Category Archives: Uncategorized

You may have heard what happened on The Price is Right the other day. If you didn't, give this a watch and then we'll discuss it on the other side. Pay particular attention to how subdued Drew Carey's reactions are to a seeming miracle…

Okay, here's what happened. There was a fellow in the audience — a guy named Ted who is a devout Price is Right fan. He watches the show every day and either takes notes on or memorizes the prices. As you might imagine, the program sometimes gives away the same prize more than once. Throughout the show, Ted was shouting out, as folks in the audience do, suggestions to the contestants on stage who are guessing prices.

This particular showcase consisted of goodies that had appeared on past shows. Ted knew the prices, did a quick bit of addition and yelled out the right answer. On stage, the contestant (Terry) heard him and gave Ted's answer as his guess. It is not known if Ted and Terry knew each other or not. As it turned out the price was exactly right.

On The Price is Right, the showcase contestants give their guesses, then the show goes to commercial and when they come back, the winner is announced. During the break, the show's staff, recognizing that an exact, seemingly impossible "guess" had been made, became concerned that something might not be Kosher. As you may remember, there was once a gentleman named Michael Larson who did the "impossible" on another CBS game show, Press Your Luck. Mr. Larson had figured out a pattern in the game board and, quite legally, exploited it to win more than $110,000 on a show where wins of under $10,000 were the norm. There was a long tape stop and inquiry before that show's producers decided no rule had been violated. When they did, taping resumed and the "win" was certified.

Something similar happened here. The reason Drew Carey's reaction was so subdued is that during the break, he was told what had happened and had participated in the debates as to how it should be handled. He, like the show's producers, felt that the win seemed wrong in some way, with particular emphasis on the other contestant's situation. She made a great bid, apparently with no assistance, but she lost…to a guy who was given the answer. Still, that's how it works on The Price is Right. The audience shouts out numbers all the time and there's no rule that disqualifies a contestant if they use one of those suggestions and it turns out to be correct.

There's no word from within the show as to whether this will prompt any rule changes. Probably not since it's part of the fun that the audience participates like that. What they may do though is keep Ted out of the building. I hope Terry gave him a cut of the showcase.

It's looking increasingly like the Screen Actors Guild strike will not happen…or if it does happen, it will be so tepid in number and spirit as to set the union up for a hasty fold. Put simply, the necessary solidarity just ain't there.

If you're interested in the "no strike" viewpoint, you have nosagstrike.com insisting that, given the current economy, this is no time for SAG to be shutting down the town in a quest for gains that the other above-the-line unions were unable to achieve.

I'm not a SAG member but if I were, I don't think I'd buy that argument. There's never a good time for a strike, never a moment when a union with the length and breadth of SAG could take a hike without causing severe economic damage in many different directions. That is, in fact, one of the union's strengths and why its strikes tend to be short. When we writers find it necessary to walk out rather than accept a crappy deal, it takes a while for anyone to notice we're gone. There are always a few scripts completed and you have producers or directors who can write a little and get by for a time. But if Ugly Betty walks off Ugly Betty, production on the show ceases immediately.

It's not a step to be taken lightly…but unions are all about negotiations, and you can't enter into a negotiation without the power to say no. Going on strike is the only meaningful way in which a union says no. Without it, you wind up eating too many crummy deals…like, say, the one that the AMPTP has offered SAG.

It would be nice if we lived in a labor environment where strikes were never necessary. Alas, they occasionally are. A week or two ago on some discussion board, I saw someone say, "There shouldn't be a strike. Both sides should just get together in a room and talk until they come to some sort of agreement." That would be wonderful but that does not happen. The reason anyone's even talking about a strike is because that does not happen. The AMPTP does not do business that way. What's more, they believe that they've taken billions away from the unions by not doing business that way…so they have no interest in changing.

The anti-strike argument I might buy is that SAG is in no shape for the battle. The breach with AFTRA has weakened them, robbed them of that ability to choke off the flow of product to the networks. Infighting has weakened them further…and bad economic news has too many members operating out of too much fear. I don't believe the offer is a good one. I don't even believe it's comparable to what the WGA and DGA accepted. But the union sure doesn't seem to have the capability of doing any better.

One big problem: You have a lot of "name" stars coming out against a strike. In a sense, the views of Tom Hanks and Charlize Theron on this matter shouldn't carry much weight with the SAG membership. Most SAG members have very little in common with the economic concerns of those in the superstar category. Unions bargain for minimums while someone like Hanks has his own lawyers busily negotiating for maximums. This is not to suggest that Hanks and other Big Stars who've come out against the strike are acting only in self-interest…but a strike of the entire union is unlikely to benefit them. It's for the beginners, the day players, the extras, the journeymen, etc. An offer could be very bad for the 99% of the union that will never get near the earning power and clout of Will Smith…but good for, or at least not bad for Will Smith.

Still, it does matter what the George Clooneys of the world think. Not only are they the "face" of SAG to the outside world but they're the soul and spirit within. The producers need actors in general but they need guys like Clooney in a specific sense. You can't have a successful strike without some of them on the picket line. The WGA, before it grabbed up picket signs, did sufficient outreach and informational meetings to get the "A" list screenwriters and TV showrunners largely on board. SAG doesn't seem to have that…or enough of that.

I'd love to see SAG rebound and coalesce and link arms and take a solid stand. Even though a strike at this time might kill a movie project I'm writing, I don't like seeing our town's most powerful union thrashing about, imploding and infighting. This will eventually translate to worse money and working conditions for all of us…or at least all of us who aren't in the top 3% of our job categories. But the Screen Actors Guild in its current state doesn't look fit for any sort of battle and could even do itself serious structural damage if it tries. They should stop looking for a way to win the war and focus on some solution that'll enable them to get out with their limbs intact. This one was lost the day AFTRA decided to go it alone.

Mark Felt, the FBI officer who was the legendary "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame, has died at the age of 95. There are those who would argue otherwise but I think the guy was a genuine American hero…for a brief time. He was also behind a good deal of illegal surveillance that the bureau conducted, and I don't think one act cancels out the other.

The legend, of course, is that Felt gave Bob Woodward the inside info that enabled the reporter (and his partner, Carl Bernstein) to blow the Watergate scandal wide open and bring down Richard Nixon. What I've gleaned from my readings is that Nixon was undone more by his friends (and himself) than his enemies or any reportage. A lot of what Felt told Woodward, at least as quoted in All the President's Men, was wrong. Still, he was right enough to keep the Washington Post on the story when others thought the investigation had gone as far as it would ever go. That it went the distance is attributable, at least in part, to Felt.

According to this news report, Woodward and Bernstein went to visit Felt a month ago while they were in the area to give a speech. For Woodward and Felt, it was a reunion. For Bernstein and Felt, it was an introduction. They'd never met. I'll bet the reporters are glad they made that detour.

When cable TV started popping up in this country, many believed that the future of the medium was interactive. As a kind of experiment, the company we now call Time-Warner flew the great game show host Bill Cullen to Columbus, Ohio to emcee How Do You Like Your Eggs? for a cable service they had there called Qube. He did four of these for a home audience estimated at well less than a thousand viewers (some sources say 200) and this is the first ten minutes of the first one. It's kind of interesting to watch, especially when you remember that all through this, executives are thinking, "This is the future of television." It also shows what a good host Bill Cullen was, even working in unfamiliar surroundings with a new crew, doing an unpolished show. Hope he got paid well.

There are rumors that Caroline Kennedy's appointment to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat is a "done deal." Boy, I hope not. I'd hate to think you could get a job like that just because you were related to some folks who had the right surname and a lot of experience. And how come that didn't help Andrew Cuomo? He even has some experience in government.

I just fixed the link in the item about the cereal boxes. It pointed to the wrong place.

Sorry about the error. It's the first mistake I've made in eight years of blogging.

I just realized. I started blogging on December 18, 2000. So today is my eighth anniversary of doing this.

Our pal Jerry Beck is attempting the impossible: To winnow the list of great Warner Brothers cartoons down to a "One Hundred Best" list for a forthcoming book. Go over there and give him a hand.

And try to help him with the lower half. So far, most of the commenters are listing the obvious choices: One Froggy Evening, The Great Piggy Bank Robbery, Duck Amuck, What's Opera Doc?, Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century, Rabbit Fire, Coal Black & De Sebben Dwarfs, Rabbit of Seville, Three Little Bops, etc. There's very little chance of any of them not making the list. I'm sure Jerry would appreciate some nominations of cartoons that aren't always seen.

Phil Pollard sends me this link to 100 old cereal box covers. I don't remember about a dozen of these products at all (Kellogg's Corny Snaps? Nabisco Malted Shreddies?) and wonder if they were experiments tested only in certain regions.

The canvassing board in Minnesota ended its workday with Coleman a mere five votes ahead. There are many ballots left to examine and the way things are going, Franken will almost certainly pull ahead — perhaps significantly — before they're done. They expect to finish tomorrow.

Here's a pretty good overview of where this stands and how it got there.

Andy Rose writes…

The reason they can't be identifiable…vote buying. Potential buyers obviously don't like to shell out the money unless they know that you actually voted for their candidate like you claim you did. An easy way to make that possible would be for them to insist, "Make [some specific] mark on the ballot where we can find it later."

It probably seems like a silly thing in L.A., but I spent several years in eastern Kentucky, where it is still a big problem.

So then my question becomes how the rule stops that. Let's assuming I wanted to buy your vote in the last election and I somehow have access to inspect the ballots. I pay you $3.85 to vote for Bob Barr for president and then, instead of telling you to make that specific mark on the ballot, I instruct you to write in "Bullwinkle Moose" for some judgeship. It makes your ballot identifiable to me. What difference would it then make to ban "identifying marks?"

For that matter, we have a growing vote-by-mail trend in this country. If I want to buy votes, I can buy hundreds of thousands of them. I give you money. You give me your mail-in ballot with everything filled in except the votes. I fill in the votes I want and drop your ballot into a mailbox. No identifying marks necessary.

If I can buy votes that way, why would I bother with the method you describe?

In any case, I've been intermittently watching the live feed of the vote counting in Minnesota and I've watched Mr. Franken go from 150+ votes down to, at this moment, only 30 down. At this rate, he'll pass Coleman before they're done. I've only seen a few "calls" by the judges that strike me as arguable and I've seen none where I thought they were wrong. The same was true yesterday when I watched them ruling on the ballots that were more likely to go Coleman's way. It's a nice, transparent process…and I wonder how many other countries could ever have something like this where ballots are (re)counted in full public view.

On the matter of identifying marks, they seem to be allowing any vote where the voter's intent is clear, regardless of scribbles in the margins. The only exceptions are when the scribbles might denote the voter's name. So that's how they're interpreting the rule, which is not how the candidates' lawyers did in issuing their challenges. And while I've been typing this, Franken has picked up five more votes.

Fred Kaplan on America's Greatest Unknown Nuclear Strategist. Amazingly, it's not Bono.

Now, I owe Bob Elisberg another lunch.

I am somewhat fascinated — it's about an eight on a scale of ten — with the Senate recount in Minnesota. I'd like to see Al Franken win but that's of less interest to me than the process being made public here. I think we are very sloppy in this country about how we count votes. You wouldn't go near a bank that counted your money as haphazardly as we count votes…and no one ever seems to care except when caring might enable them to win an election they would otherwise lose.

I was very disappointed in 2000, not just by the presidential election results but even more by the following: That after all the anomalies and lost ballots and ballots that were supposed to be recounted and never were even after other recounts were yielding massive changes in the totals, no Bush backers were the least bit bothered. It was like, "Our guy won so shut up, get over it." My very Conservative friend Roger even believes the Bush side cheated and that was a good thing because the future of mankind depended on Al Gore being defeated, and anything that made that happen was morally justifiable. At least, I think Roger still believes this. He hasn't mentioned lately what a wonderful president he thinks Bush has been…

You'd think even folks who thought Bush really did get more votes would regret that it wasn't a cleaner count; that it was in any way arguable that their guy had triumphed, fair and square. But if anyone said, "Let's fix the process so this doesn't happen again," I sure didn't hear about it. It seems like whatever improvements were made were made only because local election officials around the country were worried they'd get in personal trouble if they were suddenly in the midst of a messy recount some day.

The Secretary of State in Minnesota, Mark Ritchie, seems to be doing a good, honest job of cleaning up the mess. Ballots are being recounted via such an open and visible process that there may even be a few people who will have backed the losing candidate and will actually believe he lost fairly. But I'll bet you that Mr. Ritchie is learning what could have been done to avoid many of the current snags…and maybe others who run elections will learn from this, as well.

Meanwhile, here's something I don't get. There are a lot of things I don't get but here's one that sticks out at the moment. Ballots are being disqualified in some cases because the voter made an identifying mark on them. Here's the relevant law from article 204C.22 of the Minnesota statutes…

Subd. 13. Identifying ballot. If a ballot is marked by distinguishing characteristics in a manner making it evident that the voter intended to identify the ballot, the entire ballot is defective.

Okay, why is that a rule? And I believe it's a rule in most, if not all states. If I put an identifying mark on my ballot, it doesn't count.

Why is it fatal that my ballot is identifiable? And identifiable to whom? If I do a little scribble on the bottom or draw a picture of Snagglepuss, that's not going to tell anyone else that Mark Evanier cast that ballot. In order to "identify" something, you need to be able to link a name to it…and if I don't sign my name or put down my Social Security number or something, that's not going to make my ballot "identifiable" to anyone else. But they'd still toss it out.

So I think, "Maybe they mean it can't be identifiable to me." I can't put anything on my ballot that would make me able to recognize it as mine…but what would be the harm in that? First of all, I'm never going to see my ballot again after I cast it but even if I did, I couldn't prove the little doodle in the margin made it my ballot and I couldn't change my vote, even if I could tell it was mine.

Moreover, the law allows for write-in candidates. See, right here in the same statutes, it says…

Subd. 4. Name written in proper place. If a voter has written the name of an individual in the proper place on a general or special election ballot a vote shall be counted for that individual whether or not the voter makes a mark (X) in the square opposite the blank.

So if I write in "Alan Keyes" or "Snagglepuss" for some office — and Snagglepuss would get more votes — my ballot is not void, even though I could easily identify it because of the name and also my ability to recognize my own handwriting. This morning, the Minnesota Election Board tossed out a ballot with a write-in for "The Lizard People" because, apparently, that was a plural. The voter had voted for more than one person in an office and it was therefore an "overvote." On the other hand, there was a voter who wrote in "Flying Spaghetti Monster" for some office. That didn't void the ballot and since that voter voted for Al Franken for the Senate seat, Franken picked up a vote. If the individual who voted for "The Lizard People" had voted for "One Lizard Person," that would have been okay. By the way, at the moment, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is tied with Alan Keyes. Really.

Could someone explain the reason we reject ballots that have identifying marks, even though you can make them identifiable without them being rejected? I assume it has something to do with some impossible scenario where the people counting the ballots have bribed or threatened certain voters to vote a certain way and we don't want them to be able to check and see if the voters complied…but not only does that never happen, the "write-in" provision provides a simple way to circumvent the rule. So why does a stray mark mean my ballot won't get counted?

Oh…as you can probably guess, I'm back.

Just got an e-mail from someone wanting to know what's with the weird commercial in the Our Place episode in the previous posting. I think this is a transfer from a 16mm print made for overseas distribution, particularly to our Armed Forces stationed God-knows-where. For these films, the original commercials were omitted and sometimes, special ad spots for servicemen or U.S. interests were inserted.

As you may know, a lot of great old TV shows were lost because someone decided to save cash and/or space by erasing the old tapes. Most of Johnny Carson's early years are gone because of this, as are many, many other shows. A few treasures of television history have managed to survive because an old 16mm print of an overseas version turned up in a closet somewhere. I suspect that's how this episode of Our Place exists at all.

By the way: I'm not quite back yet but hope to be, some time later today.