I am assured by half the Muppet Experts in the world that Cookie Monster, as seen on The Colbert Report, was performed by a gent named David Rudman. Frank Oz began cutting back on his Muppeteering in the nineties due to age and other career opportunities, and others began imitating him. Around 2001, Mr. Rudman emerged as the primary Cookie Monster manipulator and it's easy to see why. He's darn good at it.

A month or two ago, I spent a few hours on the set of a Muppet shoot with Kermit, Gonzo, Fozzie, Piggy, The Swedish Chef, Pepe the King Prawn and a few others. Four Muppeteers were handling the cast…with a few more providing hands and such. The four were Dave Goelz, Steve Whitmire, Eric Jacobson and Bill Barretta. Dave originated and still plays Gonzo and Bunsen Honeydew, and Bill started Pepe and a few other recent characters.

But for most of the stars, we're on to second (and third) generation Muppet Wranglers. When Jim Henson died in 1990, he willed the role of Kermit to Steve. Eric is the specialist in the roles Frank Oz no longer does — Bert, Grover, Fozzie, etc. For a while, he did Cookie Monster on Sesame Street but Rudman took it over, in part because it was easier to have Bert and C.M. interact if they weren't done by the same performer. I don't watch Sesame Street often and haven't since it essentially turned into The Elmo Hour. But when I've caught new Muppet segments, I am impressed with how faithful they are…and how well they integrate with scenes rerun from the era of Henson, Oz, Hunt, Nelson, et al.

Having been deeply critical of some cast replacements on animated shows, I'm impressed that someone knows the difference between a good Muppet imitation and a bad one…and hires accordingly. The four men I saw on that set a few months ago were as good as you could reasonably expect; maybe a little better than one would dare hope for. I wish more people cared that much about keeping classic characters sounding and behaving like themselves.

I just saw a man on MSNBC say he's going to vote for John McCain because Barack Obama is an "elitist" who doesn't understand the problems of the average American. This is the same John McCain who admits that he doesn't know the price of gas, is chauffeured everywhere he goes, has no idea how to use a computer, has had free medical care for most of his life and who owns more homes than most people have toilets.

I use a program to scan my e-mail and flag possible spam. The company that makes this program just sent me an e-mail to announce an upgrade. And their program flagged this e-mail as possible spam.

Easter Eggs on the Internet.

Let's do a check-in and see what's up with the possibility of an Actors' Strike in Hollywood…

It's a mess and the actors are about to get hosed. End of check-in.

I could leave it at that but I'll elaborate. You have your two unions that rep actors: AFTRA and SAG. SAG is the giant gorilla, the one that covers something like 90% of the films and TV shows that folks care about. But AFTRA is a presence that has to be dealt with. Traditionally, the two unions negotiate in lockstep but this time out, they're going it apart in a move that looks like they decided to divide and make themselves easier to conquer. No matter what happens this year, there's going to be a lot of time/anger expended to try and get them back together — maybe even merged, at long last — before the next contract. Which is not to say that's going to happen. It might even be less likely than it's ever been.

AFTRA has made a tentative deal, subject to membership approval. As far as I can see, no one thinks it's a great deal. Some people say it's "good enough" but my sense is this sentiment comes from two places. There are actors out there who are also producers, writers, directors, etc., and they think it would be better for their other job descriptions if the actors settled quickly. Right now, there is no strike on the immediate horizon — neither union has even called for a strike authorization vote of its members — but production is impaired, nonetheless. Many movies that could be filming are not filming because of the possibility, however remote, of a strike. Same with TV shows that have to schedule their filming or taping in small, cautious increments, just in case.

You also have a number of actors who think that the AFTRA deal is "good enough," given how many platelets might have to be spilled to better it. There's this fear that the studios are way too adamant. They didn't get crushed by the Writers Guild strike but they did lose control of their industry and fail to force a lot of their Wish List demands on the WGA. Says an agent friend of mine, "The AMPTP is supposed to be this monolithic force that is impervious to unions and can control them like marionettes. The writers took a big chunk out of that concept, and now the AMPTP is determined to re-establish it via the actors."

So the acting community is split. Everyone knows the AFTRA contract isn't all it should be but some think that going to war for better terms would not be cost-effective or prudent. Oddly enough, that very divide in the union ranks has become an argument against a strike: "We can't mount an effective strike…we're divided."

SAG's current contract with the AMPTP expires tomorrow night. When it does, nothing will happen. As noted, SAG leadership has yet to ask its membership for strike authorization…a move that is widely being interpreted as an admission that the vote would not be overwhelming. (If you ask your members to okay a strike and it doesn't pass by at least 75%, you might as well not bother.) SAG will continue bargaining with the AMPTP in a series of meetings that, from all indications, aren't leading anywhere. In fact, rumor has it they've yet to even lead to an offer comparable to the one to AFTRA.

On July 8, we'll have the results of the vote of AFTRA's membership on whether to ratify their deal. There's been a lot of lobbying and campaigning and e-mailed letters from superstars. Tom Hanks is for it. Jack Nicholson is against it. I'm not sure either means anything. None of the terms in the deal affect them directly. In fact, it's more than likely that neither has worked under an AFTRA contract for years. They would, of course, be affected if a SAG strike delayed the filming of some movie they yearned to make.

No one seems to know if the AFTRA deal will pass but everyone seems pretty sure it won't be resoundingly defeated, which is what would have to happen for SAG to be empowered and the "we deserve a better deal" crowd to take control. Here are the likely scenarios…

If the AFTRA deal passes, the AMPTP will probably offer essentially the same thing to SAG, then announce that negotiations are over, done with, kaput, adjourned forever. Under no circumstances will they, the studios, return to the bargaining table or better the terms. Take it or leave it.

If the AFTRA deal loses by a small margin, the AMPTP will probably do essentially the same thing, though they will find a way — perhaps through sidebar negotiations or some intermediary — to give the unions a one-time-only, "grab it while you can" offer that is slightly better, in exchange for a quick acceptance. Otherwise, it will be as above: You stay out until you accept our final offer.

In either of these two situations, the AMPTP will just wait for the actors to fold. They probably won't have to wait long.

If the AFTRA deal loses by a wide margin, it'll be a brand new ballgame…and we can make up all sorts of possible storylines that could then happen. Maybe SAG and AFTRA will find a way to link arms, or maybe they'll be even more furious at each other and make things worse. Maybe the studios will become more militant than ever to remind those damned unions who runs this town or maybe corporate heads will step in and tell the AMPTP bargainers, "We can't have another production halt like we had with the writers. Make a deal." There are other possible ways this could go but there's not a whole lot of point to discussing them. The chances of the AFTRA deal losing by a significant percentage are about the same as the chances of John McCain carrying California or Barack Obama taking Utah.

This is all a shame because the actors in this town were primed to follow the WGA lead and stay strong, and were in an even better negotiating position. The SAG/AFTRA split was like two guys were playing one hand of poker, got dealt four aces…and then decided that each would take two of those aces and go play them in separate hands. Actually, it's worse than that because AFTRA went first and they walked into negotiations with an attitude of "Give us what you can but we don't want to strike." My above-quoted agent friend does not think AFTRA leadership was on the take but he thinks that if they had been, they couldn't have done a finer job of neutering the power of actors in this contract renewal.

There's already a sense of defeat in some crannies of the acting community…and a determination to heal wounds and plan better for the next time. A great philosopher named Berra once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over," and that's true. But it's sure starting to feel like it's over.

Here's a sad bit of news. Every year, many of those who attend the Comic-Con International in San Diego have enjoyed a meal or two at a glorious "dive" called the Kansas City Barbecue Company, directly across from the Hyatt. It was always fun to go there, eat ribs and other messy things — their chicken sandwich was one of my favorite meals anywhere — and savor the happy atmosphere. The restaurant even famously appeared in a movie: The bar scene in Top Gun was filmed there.

All the past tense in the above paragraph is because the Kansas City Barbecue Company was barbecued on Thursday. A fire broke out in its cooking pit that afternoon and within minutes, the place was gone. Here are the grim details. Fortunately, no one was injured.

The owners say they're going to rebuild but it will obviously not be in time for this year's convention. And I'm afraid it won't ever be the same. They'll probably spoil the new version by making it nice. Here's a video link to news coverage.

Here's a mess o' speculation on what Jay Leno will do when his contract to host The Tonight Show is up. I don't know what he has in mind but I know what I'd do in his position: Just wait and see. The landscape of late night is changing. Viewership is down. (Last week, Letterman had one of his worst weeks ever, ratings-wise.) The parlay of Conan O'Brien and Jimmy Fallon at NBC will change things even more. Five years from now, that daypart will look very different from the way it does now, with a lot of different players. Jay has the opportunity to go out on top and spend a few years doing his stand-up act around the country while he waits for late night to redefine itself. And then he could figure out a role for himself in it and probably write his own ticket for that job. Whatever it is.

The webpage for Larry King Live doesn't seem to think it's important to tell us what's on when…but I did a search and found (elsewhere) the info that the George Carlin tribute was rerunning this weekend on the 9 PM broadcasts. You've already missed Saturday night's broadcast but you can still set Mr. TiVo to get tomorrow night's. That's 9 PM Eastern time so it may be another time where you are.

I forgot to post the results of our most recent poll here. You were asked to predict the results of the November election…and by a pretty wide margin, you said it would be Obama. I'll ask again in a month or so and we'll see what the results are.

I'm most intrigued, of course, by the 3% of you who said it would be someone else. Do you actually think Bob Barr or Ralph Nader have a chance? I'm going to get the same number of electoral votes as the two of them combined. Do you think Obama or McCain will not be the candidate of their respective parties? Or were you just being ornery? If you were one of the 3%, drop me a note and tell me what was on your mind.