I have many Harvey Korman stories but not the time to write them up right now. Check back here later for the anecdote about Howie Morris's wedding and whatever others I decide to include. He was one of the funniest people I ever encountered...and easily the best audience.
Former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan is getting hammered by a lot of people for his new book. But perhaps the cruelest bit of hammering (and certainly the funniest) comes from Michael Kinsley.
A couple of odd e-mails make me think I oughta say this...
I don't really care if George W. Bush did Cocaine in his youth. I'm against recreational drugs and any sort of intoxicants as a personal choice — meaning for me — but others can do what they like with them, up to the point where their actions under the influence affect others. I think, for instance, that if you get drunk, get into your car and cause an accident that kills someone, you should be treated pretty much the same as if you got a gun and deliberately shot that person.
My comment about Bush and Cocaine was not about the fact that he used it but that he (allegedly) said a dumb thing about it. That was even dumber than Clinton's line about how he tried Marijuana but didn't inhale...and we all gave the guy a lot of grief about that.
Also, yes, I live in "Hollywood" and I work in the entertainment industry. This does not mean I use drugs. If you've ever had a beer and a cigarette, you are a raging alcoholic and druggie compared to me. The strongest non-prescription substance I've ever put into my system is high fructose corn syrup...and I've even given that up.
My pal Aaron Barnhart, who's the TV critic for the Kansas City Star, writes about Keith Olbermann — who Olbermann's attacking and who's attacking Olbermann.
For myself: I generally like Olbermann and think it's great that he's covering so many stories that the mainstream media is ignoring or allowing the shortest of shrift. There are two things I don't like about Olbermann's show. One is how pre-programmed most of his interviews seem, with Keith feeding his guests questions that have obviously been worked out in advance to elicit predetermined responses. The other is that I think he goes over the top hammering on some issues...even issues where I tend to agree with him. I'd like to see Hillary Clinton drop out of the race and throw her whole-hearted support to Obama but I don't think she should be ordered out of it, like she broke a rule and Olbermann's the ump who gets to disqualify her and send her to the showers.
Olbermann is very successful. His ratings are strong with the key demographics and trending stronger. I think what upsets a lot of right-wingers about him is not that he's expressing a viewpoint — he's only one guy doing this in a sea of Conservative talk radio and cable news broadcasters — but that he may be augaring the coming trend. Mr. Limbaugh was the one who showed the world how to make money off right-wing anger...so we got a lot more of it. Mr. Olbermann may soon be spawning imitations and "me too" enterprises. As the money goes, so go the TV, radio and publishing industries.
The day of the court decision in California that legalized same-sex wedlock, I said I expected (as did everyone) that there would be a ballot initiative in November from folks who wished to undo that decision. This is apparently so. I also said that the vote would be close and that Gay Marriage might squeak by. That seemed like a safe prediction.
But I'm starting to be more confident that G.M. will prevail, and I think that could become a lot more likely on June 15. That's the date the California Supreme Court has to decide if it will allow same-sex marriages to commence on June 17. They could decide that such nuptials are to be deferred until the voters have their say. But they could also opt to allow the ceremonies to commence. If they do, I think that's the shooting match.
If the court doesn't grant the stay, hundreds (thousands?) of same-gender couples will rush to the altar. My goodness, even Sulu from Star Trek plans to marry his life-partner A.S.A.P. By the date of the election, these folks will all have wed, at least in the eyes of The Law, and qualified for health insurance together and set up many of the institutions of "normal" life that have been previously denied them.
So the November vote would not be a vote to prohibit Gay Marriage. That's what almost all votes of this kind in the past have been, all across the country. This vote would be to outlaw it and annul all those marriages. Are the voters of California going to vote to undo all that? To say, "No, no...we unmarry you!" is quite different from never letting gays marry in the first place.
The momentum on this issue is all in the direction of accepting same-sex wedlock. There have been two recent polls on the subject which show contrasting results as their bottom line. The Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll had Gay Marriage losing 54% to 35% with 10% undecided. The more recent Field Poll had it prevailing 51% to 42% with 7% undecided. That sounds like something of a wash but there are two things to remember. One is that even the polls that show G.M. losing show opposition to it declining, especially among new, younger voters. A lot of folks who abhor the whole notion have to be thinking that they can't stop it...only delay it.
And the other point is that if all this knot-tying begins on June 17, it's a brand-new ball game. Some of those who've been trying to delay it will shrug, decide the inevitable has occurred and that it's just plain mean to annul all those unions. If the Times/KTLA poll accurately reflects voters in California...well, 54% isn't that high a number. (It is said — I assume there are exceptions to this — that support for initiatives usually declines as you get closer to election day; that you have to start with at least 60% support to have a chance of passing.) If Gay Marriages actually start on 6/17 and there's no giant earthquake on 6/18, I'll bet opposition to same-sex weddings will drop and further deflate those who oppose it.
On top of all that, I don't think complaints about "activist judges making laws" are going to have their usual potency in this argument. First off, I think folks are starting to get wise that when most people complain about "activist judges," what they usually mean is "any court decisions I don't like." Moreover, the California State Legislature has twice passed laws that legalize Gay Marriage. Those are elected officials doing this. Our governor (he's elected, too) twice vetoed those laws, saying that he felt it was up to the judicial branch to decide. The judicial branch has decided and Schwarzenegger says he accepts their decision. Judges in this state are also elected...so the whole matter is the handiwork of people we elected to represent us — to make and interpret our laws. Whether they were right or not can be debated and will be debated...but this is not the fiat of appointees who knew they were not answerable to anyone.
Lastly, as I said, I think the mood is shifting in this country. Maybe the polls don't reflect the change as occurring swiftly enough but I sure sense that opponents of Gay Marriage everywhere know it's coming. Even William Bennett, who earned an awful lot of the money he lost in Vegas by demonizing Gay Marriage has been declaring that battle as lost. Those who are jubilant may have Mr. Bush to thank. Compared to issues like The Economy and The War in Iraq, letting Mutt marry Jeff is seeming like less and less of a threat.
One of my most Conservative friends has admitted to me that he has a moral dilemma: He's still against same-sex nuptials but if he votes for the candidates who are with him on that issue, he's voting for the folks who want to prolong a war he thinks is a mistake and continue financial policies he thinks are hurting everyone except the Extremely Wealthy. He also agrees that nothing will stop Gay Marriage from becoming accepted...and thinks the politicians who oppose it know that and are just using it, with increasingly less effectiveness, as a Red Meat issue to get donations and votes.
I don't think it's a certainty that Gay Marriage will become the law of the land in California this year but at least it won't lose by much...and if it only loses by a point or two, that will further prove its inevitability. If on June 15, the California Supreme Court rules that bride can go ahead and marry bride, and groom can run off and be hitched to groom...well, that flips the whole battle in terms of offense versus defense. And it just may end it, at least in the nation's largest, most trend-setting state.
While Bob Elisberg is waiting for that lunch I owe him, he wrote an article about The Greatest Musical You've Never Heard Of. In his opinion. When we do have that lunch, I may argue for a couple of others...but go see what Bob thinks.
May 30, 2008
