Category Archives: To Be Filed

New Republic is spotlighting bad predictions that were made about the year now ending…

• The Three Worst Economic Predictions of 2014
• The Two Worst Technology Predictions of 2014
• The 3 Worst Policy Predictions of 2014

What I always find amazing about these things is that the bad predictors never pay any real price for being wrong and they never revise their thinking. They just make the same wrong predictions again and again and again. There are still people in the world who listen to Dick Morris, who's kind of the Peter Popoff of politics.

This ran here on 11/21/05 and drew a number of angry e-mails from folks who thought a Three Stooges short with Curly in it was a thing of beauty comparable to the Mona Lisa, Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" or the pastrami sandwich at Langer's Deli downtown, whereas one with Shemp or Joe Besser was a national disgrace. In other later posts, I came out and expressed more of my fondness for those two Third Stooges and began to hear from folks who liked Shemp and Joe as much as I did. Nice to see the public consensus wising up on this vital issue…

My TiVo keeps grabbing Three Stooges episodes from Spike TV, especially those that feature Shemp Howard or Joe Besser in the coveted post of Third Stooge. Every now and then, it'll get a Curly but it's mostly Shemp and Joe. (If you are woefully unfamiliar with the lineage of Stooge Membership, I covered it here.) Among Stooge buffs, the consensus seems to be that Curly was the undisputed greatest of all Stooges and that Shemp was a barely-acceptable substitute and then, only because of his bloodline. And Joe Besser was the pits, bettered slightly when "Curly Joe" DeRita happened along. In some Stooge circles, if you express a contrary opinion, you're likely to have someone poke you in the eyes, run a saw over the top of your head and slap you silly. At one point, I felt that way.

But as I occasionally watch the Stooge epics my TiVo collects, I'm struck by how much I've come to like Shemp and Joe. The lower quality of the films that featured them may simply have been a matter of money. Year after year as the Stooges made two-reel comedies for Columbia, there was less of a market for two-reel comedies and therefore, the increasing necessity to make them cheaper. Many were out-and-out cheats where the producers took an old Stooges short and shot a few new scenes, then edited them in and passed the result off as a different film. This saved enough cash to enable them to do other films that weren't mostly footage from earlier pictures…but even those look like they were shot on 8mm in someone's garage.

I wasn't conscious of the lowering of production values when I was a tot. That's because back then, they all looked cheap. In the sixties in Los Angeles, Channel 11 ran Stooge films, often hosted by a gent named Don Lamond who happened to be Larry Fine's son-in-law. The show he ran fluctuated constantly in length and time slot. It would be a half-hour a day for a few months, then they'd cancel something else and make it an hour for a while. Then they'd move it later and cut it back to a half-hour. Then they'd move it again, make it an hour and stick some cartoons in it. TV Guide never knew what time it was on and neither did those of us who wanted to watch. About three times a year, Lamond would have Moe, Larry and Curly Joe live in the studio where they'd plug Stooge merchandise and admonish the kiddos at home not to try the things they did in their films.

Most of the Stooges shorts originally ran between 17 and 19 minutes and you'd think one of them, plus commercials and Mr. Lamond's hosting, would nicely fill out a half-hour of TV time. Channel 11 didn't see it that way. When the program was a half-hour, they always chopped the films down to get in two. If they had an hour to fill, they'd run four or sometimes three plus an unrelated cartoon. This rendered most of the Stooge films pretty far from coherent. In many cases, the editors didn't put a lot of thought into the cutdown. If six minutes had to come out, they'd often just chop out the first six minutes after the titles. The films didn't have much in the way of plot but whatever they had, they had in the first scene or two. In some cases, I suspect, scenes were lopped out because Channel 11's prints were simply falling apart, and there was at least one instance when they got pieces of two separate films confused. The action suddenly cut from Moe, Larry and Shemp running a tailor shop to Moe, Larry and Curly drilling for oil…or something like that. Between the scheduling and the editing, it felt like the Stooges were not only in the films but running the station, as well.

I was always curious why they didn't just run one Stooge film per half-hour and I came up with two possible reasons. One was just to keep things moving faster. The competition was running 6-minute Bugs Bunny cartoons and the Channel 11 execs may have felt the need to approximate that pace and to give the kids two stories per half-hour. The other reason was that they had all those Shemp and Joe shorts, and someone there may have wanted to prune things down so they could get a Curly into every show. They did run them in a completely random order which usually resulted in one Curly plus one non-Curly episode. Every so often, by sheer chance, the two films that shared a half-hour would include some of the same footage or one would be a remake of the other.

What this all meant was that my introduction to the Stooges was via the worst possible presentation of their work. I don't know how old I was when I finally saw shorts that were uncut and had all the scenes in the proper sequence. When that happened, I began to realize that the problem with the Shemp and Joe shorts wasn't Shemp and Joe. They just weren't good films and wouldn't have been much better with Curly. Given their paucity of opportunities for physical comedy, they might have been worse. Shemp and Joe were funnier than Moe and Larry when they had nothing to work with.

The films run relatively uncut on Spike TV, a channel which sometimes defines itself as "entertainment to inspire men." I'm not sure the Stooges should be inspiring any man over about the age of nine but given some of the other things on that channel, you could find worse role models.

John Oliver, teasing his return to the air, speaks of the horror that is New Year's Eve. Mark concurs. I have been to one or two decent New Year's Eve parties…and then enough horrible ones that I now avoid them all. It's a bad night for a non-drinker who would rather not spend time around those who consume to excess.

I recall more than one party where several folks took the following attitude: "I'm not having a good time so I'll drink some more. And then if I'm still not having a good time, I'll drink some more. And then if I'm still not having a good time…" It wasn't the alcohol so much as this idea that you absolutely have to have a "good time" even if you're really not sure what that would mean. Trying too hard can make that not happen in the worst way.

After a few of these, I wised up. Haven't had a bad one since I decided to stay home that night. You don't have to go out that evening and once you accept that concept, it's probably even easier to enjoy yourself if you do travel somewhere to celebrate. Here's Mr. Oliver…

Here's an example of one reason (of many) that some women decline to file reports when they're raped…

Bill Cosby has reportedly hired private investigators in order to dig up dirt on his alleged rape victims and discredit them. The American comedian, who has been fighting an onslaught of accusations that he sexually assaulted more than two dozen women over many years, had paid six-figure fees to investigators to find information, Fox News reported. Sources confirmed that Cosby, through his Hollywood attorney Martin Singer, was implementing a scorched-earth strategy in which anything negative in his accusers' pasts was fair game.

If they could turn up proof that one of Cosby's accusers had a history of filing bogus rape charges, that might be relevant. But it's probably going to be more like, "So-and-So was arrested for shoplifting a bracelet when she was thirteen so you can't believe her when she claims Cosby raped her eleven years later."

Everything about the above story may be untrue. He may not be spending six figures to dig up dirt and I can't imagine where any reporter would have gotten the thing about "fair game." But just the fact that this might be done to any woman who was raped will scare many of them off. And then years later, if they finally get up the courage to report it, some will say, "If it was true, why did she wait so long?"

This was originally posted on this site on Friday, January 13, 2006…

I had a whole batch of errands to run today…

Stop #1: My ATM. I complete the transaction and head for my car when I suddenly hear my name yelled. A woman I do not recognize runs up to me and begins hugging me and smothering me with kisses. Finally noticing my clueless expression (well, more clueless than usual), she informs me she is Kris, who worked as the second P.A. (i.e., the writers' secretary) on a show I wrote in 1982. She does not blame me for not knowing who she is because not only has so much time passed but she has also changed her hair color, lost sixty pounds and had her nose made smaller and her bustline made bigger. We have a nice conversation and Kris tells me that she hopes to see me again some day. She has more plastic surgery and another hair color adjustment planned so she says she'll make sure and tell me it's her.

Stop #2: Electronics Shop #1. I want to buy a pair of wireless headphones to plug into my new TV set so I stop at a store that should have some. They do not. The salesguy looks at me very strangely…as if there's something very odd about me wanting wireless headphones. I shall have to go elsewhere but before I do, lunch would be nice.

Stop #3: A Small Sandwich Stop. I go in and order a small sandwich. The lady behind the counter gives me the same kind of odd look and I think, "What is it with people today?" She says she'll bring my order to my table. Later, when she does, she summons up the courage to ask me, "Do you know you have lipstick all over your face?" Oh, so that's why the guy at the Electronics Shop looked at me that way.

Stop #4: The Men's Room of the Small Sandwich Shop. A look in the mirror confirms that I am streaked like an Apache in a bad western. Why do they make lipstick that doesn't stick to lips and why does Kris purchase it? She has every right to change her appearance but did she have to change mine? I seem to have also gotten a few big crimson streaks on my shirt so, figuring it's better to be wet than red, I remove the shirt, wash those parts of it, wash my face, put the shirt back on and depart.

Stop #5: A Sav-On Drug Store. I go in and purchase a few items. At the checkout line, the cashier gives me the same odd look. Since I know I don't have lipstick all over my face, I ask her what's so odd. She says, "Your shirt." I look down and realize that I have misbuttoned my shirt. The top button is in the second buttonhole from the top and all the others are off one. It is embarrassing to realize that I am 53 years old and apparently unable to dress myself.

Stop #6: The Men's Room of the Sav-On Drug Store. I discover it's worse than I thought because when I tucked my shirt in back in the Men's Room of the Small Sandwich Shop, I got the shirt tail caught in the zipper of my pants. I zip it down and the shirt gets further ensnarled and then I can't move the zipper up or down. I spend a good five minutes in a toilet stall straining and grunting before I finally disengage shirt from fly. During this, others are coming in to use the urinals outside the stall and I can only imagine what they think is going on in there.

Stop #7: Electronics Shop #2. I ask a salesguy if they carry wireless headphones. This salesguy gives me the same odd look as the salesguy at the first Electronics Shop. I ask this one why he's looking at me that way. He says, "Nobody uses wireless headphones any more." I think from now on, I stay home and order everything through Amazon. Including my small sandwiches.

Mike Worden writes…

I disagree with you that Jeb Bush has a chance of being the Republican nominee in 2016. He can't win if he splinters the party even if it only splinters 70-30. What would you say would be the selling point for the non-crazies to get the crazies on board?

Well, I should first point out that I don't think any of my political-type predictions are anything close to infallible. They're just what I think at the moment and since I'm not a professional pundit and I don't have a huge audience, I don't think it's awful when, as I often am, I'm wrong. The Internet is way too full of people who think their hunches and deductions are blessed with some kind of Papal-like infallibility and I don't think that's true of anyone. It's certainly not of me.

That said, here's my thinking. There's almost no chance of the Republicans losing the House. I think there's very little chance of them retaining the Senate and I base that on looking at the particular seats that will be up next time…but I don't think the G.O.P. can admit that, certainly to each other and in many cases, not even to themselves. (One of the key differences between Republican and Democrats is that I think Republicans are always way too certain of victory and Democrats, way too uncertain.)

So I think the selling point of the G.O.P. to its various factions is going to be, "This is our chance for all the marbles." They fantasize about having the House and the Senate and the Presidency…which would, of course, also give them effective control of the court system, as well.

They will say to their ranks, "This is an opportunity to get everything we've ever wanted. We can ban abortion and gay marriage and Obamacare and environmental protection and every last trace of gun control and The Daily Show and Big Bird and judges who rule against us and all those taxes you hate paying and illegal immigrants (except for those who work cheap for you) and we can add Reagan and Bush to Mount Rushmore and pass all sorts of laws that will make it impossible for the Democrats to ever win another election…but we must have every single branch of government to do it. It doesn't matter what Jeb Bush (or other candidate some would call a R.I.N.O.) has done in the past. All that matters is that he will pledge to never veto anything that the Republican House and the Republican Senate will pass…

"…so are you going to not support him and risk ruining our one chance to destroy the Democratic/Liberal agenda finally and forever?"

Now, I don't think there's much chance of the G.O.P. taking the Triple Crown. But I think what I just wrote is a compelling argument that would get a lot of Tea Party types to work their butts off for Jeb Bush (or Romney again or anyone in that category) to say nothing of the bucks it would unlock from the Koch Brothers and other zillionaire donors. I think that's what the 2016 election will all be about.

And like I said, I may be wrong. I just think that's going to be the dream and the Tea Party folks won't let a little thing like Jeb Bush being a Bush and a crook get in the way of it.

Another interview from John Cleese's recent book tour. Here he is in Seattle…and you may want to vault over the first four and a half minutes of introduction…

Pundits are assuming that the next G.O.P. nominee for president will be someone from this list: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum or Scott Walker. The current CNN/ORC polling, which is close to meaningless about 2016 but perhaps of some significance now, puts Bush at the top of the pile with 23%, followed by Christie with 13% and Carson at 7%. That's among self-identified Republicans plus Independents who lean Republican. (You can read a PDF of the full results here.)

If I were on that list, I'd be humiliated to be polling below Ben Carson who has no experience and nothing to offer besides nutcase theories about Democrats being evil and on the Soviet payroll. Huckabee, Paul, Rubio, Ryan, Cruz and the rest of them are below Carson.

Cruz, Jindal, Perry and five others poll below "Someone Else," which is a slightly nicer way of saying "None of these guys." When you see reporters talk about some of them as serious candidates for '16, remember that they're polling 6% or below in their own party. Santorum is getting a lot of press lately for a guy who's at 2% in a poll with a three-point margin of error.

I'm not sure why Mitt Romney is not on the list but I imagine if he were, he'd be either the #1 or #2 pick, mostly due to name recognition, and he'd knock guys like Santorum or Kasich down to negative numbers, which is almost where Pence and Portman already are.

But here's the question in the poll that interests me…

If you had to choose, would you rather see the Republican party nominate a presidential candidate who agrees with you on every issue that matters to you but may not be able to beat the Democratic candidate, or a presidential candidate who can beat the Democratic candidate but does not agree with you on every issue that matters to you?

At the moment, the number who'd choose to lose with someone who's with them on every issue is about 29%. I guess the premise there is that if they keep nominating ideologically-pure Republicans, eventually one of them has to win. I would also guess that once there is a real Democratic nominee these folks can loathe by name, that number will decline a tad.

Then again, the respondents are probably assuming they already know the name of the dread enemy. The current list of possible Democratic nominees seems to have but one name on it and that name is Clinton — the name people who hate Obama hate almost as much as they hate Obama. (And yes, there's been talk of Elizabeth Warren or even Bernie Sanders running and I suppose some folks still think Joe Biden may be hovering. I can't imagine anyone who despises Hillary despising those three choices any less.)

On the other hand, around 70% of Republicans and Independents in this poll said they'd rather vote for a Republican who can win. That might be enough of a margin to drag the rest along.

So here's what I'm thinking: I keep hearing Jeb Bush can't be the nominee because he is not anti-immigration, he supports Common Core, he has some shady personal financial history, he was involved with a company that profited from Obamacare, he has never signed the "Never Raise Taxes" pledge, he increased government spending in his state…and oh, yeah. He's named Bush. A lot of Republicans don't want to defend or even see mention of the last Bush's stint in the Oval Office. You can keep George W. hidden in 2016 but not if you nominate his brother.

And my thought is that if none of that stuff is disqualifying to the 70%, maybe it doesn't matter, except that the 29% is going to be real, real angry when most of them vote for him. Which is why a year from now, I'll bet the list of Republicans who might get the nomination is missing half the names that are presently on it and contains at least six who aren't. And if Jeb isn't on it, it won't be because of the above reasons. I can sure imagine him as the ultimate viable candidate, especially if he can get Florida. No Republican can win the presidency in 2016 without Florida.

In January of 2004 — darn near eleven years ago — I posted this article about a very wonderful man I knew. I felt like posting it again…

Over on Pico Boulevard in West Los Angeles, there's a McDonald's just a few blocks east of Overland. It was built on an interesting piece of land…the former location of Heyler Automotive, which was a terrific place to take your car to be fixed. Heyler Automotive was opened in 1937 by John and Emilie Heyler and in the fifties, they turned the operation over to their son, John Junior, more commonly known as Jack. As a mechanic, Jack Heyler was too good to be true. He was nice, he was honest, and he knew his business. When I took my old Buick in to be fixed, if it wasn't something major, he'd do it for nothing or almost nothing. If it was something major, the job was done on-time and correct, and for far less money than someone else might have charged. You didn't even need to ask for an estimate; you just knew you'd get the cheapest price that was humanly possible.

Most of all, Jack was accessible. At any given moment, he had cars all over the place needing immediate repair and at least a dozen employees to supervise. Still, if you needed to talk to him for car-related advice, he would always make the time. At first, I figured I was getting special treatment because I was a neighbor. He and his lovely family lived three doors down the street from me and my parents. But after I sent a few friends to him and they received excellent service without even dropping my name, I was really impressed. Jack Heyler proved it was possible to run a good, benevolent, efficient business and still make money.

Unfortunately, Jack's health began to misfire, most of the woes falling under the category of Progressive Pulmonary Illness. Some of that was almost certainly related to a lifetime of breathing exhaust fumes and handling old motor oil and other toxicities. At about the same time, the McDonald's people decided they really, really wanted to open an outlet in that area, and Heyler Automotive seemed to rest on the only hunk of land that would work. After turning down huge offers for years, Jack finally took one. In 1983, the garage was torn down, the Golden Arches went up, and Jack Heyler retired from the automotive business. Sort of.

He did not sit idle. Oh, he devoted some time to his boat and to his study of old trains and planes. Mainly though, he became a full-time volunteer for many groups, state and national, that sought to regulate automotive safety and emission standards. Even when his respiratory problems became acute and all recreational activities had to be curtailed, Jack dragged himself to meetings (or later, rolled in via wheelchair) to do what he could to lobby for safer, cleaner-burning vehicles and improved handling of chemical waste relating to cars. He was a very effective witness, testifying before various city councils and state legislatures around the country, as well as Congress, and some called him the Father of Onboard Diagnostic Technology II, which is standard on all new cars and which allows emissions (and other) problems to be quickly located and corrected.

John "Jack" Heyler died the day after Christmas at the age of 74. The Los Angeles Times, in a piece that unfortunately cannot be accessed online, said that his efforts resulted "in major improvements in national and international standardization and vehicle emission control." Even before we lost him, the California Automotive Service Councils of California made him the first inductee into their Hall of Fame and the Service Technicians Society established the Jack Heyler Award which encourages leadership in that field. In 2001, he received the prestigious Outstanding Achievement Award from the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association.

The last time I saw Jack was maybe a year ago. I was visiting my mother and he was being brought home from a medical treatment, gaunt and frail in a wheelchair and with oxygen lines plugged into his nostrils. As they lowered him from the van on a little elevator, he saw me down the block and waved, and I ran down to shake his hand and say hello. He immediately asked me, "How's that Lexus running for you?" I told him, "Great. Almost as good as that old Buick Skylark you used to keep running," and that was about all I had the opportunity to say. If I'd had another moment, I'd have added something like, "I can't tell you how much I admire what you've done, devoting so much time and energy to helping clean up the automotive business. You are as wonderful and decent a human being as I have ever met."

Since I didn't get to tell him, I thought I'd tell you.

Joe Conason on why it's a good idea to work towards normalizing relationships with Cuba. It's either that or sticking with a policy that hasn't even begun to achieve its desired goal for fifty-some-odd years.

One might also note overwhelming public support for ending the embargo. Even Republicans favor it, which is hard to believe when you realize that Obama does, too.

The current Broadway cast of Jersey Boys — Joseph Leo Bwarie, Quinn VanAntwerp, Richard H. Blake and Nathan Scherich — go on Good Morning America and "perform" (I think they're lip-syncing) a medley from the show…

How to take care of your Smartphone battery. Right here.

My pal James H. Burns has an intriguing tale called "How Comics May Have Saved My Life." You'll have to go read it to find out how that could be.

From September of '05, we reprise this little tale. Just reading it again caused my mouth to feel a bit numb…

So about an hour ago, I'm leaving my dentist's office with a temporary filling and a cheek so full of Novocaine, I must look like Dizzy Gillespie on that side. I get in one of the building's three elevators and press the button to take me to the Parking Level, which is one floor below the Lobby Level. The elevator takes me to the Lobby Level, then heads back up.

The elevator fills with other folks on its way up and down again, and though I have the Parking Level button pushed and lit, it again goes no farther down than Lobby Level before ascending again.

This time on the way down, I get off at said Lobby Level and change elevators…and this one, miraculously, actually goes down to the Parking Level. There is another bonus in that it also contains one of the most stunningly beautiful women I have ever seen in my life. She's in her early twenties, she's blonde and tan and has great posture, and her entire ensemble looks like it was crocheted out of the string from an old Duncan Yo-Yo. My mind races to think of something clever to say, just so I might see her smile in my direction…but I don't have time and, besides, I'm not sure I can speak without drooling all over myself. Not that she probably hasn't seen that before…and from males who haven't just spent two hours having their molars drilled.

Down on Parking Level, I attempt to explain the elevator problem to the one of the Valet Parking Guys so he can report it but there are two problems, one being that my mouth doesn't work so well. The other is that this Valet Parking Guy is vastly more interested in serving the gorgeous blonde lady. He is also interested in servicing her. As he delivers her car — a gleaming red Corvette — he declines a $2.00 tip and instead tells her, "I will gladly accept your phone number."

I wince at the clumsy come-on but to my surprise, the tan one rattles off what she says is her number. In fact, she repeats it twice so he can write it down. Then she announces — in language more appropriate for a brothel or even a Pat McCormick Memorial — that he is welcome to come by and they will perform the sexual act of his choice. For a moment, the valet believes he is about to receive the greatest gratuity in the history of parking lots and then she adds, "Bring cash. I'm not cheap."

She departs and the V.P.G. sadly brings me my car. I hand him a couple of bucks and tell him, since he knows I was standing there and heard it all, "You should probably always take the money."

He sighs and says, "It's just as well. We share tips here and I don't know how I could have divided her with the other guys."

Pat O'Neill points me towards Andrew Sullivan's thoughts on appearing on the last Colbert Report. Am I reading too much into his words to note that Sullivan makes no mention of another political satirist who often has him on as a guest, Bill Maher? Probably. Anyway, thanks, Pat.