Sunday, September 20, 2009

Kirby Family to Sue Marvel for Characters

Ohhhhh man.

This should be interesting.

You know, back when they announced the Disney/ Marvel merger, my first thought was "huh. Wonder what Kirby's family thinks of the $4 billion price tag?"

Well, wonder no more.

Jack Kirby's family is looking to regain rights to several of King Kirby's creations. Read more here.


They were probably right about this being one of the world's greatest comics this year. If you ignore the existence of Jimmy Olsen. Which I do not, and never will..

Kirby's estate could claim all sorts of stuff, from the Fantastic Four to the Hulk. Thor. Several Avengers. Galactus (yeh!). Black Panther. The Inhumans. The Eternals. You know... the X-Men. Stuff like that.

If people think DC should be shaking because of the Siegel claim on Superman, Marvel has a much, much bigger problem. But mostly only if Kirby's heirs can lay claim to the major characters. But at Marvel that can include my buddy Fin Fang Foom. (If you think I do not have a toy of Fin Fang Foom, you are wrong.)

Now, Kirby is not a co-creator of Spider-Man, Iron Man and many other characters, and as Stan Lee is likely listed as a creator on many of these characters, I don't know how this will work. But certainly Captain America was Kirby and Simon all the way.


Such a simple, straightforward little title back then.

Now, an ample amount of the DCU was created by Kirby as well, but not quite as many high-profile DC characters (I mean, I know who Mr. Miracle is, but I'm pretty sure KareBear has no idea). And DC seems to have had a better relationship with Kirby. "Seems to" being the operative words here.


Mom, this is Mr. Miracle. He's a super escape artist.

Anyway, as interested as I've been in the Siegel/ DC case, I'll most likely be just as interested in how this shakes out for Kirby's heirs.

After a while, you get a feel for a character that absolutely must have originally been a Kirby character. Its the only way to explain characters named things like "Unus the Untouchable".

Here's a list I just found online of all of Kirby's Marvel creations.

The League Supports: NASA

A while back, I ordered the mid-00's HBO series, "From the Earth to the Moon". (Only $13 at Amazon)

The series leapfrogs the Mercury and Gemini missions (I recommend "The Right Stuff" for your Mercury mission entertainment. $6 at Amazon.). We've been watching the episodes, and it's astounding to watch the show and understand the difference between the national mood at the time versus the national mood of today.



As the Obama administration seeks to increase the funding of NASA by about 5% (a budget which has remained somewhat flat since 1992), its worth noting that the proposed budget of $18.7 billion is about 1/2 of one percent of the federal budget. For a single program, certainly worth noting, but an echo of '66, when it came in at more than 5% of the U.S. budget.

I'm no federal budget expert, but the NASA budget didn't shrink by a whole lot, so looking at the year, I'd assume military and social programs increased in scope around that time.

$18.7 billion is still a relatively small part compared to the $660 billion spent on the military in 2009.

But here's what I dig about NASA:

NASA is about problem solving, for the distinct purpose of human achievement. The goal of NASA is to look at the impossible, figure out the math behind what makes it appear impossible, and then work and work until you can manage the figures, the training, the machinery, etc... until the impossible is achieved. In many ways, NASA (and other space programs) are engineers and scientists unlocking the greatest puzzles put before us, and discarding common thinking in favor of seeing each insurmountable problem as an equation to be solved.

If it takes enormous thrust to lift a small capsule out of Earth's gravity, then you put a 360 foot Saturn rocket underneath it. If you need lighter materials for your LEM, then you develop that material to specification. If you realize its going to be a bit of a challenge to actually get people back from the moon, you develop the math and the science to do so. Not to mention the computers, space sextants, and lunar vehicles to do so.



If we applied that same thinking to problems outside of putting a person on the moon, one wonders how far that thinking could take us. What if we applied that same spirit to our national infrastructure issues (bridges, roads)? Feeding each other?

Instead, I'd guess, we've turned that spirit of innovation inward, to amazing technologies that have revolutionized how and why we communicate, reinvented commerce, etc... And there have been tremendous side-effects in medicine, in education, and other areas that could never have been able to get there on their own.

And while its been an amazing era in which to live, its difficult to point to much in the way of a shared national experience of the last decade aside from 9/11. Or even markers displaying that the government/ the US can achieve a specific goal if it tries.

From a pragmatic view, its worth noting that the space program of the 1960's was also a boon to our technology companies in non-military applications. North American, Grumman, and countless others were contractors and responsible for achieving the goals of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions.

Keep in mind, that Space Shuttle Discovery saw its final flight in the past few weeks, and there is no vehicle planned to replace the Shuttle program. Its not without irony that I note that we're retiring not just the name, but perhaps the very spirit of Discovery.



There's no question that something like NASA is one of those items that's easy to point to when one bemoans "big government". The average American will not be jumping in a rocket and vacationing in space any time soon.

It may be that we have to look to smaller, cheaper efforts which ride on the shoulders of giants, such as Burt Rutan and his success with Spaceship One. But for as amazing as Rutan's feat truly was, Spaceship One did not enter Earth orbit, and it most certainly did not reach the moon. It replicated a feat forty years old. And since the 2004 X-Prize, the progress has been infinitely slower than the space race.

And if we genuinely don't care? If we've got enough in the way of bread and circuses that we can't be bothered to look upwards anymore? I won't be all that surprised.

Columbus's voyage was to find a route for commerce. The western expansion of the US was to find agricultural space to feed us, to exploit natural resources, etc... Our knowledge of the ocean floors will come from energy concerns looking for new deposits of resources.

And while it gets us there, it will always be a question of dollars and cents and supply and demand. It will rarely be because its the challenge worth undertaking.

So rather than point to the possible benefits you'll get from the space program (microwaves! Tang!), I'd ask whether we've decided that we're a people who believe each dime spent should get us an entitlement? Or whether we want to celebrate, support, and demand that we're going to face down the impossible and make it a reality.

I'd like to know that kids will think that if they study hard enough or work hard enough, they get to try an EVA one day. Or design the suit that makes the space walk possible. I don't have kids, but all I'm saying is, I wouldn't want to be the one to explain to my kids that he won't ever see a manned space mission because we didn't think it was important enough.

Its been 40 years since we stepped foot on the moon. 40. Even if we want to keep that eye turned inward, then what impossible challenge should we be able to overcome tomorrow?

That's not to say NASA couldn't be operated more efficiently, or should be written a blank check. Stories you hear suggest NASA has become a slave to regulation and red tape (not just in the safety department) and has had a hard time keeping pace with modern technology management trends. But that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That said, I'd like to see a person walk on mars before I croak.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Gameday: Longhorns keeping it interesting...

Before I begin, I just want to say, I told co-worker Otto on Friday, as my last words before we parted ways "Texas will win, but its going to be ugly. I'd say we'll win by 10." I am Carnac the Magnificent.

I had no expectations at the start of this season for the mighty Texas Longhorns. As much as I would love a victory in a BCS bowl each and every year, that's just not realistic. So if we can get a winning season, and Colt McCoy has a final year worthy of his career at the University of Texas to date, then... good enough.


Shipley played great as always

Fans took it for granted Texas would roll over Louisiana-Monroe, and they did. And then, last week, against Wyoming, most fans were expecting a 45+ win, and were left scratching their heads when UT looked less than stellar in the first half, only seemingly waking up in the second. Sure, they won 41-10. But it wasn't a slam dunk 41-10.

(editor's note: For some reason I wrote "34-10" initially for the 2009 Wyoming/ UT score. It was late. I was full of cheese and sausage. I have no idea where I got that number. Let that be a lesson to you when you try to blog when you should be asleep.)

And so onto this week.

You have to admit, Colt's inability to complete a pass longer than 5 yards and a secondary that seemed utterly perplexed for the duration makes for an exciting game.

I honestly believe Colt just had a rough half a game (maybe the offensive half, but...), and that the issues with the secondary are correctable. But there's no doubt that something looks off with a team that's got some inflated currency in the polls.

Obviously neither issue was a game-ender, but it does say there's a lot of work to do before UT plays OU in Mid-October.

Speaking of OU... after a tough first week, they've already found another Heismann contender in Landry Jones. Holy crow, is that guy good. Sam may be out of a job even if he wanted to come back in a week or so. But good news for Sooner fans is that they are, minimum, getting a sneak peek of the possibilities for next year.

Also watched the U. Mich./ Eastern Michigan game, just'cause. Not as interesting as the UCLA/ Minnesota game.

Meanwhile powerhouse schools like USC and BYU were taken down this week, giving all those pundits room to pause (as if USC doesn't ride a largely unearned wave of LA-centric good press every season). Today I laughed and laughed (with a hint of madness) when I saw the clips of the final moments of the USC/ Wash game.

Finally saw the Florida highlights. Man... Those guys are really a #1 team. If Texas had to play them... yeesh.

But... let me be blunt. I was not only unhappy that Texas lost to Tech last year, thus screwing up our BCS standing, but, if I may, Raiders fans might note that UT fans did not tear bleachers from the stadium and storm the field (we save that for OU and TAMU games, thank you).

So, yeah. There's a certain relief that Tech (one of about four schools who consider UT their primary rival. You are not. That's OU, whom we respect and fear. Then TAMU, who is our sabre-rattling cousin who shows up on the holidays drunk and looking for a fight) is out of the way, with a mark in UT's win column. Had UT let this one slip away at home, we'd be kissing this season good-bye. I can wait for the OU game before we do that.

I don't mean to criticize, but...

It seems the great state of Washington sees fit to take its murderous, psychotic criminals to the county fair.

I'm all for rehabilitation and treatment of the mentally ill. Truly, I am. But killing folks should not win you a roof over your head, three hots and a cot, and annual trips to see who wins the blue ribbon for the county's best blueberry pie.

Do you know when the last time was I got to go to the @#$%ing County Fair?

Anyway, it seems that the State of Washington misplaced one of their psychos, somewhere near the fried Oreo booth.

Well done.

Nathan C's Story on the Radio

Nathan C works at Texas Public Radio in San Antonio. He also wears tweed, turtlenecks and corduroy, and frequently looks down his nose at people exactly like you.

Well, none of that is true. Nathan is a hip, hip guy who knows more about movies and jazz than almost all of The League Nation combined. Seriously, dude is an encyclopedia (and he also knows a surprising amount about Disney animation).

Anyway, Nathan is one of the honchos at Texas Public Radio in programming, but he also does stories from time to time.

Check this out. Or here.

I meant to post earlier, but Jamie just came back from running an errand and said "Nathan was on the radio!"

Jamie and Nathan (and Steanso) all went to school together.

Anyway, the story is on a documentary about a family struggling with autism and the unusual way they're finding to work with their kid.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Disney's "The Incredible Journey": A Study in Animal Abuse

I know I'm supposed to be on hiatus, but...

I'm watching the original version of Disney's "The Incredible Journey", a movie I last saw on what must have been a 16mm print in elementary school.

This is one seriously screwed up movie. I mean, its a cute kids' movie as far as stories go.

But I turned it on partway through, and have seen the following:

1) This movie seems to take place in multiple simultaneous time periods, from the 1880's to the 1960's. And maybe both in the UK and the US. That's a tough journey for any animal.
2) They threw a real live cat into a raging river to get shots of a cat paddling furiously in a raging river.
3) And then threw a retriever in right after the cat, but he got to smash up against rocks
4) Then they released a real, live Lynx after the poor cat. Neither the cat nor the Lynx were screwing around at all. I sort of wondered how many cats they went through to get that shot.
5) They may have also stuck real porcupine quills in the lab's face.

Am beginning to appreciate PETA's role in Hollywood.

Digger


Digger claims Jamie for Spain

Godspeed, Mr. Kitty.

pic courtesy Doug