Category Archives: Uncategorized

My recent postings about Hot Turkey Sandwiches seem to have sent many of you scurrying to find a good one. Hope you enjoyed yours and that it was even half as good as the ones I enjoy at Magee's Kitchen in the Farmers Market at 3rd and Fairfax here in Los Angeles.

I seem to have become quite a connoisseur of turkey and if you live in Los Angeles, the following may be of value to you. They make an incredible turkey meatloaf at a little hole-in-the-plaster restaurant called The Main Course on Pico in West L.A. Also, if you shop at a Gelson's Market, you may have seen how the deli department has a guy who carves roast turkey that they sell by the pound. It's superb turkey but I'll let you in on a secret. If you ask (this isn't advertised), they'll sell you an entire turkey thigh — cooked and juicy and warm and delicious and with meat enough for 3-4 meals — for under three bucks. Such a deal. Such a delight.

Which brings us to maybe my favorite way to eat turkey. It's the Jennie-O Turkey Pot Roast — a heat-at-home hunk of dark meat that's been slo-cooked to make it oh so moist and oh so tasty. I've written about these before but it's my damn blog so I can write about them again if I like. Let me remind you of the reasons I like these…

• They taste great, whether you consume them as they come out of your microwave or you take the turkey meat and use it in some other recipe.
• They're easy to make and you can do it without any prep. If at 7:00, you get the urge for turkey, you can be dining on one of these by 7:15. These are lifesavers when I have one of my difficult-to-plan days…which lately is every day.
• They're healthy. Or at least healthier than anything else I'd be likely to eat if I didn't have one of these available.
• And they're cheap…about $3.33 a pound for cooked, almost-boneless turkey. One Jennie-O Turkey Pot Roast usually weighs in around three pounds so for ten bucks, I get an awful lot of good, cheap meals. They also reheat rather well.

So is there a downside? Yes, this: They can be hard to find. I used to get mine at Costco but the ones around me have stopped carrying them. In this post and later in this post, I detailed my frantic search to stock up before my supply lines were cut off. Just when I was running out, a couple of readers of this site, starting with Dave Sikula, came to my rescue. They informed me that they're now being carried in outlets of the Fresh and Easy market chain which currently has more than 170 stores in California, Arizona and Nevada. I stopped in at one today and sure enough, there they were.

I believe some Costcos still carry them; just not around here. There are also some other market chains that sell them heated in the same place as they sell cooked rotisserie chickens. That may not be a bad way to enjoy them if you get them when they haven't been sitting out for hours, but you lose that wonderful sense of security when you have an unheated one waiting in the fridge and know you can make it whenever you like. Give one a try if they sell 'em near you.

Boy, it's nice to see America so happy. This country has been in bad need of a hug for a long time and the killing of Osama Bin Laden seems to be it, at least in some quarters. I guess I'd be a better person if I never felt joy at anyone's death…but I'm not that good and if anyone deserved it, it's Bin Laden. Part of me is also glad they didn't take him alive, thereby leading to endless arguments about how to give him a fair trial and what nation has jurisdiction, etc.

I tweeted, "I can't wait to hear Rush Limbaugh explain tomorrow how killing Bin Laden is the worst possible thing that could happen to Obama." If Rush doesn't, someone else will. My guess is most Obama foes won't dare go much farther than to minimize his role and accuse him of taking even the tiniest bow for the accomplishment of our military. I never thought it was a failing of George W. Bush that this didn't happen on his watch but if it had been President Gore who didn't catch him, the right-wing crowd would have chanted every day that the Chief Exec was a failure. That is, if they hadn't already impeached him for reading My Pet Goat or ignoring the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in America" memo.

(In case the above isn't clear: I don't think anyone should be politicizing this kind of thing. I'm criticizing those on both sides who are sitting around tonight, trying to figure out how to use this to electoral advantage.)

The timing is fascinating. Today is eight years since Bush gave that speech with the "Mission Accomplished" banner…and I just heard Brian Williams say that May 1 was the date when the death of Hitler became official. It's also kind of funny that Obama's announcement preempted Mr. Trump's Celebrity Apprentice in some time zones.

Getting back to the elections for a second: As I keep saying here, I think it's foolish that people are trying to handicap the 2012 Presidential Election now, this far ahead of the day we go to the polls. Article after article reminds us that this far ahead of previous votes, Joe Lieberman looked like he had the inside track on the White House…or Rudy Giuliani or any number of other folks who never got too close to their party's nomination, let alone the presidency. People hear that, acknowledge the basic truth…and then turn around and say, "Yes, but Obama's only three points ahead of Mike Huckabee in Kentucky." Like that means anything right now.

These discussions always seem based on the premise that nothing can happen between now and Election Day that will change anything — no revelation, no candidate gaffe, no change in the economy, no statement in the debates, no natural disaster, no military action…nothing. And now here we are with an event that changes something. I don't know what it changes but one of the reasons those folks are dancing in flash mobs on MSNBC right now is that something has changed. Maybe it's just that a dark cloud has been lifted but that's something and it should lead to other somethings, hopefully good but maybe some bad. Right now, the mood of this country is so down that any change is likely to be good in some regard. Here's hoping we look back on 5/1/11 and regard it as a day of healing and renewal.

Just me seeing if I can blog from my iPad a different way. Apparently, I can.

Fifty years ago today, give or take a day, my all-time favorite record was released: Volume One of Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America. The ranking authority on funny recordings, Dr. Demento, has called it either the best comedy album in history, or the best history album in comedy. It may also be the best musical comedy that's never been performed on a stage, though it came close.

The brilliant Mr. Freberg planned it as a three-volume set: Volume One started with Columbus and took us up to the Revolutionary War. Volume Two would carry things through World War I and then the third release would bring things up to the present day. Stan wrote the songs, co-wrote the sketches and played (in the first one) Christopher Columbus, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and several other historical figures. He was aided in his efforts by superstar arranger/conductor Billy May and by a superb cast including Paul Frees, June Foray, Jesse White, Byron Kane and Peter Leeds. The tunes are wonderful, the jokes are funny and eminently quotable…and there's even a smidgen of real history in there. A great record.

I'm not sure exactly when I discovered it — around '63, I guess. Maybe a bit earlier. I bought a copy at a record store on Westwood Boulevard in West L.A., just north of Pico. If you know the area: It was located right where Junior's Delicatessen now sits. I loved that album, played the hell out of it…and haunted the record store, asking them every week if Volume Two had arrived yet. I couldn't understand what was keeping it. Little did I know I'd have to wait more than thirty years — until 1996! — and assist in its production.

What was keeping it? Shortly after Volume One was released, the legendary Broadway producer David Merrick decided that the collective three parts would make a dandy stage production. A deal was made, Stan finished writing it all, and work began on what was to be a Broadway musical starring Freberg himself. Plans for further records were postponed until after the show opened…but the show never opened. Merrick was a notoriously difficult person to deal with and Freberg was not the first creative talent to have problems with him, nor the last. Among other tactics, Merrick liked to keep people off-balance by pitting them against each other, building up confidences and then tearing them down. In other words, he liked to sabotage his own productions. It's amazing that so many of them not only made it to Opening Night but even became hits.

This one didn't…and due to some combination of lingering legalities, lost momentum and changes in the record business, Stan was unable to restart the series on vinyl. He went on to other projects but spent a lot of time answering the musical question, "Hey, when's Volume Two coming out?" The first time I met him (around 1977), he began explaining it to me before I'd even finished asking about it.

Well, finally he got the second part done, not as a record but as a CD. Volume Three is currently in the works and there are discussions again about putting the whole thing on stage in a big, splashy production. It's still a great idea and great material and if you think I'm about to give you a link to order a CD from Amazon, you're wrong. It's out of print and the folks who have them are asking a hundred bucks or more for a copy. What I will tell you is that you can download Volume One from iTunes for ten bucks. They also have a lot of Freberg's fine unAmerican works, as well. All are highly recommended.

I can't tell you how important this man's creations — this one, especially — have been to me. I'm not sure I would today be a writer of allegedly funny things had I not discovered Freberg at an impressionable age…and I'm hardly the only person who can or should make that claim. And you know what? Fifty years after its release, Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America is still as wonderful as ever and still capable of showing anyone how to be smart and funny at the same time. Happy Five-Oh, Stan…and thanks again. And again. And again.

A couple of folks have written to ask that I say something here to urge donations to help those who were devastated by the recent tornado swarm. One even wrote, "Not all southernerners are right leaning; and, really, even if they were, would it really matter? For the record. I voted for Obama, and I live 50 miles south of Atlanta." Of course it doesn't matter. Most of us sent money to aid Haiti or Japan without wondering about the politics of those in need of aid. Why deny anyone in Alabama?

In any case, if the news footage of wrecked homes and bodies being removed from rubble doesn't convince you, I don't know how anything I write here is going to matter…but jeez, yes. Let's help those people. All of them. Even the ones still writing in the name of Lyndon LaRouche on their ballots.

My usual recommendation in a time like this is to send money to Operation USA, which is my charity of choice. As I've said here before, I really looked into this some years back and I came to the conclusion that while there are many worthy charities, I got as much "bang for my buck" with them as I would giving to any other effort. They spend very little money on administrative costs and none whatsoever on lavish perks for the staff. I know some of the folks who work there and they're utterly serious about helping people.

Their website emphasizes their work around the world and at this moment says nothing about rushing food and first aid to people hit by the recent tornadoes here. But Operation USA has always done a lot in this country and I assume they've been too busy helping out there to update their site. If you want to make sure your donation gets used domestically, you can specify an earmark…and I'll bet it stands a better chance of going where you want it to go than if you send money to the Red Cross or Salvation Army. Not that either organization wouldn't put it to good use.

Moments like this — when lives are being lost and people are suffering — make me especially angry about a lot of the time and money we waste in this nation on nonsense causes and silly battles. We deplete way too many of our resources on matters a lot less important than being ready to help in time of tragedy.

Much is being made of David Letterman saying on his show the other night that he thought Donald Trump was…well, as I heard it, he didn't actually call him a racist as some headlines are claiming. He said what Trump is doing "smacks of racism" which is almost the same thing but not quite. He also said that he wasn't sure he'd have Trump back on the show unless and until there was an apology. Since Trump is apparently booked for the Letterman show in mid-May, we probably haven't heard the last of this.

I have no idea if Trump is a racist or if he's just spewing stuff because he's in "I'll say anything to get a certain segment of the population fired up" mode. If it's the latter, it doesn't excuse him and may even make it worse. My natural suspicion with all those demagogues is that they're just saying whatever seems to work today with the audiences they're addressing today…and that they don't think two moves or two weeks down the line. If I had to guess, I'd guess that Trump's standing in the polls will nosedive over the next month or so, that he'll bow out in the season finale of his bogus reality show and that his candidacy will be quickly forgotten. You know how you can't find anyone who will admit to ever having backed Ross Perot? I'm thinking it'll be like that only quicker.

In the meantime, I have a sorta-first-person anecdote about Trump and Letterman. I was backstage at a taping of Dave's NBC show back in May of 1992 when Donald Trump was a guest and I'm going to tell what I remember with the following caveat: I have a real good memory but I'm not sure I recall this exactly. I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the details at the time and some of the backstory I heard was second-hand. So I don't guarantee I have this exact but the essence of the story is true…

Mike Tyson had been sentenced to prison for raping a beauty pageant contestant. Trump had made headlines with a suggestion that struck some as outrageous. It was that Tyson not serve time behind bars but instead atone for his crimes with a couple of boxing matches — perhaps promoted by Mr. Trump or at a Trump resort? — with the proceeds going to charity. The proposal was big news for a few days there and Trump was appearing on Dave's show to discuss it.

One of Dave's writers told me the following and I have no idea how true it was. Letterman's show had been after Trump to appear. He had declined. Then, the writer told me, Trump had noticed in TV Guide that Glenn Close was booked to do Dave's show on a certain Thursday night. Trump, who was then divorcing his wife Ivana, was eager to meet Ms. Close, who was similarly separated. He called up the Letterman office and said, "I'll do the show if I can do it next Thursday." Whoever was handling the booking (probably producer Robert Morton) said, "Great, but we'd rather have you on Tuesday because we have an opening then." Trump, without mentioning his interest in Ms. Close, said, "Nope…it's Thursday or nothing." The booker agreed to the requested date…then moved Glenn Close to Tuesday to make room for Trump.

The night in question was actually an afternoon taping. Trump arrived at the specified time and got three bits of unpleasant news. One was that Glenn Close was not there. He was not happy about this. The second was that he was the second guest that night, not the first. The Donald didn't like being in the #2 slot for reasons of prestige and also because it meant he'd have to sit around waiting for twenty minutes or so longer…and we're now reaching the part of the story I witnessed myself. I actually saw Trump in the hallway outside Studio 6A in Rockefeller Center there, yelling at Bob Morton. He was saying, "I could have come later. You're wasting time I could have spent closing deals." Morton apologized and offered his office if Trump wanted to go in there and use the phone. Instead, Trump stalked around in the hallways, complaining about everything he could think of to complain about.

And the third thing that ticked him off was that the first guest was Jan Hooks. Jan had played Ivana Trump in a number of sketches on Saturday Night Live and apparently Donald didn't like the sketches and also didn't like the fact that Jan was considered more worthy of being the first guest. I had worked with her on another show and when I dropped by her dressing room to say hello, she was still shaken from an unpleasant encounter with Trump, who was just kind of wandering around, pissing people off.

Now, to explain this next part, I have to explain how they taped the opening of Dave's show. I don't know if it still works like this but the drill then was that a coatless Dave would come out and do a little batting practice with the studio audience, chatting with them and answering a few questions. At a specified moment, he would leave the stage while Paul Shaffer and the band played a number. Letterman would go to his dressing room, put on his jacket and do some sort of little private ritual to ready himself for the show, including a last minute review of the opening monologue.

When the signal came to roll tape and start the show, Stage Manager Biff Henderson would go out and clear the way from Dave's dressing room to the entrance to the backstage area. It was strictly verboten to talk to Dave as he made that walk. He didn't want to chat with anyone or see anyone or have any distractions at all as he made his way to the stage. I was out in the corridor as close to Dave as you could be at that moment, which was not very close. In 6A, the theme song was being played and you could hear the prerecorded voice of Bill Wendell doing the opening announce. Letterman walked purposefully from his dressing room with Biff walking a few steps ahead of him. He was about fifteen seconds from making his formal entrance…

…and suddenly, Donald Trump charges up to him to complain about being the second guest and having to be there so early.

I was close enough to see a look of shock on Letterman's face. He might not have minded a complaint from a guest but not at that precise instant. It was like Trump had rudely intruded on a sacred moment. Letterman was utterly thrown by it and he yelled something at Trump, more in distress than anger. I didn't hear the precise yell but it was in the vein of "Not now! Don't you understand I have to go do the opening of the show?" A few more words were exchanged, then Trump stormed off while taping halted, Dave went back to his dressing room to regroup and the opening was started again…which, it was explained to me, is something they almost never did. Usually, once tape rolled on an episode, it didn't stop until the end credits.

Dave was enough of a pro to put aside the upset and do the monologue. Jan Hooks was fine as the first guest…and then when she left the stage, she got the hell out of there immediately so as not to run into you-know-who again. Then Trump was introduced as the second guest. After a few pleasantries, Letterman asked about this suggestion that Mike Tyson not serve time for what he'd done. Trump explained that making the Heavyweight Champ rot in a cell did no one any good but it would do some good if he fought for charity. The money, he explained, could go to a fund for battered women.

An odd noise rumbled through the studio audience. If I had to put a label on it, I'd say it was the sound of several hundred people hating Donald Trump. You think some people hate him now? You should have seen that audience.

Letterman followed a rule that I suspect he learned from Johnny Carson: If a guest says something real bad, you make one attempt to bail them out. You throw them one lifeline and then if they don't want to grab onto it, they're on their own.

Dave responded with something like, "Well, surely you're not suggesting that a convicted rapist should be able to, in effect, buy his way out of serving his sentence for a crime of violence?"

Donald Trump then said something like, "Well, if it can do some people some good, what's wrong with that?"

These were not the precise words but whatever was said, it was followed by the sound of the audience hating Trump even more. Later, when I watched the show on TV, the moans of disapproval didn't seem so loud. I don't know if the microphones somehow distorted the sound or if an audio engineer dialed the reaction down…but I was standing on the stage at that moment, right next to that door that led into the hallway. And right there, the outrage was pretty loud.

I could also read David Letterman's mind from there. He was thinking, "Okay, pal. I gave you your chance. No more help."

The interview went badly after that. I vaguely remember Trump saying something that sounded like he was minimizing the crime, followed by more of that noise from the audience. Whatever he said, it was not his finest hour. Later as I was leaving, Trump was departing with a small entourage and based on the looks on all their faces, I decided not to get into the same elevator car and say, "Hey, great show, Donald!"

That's about all I remember and like I said, I may be fuzzy on a few of the details and none of the above quotes are verbatim. But it did happen pretty much like that. One of the reasons I don't believe the Trump candidacy will last long is because he has so many bad appearances and questionable deals in his past. (He also managed the convicted rapist, Mike Tyson, for a time. Think what a competing candidate could do just with that.) You haven't heard much about his past because the Trump for President movement kind of came out of nowhere, quickly morphing from a joke to front runner status. The press hasn't had the time or interest to vet him for anything more than throwing Gary Busey and Meat Loaf together and there's been no opposition research…but there are fewer skeletons in Forest Lawn than this guy has in his closet. They won't all come out but enough will emerge to send his poll numbers plunging and his derriere back to Celebrity Apprentice.

New York Times obit for Bill Blackbeard. I'm not linking to as many N.Y. Times pieces as I used to since they started their new limit on the number of articles a month you can read before you have to pay a fee. This one, however, may not count against your total.

Lately, I keep seeing these controversies about creative people getting paid for their work. They're about writers or artists who contributed to a website or magazine or business venture and agreed to let their work be used for nothing, then found out that the nature of the enterprise had been misrepresented to them. There is then this argument over whether they should have been paid…or there are resolutions where they do get paid…and it's all about getting paid. Owing to the line of work I'm in, I'm all for writers and artists (and actors and everyone) getting paid but I think "getting paid" misses the point. The question is whether they're paid properly.

Quick story. Years ago in the comic book business, there was a rather seedy publisher who liked to reprint other folks' work without their permission. Often, he claimed the work was Public Domain…and sometimes, it was. Other times, he'd reprint something that was in no way p.d. but he thought maybe the ownership of it was a little cloudy so no one would sue him…or the creator had died and the work was now owned by heirs who'd never notice. I don't think anyone ever sued him. He had such a fly-by-night operation that it wasn't cost-effective. It was like: Why spend a few thousand bucks to sue someone who doesn't have a few thousand bucks?

But others told him that they thought he had all the ethics of plankton and when they did, he'd fire back with the following defense: "Hey, I paid them." And he had. If his victims complained (and only if), he would send them a check for ten or twenty dollars and then he'd say, "I paid them" without, of course, disclosing the amount.

Another example. There have been a number of comic book artists who've imitated or traced the work of Jack Kirby and a couple of them over the years have felt that out of gratitude, they'd feel better if they paid Jack (or later, his widow) a little something so they sent checks. Now, there's no standard fee for this so it's tough to say what would constitute a respectable — as opposed to an insulting — amount. But I remember seeing the totals and thinking they were decent, especially since the folks who sent them were not running around trumpeting that they'd paid Kirby.

There was, of course, one exception. Isn't there always one exception to things like this? There was that guy who sent ten bucks along with a letter that asked that the Kirbys not disclose the amount. He was the one who went around telling everyone he sent a portion of his income to Jack Kirby — technically true, I guess, but still…

The phrase "getting paid" denotes compensation that satisfies the payee, either because they decide the amount seems fair or because it equals some agreed-upon figure. If I owe you fifty thousand dollars and I send you five bucks, I have not really paid you. For me to say, "I paid that person" or even "I paid him in part" would be misleading and probably deliberately so. I say "probably" because sometimes, one or both sides of these transactions don't think that way. The person who owes thinks that it's not about the money, it's about the principle; that he or she merely has to agree or acknowledge that something is owed. The person who is owed accepts a token, way-too-low payment and says, "Well, at least they admitted they had to pay me."

I worked (briefly) for a TV producer who loved to not pay people…and it was amazing how often he got away with it or how often his niggardly stances resulted in him having to pay less than was owed. He never did this to me, perhaps because he'd tangled once in another matter with my attorney. Still, I watched with a mix of awe and outrage as he did it to others.

He would agree to pay you a thousand dollars if you did a certain job for him. You'd shake on it, you'd do the job…and then — then! — negotiations would start. He'd find fault with the work. He'd claim you hadn't understood some aspect of the agreement and the real amount was less than you thought. He'd make a huge deal of the fact that you turned it in two days late. (General rule of thumb: Lateness doesn't alter a deal unless you actually held up production. If you cost them extra or forced a schedule change, then there might be a case for adjusting the fee.)

It was like a game with this fellow. One of his favorite tactics was to suddenly involve you in his financial problems and make them yours. He'd call you from his beachfront house in Malibu to tell you, "I have to pay you out of this certain account I have and there's no money in there right now because this other guy hasn't paid me for something. Once he pays me, I can pay you." So suddenly, it wasn't him not paying you. It was this other guy who was holding up your check.

He would draw it out and draw it out…and I guess he figured that even if he wound up having to pay you the thou, at least he would have earned a few months of interest on it. He was a very wealthy man and one reason he was wealthy was that he so rarely paid people the full amounts he owed them. When you finally got angry and started talking about lawyers — and not a minute before — he'd say something like, "Look…a lawyer will cost you more than you'll get. I like you. I really want to make things right between us. I can pay you out of this other account but there's only $500 in it…"

You'd be amazed how many people would take that, and not just because they needed the $500 to pay that month's rent. Some of them just wanted to get that battle out of their lives so they wouldn't even say, "Okay, I'll take the $500 and you still owe me $500." They'd accept it as payment in full just to be done with it. They'd convince themselves they got paid and even tell others, "That bastard tried to cheat me but I stood up to him and I won. I got paid."

When you talk about money, amounts matter. Paying people something is not the same as paying them properly. Payment is a mutual agreement. I agree to work for X dollars. You agree to pay me X dollars…and yes, we can renegotiate later and agree to change X. There are sometimes good reasons on both sides to do that. And if someone really, really can't pay…well, maybe settling for fifty cents on the dollar ain't so bad. It's a heckuva lot more than zero.

But the point is that we too often think that paying something is the same as paying the proper amount. If you're a writer or artist or in any other field that gets abused this way, you need to remember something. When you pay your Visa bill, they expect every cent. They charge you interest if you don't pay every cent. That's how it works in the world you have to live in…and you can't pay them in full if people don't pay you in full. Or at all.

I've criticized MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell here but last night on his show, he did something that deserves a nod. He ripped into his employer, NBC, for continuing to empower Donald Trump and to not reveal whether Trump is committed to return to Celebrity Apprentice this Fall. And throughout the tirade, O'Donnell repeatedly referred to the program as "Trump's fake reality show," which they must have loved over in the Entertainment Division. Since O'Donnell makes a lot less money for the corporation than Trump, it takes a lot of guts to bash your bosses so thoroughly. And in the unlikely event he does succeed in building this into the kind of controversy that will require NBC to address the issue, he may have caused a lot of problems for them.

But you know, people keep addressing this issue of "Is he running?" (or is Palin running or is Huckabee running, et al), as if that's a firm decision that's been made and is being kept secret. I don't see why any candidate couldn't be thinking, "Look, I'll pursue this course of action for now and see where things are in two months." I tend to think Trump is not planning on running; that he's going to build up a huge audience (he figures) for the season finale of his fake reality show, then announce he's going to return to it instead of join the campaign trail. But it also wouldn't surprise me if his plans include a moment when he's going to take a look at the polls and see where all the other candidates are and then consider if there's a chance he could win, in which case he might take the gamble.

The reason I don't think he's serious about running is that he has too much baggage in his past (including too many political positions that are now in direct opposition to what he's saying) and too many awkward financial disclosures to make. He also doesn't seem all that serious about getting votes from independents and swing Democrats. This is the same reason I don't think Sarah Palin is figuring on being on the final ballot. She might see some personal advantage to staying in the race longer…say, until she secures a starring role at the G.O.P. convention. But she's continuing to drop in popularity — now down to 9% among Republicans in the Rasmussen Poll, which Republicans consider sacred — and doing nothing to course-correct.

Trump has plenty of dirty laundry he's not concealing or washing and he's got to know that the Obama bashing is losing him popularity with voters he would need to woo. (His failing Miss Universe pageant is now trying to get attention by having some of the contestants go topless. If you're really serious about getting elected, you don't want that kind of thing to become a campaign issue.)

Also, Dick Morris of Fox News thinks Trump is running and might not only be the nominee but the next President…and Dick Morris is the Peter Peachfuzz of commentators. If he says it's going to happen, you can bet cash-money it won't.

Getting back to O'Donnell: He's right. Newsmen oughta be asking what Trump's contractual obligation is to his fake reality show. That's not classified information and they'll tell you when Jimmy Fallon's contract is up or that the cast of The Office is committed for X more seasons. NBC News should be embarrassed if they can't find that out from NBC Entertainment and it would be legitimate news. By the way, here's video of O'Donnell's segment. It's way too intense and way too long. He keeps saying the same things over and over. But the man is right and it takes testicular fortitude to say something like that about the company that's paying you.

Lastly, on a related topic: I got sick of jokes about Al Gore's stiffness and George W. Bush's fratboy past and Bill Clinton's horniness and Hillary Clinton's pants suits and John McCain's age and there were any number of alleged Barack Obama shortcomings that were milked to death and which shouldn't have mattered as much as they did regarding the person's qualification to be President. And I've long since passed the point where I feel that way about Donald Trump's hair.

Many of my local friends are waiting for a Five Guys to open near them so they can sample the fast food burgers about which I so often rave. The first one within 20 or so miles of me opens this Friday at the Westfield Fox Hills Mall in Culver City. As much as I enjoy those burgers and fries, I may wait a few weeks until the new staff gets its act together. Keep in mind that my opinion of Five Guys burgers is based on visiting one in Indiana, one in Virginia, one in Ohio, one in San Diego, California and one in Cerritos, California. It is not impossible that this new one will not be as good, especially at first.

I also see that they're going to be opening one — date unknown — on Figueroa not far from the Shrine Auditorium and USC. This is close to where Bruce Schwartz runs his monthly Sunday comic conventions…and a development that almost makes me regret that I stopped teaching at USC.

If neither location is convenient for you, just wait. I have a feeling that within three years, Five Guys will be all over Southern California. I'm actually hoping they don't open one too close to me because this is not exactly diet fare. As much as I love Five Guys, I kinda wish new Koo Koo Roos were opening at the same rate instead.

The lovely lady in the above photo is Susan Silo. Susan is an actress who you've probably seen on TV many times, dating back to the Adam West Batman TV series and before. She is now one of the top voiceover actresses in the field, heard on countless commercials and cartoon shows. The gentleman at right is Don Pitts. I don't know if Don was ever Susan's agent but I wouldn't be surprised, as Don has been the agent to most of the top voiceover performers in the field over the years, making him something of a superstar/legend in the field.

Don Pitts is the guest this week on Stu's Show, the flagship program on my fave web radio station, Shokus Internet Radio. Before Don was an agent, he has a pretty good career of his own in front of the microphone as a broadcaster and I hope Stu will get him to tell some stories of those days. But he'll certainly talk about what it was to represent the top cartoon voice actors and announcers over several decades, many of whom he still represents. We're talking about people like Daws Butler, Don Messick, Mel Blanc, Paul Frees, Paul Winchell, Janet Waldo, and June Foray…and he handled them back in the days when those seven people did about half the cartoon voice work in the business and the other half was mostly Pitts clients, as well. He's a very nice man, much loved in the field…and here's an interesting sidelight: Every single voice actor who has ever been represented by Don can do a great impression of him. That includes the women.

You can hear it live today (Wednesday) on Shokus Internet Radio for two hours commencing at 4 PM Pacific Time, which is 7 PM East Coast Time…and you can probably figure out the time in your time zone from that. The show repeats all week but you'll enjoy it more if you tune in live. Go to the website at the proper hours and click where you're supposed to click…and tune in anytime. Not just when Don is on.

Keith Olbermann has announced his new show on Current TV will be called Countdown with Keith Olbermann and will start June 20. I hope that doesn't mean they're going to retain that odd format of opening with the #5 story (which was always the most important) and then working their way up to the #1 story, which was always the most trivial but they acted like it was the most important. Either way, I'll be watching, at least when it starts.

Apart from a few atypical "Special Comments" that went too far in outrage and insult, I never thought Mr. Olbermann was the Liberal equivalent of Hannity or Beck or even O'Reilly. For one thing, he did corrections. For another, I always believed that Olbermann was saying what he believed, whereas the other guys were saying what you had to say to work on Fox News. This is not to say they might not have believed it as well. I just think it's real easy to believe what the people paying you a lot of money want you to believe and sell. I also find Olbermann funny and witty at times.

There are things I don't like about Olbermann. I don't like when he goes over the top, though I do respect him for a few times when he did and then apologized. I don't like that a lot of his interviews sound very scripted with him feeding questions to a guest the way a lawyer feeds questions to a witness he's rehearsed. I like a lot of his "Worst Persons" commentaries but wish he'd just title the segment something like "Stupid Things That Prominent People and Reporters Have Said." And like you if you watch him at all, I turn him off when he starts to read Thurber. I can and do read Thurber to myself, Keith.

But I like that he's coming back and it'll be interesting to see if his presence on Current TV causes more cable systems to carry it. Howard Stern's move to Sirius Satellite Radio caused them to sell an awful lot of receivers and subscriptions — maybe not enough to justify his salary but a lot. Conan O'Brien's move to TBS seems to have helped that entire network somewhat if only because many people bothered to find out where TBS was on their dial. Current TV has been on my DirecTV satellite's lineup for some time but it's because of Olbermann that I found out it's Channel 358 and will be setting my first TiVo Season Pass to that station. Bet I'm not the only one.

And I'm linking now to an interview with Rowdy Roddy Piper, the famed villain of pro wrestling. I once produced a TV show with Roddy and a couple of other wrestlers and I found him to be pretty darned smart and a very good showman. The measure of the latter is that he became a superstar in that profession without being seven feet tall and pumped up on steroids. He did it through personality and a good sense of improvisation and knowing how to work the audience.

We had one great sitcom moment together. We were having lunch at the old Hamptons Restaurant on Highland — the one I was later a partner in but this was before that. The guy at the table behind Roddy kept moving his chair around and bumping into Roddy's chair. Roddy asked him politely to stop doing that. The guy kept doing it so Roddy asked him again…still polite but a bit less so. Finally, Roddy asked the waiter to tell the man to either stop bumping into him or move to another table.

The other diner got angry at Roddy (not yet realizing who it was) and turned to him and barked, "What's your problem, fella?" Roddy turned and got up and said in a Clint Eastwood reading, "My problem is that you keep bumping my chair." The other diner for some reason was itching to make this Roddy's fault and to demand an apology. He got up too…and from the body language, it looked for about two seconds like someone was going to take a swing at someone.

But then, and I wish I had a photo of it, the other guy suddenly realized he was messing with Rowdy Roddy Piper, the guy who liked to take a folded-up metal folding chair and bash his ring opponents into unconsciousness with it. The change in facial expression was acute and hilarious. He promptly apologized to "Mr. Piper" (addressing him like that) and moved his chair around to the other side of the table so he was nowhere near Roddy.

And Roddy whispered to me, "See? The reputation does me some good."

I was never a huge fan of wrestling but I was enough of one to do that show…and I had and have enough interest in pure show business to appreciate that part of it. I have this theory that it works because deep down, people know it's rigged. That frees them up to enjoy the violent aspect because they can tell themselves that no one's really getting hurt. (Not always true, by the way.) More important is that there's almost always a payoff. In sports or politics, your side can lose. You can invest an awful lot of emotion in cheering for your team or candidate and suffer a crushing disappointment. But with wrestling, if you root for the Good Guy and hiss the Bad Guy (the role Roddy used to play), you know that eventually, you'll get satisfaction. It may not come this Wrestlemania or the next but eventually, the Bad Guy will get his ass kicked. There aren't many other places in life where that happens quite so reliably.

Roddy had many stories about physical abuse and the scars to prove them. I came to believe that anyone who can do that for a living probably deserves about ten times what he's paid. And if they do it well, they probably ought to be, like Roddy became, a movie star.

The wonderful Gail Simone offers brutal tips for breaking into the comic book industry. Everything she says is true, especially the parts about having to be more self-critical of your work and to be able to bring something new to the table.

One of the mistakes some folks make is to read a bad comic — and there are many out there to choose from — and to say, "I can do better than this." That's probably so but it doesn't make you qualified. As my pal Len Wein often notes, an editor is not looking for someone who's better than his worst guy. He's looking for someone who's better than (or maybe just as good) as his best guy.

And to all of that, I would append what I say these days, which is that it's foolish and not worth the effort to become a comic book writer or artist. What's not, assuming you have the ability, is to become a writer or artist who works in comics among other things. The construct of the current business is not all that friendly to the creative person who only aspires to do comic books. In fact, there are some powerful people who almost count that against you because they want to think of their company as bleeding seamlessly into film and television and videogames and other media.

But read what Gail has to say. It also helps to be as good at what you do as Gail Simone is at what she does.

Charles Isherwood thinks the Broadway musical is suffering because producers are hiring TV stars who have names but not spectacular singing voices.

This seems like an odd point of view to me. Broadway has always loved stars, whether they were from movies or TV…and some pretty wonderful musicals have not featured great singers. Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady comes to mind immediately…and the current stars Isherwood's complaining about probably sing about as well as Richard Burton in Camelot, Robert Preston in The Music Man, Zero Mostel in Fiddler on the Roof or Mary Martin in anything she did. (They probably sing better than Sam Levene in the original Guys and Dolls but so does everyone.) And what about Gertrude Lawrence and Yul Brynner in the original The King and I?

I suppose Isherwood wrote this because of Mr. Radcliffe in How to Succeed…but judging from the clips at least, what might be wrong with that production is not Radcliffe's singing voice. Robert Morse wasn't a great singer either, we might note.

This may not pertain to Isherwood's article but I often seem to encounter an incredible snobbishness in the Broadway community towards performers and actually any kind of talent that has had the temerity to become successful and famous in another medium and then come to Broadway in a primo position. Years ago on the Musicals newsgroup, I got into a fiery debate with some fellow who was outraged that a lady who was on a popular sitcom thought she could segue to Broadway and star in a then-imminent musical there without starting at the bottom, auditioning for the chorus. On and on he went about how those performers invariably stink, plus it's unfair to those who approach Broadway out of love and a willingness to start in the spear-carrier jobs for rotten money.

In this case, the fellow (and those who chimed in with support for his viewpoint) were wrong two ways. I'm all for people paying dues and not getting breaks they don't deserve but ultimately, it's about doing the job. If someone gives a lousy performance, it's a lousy performance regardless of whether they started at the bottom or not…and the lousiness is what's wrong with it. The audience doesn't give two figs about how someone got the gig or whether they "deserve" it by some contrived judgment call.

And he was wrong about the person in question, who was — I think he called her — "that boring lady from Cheers," Bebe Neuwirth. She was then about to star in the revival of Damn Yankees and this guy on the newsgroup was unaware she'd been on Broadway pre-Lilith and had a pretty impressive set of stage credentials. But you know, since she was on a situation comedy, she couldn't possibly be good enough to star in a musical…