This is one of those "someone who reads this blog will have a suggestion" queries…

Years ago, in the simpler era of the DOS operating system, I used a couple of simple database programs on my computer. For a time, I employed one called Nutshell. Later, when DOS became more sophisticated and Nutshell didn't, I moved to one called Alpha Four. These were not fancy but I didn't need fancy. Just needed to enter data, sort it and print it out.

In time, database programs got fancier and came to involve all sorts of bells, whistles and sirens. Alpha Four became Alpha Five and in so doing, became so complicated that I figured I might as well move onto Microsoft Access…which I did, following a brief detour through Filemaker Pro. These programs were all more complicated and full-featured…but truth to tell, for about 80% of my databasing, Nutshell and Alpha Four were jes' fine. I'd like to find something like them that runs under Windows XP.
Anyone have a nominee? I just need to be able to define fields, enter data, sort on any field, print out data and, of course, be able to export and import. Drop me a note if you have an idea. Thanks.

This video syncs up (roughly) all three openings that were used on The Dick Van Dyke Show after the first season. They filmed three and then each week, the editors would randomly select one and affix it to the beginning of the episode. There were people who worked on the show — and I suppose, some who didn't — who'd wager each week on whether Rob would trip over the ottoman, sidestep the ottoman or sidestep the ottoman and stumble.

That's all fascinating but the main reason I'm putting this link up is to salute Earle Hagen, the man who wrote the wonderful theme song for The Dick Van Dyke Show and many other programs, as well. Mr. Hagen has passed away at an age, fittingly, which is the same number of notes on a piano keyboard. As this obit notes, he leaves behind a fine legacy of creations which will be hummed and rerun and remembered. This one is even the ringtone on my BlackBerry…

If you're interested in the state of health care in this country — an occasional topic of this board — you might want to glance at a new website set up by the Kaiser Foundation. It's chock full o' info about that.

If you watch that HBO movie, Recount, you might want to read this review in Salon as a kind of companion piece. It's a pretty perceptive (I think) piece of writing, and it notes which of the participants, among those depicted in the film, have objected to the portrait and which have endorsed. James Baker, who led the fight for the Bush camp, is said to be quite happy.

Several folks who've written me about my remarks have not "gotten" that my view of the whole mess is that I don't see any reason to trust any of the vote counts or recounts…and I think it's especially self-deceptive to point to the scenario that proves your guy won. All were flawed. There's one whole set of questions about people who were qualified to vote and were not allowed to do so. That alone would cast unacceptable doubts over the process even if we had an inarguable tally of how those who did vote voted. As it turns out, we don't even have that. Every count and recount (including the half-assed job done later by a press consortium) yielded a different total, in part because each time through, different ballots were being read or discarded…or in the case of recounts, simply not recounted at all.

I think the process was flawed in a dozen different ways, ranging from unreliable machines to widely different interpretations of the rules in different counties and even on recounts within the same county. The end result was many sets of totals…and no dispassionate reason to accept one as any better than another. So it came down to a matter of which side could argue/bully the acceptance of the numbers more favorable to their guy. Republicans were more aggressive, plus they had more officials (like Katharine Harris and various judges and Supreme Court Justices) in place so they were able to ram through their version of how the mess should be regarded.

George W. Bush might have actually gotten more votes than Al Gore. That's quite possible since the election in Florida does seem to have been quite close. But I don't think those ballots were ever counted honestly and I think it's outrageous, and contrary to everything we like to believe about America, that we don't have elections where the loser can walk away, satisfied the final score was legitimate. When I said this to a friend who was delighted to not have Gore in the job, he came back with the old, insulting "Get over it" line. I don't think any of us should "get over" believing that we should expect our votes to be tabulated with at least the same level of accuracy that PayPal applies to my eBay purchases.

I haven't gotten around to mentioning it here — I don't tell you about most things I do and you should be grateful — but I've been writing for a publication called Nature Comics. This is a freebee educational comic published by the Educational Broadcasting System as a companion guide to Nature, a fascinating TV series produced by Thirteen/WNET in New York. The comic is distributed free to classrooms and other educational entities that request it and if you're a teacher, I think they'll just send you a pile to pass out to your students.

At the very least, everyone can download a PDF of the second issue from this page. You'll be especially impressed by the fine illustration work of Rick Veitch, who's drawn the stories I've written for the project and written some of his own, as well. I found out about this offer from Rick's website…where I also learned that the comic has been nominated for an Association of Educational Publisher's Distinguished Achievement Award in the graphic novels category. That sounds very impressive even though I don't know what that is.

Here's a link to the New York Times obit for Dick Martin.

Most of the pieces on Martin mention the 1969 Rowan and Martin movie, The Maltese Bippy…a really awful, hurriedly-made film. It was quite a flop that did not replicate, as was intended, the success of the Martin and Lewis movies. In fact, one of the first jokes I ever sold to television was a line that Dean Martin delivered when they roasted Rowan and Martin on his show. (I didn't write on that series but the head writer, Harry Crane, sometimes bought material like that.) The line went something like this: "Dan and Dick starred in The Maltese Bippy…the movie that put MGM where it is today. In the hotel business."

That was touted at the time as their motion picture debut…but they actually starred in a 1958 western comedy called Once Upon A Horse, written and directed by Hal Kanter. It wasn't a great movie but it was a lot better than The Maltese Bippy. Most things in life are.

I wrote a piece this morning about Memorial Day, mainly about how I respect the hell out of anyone who signs up to put on a uniform and go serve his or her country. One of the small but real pains of the Iraq War — and this was true of the Vietnam conflict, as well — was having criticism of the leaders dismissed by folks who'd ask, disingenuously and dishonestly, "Why do you hate our troops?" I don't think anyone hates the troops, and questioning the wisdom of their mission — and the smarts of those who direct them — is not in any way to denigrate the soldiers or their service. It's a job I don't think I could ever do and I'm glad that some can…and will.

And I think they oughta be paid better and get every possible piece of protective gear, as well as the best medical treatment. As you may know, George W. Bush is threatening to veto a new G.I. Bill that will raise wages and also supply college tuition for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11. This is a bi-partisan bill, the Senate version of which was sponsored by Jim Webb (a Democrat) and Chuck Hagel (a Republican). It passed with support from members of both parties. I heard Bush's explanation for opposing it, and also a similar explanation from John McCain, and I think they're wrong. I won't lay the silly "Why do you hate our troops?" line on them because I don't believe they do. I just think they're wrong about this bill.

Anyway, I wrote a piece this morning about some of this and it read as very sappy and shallow to me so I didn't post it. I decided instead to save it, reread it later and see if it was still sappy and shallow. It is so here's this post instead.

When last we checked in on the actors' negotiations, the Screen Actors Guild had been unable to reach an agreement with the AMPTP on a new contract, and the other actors' union, AFTRA, had begun bargaining for its new deal. The oft-buzzed expectation was that AFTRA, being a weaker union and one not inclined to fight all that hard, would settle for crummy terms and so would undermine the SAG position.

As things stand today, that script looks to be playing out as anticipated. AFTRA has sent a letter to its members (read it here) that seems to be saying, "Hey, we're working hard for you but this is tough…don't get your hopes up. We may have to give in on some things you don't like." The standout issue would seem to be the studios' demand to remove the rule whereby they must get a performer's okay to use his or her performance in other venues, most notably in online clips. A friend of mine who's closer to the situation than I am explained it this way in an e-mail…

You have a lot of irresistible forces meeting immovable objects on this issue. The producers are saying in effect, "We must have this. We are going to get it. We will keep you on strike until you die of old age if we have to but we are going to get this." The rank and file of the actors are saying, "We will not give you this, no matter how long you keep us on strike." The problem is the union leaderships. The AFTRA leadership is saying, "We will fight this but we will not go on strike." The SAG leadership is saying, "We will fight this even if means going on strike."

And of course, the problem is that here we have AFTRA negotiating before SAG.

There are other concerns on the table. Here's a link to a PDF that SAG has issued to inform its members of what those issues are. The other one most likely to be a strike-causer is the one about jurisdiction over so-called "new media." SAG won't do notably better on DVDs than the other unions have and I can't imagine the producers holding out on the one regarding Force Majeure or the actors going on strike over Product Placement.

Still, this is going to get messy. One possible ugly scenario would begin with AFTRA's board accepting some form of what the producers want regarding the use of clips, perhaps mitigated with some limitations. The proposal already concedes that excerpts involving nudity could not be used without the actor's permission. The studios could give in on a few more points (like, your image won't be used in political commercials) to make it more palatable…and then AFTRA would recommend the deal to its members for ratification. That would not be as easily rubber-stamped as these contracts usually are. For some thespians, that's a deal-killer right there…for personal reasons as much as the financial ones. At that point, you'd have actors rallying to reject the offer and the studios holding firm that they would not sit down with SAG's bargainers as long as the AFTRA deal was unresolved.

We could, in effect, have the actors' strike run by AFTRA — whose leadership seems terrified of a strike and ill-equipped to manage one — instead of by SAG, whose leadership is ready to go to the mat on this and other issues. There are additional ways this could play out, none of them pretty. Another, of course, is that AFTRA just folds and totally undermines the SAG position.

So is there going to be an actors' strike? Hard to say. A few months ago, I thought not…but the studios are playing harder ball than anyone imagined, probably because they figure the SAG-AFTRA rift has given them an opening. It may all depend on patching that rift, or at least on finding a way to make it work for the actors instead of against them. I guess I'll stick with my no-strike prediction but I must admit I'm less confident of it now than I was in April. And I'm starting to think that if there isn't, it will not be because the AMPTP decided to avoid one by being reasonable. It'll be because the actors divided and conquered themselves.

Two years ago today, I hauled my (then) 344 pound self over to a hospital and underwent Gastric Bypass Surgery. Sixty-five days later, I had lost sixty-five pounds and over the next year, another 40 or so went with them. Actually, my weight has fluctuated a lot in that time — which I'm told is not unusual — but I've basically lost a hundred pounds of me.

To answer the two biggest questions: No, I have not regretted it for one second. And no, I still do not recommend it for all. Not everyone will have as easy a time as I had. I think I got lucky and it also helped that apart from weighing way too much, I was otherwise in excellent health. When you hear the percentages about how many people die or have severe complications from that surgery, you need to remember that some who have it are in pretty bad shape before the operation.

I do recommend that if you need to lose that kind of poundage, you at least look into the possibility of Gastric Bypass…but there are some people who'd simply be better off to go another route.

My body continues to change. My taste for sweets mysteriously disappeared in January of this year. Certain odd muscle aches still pop up now and then, especially when I've been too busy to go see the Physical Trainer. Every now and then, I eat or drink too fast and I have to stop and breathe slowly for about five minutes to regain my equilibrium. These are all minor negatives. It's all still a lot better than when I was at my peak of 365.

Everyone in my life has pretty much gotten used to the new, smaller Evanier…so I get fewer and fewer odd reactions. I think my favorite moment — and I think I told this here before — was when I went in to appear in a video documentary on Mel Blanc for one of those Golden Age of Looney Tunes DVDs. I was in the make-up chair being dolled up and the lady applying the Max Factor to my face asked me if I had an older brother. I told her no. She said, "About a year ago, I made up a guy who looked a lot like you except that he was older and fatter." That alone was worth the price of the surgery.

Watching Recount, the HBO movie about the 2000 vote, I couldn't help but have the following thought…

An awful lot of people worked their asses off to make sure that George W. Bush prevailed in Florida. I'm sure most of them thought he won fairly and that Democrats were trying to steal the election, and that getting Bush certified as the victor was a matter of principle and fairness. I'm sure also that most of them thought that this was a matter of saving the world (or at least, America) from Al Gore and his agenda…because they'd be very unhappy with what would happen under a Gore administration.

George W. Bush is now extraordinarily unpopular. I don't mean just among Democrats. Independents think he's been a disaster and an awful lot of people who voted for him — twice, in some cases — now think he's the worst president of all time. I suspect his popularity rating is even lower than surveys say; that even some people who tell the pollsters they like him actually just like what they once believed he stood for…and cringe at what he's done to those causes and objectives. Three of my acquaintances who could not have been more pro-Bush in the last two elections are now angry with Dems for not impeaching the guy. Well, okay, we all back candidates who eventually disappoint us. That happens.

But the actions of the folks who worked for him in Florida during the recount period were extraordinary. Everything about that count was so damned sloppy. If they tallied the same pile of ballots three times, they got three different totals. Machines didn't work. People who were entitled to vote were refused. Ballots went wholly uncounted the first time, let alone received the ordered recounts. Somewhere amidst all those who helped deliver the state (and therefore, the Oval Office) to Bush, there had to be at least a few people who felt, as I do, that it was shameful that there were so many anomalies and questions about something as essential to the principles of this nation as an election. There had to be at least some who felt that the vote was impossible to calculate with any honesty, and it was all they could do to manipulate the recount so that Bush prevailed.

And somewhere in that few, there has to be at least one guy who was gung-ho for George W. Bush in 2000 and now, like those friends I mentioned, believes Bush has harmed this nation on almost every front: The war, the economy, the environment, you name it. Maybe this person has lost a loved one in battle. Maybe he's lost his home in the wild orgy of foreclosures. Maybe he's just horrified at the death toll in Iraq or watched the inept response to Katrina in New Orleans. Whatever the reason, he thinks Bush has done enormous damage…

I wonder how that person would feel today watching Recount. I wonder.

Hey, wanna watch a pretty good Laurel and Hardy movie on your computer? Here's a link to watch the 1940 film, A Chump at Oxford. The only thing better than Laurel and Hardy is free Laurel and Hardy. This runs about 63 minutes.