Years that end with zero or that are commemorated with precious stones tend to be celebrated, sometimes overly so, by lots of people. A couple years back, quite a few of our friends turned 30, and that occasion merited large parties, with all the trimmings. Businesses, movies, and films that reach certain milestones get the red carpet treatment. But aside from birthdays, I think one of the happiest times to celebrate such landmark dates are wedding anniversaries.

Today is one such red-letter day: 75 years ago, on Friday, 17 February 1933, Blondie Boopadoop married Dagwood Bumstead. A year later, they had their first child (now one of the world’s oldest teenagers), Alexander. Given Dagwood’s appetite, Blondie’s job, and two teenagers (sister Cookie came along later), I’m surprised they haven’t gone bankrupt, what with rising food costs. But that’s fantasy for you…

Anyway, happy anniversary, Blondie. Here’s to another 75 years!

What is the largest cell in the human body? What’s the smallest?

* * *
Sunday is my time, and has been for years. A nice Sunday breakfast is always complemented by the Sunday paper. I may work or play afterwards (or blank out on the fact that the next day is Monday, and consequently do absolutely nothing), but a nice “special” breakfast (eggs and bacon, or waffles, or pancakes, or french toast, or whatever…) followed by the Sunday edition is a must.

This was true even when I was growing up– my parents would fix a nice breakfast, and then we’d all read the papers together (or fight over it, especially as I aged and gained siblings. Having dibs on the comics section is one of life’s greater struggles, it seems). These relaxing Sundays are part of my earlier memories.

When I was growing up, we got the San Francisco Chronicle. I can remember sort of looking at the headlines, or having an important story explained to me (I still remember my parents telling me who Patty Hearst was, why they were upset whenever there was mention of Vietnam, and why Watergate was important). But from a very young age, I always enjoyed the comics. There were two places in the paper I could find comics: the first was in the all-important, all-color, all-coveted comics section. Here I would start with “Bringing Up Father,” and then enjoy “Blondie,” “Dick Tracy,” “Peanuts,” and a host of other well-known strips, as well as comics that have either dwindled in circulation over the years or passed into the great Comic Strip Heaven, from “Miss Peach” to “Boner’s Ark” to “Alley Oop.”

The second place I could find cartoons were the editorial cartoons, which were ensconced for decades in the Chronicle’s Sunday Punch section. Today’s Chron is different from the grand old paper of yore, but the Punch was the “blue” section (as opposed to the Datebook’s “pink” section (Datebook was the arts section, where movies, theater, art, and other like aspects of the arts hung out on Sundays)). Sunday Punch in its prime was the Op-Ed page of all Op-Ed pages, and not only contained the editorial cartoon(s), the letters to the editor, the Chron’s own editorial, but also some of the most interesting columnists, from Art Hoppe to Stan Delaplane to the oft-imitated but never equalled Herb Caen, of three-dot journalism fame. Sunday Punch also had a column by a guy named L.M. Boyd, called Grab Bag. It was here that I learned the kinds of facts that not only made me go “hmm,” but primed me to be a contender for world armchair champion of “Jeopardy!” in my adult years. It was also an amusing column that broke the solemnity of the various op-ed pieces on weighty issues such as war, poverty, housing, politics, and other topical issues.

Well, an era has definitely ended (although in my opinion, it ended a while ago): L.M. Boyd just died, at 79 (Grab Bag itself died a while back). Delaplane, Hoppe, and Caen had already passed from the scene, and the Sunday Punch is no longer the Sunday Punch I knew. I’m now entertained by the Los Angeles Times, but like many other papers that I’ve perused over the years, it doesn’t have the same cachet as the newspapers of old. The comics sections has changed over the years, and with the exception of Bill Watterson’s rebellion against the incredible shrinking strip, resembles nothing like the comics I fell in love with as a child. While newspapers as a whole were never wholly free of partisanship, there definitely was a golden age of journalism, and I count myself fortunate to have witnessed the tail end of it. Today, newspapers are not owned locally as much as they are by corporate entities, bent on reaping whatever profit is available, and ignoring what a newspaper is all about. Someday I’d love to see a newspaper bring back comics on the scale that they used to be, hire columnists of the caliber of Caen and his contemporaries, keep on staff reporters that do more than just act as stenographers, support editors who will uphold standards, and support their home communities. It may be a pipe dream, but one can always wish.

In the meantime, I can thank the Chronicle and other newspapers for entertaining and educating me– it was through newspapers that I strengthened my abilities to read and reason, it was through newspapers that I developed my love of comics and art, and it was through newspapers that I learned bits and pieces of trivia. Adieu, L.M. Boyd– the Sunday paper was a bit more fun because of you.

Oh, and the largest cell? It’s the female egg, while the smallest cell is the male sperm– a fact Boyd shared with me and millions of others.

Despite the fact that I don’t have tons of boxes sitting around, posters or statues gracing my walls and shelves, and I don’t wear t-shirts emblazoned with men on steroids in tights, I am admittedly a comic book geek. These days I don’t really collect comics anymore, and I have mulled over in my mind possibly selling some or all of my collection. I still enjoy comic books and comic strips though, and have quite a few books, anthologies, and histories of comics, both in strip and book form.

For a long time, comics were something you bought, initially for a dime, then 12 cents, 20, 25, and upwards– now you can head down to the drugstore or your comics specialty shop and plunk down close to $2 for a book. They were long considered the province of young children, perhaps teens, and weren’t bought, collected, or hoarded beyond junior high– or so people thought. Most of the time they ended up in the garbage, either as part of cleaning out one’s childhood, or as part of Mom’s cleaning out of one’s childhood (my own mother threw out my collection of Heavy Metal magazines from the 1970’s– I could probably pay down part of my debt with what some issues are worth now!). Sometime in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, comics started to develop a more serious reputation, as conventions, conferences, and the like started to be held. By the time my friends and I started developing a pile of more than five comics to keep, comic-cons were big deals, collectors were scouring attics, basements, thrift shops, and flea markets everywhere in search of old and rare issues. I had a lot of fun at the time collecting and trading comics– we even had a teacher who collected comics, and one day he said we could bring our collections to school and he’d bring his. Turned out he was a serious collector, and we were able to see (and briefly hold!) Whiz Comics #2– better known to serious aficionados as the exact issue that introduced Captain Marvel to the world (DC Comics now owns him, and he’s more popularly known as “Shazam“). He was a pretty cool teacher- probably retired by now. I sometimes wonder what happened to him.

But I digress– by the mid 1980’s, there seemed to be a comic store everywhere, and tons of people trying to cash in on the growing collectability of comics. It got to the point where both DC and Marvel ran up high print counts of all of their titles, and over-saturated the market.

As all interests and fads do, things cooled down a bit, a lot of little shopkeepers went bankrupt, both DC and Marvel faced severe financial difficulties of their own, and comic books and comic collecting veered down a new path. About this time, you had a resurgence of interest in old comic strips, and companies like Denis Kitchen’s Kitchen Sink Press were reprinting in anthologies and volumes old strips like “Little Orphan Annie,” “Lil’ Abner,” “Terry and the Pirates,” and the like. While Kitchen Sink Press isn’t really around anymore, the trend has continued unabated in recent years, and both DC and Marvel have gotten into the act, reprinting dozens of their titles in the Archives and Masterworks series. A couple museums opened here and there; one in San Francisco, the Cartoon Art Museum, and one currently in Boca Raton, Florida (but will be relocating to the Empire State Building in NYC in 2007), the National Cartoon Museum (previously known as the International Museum of Cartoon Art). I’ve visited the San Francisco one, but never had a chance to get to Boca. Perhaps I’ll have better luck in New York a year or two down the road. Cartoons and comics have also found a resurgence, through such vehicles as DC’s Vertigo comics line, and a number of graphic novels, some on historical or serious topics. For instance, Art Spiegelman’s “Maus,” a graphic novel re-telling of his parents’ experiences in the Holocaust, won a special Pulitzer Prize. Another example is Marjane Satrapi’s “Persepolis,” a fascinating autobiographical work of a young girl growing up in revolutionary and post-revolutionary Iran. Somehow, these types of books aren’t exactly for the pre-teen set; today’s comics aren’t the Harvey and Dell comics of yesteryear.

But this year, cartoons and comics have hit the big time. The first is an exhibit here in L.A., mounted by both the Hammer Museum and the Museum of Contemporary Art, titled “Masters of American Comics.” It opened in November, but we hadn’t gone yet due to the absence of one-half of our duo, plus the dreaded Bar. We finally went today, heading first to the Hammer, and then to MOCA, to take advantage of free admission (this isn’t DC, you know). One of the co-curators is Brian Walker, the son of cartoonist Mort Walker, so we knew it was going to be an interesting exhibit. We weren’t disappointed. The curators chose to focus on a select group of top artists (always a subjective call!), rather than an overview of comics and comic strip history (instead letting the books in the museum bookstores do that for them). While this approach worked on one level, I still think having a broader overview would have helped (especially for viewers who were coming to comics for the first time or after a long break). There were introductory sections giving a general introduction to the origins of comic strips/comics, but not enough that people could see how it influenced American pop culture. Still, the Hammer and MOCA are first and foremost art museums, so that was probably appropos. As it is, having comic art displayed as art is definitely a departure from the norm (which is to treat comics/comic strips as pop culture/fads), so I think the show was successful from that standpoint. The artists chosen for the Hammer segment represented comic strips and cartooning from roughly 1900 to 1950, with Charles Schulz bringing up the rear (”Peanuts”ran in its entirety post-1950, but Schulz’s influences were definitely pre-1950). Each artist had a brief biographical sketch, and then examples of strips they worked on, usually the sole or most famous work they’d done. We agreed with most of the choices: Winsor McCay (”Little Nemo in Slumberland”), George Herriman (”Krazy Kat”), Frank King (”Gasoline Alley”), Chester Gould (”Dick Tracy”) and Charles Schulz (”Peanuts”). The others were interesting, but could have been replaced by other examples. In this group are Lyonel Feininger (”The Kin-der-Kids”), E.C. Segar (”Thimble Theatre,” which featured Popeye), and Milton Caniff (”Terry and the Pirates”). While Feininger’s work was interesting, I felt someone like R.F. Outcault (”The Yellow Kid” and “Buster Brown”) would have been a better choice as an example of an influential cartoonist at the dawn of comic strips. A similar strip to “The Kin-der-Kids” was “The Katzenjammer Kids” by Rudolph Dirks, and also would have been a good artist to profile. But as I said, these things are subjective… Part of the reason for choosing the artists was to highlight innovations or techniques they introduced to the field, but it was sometimes difficult to see exactly what these changes were, since the strips were actual pre-publication strips or newspaper sheets carefully saved over the years and now owned by collectors or actual cartoonists themselves (Patrick McDonnell, the creator of “Mutts,” loaned quite a few strips from his personal collection for the show). I appreciated knowing that Gould was one of the first to introduce violence as a consistent theme in the comics, and things like that, but it would have helped to have had a fascimile made and then had a circle, arrow, or other indicator printed on top to show how the artwork changed. In other words, we were seeing the actual work of the comic artists themselves, but we weren’t always seeing the link between their art and how it changed or influenced comic art overall.

The second half of the show was at MOCA in downtown Los Angeles, a good ten miles or so from the Hammer, which is in Westwood by UCLA. The MOCA display focused more on comic book artists and more recent artists from the second half of the twentieth century. The featured artists were Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Harvey Kurtzman, R. Crumb, Art Spiegelman, Gary Panter, and Chris Ware. With the exception of Panter, I felt these were pretty good choices (for what are fairly obvious reasons to any comic book aficionado). For Eisner, most examples focused on “The Spirit”, his comic book pull-out distributed in the Sunday newspapers during the 1940’s and 50’s. Kirby’s work was largely examples from “The Fantastic Four,” along with some of his earlier work with Timely Comics. Kurtzman had representative material from MAD magazine (naturally!), as well as his risque “Little Annie Fanny” feature from Playboy. Crumb had his usual large-figured women and odd geezers from his 60’s and 70’s comic book materials (and Fritz the Cat too!), but there was also an interesting (and true) comic-book story of old-time delta blues musician Charlie Patton — that segment changed my opinion of Crumb- I’m starting to think maybe he’s underappreciated.

Spiegelman is known for “Maus” and that comprised most of the selections for his portion of the show, while Ware’s artwork is from Jimmy Corrigan and some of his other works. The only artist I’d never heard of, and whose work I didn’t “get,” was Panter. If anyone reading this now wants to try to explain why I should appreciate Panter, go right ahead.

The show was definitely worth it, but it ends March 12, and as far as I know, isn’t being shown anywhere else. So sorry if you missed it. But there’s another interesting show coming up; this one focuses on superheroes and science. Science, you say?

Yep– we saw the banners on Wilshire on our way to and from food shopping– Wolverine, the Invisible Girl, Storm, and others. My curiosity piqued, I decided to find out what this is all about. It seems the California Science Center, in Expo Park by the L.A. Coliseum, is hosting what is billed as the “premiere” of the Marvel Superheroes Science Exhibition. Apparently here people will be able to learn about the science behind their favorite superheroes. As the site says, “Is there a biological basis to the Hulk’s transformation?” “How can knowledge of simple mechanics help us command the strength of Iron Man?” It sounds really interesting, but I predict a lot of the on-hands stuff is going to be monopolized by the under-18 set. Still, we’ll probably go at some point.

Finally, lest DC feel left out, this year’s stamps from your friendly Postal Service includes the release of a series of DC Superheroes stamps, including obvious choices like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, rounded out by Aquaman, Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, Hawkman, Supergirl, and Plastic Man. Given that generally you have to have been dead at least ten years before you can have a stamp issued, that definitely includes Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, the Flash, and Supergirl. Not sure about the rest… (and yes, I know– these are fictional characters)

So there you have it– from pop culture to art to science to paying our credit card bills, this is definitely shaping up as a banner year for cartoons and comics in general.

The latest press buzz these days is about the protests by Muslims over the depiction of Muhammed in European editorial cartoons. By now, you either know about it, or you can claim to be one of the happy(?) few totally disconnected from current affairs.

To recap: a number of editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammed were published by Jyllands-Posten (The Jutland Post), a Danish newspaper with a history of sympathy for right-wing causes, including anti-immigrant sentiment. The cartoons were originally published in September 2005, but have only now in February 2006 stirred international reaction within the Muslim world. Prior to the past week, criticism existed, but built slowly until it crescendoed within the last few days with protests, riots, calls for boycotts, and threats and acts of violence.

My take: As far as the newspaper is concerned, I have mixed feelings. Obviously, in the West and especially here in the United States, we value the concept (if not always in practice 100%!) of freedom of speech, enshrined here in the Constitution and in many of the constitutions and charters in European (especially Western European) nations. It’s an important right, and freedom of the press is one of the few core Western values I’d love to see enshrined worldwide. So on one hand, I do support the right to comment on, criticize, and satirize any topic, and that includes religions of all types. On the other hand though, the press and the media in general wield enormous power, whether they choose to recognize that or not, and as such hold (or should hold) ethical and moral obligations to society at large. Unfortunately, newspapers, TV stations, and the like do not always maintain consistency; here in the U.S., the New York Times sat on information regarding Smirk’s secret wiretapping program via the NSA for a year, only publishing the story when it was clear a book (which is on my to-read list!) was about to be published outlining the wiretaps. Such esteemed *cough* programs as “Entertainment Tonight” and other gossip shows and magazines often push the boundaries of privacy and taste. Overseas, Jyllands-Posten chose to deliberately publish cartoons and caricatures they knew would be extremely offensive to a large segment of the world.

Without putting strictures on press freedoms and rights, there does need to be a discussion on ethical and moral boundaries. Ideally, newspapers and other forms of communications sole raison d’etre is to inform, as neutrally and objectively as possible, their readership and the public at large about the news and events of the day. That charge does not include being inflammatory or overly provocative to the point that the initial news/message/content is overshadowed.

Much has been made of the fact that readers and editors tolerate cartoons and satire concerning Judeo-Christian philosophies and personages. Yet Jylland-Posten chose not to run cartoons satirizing Jesus; to my mind, that’s a rather inconsistent position to take. Others have pointed to the fact that Arab and Muslim-oriented newspapers run anti-Semitic cartoons in their press. While this is sadly true, does that mean two wrongs make a right? Rather than matching rhetoric for rhetoric, cartoon for cartoon, sometimes the nobler action is to maintain moral and ethical stances, even when the temptation is great to do otherwise. Additionally, as this piece relates, it isn’t just the Middle East that caricatures and demonizes Jews and Judaism; the West has its own past and attitudes to answer for. To me, that suggests that yet another discussion needs to take place: Where does honest political satire or commentary cross the line into gross mischaracterizations, racist iconography, and exaggerated stereotypes that do nothing other than to demean, degrade, and inflame? How do we identify, and more importantly, maintain appropriate boundaries?

This is important given the Western tradition of appropriating Christian themes, persons, and ideas for a wide variety of materials, ranging from Broadway shows such as “Jesus Christ Superstar” to the book and film “The Last Temptation of Christ” to plastic Jesuses on dashboards to photographs of crucifixes immersed in urine. Such openness and flexibility doesn’t extend to all creeds though; throughout history and theology, there have been conflicts over exactly what is permitted when it comes to iconography. Within Christianity, there is variety: Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox persuasions contain icons, statues, three-dimensional crucifixes with the Christ in the midst of his Passion, while many Protestant faiths, especially at their outset, shunned veneration of images, statues, and the like. For Jews, the second commandment in the Old Testament was a clear indication of how to worship; when was the last time you saw religious statues or pictures of God or any of the other Old Testament personages in a synagogue? For that matter, observant Jews do not speak the name of the Lord. Such diversity is welcome, but it also needs to be respected.

For example, one of the cartoons depicts Mohammed with a bomb in his turban– could there have been a better way to draw a cartoon bringing attention to the violent tendencies of extremists rather than insinuating all adherents to Islam are inherently violent? This would be somewhat akin to picturing Jesus as a Crusader, slaughtering Jews, Muslims, and other pagan enemies (see the sections titled The German Crusade and the Siege of Jerusalem for pertinent examples).

Although Jyllands-Posten has since apologized, it isn’t just the press that bears some responsibility here. While I expected criticism and some protests, I don’t think I, nor the world, expected the intensity and the violence that has accompanied the Muslim world’s outcry. Threatening executions, boycotting Danish firms, and burning embassies all seem a bit overboard to me, and I suspect to a lot of others. For one thing, it reinforces (rightly or wrongly) the perception that Islam and all Muslims are violent. At a time of strife and conflict between the West and Arab nations, Palestine and Israel, and the United States and Iraq/Afghanistan, it would seem the better part of valor to save such animosity and energy to highlight real differences, not just a cartoon. Instead, the average person watching this on the news or hearing about it on the radio will just go, “There they go again…” Rather than using the controversy as a way to teach and educate and hopefully broaden minds, certain provocateurs within the ranks of the clerics, secular leaders, and others have provoked agitation among the general populations.

That such feelings can be so easily stirred points to faults that the West must correct; from the days of colonial endeavors in the Middle East and elsewhere (French and British protectorates in the wake of World War I, aggression in present-day Afghanistan and Pakistan stemming back to the 19th century, European colonies in places like Algeria, Indonesia, and India), the “White Man’s Burden” has extended not only to governmental involvement but also to attitudes and stereotypes directed at the other– those that are not like “us” in so many different ways. Cartoons like these are merely one manifestation of these continued attitudes, which need to change if anything is to be different. Commenting on the hypocrisies of a religion that is at its heart peaceful with the actions of extremists is one thing (and this applies to Christianity as well– turning the other cheek and all that doesn’t square with “killing infidels,” bombing clinics, and other such acts of mayhem), but projecting thinly veiled generalizations and racism is another. While I strongly believe that at some point the past cannot continue to be used as an excuse by anyone for any action, it would behoove both sides to examine history with objective clarity, and craft some solutions for the future. Simply repeating cycles doesn’t do anyone any good. For the West, and especially the United States, it means staying out of the affairs of other nations (Exhibit A: Iraq). For the Arab world, it means taking some responsibility for its own actions and intents.

I hope that perhaps some much-needed conversations come out of all this, but given the many lines in the sand drawn by various individuals and organizations for their own ends, I’m not sure a lasting dialogue will emerge. In any event, when harm is intended, one doesn’t always have to pull out the guns– sometimes just a pen will do.