The Newsaic, home to FootnoteTV, Footnote Fahrenheit, and more

By Stephen Lee

	Footnote Comics: Superman, Adventures of Superman, Action Comics, Superman : Metropolis Published by DC Comics. What are these comics about? : Last survivor of the planet Krypton, Clark Kent serves the public as Superman and as a newspaper reporter. He is married to Lois Lane, a Daily Planet reporter. His nemesis, Lex Luthor, is known to the world as a successful businessman and was elected President of the United States in 2000 as a third-party candidate. His high-school sweetheart, Lana Lang, ended up marrying Pete Ross, who is now Luthor's vice-president. You may recall hearing about a lot of the changes Superman underwent in the 1990s (he was killed in 1992, he came back, and he temporarily changed his powers and costume), but he's back to basics now. Recommended Reading : There are a lot of comics and graphic novels starring Superman, which can make it difficult to know where to begin. I recommend starting with graphic novels, like No Limits or The Death of Superman. For more information, go to DCComics.com. Topics :   Gangs, Welfare Reform, and Single Mothers New! Third-Party Presidential Candidates Did FDR Allow Pearl Harbor to be Attacked by Surprise? Superman : Metropolis #1 (c) DC Comics Panel from Adventures of Superman #586. Third-party presidential candidates. Panels from Superman #182. Evoking Pearl Harbor.   All covers and panels are copyright DC Comics. Gang Membership Risk Factors, Welfare Reforms, and Single Mothers (last updated March 12, 2003) (back to top) In Superman : Metropolis #1, a gang member tries to assassinate the state's governor, who is running for the Senate. Lois tells Perry that the gang member's mother blames the governor himself because of his welfare-to-work policies. Perry is skeptical, but allows Lois to lead with that as long as she gets some statistics to back up the mother's theory and to soften a debate over single parents. Perry's skepticism is well-founded, and Lois probably gives the mother's feelings too much credit. The mother simply seems to be looking for someone else to blame, and she has picked an ironic but unlikely candidate : the governor who implemented the workfare programs that are now strongly encouraged by federal law and that resulted in the mother earning more money. There's a lot referenced in these two panels. Let's take them one at a time : (1) risk factors for gang membership, (2) welfare reforms, and (3) single parents. Risk Factors for Gang Membership (back to top of article) Lois Lane may have better luck in carrying out Perry's request than I did, but I have not yet found any statistics that provide such detailed information as whether a gang member's parents worked (in welfare or not) or didn't (please e-mail me if you know of any). A Seattle study published in 2001 did identify several risk factors that predict whether youths aged 10 to 12 would join a gang between the ages of 13 and 18. According to the study, children living in neighborhoods where marijuana was available were 3.6 times as likely as other children to join a gang, children who lived in a household with just one parent were 2.4 times as likely as those with two parents (and those who lived in a household with one parent plus other adults were 3.0 times as likely), and those whose family had a low household income were 2.1 times as likely as others. No single factor predicted gang membership, the Seattle study found, but young people were more likely to join a gang as they experienced more risk factors. "These findings suggest that youth join gangs as a result of antisocial influences in neighborhoods, antisocial tendencies in families and peers, failure to perform well in school, and early initiation of individual problem behaviors," the study concluded. We know that several relevant risk factors were already at work regarding the shooter here. His family undoubtedly has a low income since the mother was on welfare and the household apparently is a single-parent one given Perry's comments. Maybe the mother values the lost time with her son more than the money she was forced to earn, but it seems a stretch to say that the workfare program is the cause of her son's gang involvement. Would the mother staying at home unemployed really have helped her son stay away from gangs? It's not like he would have spent all his after-school time with her instead of with his peers. Moreover, the Seattle study did examine the effect of "low bonding with parents" and "low religious service attendance" (two factors that could result from a single mother being out of the house more because of work), but concluded that "neither was found to predict membership." Welfare Reforms (back to top of article) As for workfare programs, whatever state Metropolis is in probably implemented such programs sometime in the 1990s; the federal government began allowing experimental programs in the early 1990s and began encouraging them with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program enacted in 1996. The TANF program requires heads of families receiving welfare to be working within two years and limits assistance to five years overall, and encourages state activities through a set of financial incentives. The TANF program expired in October 2002 and is currently operating under an extension. President George W. Bush has proposed a plan to reauthorize the 1996 legislation and to implement further welfare reforms. In particular, he has proposed increasing the minimum work requirements that states must ensure, requiring welfare recipients to work 40 hours a week, and authorizing more state experimentation and flexibility. He also has proposed eliminating a program that gave bonuses of up to $100 million a year to those states that successfully reduced out-of-wedlock births. The percentage of people in the United States receiving welfare through AFDC and then TANF declined in the late 1990s due to the booming economy and to the various welfare reforms implemented over the decade. According to the federal government, about 2.1 percent of the population was on such welfare in the summer of 2000, a level not seen since the early 1960s. The federal government began its welfare system in 1935, when it enacted the Aid to Dependent Children program (later renamed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children), which provided federal matching funds for state activities supporting dependent children. Because states operated the program with some variability, the ADC program varied widely throughout the country. One early criticism of the ADC program was that it focused too much on children and did not make provisions for their parents, and that it effectively encouraged family breakup. ADC did not provide a caretaker grant for the mother until 1950, only for the children, and thus forced mothers out of the home and into the workplace. Many states also included "absent father" clauses, denying aid to dependent children whose father was present, and many states maintained these clauses even after the federal government authorized the granting of aid to two-parent families with unemployed fathers. There have been several efforts to reform the United States' welfare system, especially as participation in the AFDC program expanded dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson launched a broad "War on Poverty," which addressed a wide range of social programs. In 1969, President Richard B. Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which would have guaranteed all families with children a minimum income along with providing work incentives; this plan never became law and died within a few years. President Jimmy Carter helped enact minor adjustments to the AFDC system and President Ronald Reagan cut welfare spending in favor of programs encouraging work. In the 1990s, the federal government increasingly allowed states to experiment with their own anti-poverty programs, which meant granting the states waivers from AFDC rules. New Jersey offered a "wedfare" program that offered bonuses to welfare mothers who got married, and Maryland lowered benefits for women whose children did not get regular health checkups. Many states used waivers to implement work and time limit requirements, and many also used their waivers to freeze benefits and thus address their own budget crunches. The most influential experiment began in Wisconsin in 1992. Under the "Wisconsin Works" program, families with children faced a two-year time-limit on welfare benefits and adult recipients would be required to work full-time or participate in 40-hour-a-week training programs. Welfare reform culminated with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bipartisan act abolished AFDC and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which provided block grants of $16.8 billion a year to states from FY 1997 to FY 2002. Under TANF, heads of families are now expected to be working within two years or lose federal aid, and are generally not eligible for aid after receiving aid for five years. Now, states must ensure that a certain percentage of all families receiving welfare are engaged in work activities on a regular basis. This percentage was 25 percent in FY 1997 and increased to 50 percent in FY 2002, with higher percentages for two-parent families. The extent of work activities required was 20 hours a week in 1997 and increased to 30 hours in FY 2000, with two-parent families expected to work more hours. States that fail to meet these requirements receive less funding, and states that achieve great success are eligible for high-performance bonuses. Besides establishing the TANF program, the 1996 welfare reform legislation also strengthened child-support collection activities, revised the federal child nutrition programs, and encouraged efforts to reduce teenage pregnancies such as by funding abstinence-only sex education programs (for more on sex-education programs, go here). The TANF program also included a provision to award bonuses of up to $100 million annually from FY 1999 to FY 2002 to the states that achieved the nation's largest decreases in out-of-wedlock births. In 1999, Alabama, California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Michigan each received a $20 million bonus for the reductions seen there. Bush's proposal would end this bonus provision and instead use the money to fund research and technical assistance programs focused on forming families and establishing healthy marriages (for more on teen births, go here). Single Parents (back to top of article) And as for single mothers, one-parent families with children have become more common in recent decades, increasing from less than 13 percent of all such parent-child living situations in 1970 to more than 31 percent in 2000. Single mothers comprised 25.82 percent of the parent-child living situations in the United States in 2000, with single fathers making up another 5.45 percent. The increase in one-parent households encompasses many different situations and types of marital status. In 2000, about 53 percent of all single mothers were divorced or separated, about 43 percent were never married, and about four percent were widowed, according to Census Bureau statistics. About 62 percent of all single fathers were divorced or separated, about 34 percent were never married, and about 4 percent were widowed. Vice-President Dan Quayle helped make the changing nature of the American family a political issue with a controversial 1992 speech in which he criticized the fictional character Murphy Brown for having a child without being married. Unlike Murphy Brown, most single mothers are employed but live below the poverty line. About 57 percent of all single mothers in 2000 had family incomes less than $20,000, and only 3.2 percent had incomes greater than $75,000. The following table shows the breakdown by race of the marital status of single mothers in 2000. All races White Black Asian Hispanic Never married 43.2 32.8 64.8 27.8 43.8 Divorced 35.0 44.2 17.1 31.7 25.2 Separated 17.7 18.4 15.5 30.1 24.6 Widowed 4.0 4.6 2.6 10.4 6.3 Sources re Gangs: The National Criminal Justice Reference Service has reports on gangs and juvenile justice on-line here. Karl G. Hill, Christina Lui, and J. David Hawkins, Early Precursors of Gang Membership : A Study of Seattle Youth, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin (December 2001, NCJ 190106). Finn-Ange Esbensen, Preventing Adolescent Gang Involvement, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (September 2000, NCJ 182210). Sources re Welfare: The Department of Health and Human Services has information on the TANF program here, various statistics here, and its annual reports to Congress from 1998 to 2000 here. President George W. Bush's welfare reform agenda and "Working Toward Independence: The President's Plan to Strengthen Welfare Reform" are on-line here. James T. Patterson, America's Struggle Against Poverty in the Twentieth Century (Harvard University Press, 2000 edition). Sources re Single Mothers: The U.S. Census Bureau has data on families and living arrangements on-line here, including America's Families and Living Arrangements for 2000. The graph is based on data on-line here. The table is based on data on-line here. Third-Party Candidates (last updated October 1, 2002) (back to top) Third-party candidates have always had a difficult time winning definitive success on the presidential level due in part to a variety of structural and political factors; no third-presidential candidate has won any electoral votes since the 1960s, not even Ross Perot, easily the most successful such candidate in decades. Still, could Lex Luthor have pulled it off? Maybe he could have in the 2000 election, when neither major-party candidate seemed to inspire much passion until the post-election recount process. In the current DC comics, Luthor is not seen simply as a criminal but as a businessman with some questionable dealings in his past. He has a strong reputation as a brilliant leader (he did help save the world during DC's "Final Night" series and he did help rebuild both Metropolis and Gotham City in 1999), enough money to not need the public funding that would not be available to him except in hindsight, and the organization to get onto the ballots in all 50 states. Presidential Elections and Obstacles to Third-Party Success While most presidential campaigns revolve around the two leading parties' candidates, third-party candidates have been a mainstay of the election season and have sometimes taken on significance in setting the political agenda and even affecting the overall result. Third-party presidential candidates have won more than 5 percent of the popular vote in 13 elections, more than 20 percent in two elections, and some of the electoral votes actually needed to become president in eight elections. Still, no third-party presidential candidate has won any electoral votes since the 1960s. Third parties and third-party candidates cover a wide spectrum; there were at least 13 candidates in the 1992 election, at least 23 candidates in 1996, and at least 17 candidates in the 2000 election, though only Ross Perot and Ralph Nader won more than 1 percent of the popular vote in any of these elections. Nevertheless, they have been grouped loosely by political scientist James Q. Wilson into four categories: (1) ideological parties such as the Socialist Labor Party on one end and the Libertarian Party on the other, (2) one-issue parties such as the still-going Prohibition Party and the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, (3) economic protest parties such as the Populists at the beginning of the 20th century, and (4) factional parties that organize in protest of a major party's presidential candidate. Additionally, a study by Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, and Edward H. Lazarus concluded that prominent third-party presidential campaigns in the 19th century were primarily about an established political party that offered an alternative to the main two parties of the time, and prominent third-party presidential campaigns in the 20th century have been more centered on a particular individual candidate. Some recent examples of prominent third-party candidates include : Ross Perot (Reform Party). A Texas billionaire with no experience in government, Perot captured public attention during the 1992 election for his focus on the budget deficit and his promises to bring his corporate successes to the White House. Perot participated in three presidential debates against Bill Clinton and George H. Bush, and won about 18 percent of the popular vote (studies have shown that Clinton probably would have still won had Perot not run, though Perot did cost Clinton a majority of the popular vote). Perot ran again in 1996 but with less success; he was not invited to participate in the presidential debates between Clinton and Bob Dole, and won about 8.4 percent of the vote. Ralph Nader (Green Party). A long-time consumer advocate, Nader first ran in 1996 with a nominal campaign but became a more active candidate in 2000, saying that he was both criticizing the Democratic Party as well as trying to build the Green Party as a viable and stable third-party. Nader won about 2 percent of the popular vote in 2000. Representative John Anderson of Illinois (National Unity Campaign). Originally a moderate Republican, Anderson dropped out of the 1980 Republican primary in favor of Ronald Reagan, but continued his campaign as an independent candidate. He participated in one presidential debate with Reagan (Carter refused to debate Anderson), and won about 6 percent of the popular vote. Governor George Wallace (American Independent Party). The last third-party candidate to win any electoral votes, Wallace split from the Democratic Party to run a campaign against the extension of civil rights and in favor of the Vietnam War. He had strong results in the South and won 13.5 percent of the popular vote and 48 electoral seats. Wallace subsequently returned to the Democratic Party. Third-party candidates face several obstacles to success. Beyond voters' loyalty to a particular major party and voters' choosing simply to not vote rather than to seek out an alternative, third-party candidates face several structural obstacles, some of which are discussed below. Electoral college system. The electoral-college system of voting allocates electoral votes based on the states where one has taken a plurality of the popular vote, so this system disadvantages third-party candidates with a broad base of support and favors those candidates with strong regional support. Thus, Ross Perot could win 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 without winning a single state or electoral vote, while States' Rights nominee Strom Thurmond took 7.3 percent of the electoral vote in 1948 while winning only 2.4 percent of the popular vote. For more on the electoral college, go here. Public financing of presidential campaigns. Under the Presidential Public Funding Program, a third-party candidate receives funds for his or her campaign only after proving some success in a presidential election. If a party's candidate wins five percent of the popular vote, that party will receive some post-election reimbursement and then will get some funding automatically in the next election, which is why Ralph Nader of the Green Party wanted to win at least five percent of the vote in 2000 and why Pat Buchanan sought the Reform Party's nomination that same year. Ballot access laws. Third-party candidates must establish organizations and efforts to get themselves and their parties on the ballots in most if not all of the states. Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy's 1976 independent campaign was noteworthy for successfully challenging many states' ballot access laws, even though he ultimately took less than 1 percent of the popular vote. Participation in events such as presidential debates. Since 1988, presidential debates have been organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-partisan organization that invites candidates to a series of debates based on pre-established criteria. The Commission's criteria has been criticized for setting overly high standards for third-party candidate participation; for example, Ross Perot was invited in 1992 at the request of the Clinton and Bush campaigns, but was not invited in 1996. For more on debates, go here. Fears of a deadlock. If no presidential candidate wins a plurality of the electoral vote, then such a presidential election would be decided by the House of Representatives in a special, complicated procedure by which all the newly-elected representatives vote as state delegations, and an absolute majority of state delegations is needed for election. Ross Perot himself raised the possibility of a deadlock to help explain why he briefly decided to drop out of the 1992 presidential election, though he did re-enter subsequently. Non-Presidential Elections Third-party candidates have had more definitive success in non-presidential elections, in part because candidates can sometimes win by taking a plurality of the popular vote, rather than having to win a majority of the electoral vote, and because they can focus on a smaller pool of potential voters. As of early 2002, there were two governors, one Senator, and one member of the House of Representatives who were not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican parties. Still, there have no more than two third-party governors at the same time since the 1960s, no more than two third-party Senators since the 1940s, and no more than one or two third-party members of the House of Representatives since the 1940s. As of 2002, before the November elections, the only third party elected officials at high federal or state positions were: Federal U.S. Senate (1 out of 100) : James Jeffords of Vermont (who switched from the Republican party to independent status in May 2001, throwing control of the Senate back to the Democratic Party) U.S. House of Representatives (1 out of 435) : Bernard Sanders of Vermont. State Governors (2 out of 50) : Jesse Ventura (Minnesota Reform Party, Minnesota) and Angus S. King Jr., (Independent, Maine) State Senates : only two out of 50 states had any third-party state senators. Maine had 1 out of 35 seats and Minnesota had 3 out of 67; none of Nevada's state senators are party-affiliated. State Houses : only five out of 49 states with a state house had any third-party members. Georgia had 1 out of 180 seats, Maine had 1 out of 151, New Hampshire had 2 out of 400, Vermont had 5 out of 150, and Virginia had 2 out of 100. Nebraska does not have a state house. Sources: Selecting the President: from 1789 to 1996 (Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1997). Micah L. Sifry, Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America (Routledge, 2002). Some information on the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections is available via the Federal Election Commission, on-line here. Information on the pre-election 2002 partisan composition of the U.S. Senate is available via the Senate on-line here, on the U.S. House of Representatives here, on state governors via the National Governors' Association here, and on state legislatures via the National Conference of State Legislatures here. Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, and Edward H. Lazarus, Third Parties in America (Princeton University Press, 1996, second edition). Pearl Harbor (last updated February 21, 2003) (back to top) In the "Our Worlds at War" storyline, President Lex Luthor was given advance knowledge that an alien invasion was coming and would make its first strike at Topeka, Kansas. Luthor let the attack occur but then used his advance knowledge to help win the war. Afterwards, Clark Kent wrote a story accusing Luthor of allowing the attack to happen. Luthor denied the story and Clark Kent could not provide sufficient corroboration, and so he was fired publicly from the Daily Planet, though he secretly continues to build evidence against Luthor. (See Superman Issues #172 and #182-83) Let's put aside (for now) the improbability of any respectable newspaper printing such an inflammatory story without more substantiated sourcing or at least couching the language somewhat. This storyline evokes the lingering questions about whether the United States somehow had advance word of the Japanese attack on Hawaii's Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which sparked the United States' entry into World War II against Germany, Japan, and Italy. Did Franklin D. Roosevelt have advance warning and choose not to act? Moreover, did FDR deliberately provoke the Japanese in order to get the United States into World War II? (The storyline also evokes theories about whether Winston Churchill had information about an impending Nazi bombing raid on the English village of Coventry and chose not to act because doing so would have revealed that the English had broken the Nazi's code. The veracity of this story has been debated and is not the concern here.) Roosevelt and other top officials were increasingly sure as 1941 progressed that Japan and the United States would eventually go to war. They also recognized that it would be better if Japan made the first strike so that it would be clear that Japan was the aggressor, and at least some thought that a Japanese first strike would help end the ongoing debate within the United States about aiding Britain against Nazi Germany. Officials in Washington and in Hawaii did not think Pearl Harbor was a likely target; the Philippines or Guam seemed better candidates. Nevertheless, officials in Washington did pass on at least some of these warning signs to those military officers in charge of defending Pearl Harbor and the U.S. Pacific Fleet anchored there; some have concluded that these signs should have been enough for commanders to take more precautionary defensive measures. Possible signs of an attack specifically on Pearl Harbor were misinterpreted or did not make it far or quickly up the chain of command, and were not necessarily deliberately concealed or destroyed. Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter C. Short, the two commanding officers from the Navy and Army at Pearl Harbor, received much of the blame for allowing the Pearl Harbor disaster. They were relieved of command within days and were later charged with dereliction of duty, though neither was convicted. Several investigations in the 1940s as well as in the 1990s determined that they were not fully to blame, and that they had not been provided full information regarding the escalating Japanese situation. For example, a 1995 report concluded that "Army and Navy officials in Washington were privy to intercepted Japanese diplomatic communications … which provided crucial confirmation of the imminence of the war," that "the evidence of the handling of these messages in Washington reveals some ineptitude, some unwarranted assumptions and misestimations, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and follow-up at higher levels," and that "together, these characteristics resulted in failure … to appreciate fully and to convey to the commanders in Hawaii the sense of focus and urgency that these intercepts should have engendered." But such reports do not indicate that FDR deliberately had such information withheld from Kimmel and Short, or that FDR had more specific information about an attack on a particular target at a specific time. Some critics and historians have argued that FDR wanted to provoke Japan into launching a first attack that would have enabled the United States to enter into World War II via the "back door," but others have criticized that argument as presuming too much power to FDR and as excusing Japan's aggressiveness and boldness in making the attack. Moreover, even if FDR did want Japan to make the first strike, some have asked what he would have gained by having Pearl Harbor be unprepared. If FDR simply wanted Japan to take the first shot and thus spur the United States into action, why would FDR hobble the U.S. forces and thus ensure the deaths of the lives and battleships needed for the war he wanted to enter? About 2,400 people were killed, and 18 ships and many planes were destroyed. In any event, some of the signs available to officials in Hawaii before the attack included : The "war warnings" of November 27, 1941. Kimmel and Short received separate messages from Washington on November 27 indicating that hostilities were possible at any moment and that they should take defensive measures quietly so as not to alarm civilians (including the Japanese population on Hawaii). Kimmel thought the warning indicated that war with Japan was closer, but thought other targets were more likely and thus did not increase the readiness of vessels in Pearl Harbor. Some officials in Washington thought that Hawaii's forces were now on alert, but they did not send a coordinated message to the two commanders and did not follow up to see what preparations were being made. Two U.S. messages on December 3, 1941 indicating that Japanese diplomats and consulates were being ordered to destroy their codes, confidential documents, and coding machines. Officials later testified that these messages indicated that such actions were a definite sign of impending war within days; the destruction of codes could be seen as a regular act, but the destruction of the coding machines was serious. Some of the pieces of information that Kimmel and Short later argued would have notified them on an attack are : The Japanese Pearl Harbor "Bomb Plot" message of September 24, 1941. Japan's Foreign Ministry asked its consulate in Hawaii in September 1941 for detailed information about the position and size of ships in Pearl Harbor. This message was intercepted by the United States and was translated in early October. Navy officials and the White House discussed the message and thought it indicated a change in Japan's approach, but did not consider the message alone a sign of imminent attack. After Pearl Harbor, Kimmel and Short both argued that if they had been informed of the message, they would have been able to prepare better for an attack. The Japanese transmitted a message to consulates indicating the code words indicating war with the United States, the Soviet Union, and/or Britain. The code was originally "east wind rain" but was then changed to "winds execute." Whether such a message was ever sent and intercepted by the United States is disputed. The Fourteen-Part Message sent from the Imperial Japanese Foreign Ministry to the Japanese Ambassador in United States from December 6-7, 1941, along with the "pilot" message before hand and the "activation" message afterwards. Japan's Foreign Ministry notified its ambassador in Washington on December 6 that it would be sending the next day a 14-part message in reply to recent American proposals. Japan then sent the 14-part message, followed by a short message instructing the ambassador to deliver the 14-part message at 1 p.m. on December 7, which would be just a few hours before the attack on Pearl Harbor was to begin. The messages were intercepted and, taken together, did put some people in Washington on notice of impending war, but the messages were slow to move up the chain of command and were still not seen as indicating an attack specifically on Pearl Harbor. Some officials in Washington also assumed (wrongly) that the U.S. Pacific Fleet had already left Pearl Harbor and gone to sea because of the previously given war warnings. Sources: Gordon W. Prance in collaboration with Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon, At Dawn We Slept : The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor (Penguin Books, 1981). Gordon W. Prance with Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillion, Pearl Harbor : The Verdict of Hisotry (Penguin Books, 1991). Robert S. Stinnett, Day of Deceit : The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (The Free Press, 2000). The 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, which included language requesting the President to advance Kimmel and Short, is available on-line here.			Marvel * Alias * Daredevil * Truth * The Ultimates * Ultimate X-Men * X-Men * X-Statix DC/Wildstorm * Batman * Green Lantern * Superman * Wildcats 3.0 Vertigo * Sandman * Y : The Last Man Other * CrossGen * Eagle * Queen & Country * Supernatural Law * Three Strikes All art is copyright their respective owners. Footnote Comics is a service mark of Stephen Lee. Newsaic and FootnoteTV are registered service marks of Stephen Lee.
	DISCLAIMER. The materials contained in this website have been prepared by Stephen Lee ("Author") for informational purposes only and do not contain or constitute legal advice. These materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Furthermore, this information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results. Reading this website is not intended to create, and your receipt and/or use of the information contained herein, does not constitute an attorney/client relationship. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Reproduction, distribution or republication of material contained within this website is prohibited unless the prior permission of Author has been obtained. This page is part of Footnote Comics. Copyright (c) 2003 Stephen Lee, except for cover and panel art which are copyright of their respective owners. Newsaic and FootnoteTV are registered service marks of Stephen Lee. Footnote Comics and Mirror Law are service marks of Stephen Lee. All rights reserved. More information here.