimer has multiple personalities to name a few. Comparing any new series to one of comics' landmark series is going out on a limb, but this comic bears comparison to Watchmen. Though Pitarra's art is a very different style to Dave Gibbons' work on the older series, it certainly fits the tone of this book. As for the story itself, its intersecting plot threads traversing time, place and mental space may be even more complex than the relatively simply parallel structure Alan Moore used for Watchmen.

Muse - "Explorers": Overall, I like the band Muse better in concept than actuality, but this song from their current album The 2nd Law is a thing a wonder. Epic and uplifting, it clearly calls to mind Queen, especially in the low-key keyboard-based intro, but still manages to sound distinctive and original. For the record, "Madness" from the same album isn't quite as good but is compelling enough that I'll probably find myself checking into their back catalog in earnest after years of resisting.

Star Trek - The Newspaper Comics: While Star Trek comics - good and bad - have been around nearly as long as the show itself, I never knew there had been a newspaper strip until I read about this collection that was released earlier this month. The reasons the strip is less well-known than it should be are detailed in the book, but the key thing is of course the strips themselves. More so than almost any Star Trek comic I've read, they honestly capture the feel of the show and the characters we love. Not only are the stories themselves strong, you can practically hear the voice of Shatner and all the other stars when you read the dialogue.

Putting the Cock Back in Caucus

I never thought I'd say this but I really owe the GOP caucus in the House a debt of gratitude. Their efforts at addressing the "fiscal cliff" did the most to convince me that the world wasn't going to end yesterday. Their insistence on putting ideology over the good of the American people, ensuring that nothing would get accomplished, was all the reassurance I needed that life would continue normally. I would love to call each and every member at their office to tell them how thankful I am, but I can't. Unlike those of us actuate expected to address our job responsibilities before we take vacations, they've all gone home for Christmas. Way to go!

Constitutional Wrongs

I have finally been able to reconcile my internal conflict about whether my visceral response to the school shooting in Connecticut should be to cry or to vomit. As it happens, thanks to the combination of the actual tragedy of lives lost and the tragically offensive commentary in response to the incident from many on the political "right", it turns out that both reactions are equally appropriate. The crying speaks for itself while the right-wing driven urge for reverse peristalsis is simply a question of sanity. What other sane reaction is possible when right-wingers decry politicizing a tragedy by raising the issue of gun control while their talking heads - most prominently former Governor Mike Huckabee - attribute the event to god being "systematically removed" from schools? The stupidity of the latter point is hopefully obvious, but the former notion is frankly even more ridiculous. This is not some abstract debate about principle - this is life and death. There is nothing more important in politics - ever. And to those who are possessed by some form of mania (I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt) that requires you to cite the Second Amendment to the US Constitution as the reason firearms should not be subject to common sense controls, allow me to point out that the same US Constitution originally specified that in electoral terms most African-Americans were only worth 3/5 that of the majority of white men - with even less value being ascribed to women. Perhaps there are some in the Republican party who think the Constitution got it right in the first place, but again I'm trying to give people the benefit of the doubt. Whether the outcry from the right over comments like Huckabee's will display the same level of offense they mustered for those who raised matters like closing the so-called "gun show loophole" or restricting access to high-capacity magazines will say a lot about the kind of American values they truly hold.

Why Does 12/21/12 Make Me Think of 666?

One month out from the supposed day of destiny, despite being widely discredited, the notion of the Mayan apocalypse prediction still lingers in the popular imagination. If this idea is going to insist on persisting, we owe it to ourselves to consider it from an alternative angle. Perhaps December 21 isn't the date when the world will literally come to an end but rather is the point at which we collectively stop believing that it deserves to continue.

As I looked in the sky tonight, I marveled at the array of color that was a jet's vapor-trail. Therein was the dilemma - as lovely as my heart found it, my head knew the chemicals the plane was pushing out were bad for our planet. Somehow science is rarely so beautiful as when it's being destructive, even when it does so in subtle ways.

Perhaps that's part of why so many people of faith have difficulty with things like "global warming". It's hard to reconcile one's faith in a supreme being with the concept that that entity's handiwork could be both appealing and dangerous. After all, isn't that the Devil's move? If so, perhaps all it means is that the Devil isn't just in the details - the Devil's in us as well.

If at First You Don't Secede

At first, I worried that my urge to post about the picture here was overly petty. After all, everyone spells things wrong on occasion, and that especially vocal segment whose calls for greater freedom often seem to be as much about freedom from proper grammar and spelling as they are any deeper considerations are such easy targets. Put another way, shooting fish in a barrel is barely worth the 2nd Amendment remedies required to get the job done. On further reflection, though, it struck me that many of these folks are the same ones calling for English to be declared America's national language - despite their seeming inability to use it properly. Needless to say, I immediately felt much better about the whole thing.

Master Debating?

What was most striking about last night's foreign policy focused presidential debate was how clearly Governor Romney wants to be President. That is to say, it was clear that from a foreign policy standpoint that he wants to be the current president.

Aside from some attempts to paint President Obama's economic policies as foreign policy liabilities (based on the notion that a weaker economy gives America less leverage) and a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking, I didn't hear a single case where Governor Romney articulated a meaningful distinction between how he would handle international situations and the way the President already is handling them. I could be missing something but, if the core of your foreign policy position is that you'd do what the incumbent is doing except for a few cases where you'd have done something else in hindsight, then you're not making a great case for a change of leadership.

Admittedly, presidential debates on foreign policy tend to favor the incumbent who's actually been on the job and tested by multiple tricky situations. However, when the only means you have to distinguish yourself from your opponent is the same thoroughly discredited accusations about the President's "apology tour"and empty promises to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, you haven't distinguished yourself as Commander in Chief material. Rather you've made the incumbent look that much more capable (dare I say, presidential?) and made yourself look like a wannabe. Needless to say, the greatest country on Earth deserves better than a wannabe.

Word (R Money Mix)

I've resolved to give the current Republican Presidential candidate due respect for the office should he win the election next month. In the meantime, though, the only thing I'm undecided about between now and January 2013 is whether to call him "Shit Romney" or "Tit Romney". It's a tough call because, while I respect the usefulness of the former descriptive, I very much appreciate the latter as well. Needless to say, until I can settle on one or the other, I'll stick with the tried and true "R Money."

Jousting Over Lance

I'm getting tired of all the haters dumping on Lance Armstrong over this so-called "overwhelming evidence" that he used performance enhancing drugs to win his Tour de France titles. Back in 1994, the news media was constantly harping on about the "overwhelming evidence" that one Orenthal James Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her friend. As the record shows, "the Juice" turned out to be...oh, dear lord...can I please change the topic of this posting to the wedding of Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel?

Post-partisan Lobotomy (2012 Remix)

I have surprisingly mixed feelings about my lobotomy-induced belief that it doesn't matter whether Romney or Obama wins the election. Still, it could be worse. I could be consumed with a desire to vote for an unprincipled opportunist who's distrusted by the political right because of all that he accomplished as the "Republican" governor of a democratic-leaning state and distrusted by the left because he seems compelled to disavow those accomplishments as part of a pathetic ploy to appease the right.

Cry Me a River? Not So Much, Doctor.

Sadly, the most distinctive thing about this past weekend's semi-season finale of Doctor Who was how underwhelming it was. Not only were the hard-boiled detective trappings used in the most boring way possible, the ending didn't even come close to being "sad" or " heartbreaking" or any of the other adjectives that were used in overselling this episode to fans.

While the device of the Doctor learning what happened to Amy and Rory through the last page of the book was set up nicely, what it revealed was actually quite disappointing. Learning that they lived well frankly undercuts any sense of sadness or tragedy and the Doctor's reaction to the revelation was ridiculous. One of the few constants in Doctor Who is that, while the Doctor may miss the friends who leave him, he always wants them to be happy in their lives that come after no matter what it means for him.

It's not like Steven Moffat doesn't understand this concept. He executed it brilliantly in the Doctor's monologue near the end of "The Big Bang". Two seasons later, Smith's Doctor, who once exemplified the character's simultaneously ancient but youthful soul, now comes across like a desperate high-schooler whose crush has gone off with someone else. When I think back to the way previous Doctors handled these kinds of losses - Pertwee's somber dignity when Jo Grant left or Eccleston's heartfelt request that Rose "have a fantastic life" - it's hard not to feel cheated, especially because I know Moffat and Smith can do far better.

More Than 47% Wrong

A friend suggested to me not too long ago that there was nothing Governor Romney could do or say that would make me likely to vote for him. I don't think he meant it as a compliment, but I admit there's some truth to that assertion. That said, I did resent the implication that my political leanings had no real foundation. I was reminded of this exchange when I heard Mister Romney's just released comments from a private fundraiser earlier this year where he seemed inclined to write off nearly half the electorate.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

And, I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, he starts with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years.

And so my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

What surprised me wasn't the substance of the remarks. They present a candidate who not only doesn't understand a large segment of the American people but also doesn't seem to feel that they're worth understanding. Rightly or wrongly, these comments come across as consistent with the persona he's presented to date.

What really amazed me was how angry his words made me. Partly, it was the thought that this man who presumes that he has what it takes to lead one of the most diverse countries on earth was so ready to disparage millions of people when he thought no one was listening. Above all, though, it was the fact that he was disparaging me to benefit his campaign. With that in mind, I'd like to make some things clear.

First off, I am no more "dependent upon government" than any other citizen who depends on our military, firefighters, the FDA and any number of other institutions that make our lives better and safer. Nor do I "believe that mmgovernment has a responsibility to care for [me]." I will concede that I believe that I am "entitled to health care" - provided I pay for it. As for food, housing and the ill-defined "you-name-it" to which the governor referred, I pay for those things as well.

I also pay income tax, contrary to Mister Romney's perplexing suggestion that those who support President Obama don't pay taxes. I do this willingly because I know that it pays for valuable things like those brave firefighters and that mighty military that makes all but the most eschatological of our enemies think twice. I also understand that it pays for things that I thankfully don't use like "food stamps" and other elements of the so-called "social safety net". I'm OK with that because I believe that it's what a moral society does for the less fortunate.

Does that last bit make me some sort of naive idealist? Perhaps, though considering my view on most foreign policy issues is "bomb them", I suspect the idealists wouldn't want me in their camp, which brings us to practicality. Going back to Governor Romney's comments, does my support of President Obama mean that I don't believe that people "should take personal responsibility and care for their lives"? Suffice it to say, if you think that, I think you're a jackass.

Better Off?

The man with the cool demeanor and the great hair thinks I should vote for him in the upcoming presidential election. The crux of his argument seems to be that his opponent, the current president, can't tell me that I'm better off now than I was four years ago and the reason for that is the current
president's economic policies. The man with the great hair is really trying, but I'm afraid his pitch is lost on me for one simple reason. I am better off than I was at this point in 2008.

I don't just mean that as far as intangibles like emotional well-being. I'm talking in empirical terms. Not only is my salary higher today than it was in September 2008, I've also benefitted in the short term from a tax cut thanks to the much-reviled Recovery Act (aka "the failed stimulus"). On top of that, my retirement account is worth more now than it was in September 2008.

A key factor in the latter point is that the majority of my 401(k) is devoted to so-called S&P 500 Index Funds. On September 12, 2008 the S&P 500 closed at 1251.70 down around 20% from the all-time high set in 2007. Yesterday it closed at 1465.77, which is not only within striking distance of the historical high but also 75% higher than when the current President took office in 2009.

Taking a step back, I certainly understand that no single statistic can possibly encapsulate an economy as diverse and despite its challenges vibrant as America's. That said, the performance of the S&P 500 reflects the state of a significant slice of American business. Therefore, it begs the question of why is it that, if the current President's policies are so bad for business, so many businesses are doing better now (by at least one widely accepted metric) than they were when he took office?

As I hope folks realized well before this point, I'm poking a bit of fun here. What I hope is equally obvious is that I'm doing so with serious intent. Unless you're an arms dealer, the current round of sound-bite skirmishes are doing little or nothing to benefit anyone. Unless you're talking to people on the extreme ends of the economic spectrum, asking someone whether they're better off today than they were just before the previous election borders on insulting, because it pre-supposes that there's actually been enough substantive discussion from either side of the aisle to enable the electorate at large to give an informed answer.

I'm not oblivious to the large number of people all over the country who are struggling to find work and make ends meet. On the flip side, I know a lot of people with friends and family in Michigan whose lives are less anxious than they would be otherwise because "The Big Three" are still alive and kicking. Both say something about where the economy is, but which one tells the real story? Moreover, considering that the President generally gets a disproportionate degree of credit and blame for the state of the economy relative to their actual ability to impact it, what does any anecdote really say about who should take the oath of office four months and four days from today.

Certainly, I don't claim that my situation is necessarily representative of where the country is economically. At the same time, in a climate where sound-bites are trumping analysis - let alone honesty - on all sides of the debate, what makes my story and by extension my intention to reelect the current President any less valid?

That's a Bill I Don't Mind Getting

I was left with two key impressions after listening to what might be the greatest speech of Bill Clinton's political life tonight at the Democratic convention. The first is that, whatever his faults, the former President really does embody American values - imbued with almost impossibly lofty ideals yet constantly striving to meet them, generally for the benefit of America - not to mention the world. The second is that getting the Rumours-era line-up of Fleetwood Mac back together remains one of his greatest achievements. Forget dealing with a Republican-controlled Congress in 1995, the acrimony between some of the band members in 1992 was beyond even the toxic levels reached during the making of Rumours. Now, that's politics!

Men of Mendacity

I was brought up with the idea that if you can't say anything nice you should say nothing at all. Admittedly, I don't always achieve that, especially during election season, but I certainly make the effort. With that in mind I'd like to take a moment to praise the loudest of the talking heads who ally themselves with the political entity that once deserved to call itself the Grand Old Party.

On the one hand, they expound about all the things they and/or the candidate(s) they support will do to make America "great again". On the other, without missing a step, they dismiss the incumbent President as someone who doesn't believe in the greatness of America. It takes a lot of mental pliability and/or mendacity to express those conflicting ideas with the level of conviction they muster. For that, if nothing else, they clearly deserve our admiration.

Regarding the "nothing else", what can I say? Last I checked, for all its flaws, America is still pretty great. If the standard bearers of the Republican party don't share that view, perhaps they should look inside themselves for the source of the problem rather than throwing rhetorical stones at the current President.

Ann and Christie

Watching Ann Romney speak at the Republican National Convention, it's hard not to be impressed by the enthusiasm she conveys in trying to convince us what a wonderful man he is. For her part, Mrs. Romney seems as nice as she does full of crap for claiming that the time she and her husband spent in a little basement apartment with modest means were the "best days" of their marriage. I was struck by the subtle invocation of certain stereotypes about African-Americans when she repeatedly talked up how hard-working her husband is when talking about the criteria people should focus on when deciding who they should elect as president. Above all, though, what I loved was how hard she (and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who spoke after her) worked to emphasize their families' humble beginnings and struggles for opportunity as the GOP looks to dismantle the programs that provided the stepping stones to those opportunities. It's amazing what some people will applaud.

The Path to a Better World

Some people look at the world the way it is and say "Why?" I prefer to look at the world the way it should be, devise ways of making that happen, then use those plans as a means to get the aforementioned group of people to invest. At this point, I pocket the money I've raised from those rubes and head for the Cayman Islands or some other locality without an extradition treaty. After all, no one said it had to be a better world for everybody.

Political Bane

While I've come to accept that ugly is the new normal for political campaigns, the rumors that Mitt Romney tortured and killed a male prostitute then defecated on their corpse are way out of line. First off, the gender of the prostitute should not even be an issue. Secondly, Romney hired others to execute the torture and the eventual murder that took place after hours of unspeakable cruelty. Most importantly, Governor Romney merely urinated on the corpse and only where the throat was slit. Attacking one's opponents over genuine policy differences is to be expected, but if we give our tacit approval to the spreading of lies then we don't deserve to live in the greatest country in the world.

You're a Real Jerk Sometimes, Superman!

A favorite joke of mine involves a guy at a bar betting one of his fellow patrons that he can jump out of the window of a tall building without getting hurt. The set-up is a little convoluted and doesn't lend itself well to transcription (as opposed to live performance), but the punch-line is, "You're a real jerk sometimes, Superman!" I recently came across a Superman story from decades ago that could have inspired this joke.

In the November 1950 story "The Secret of the 6 Superman Statues" (Action Comics #150), a greedy inventor named Morko attempts to trick the Man of Steel into using his powers in ways that would make the inventor and his henchmen wealthy. Though Superman foils Morko's plans in a ways that help others, he's frustrated by the realization that Morko and his men didn't actually break any laws. Rather than let that minor technicality dissuade him, Superman resolves that "a trickster like [Morko] shouldn't go free!" and tricks the inventor and his men into attacking what they think is simply a statue of Superman. This manufactured assault in turn serves as a pretense for Superman to take them to jail.

As those who've read Superman's early adventures know, he wasn't always the "big blue boy scout" we know him as today, with implied and not-so-implied threats of violence being a typical method of getting results. The difference is that the people whose civil liberties were being violated in the early stories were genuine bad guys. When compared to the various  murderers, wife-beaters and war-mongers, a greedy man who didn't actually hurt anyone seems like a rather petty target for someone with such great power.

Superman's ruse seems driven more by having his ego bruised as a result of being used by Morko as it is by any particular sense of justice. Simply put, it makes him seem like far less of a hero. For those who love this icon, it's a good to know that the past sixty-some years have brought his actions and the values he represents into closer alignment making him a bit less of a jerk.

Must Fail TV

I don't feel the need to pile on about NBC's lackluster coverage of the London Olympics in general and the closing ceremony in particular. The number of posts on Twitter that use the hash-tag #NBCfail suggest that ground is pretty well covered. That said, it's pretty sad that, in an event intended to highlight British contributions to popular culture, the network opted to slight the most quintessentially British of the major "British invasion" bands – one that could alternate between straight-out rock and literate slice of life stories - The Kinks. While Ray Davies may be a little worse for wear at age 68, I'll take his performance of "Waterloo Sunset" over the travesty that was Paul McCartney singing "Hey Jude" at the opening ceremony any day. Here’s a link to the performance that NBC saw fit to cut in favor of multiple performances by something called Jessie J: http://www.examiner.com/video/ray-davies-closing-ceremony. Enjoy.

Viability vs. Fry-ability

I hate to go on about Chick-Fil-A, which has gotten too much attention from everyone for mostly wrong reasons, but this picture from their Facebook page struck me as a little disconcerting. Considering the company's outspoken support of socially conservative causes, I just can't shake the feeling that this piece is somehow a beachhead in a broader campaign against abortion. What troubles me even more is that those waffle fries are pretty damn tasty.

Chick-Fil-Why

I'm truly of two minds about the current Chick-Fil-A/gay-marriage uproar. It's not just because their nuggets and waffle fries are delicious or that the company is supporting some hateful organizations. It isn't even that the idea of turning lunch into a political statement - one way or the other - seems vaguely ridiculous. It's more about whether all this energy and effort could be better directed.

As much as I believe in economic actions as a means to express contempt for a company whose actions disturb you, I have to wonder what the protests and counter-protests are really accomplishing. Neither side is likely to convince the other of anything and, while it's unclear whether the debate is helping or hurting the company itself, the rank-and-file employees have become the recipients of verbal abuse pretty much just for being there. If the goal here is truly to celebrate human dignity, I feel like we can do better. Let's put aside the question of whether we should patronize Chick-Fil-A due to their corporate support of anti-gay groups, because the truth is we probably shouldn't patronize them anyway. We live in a country where (to borrow from Charles Dickens) want is keenly felt, and abundance rejoices, not to mention one with a significant obesity problem. If we really want to take Chick-Fil-A to task, we should use the money you would have spent there and/or the time you would have spent protesting them to support a local food pantry. My own group of choice is called Olney Help, but these organizations are all over and severely stretched for resources these days, because the need is so much greater than it was even a few years ago. For that matter, I would put the same notion in front of "supporters" of Chick-Fil-A as well, as I recall from Sunday School that some dude in the New Testament said a lot more about caring for the poor than he did about who should be able to get married, let alone where they should eat.

The Other Doctor Manhattan

With the possible exception of the overwhelming success (both artistic and popular) of The Avengers movie, the biggest comics story this year has actually been a batch of smaller stories. Between DC Comics' contentious decision to release prequels to Watchmen and the ongoing lawsuits by the heirs of Jack Kirby and the creators of Superman against Marvel and DC respectively, the treatment of comics creators by "the Big Two" has definitely put a negative light on a form of entertainment intended to celebrate justice and good. On a more positive note, it's also drawn attention to creator-owned comics titles.

The biggest player in this area, Image Comics, turns 20 this year and got a nice birthday present in the form of an article in the New York Times. Among the topics touched on was creators who write DC's and Marvel's characters on a work-for-hire basis while creating their own (and owned) titles for Image. While the article gave a much-deserved nod to the series Fatale, by Captain America writer Ed Brubaker, I was disappointed that another key Marvel writer's series wasn't mentioned.

Writer Jonathan Hickman has been writing The Fantastic Four the last couple years. As good as some of those stories have been, they pale in comparison to his original series The Manhattan Projects, a collaboration with up-and-coming artist Nick Pitarra.

As the title suggests, the series is set in the 1940s around the Manhattan Project with a cast of characters that includes Robert Openheimer, Albert Einstein and Harry Truman. However, despite the presence of familiar people and and events, both the project and those surrounding it are far removed from history as we know it. The series is also far removed from the standard alternate-history approach. Put another way, Hickman is not dealing in what-ifs but rather WTFs.

It's hard to offer details without spoiling the story, but a telling keyword is "multiple". The scientists involved are engaged in multiple projects beyond the atomic bomb, we encounter multiple US presidents and Doctor Openheimer has multiple personalities for good measure. Another key multiple can be found in issue #4, but again I don't want to spoil anything. The key here is that these multiples add up to something tremendously (some would say mind-blowingly) good.

It's a dicey proposition to compare any series, especially one that's only five issues in, to one of comics' landmark series, but this comic bears genuine comparisons to Watchmen. Though Pitarra's art is a very different style to Dave Gibbons' work on Watchmen, it certainly fits the tone of the story. As for the story itself, its intersecting plot threads traversing time, place and mental space may be even more complex than the parallel structure Alan Moore deployed on Watchmen.

Obviously, time will tell if that comparison holds true or is just my enthusiasm running away with me. I only hope that Hickman's upcoming Avengers title for Marvel won't mess with the release of The Manhattan Projects. I'm well and truly hooked and can't wait to see what happens next in this version of the past.

Bobshead Revisited

Attempting to encapsulate Bob Dylan’s musical career is an unenviable task. Over the course of five decades, Dylan has not only revolutionized popular music (far more broadly than detractors might wish to admit) but also weathered more artistic rises and falls than any other major pop artist. In that time, his work has been sliced and diced into so many compilations that, if it wasn't for the upcoming release of a new album (called Tempest) in September, you'd swear that the collections outnumber the original albums. Some of these compilations ostensibly cover nearly the entirety of Dylan's long career, but none of them make quite as strong a case for his artistry as the 1985 box-set Biograph.

When Biograph came out over twenty-five years ago, Dylan had recently released a pair of reasonably good albums (Infidels and Empire Burlesque), but the consensus seemed to be that his career was on the downside. As a result, despite only covering work through 1981, Biograph seemed more like a career summation than a recap of the story so far. Since then, starting in earnest with 1997’s Time Out of Mind, Dylan has been on the kind of artistic roll that few pop artists manage so deep into their career. For all that great work, though, Biograph remains the release that best balances all the varied sides of Dylan as an artist.

Favoring neither the obvious nor the esoteric, this three-disc collection places cornerstones of Dylan’s songbook next to work that still divides his fans, particularly some from his late-70s “born again” period. Instead of being jarring, though, in some respects these combinations allow for a deeper appreciation Dylan’s abilities as both a writer and performer. A song like “I Believe in You” might be more overtly religious in its lyrical content than many listeners will care for, but there’s no denying the power of Dylan’s vocals or the beauty of its melody. Hearing a song like this in the same sitting as an acknowledged classic such as “Tangled Up in Blue” highlights how true he has been to himself as an artist over the years.

Another highlight of Biograph is the presence of both enjoyable alternate versions of familiar songs and some that had never before been (officially) released in any form.  These songs spotlight one of the most curious aspects of Dylan as an artist. Over the years, he’s often been one of the most erratic judges of his own work, letting excellent material sit on the shelf while lesser material is released on his albums. Even since Dylan’s return to artistic form, this trait can be seen in the Bootleg Series release Tell Tale Signs, a collection of out-takes and alternate versions from 1989 to 2006 that’s virtually the equal of any of the acclaimed albums from that period.

A case in point on Biograph is “Caribbean Wind”, a fantastic song recorded for the 1981 album Shot of Love. Very similar in tone and approach to 1983's "Jokerman" (and every bit as powerful), it was left off of Shot of Love in favor of a number of forgettable songs and only released four years later. Regardless of the path it took, though, "Caribbean Wind" sounds great on Biograph, all the songs do. Even if this set only covers an increasingly small portion of Dylan’s career, what it shows us about why his work matters makes it invaluable collection. 

Plunging the Political Toilet Bowl

Political advertising is boring. No matter who the candidate is or what the issue, today's ads have nothing more to offer than shouting with a whisper that the other side sucks. Perhaps that was good enough for the political campaigns of the olden days, but the complex post-modern world in which we live cries out for something more.

My own modest proposal is to move the discourse from "the other side sucks" to "the other side sucks though not as bad as some people think." I propose that all political broadcast advertising be required to include at least one positive fact of the opposition's choice. For example, the President's team could require that ads criticizing the disposition of federal money from the 2009 Recovery Act include the fact that a third of that spending was in the form of tax-cuts for both individuals and corporations (which some would say are people too). On the flip side, those in charge of the Romney campaign could dictate that ads slamming the former governor's Swiss bank accounts and offshore holdings in the Cayman Islands note that Mr. Romney is a devoted family man.

Obviously, such a rule would be virtually impossible to administer. The federal government (i.e. The FCC) couldn't possibly do so because of the First Amendment issues, and there's really no other entity with sufficient scope. This kind of shift towards balance and respect for one's opponent would have to happen from the ground up with the candidates and their teams (not to mention their PACs). In a political climate whose escalation of rhetoric makes the US-Soviet arms race look tame, that seems about as likely as Superman eating a Kryptonite sandwich.

The Dark Knight Sags

Watching one of the enjoyably shallow entertainment gossip shows that fill the 7 O'clock hour, I was profoundly unsurprised to see the obligatory piece about how hard Anne Hathaway had to work to fit into her costume for the upcoming Batman movie. I was equally unsurprised to hear the presenter appear to mangle the English language by describing Hathaway's costume as Catwoman-esque. After all if Hathaway is playing Catwoman, presumably her costume is not "Catwoman-esque" but rather just a Catwoman costume. In a rare moment of good-nature, though, I began to wonder if I'd been too quick to dismiss the announcer.

Perhaps said announcer was sharper than I'd give them credit for and, rather than this being yet another example of TV further degrading our marvelous language, there may have been a subtle critique at work. Maybe the term "Catwoman-esque" was a deliberate albeit subtle acknowledgment that Hathaway's costume appears to signify as crappy a portrayal of Catwoman as The Dark Knight Rises in general appears to be a crappy depiction of a Batman story.

Of course, the above is almost certainly not true. Let me rephrase that, the part about the critique is probably not true. The part about Hathaway's costume and the movie in general displaying signs of great crapulence is on the money. Every arch pronouncement and underwritten line uttered through clenched teeth suggests that the makers of The Dark Knight Rises have committed the cardinal sin of filmmakers who earn critical praise for bringing artistic flair to pop-art blockbusters - they started to believe their own hype.

In truth, it was almost inevitable in the wake of the previous film in the series. Never mind that Heath Ledger's performance as a character called The Joker was actually quite boring, his sad pre-release death guaranteed that he and the movie would be deeply overrated. The Oscar nominations (and Ledger's eventual win) simply cemented the view in director Christopher Nolan's mind that he wasn't just slumming but rather turning Batman into Art (with a capital A). This opened the door to the one enemy even the dynamic duo of Batman and a talented filmmaker couldn't beat - pretension.

And even if The Dark Knight Rises ends up being much better than the footage seen so far suggests, I still think it's a very good thing that this is Nolan's last trip to Gotham City. It's time for another vision of Batman, one which recognizes that the troubled "Dark Knight" isn't the only approach to Batman. As the past two decade of animated portrayals have demonstrated, the driven and conflicted crime-fighter who'd give anything to live in a world where he wasn't necessary and the colorful cast of crazy villains can co-exist quite nicely. Looking ahead to Batman's 75th birthday in 2014, that kind of Batman movie would be a terrific birthday present for fans.

Will the Real Penn State Please Stand Up?

I've heard lots of snide comments about my home town and alma mater over the last several months thanks to the Jerry Sandusky case ("We are...Penn rape" - ah, yes, very classy). One of the most recent had to do with the composition of the jury, drawn from the State College area and by default having lots of ties to Penn State.

Displaying a lack of empathy akin to the one they attribute to senior administrators who apparently shielded Sandusky for years, many have openly opined that the people in and around State College are so blinded by love of Penn State football that a jury composed of locals was almost certain to acquit Sandusky because of his history with the team. Now that this jury has come back with guilty verdicts on all but a few charges, I wonder what those critics will say next. While I'd like to believe they'll rethink that initial assessment, I suspect it's more likely that many will simply double down and suggest that the fact that a few of the charges came back "not guilty" proves their warped point.

Alternatively, the storyline may become that of a jury more concerned with taking revenge on Sandusky for Joe Paterno's downfall than in justice for Sandusky's victims. On one level, of course, the jury's motives are irrelevant as long as justice has been done, but I am sick of hearing these blowhards disparage tens of thousands of people because of the sins of a few. If said blowhards are actually concerned with the truth, the story should be that a jury that many believed would be sympathetic to the defendant heard both sides of the case and concluded that the defendant was a monster. Success with honor, some might say.

We Are...Tone Deaf

As a member of the Penn State faithful, I'd be lying if I claimed I could be totally objective about the trial of Jerry Sandusky and the events that have preceded it over the past several months. Perhaps the one good thing about the trial is that it puts the focus squarely on the figure who seemed to be strangely in the background while the late Joe Paterno was being vilified, the monster who is Jerry Sandusky. In short, I'm not an advocate of blaming the masses for the sins of the few. That said, the e-mail I received from Penn State today, touting the start of a new era in Penn State football, coming on the heels of another day of harrowing testimony in the Sandusky trial makes it hard not to wonder if my alma mater isn't truly as rotten to the core as critics would suggest.

A Bumpy Ride on The Yellow Brick Road

It would probably be in poor taste to refer to the past several days' celebrations of the Queen jubilee as London's biggest event since the Battle of Britain. The upcoming Summer Olympics may end up being a bigger global event, but they probably won't surpass recent festivities for overall spectacle. One part of that spectacle calls attention to itself for the wrong reasons, the pop concert held at Buckingham Palace Monday from which highlights were shown on ABC last night.

I was tempted to put the term highlights in quotation marks, but that would be unfair because there were some genuinely good performances. Paul McCartney doesn't seem as ageless as he once did but still gives a good show, while Stevie Wonder and Tom Jones also delivered engaging performances. Beyond that trio, though, things got a bit questionable.

Madness were pretty good, but I couldn't shake the feeling that they were picked to appear because Prince Charles had a vague recollection that Princess Diana liked them (or perhaps Spandau Ballet was busy). It's equally hard to envision why anyone thought that Kylie Minogue in shorts and high-heels was in tune with the message of "celebrating an enduring royal legacy." It's also possible she was lip-synching, but at least she was in tune - something not everyone performing could claim.

Some may have been critical of the Queen wearing ear plugs during the concert in her honor, however, it was truly the only rational response to how awful Elton John sounded. At first I hoped that he was just having trouble with the uptempo numbers, as some artists do at his age, but I'm Still Standing was not an anomaly. Your Song was if anything even worse, and if I hadn't wanted to see Paul McCartney I would have changed the channel.

I'm glad I didn't because on reflection I realized that what "Sir Elton" was doing was truly visionary. Rather than let cover versions by inferior artists destroy his songs, he decided to destroy them himself. On a night celebrating legacy, there's something to be said for that.

Sir Duke: Circle of Life Congressional Remix Version

It must be hard for someone used to power and privilege not only to go to prison but then face a loss of rights upon their release. Such is the case with former Congressman and current inmate Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Next year, Cunningham will finish the 100 month sentence he’s serving for bribery, fraud and other misdeeds committed while he served as part of California’s delegation to the House of Representatives.

Cunningham, who had to forfeit a lavish home as part of his plea agreement, plans to live in a cabin in the Ozark Mountains after his release on June 4, 2013. Reflecting that choice of domicile, Mr. Cunningham would like to make generous use of Second Amendment rights in order to provide both food and protection for himself. As described in a letter he sent to the judge who sentenced him, Larry Alan Burns, “[Cunningham] will live in a very remote part of Arkansas and not much threat from people but they do have a lot of black bears, cougars, and history of rabies.” The problem, however, is that convicted felons like Cunningham are generally prohibited from possessing firearms. 

Cunningham, who despite the fact that he plead guilty to the various offenses apparently sees his situation as a shameful example of how the country treats veterans rather than the result of any misconduct on his own part, wrote to Judge Burns to request permission to own and use guns after his release. In a very thoughtful response, Judge Burns explained that he had no authority to grant this request and went on to explain the avenues available to inmate 94405198 and the obstacles he’s likely to face in a way that the former congressman should appreciate more than most.

“You should be aware, however, that every year since 1992, Congress has refused to provide funding to the ATF to review applications from the federal firearm ban. And the United States Supreme Court has ruled that inaction by the ATF does not amount to “denial” of the application within the meaning of section 925(c) United States v. Bean 537 US 71, 75 (2002). So unless Congress changes course and decides to fund ATF’s review of applications for relief, it appears you are stuck.”

Douglas Adams: A Man Who Really Knows Where His Towel Is

Since 2001, today has been known in some circles as Towel Day, a tribute to the work of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy author Douglas Adams who died in May of that year at the much too young age of 49. The many adaptations of his work that have appeared in film, TV and radio since his death are a clear tribute to how beloved Adams and his work was by so many. Towel Day, which is inspired by a particularly amusing passage from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, is another particularly unique sign of that love.

A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Partly it has great practical value - you can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a mini raft down the slow heavy river Moth; wet it for use in hand-to- hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mindboggingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you - daft as a bush, but very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough.

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: non-hitch hiker) discovers that a hitch hiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, face flannel, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitch hiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitch hiker might accidentally have "lost". What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is is clearly a man to be reckoned with.

Mostly Harmless, Adams’ final book in the Hitchhiker’s Guide… series, came out in 1992, the same year as the blockbuster romance The Bridges of Madison County by Robert James Waller and probably only sold a small fraction of what Waller’s book did. However, it’s a safe bet that years from now new readers will be embracing Adams’ work while Waller and his ephemeral blockbuster will be answers to a trivia question or if they’re lucky remembered as the inferior inspiration for a pretty good movie from Clint Eastwood. Whether those new fans will be reading Adams’ work in printed form or on an electronic device like the one the writer envisioned back in the late 1970s remains to be seen, but I’m hopeful they’ll all know where their towels are.

In Praise of Disco (As Long as We're the Ones Playing the Machines)

I come to praise disco not to bury it. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that the recent deaths of both Donna Summer and the Bee Gees’ Robin Gibb suggest that the latter is proceeding on its own unfortunately literal trajectory. The other is that it ultimately doesn’t deserve all the derision heaped on it (except possibly for some of the fashion choices it inspired). Whether people like to admit it or not, disco (and related forms of dance music) was the victor of the dueling late-70s musical revolutions between itself and punk and it won for good reasons.

On a social level, disco and dance music tend to be more inclusive in terms of race and gender than a lot of punk, notable exceptions like Bad Brains and Pansy Division notwithstanding. On an artistic level, disco is more adept at crafting expressions of desire that appeal more directly to the heart than the head. The examples are plentiful as anyone who’s heard both "If I Can't Have You" and "Anarchy in the UK" can attest. There are certainly notable exceptions such as the Buzzcocks, though some of Pete Shelley’s solo work suggests that they may be the exception that proves the rule.

It obviously bears mentioning that there’s a lot of crap dance music, just as there's a lot of crap punk music. At its best, though, when you know it’s the humans playing the machines and not the other way around, there’s an undeniable gut-level impact to songs like Chic’s “I Want Your Love” (or even New Order’s "Bizarre Love Triangle").

That points to what may be another underlying cause of disco’s victory. Dance music thrives in that middle-ground between craftsmanship and inspiration, where the technology and humanity collide. As it should, punk offers plenty of collisions, but its reticent attitude toward craftsmanship often makes it as limited in scope as many of its leading practitioners are filled with musical ambition. It’s not surprising then that artists like the The Jam’s Paul Weller have spent most of the past three decades making music that for all its passion is well outside the scope of what we commonly think of as punk.

I certainly wouldn’t want a world with only one or the other, but it’s all too easy in the age of micro-trends to dismiss what you don’t personally like as meaningless. Personally, I’m happy to know that the work of Robin Gibb and Joe Strummer will outlive both of them.