We pause now for a commercial…two of them, in fact. Both are for Kellogg's Corn Flakes and feature Cornelius, the rooster who for many years has been intermittently seen on boxes of the cereal. Kellogg's tried a couple of times to use Corny as a commercial spokescritter but he never quite caught on as a real character. For this series of spots, his voice was done by the legendary western actor, Andy Devine. For a time before that, Mr. Devine was associated with Kellogg's Corn Pops, doing their commercials and appearing on the box.

I don't know who the little kid is in these commercials, though he looks a little like Brandon Cruz, who starred with Bill Bixby in the seventies sitcom, The Courtship of Eddie's Father. Whoever he is, his voice in these spots has been dubbed by Dick Beals, whom we mention often in this weblog as we speak of old commercials and cartoons. In the second of the two ads, we have Paul Frees voicing a supporting character. I think Hanna-Barbera did the animation in both. Here they are…

Yesterday, the House okayed a bill that would provide funds to continue the war in Iraq but with a mandatory timetable for withdrawal. I have no idea if that's a good idea or even if the representatives who voted for it all think it's a good idea. My omnipresent cynicism suspects the more immediate goal may be to force Bush to veto the bill, thereby taking even more responsibility for the war.

That was my suspicion when they passed it. I thought it was Political Theater, even though that precise term didn't pass through my noggin at the time they did it. I picked it up a little later when George W. Bush appeared in front of a microphone and accused the Democrats in Congress — though oddly not the three Republicans who voted for it and gave it a scintilla of non-partisan veneer — of "Political Theater."

And I thought, "Hey, he's right." If Bush knows about anything, it's Political Theater. In fact, he made this pronouncement from a lectern, flanked by members of the Armed Forces in uniform. Why were they there? They were props in a display of Political Theater staged to denounce someone else's Political Theater.

I think both sides are more interested in scoring points with voters than in doing what's right for our country and our soldiers. If the Democrats were primarily interested in doing the right thing, the bill wouldn't have been loaded down with irrelevant spending, thereby muddying its purpose and giving a few swing votes a chance to oppose it and claim they did so because of the pork. And if Bush were primarily interested in doing the right thing, he'd stop using our troops as window dressing and engage Congress on a bi-partisan basis…and I don't mean "bi-partisan" the way he always does, which is to demand they give in to him on everything.

The sense I get after following all the back-and-forth is that if we pull out of Iraq now or even soon, an awful lot of people are going to die…and if we stay there, an awful lot of people are going to die. And whichever way we go, we're going to have to listen to the side that didn't get their way blame all the deaths that occur on the side that did. So at the moment, it comes down to deciding which of two bad alternatives will do less damage and destruction. I'm not sure I trust either side to make that decision on the proper basis. Not as long as they're more interested in engaging in Political Theater.

Following a sumptuous repast at the Souplantation, my friend Carolyn and I went to see one of the funniest men on this planet, Billy Connolly. It was his closing night of a brief stand at the Brentwood Theater in Westwood and the place was packed with celebrities. If Billy hadn't shown up for some reason, half the folks in the audience — which included John Lithgow, Eddie Izzard and Ricky Jay — were probably qualified to get up on stage and perform in his stead.

Fortunately, Mr. Connolly was there. He came out around 8:05 and talked until about 10:20, careening madly from topic to topic with A.D.D. delivery. He'd start Anecdote #1 and stop halfway through to discourse on the completely unrelated Topic A. This would remind him of Anecdote #2 which he'd start and get most of the way through before he was suddenly reminded of Anecdote #3, whereupon he'd stop #2 (which he never would finish) and tell #3, then rattle on for a while about Topic B, then go back and finish Anecdote #1, which would lead into Anecdote #4 and Topics C, D and E, interrupted by additional thoughts on A. By halfway through, people were not only howling at the anecdotes and topics, they were laughing at the sheer speed with which he jumped from one to another.

It's difficult to tell you what all he talked about. He discussed Los Angeles and weird people in his native Scotland. He told a story about a dwarf on a bus and another one about a dog howling on a movie set. He discussed drug use, his career as a musician, a couple of cars he used to own, religion, obnoxious people, women who vomited on him and a great many other issues of vital concern. What he talked about didn't matter a whole heap. It was just enormous fun being with him for that spell of time.

I don't know where he's appearing next but if it's anywhere near you, get a ticket. And if you can stop at the Souplantation on the way there and have the Creamy Tomato Soup, so much the better. A great evening.

Over on the BBC website, there's an article about Stan Lee that may set some sort of record for the most errors ever in an article about someone in the comic book industry. They don't even get his birth name right, which you can do with about ten seconds of Googling.

If you know about comic book history, take a look but treat it as one of those "How many mistakes can you find in this picture?" exercises. If you don't know about comic book history, don't click. No wonder the author didn't take a byline.

This coming Wednesday, I'll be back on Shokus Internet Radio along with my friend, Earl Kress, to discuss great cartoons of the past. We once again will be the live guests on Stu's Show, hosted by the vivacious Stuart Shostak. We'll be taking your calls, answering questions, talking animation…fun stuff like that. It all happens for two hours commencing at 4 PM Left Coast Time, and make a note because I'll only be reminding you thirty or forty times between now and then. You can listen up via this here website.

Hey, this might interest someone. If you have a Series 2 or 3 TiVo and it's hooked up to an Internet connection and you have a V.I.P. account with Live365 radio, you can listen to us (or anything on Shokus Internet Radio) through your TV. I've actually done this. The V.I.P. account costs six bucks a month and allows you to listen to hundreds of different stations with the best audio quality and without waiting. Once you have one, you need to add Shokus Internet Radio to your presets and then go to your TiVo's Live365 page (it's under "Music, Photos & More") and log in to your Live365 account there. Once you do, Stu's channel will come streaming through your TV speakers. Try it if you don't believe me. Only then will you learn the folly of not believing me.

An actress friend of mine once described to me a nightmare that sounded very much like what you'll see in this short (four minute) clip. It's from some TV show and there's a singer — I don't know her name — singing one of Stephen Sondheim's most famous songs…with Stephen Sondheim sitting there to critique and correct her. It's fascinating to hear his comments…which do not include the fact that this singer, though obviously quite talented, is way too young to be singing this particular tune at all.

Quite a few people sent me e-mails on the topic of why they don't like Google or why someone else might not like Google. This message from Nat Gertler covers most of the points made by others…

Google censors search results in China at the behest of their government.

Google infringes heavily on copyrights, in projects like their digitization of libraries and on their video sites (Google Video and now YouTube). They're facing lawsuits from publishers and film and TV companies over that.

Until a recently-announced policy change, they kept track of your searches and other actions forever, which is of great concern to privacy advocates. On the other end of things, they were reluctant to share information about searches with the government for the feds to build their case defending some Internet porn legislation (which recently got defeated in court.)

I imagine that someone who is actually anti-Google will have a longer list of concerns. I'm generally pro-Google, although I do think they are sadly cavalier with other people's copyrights.

No idea on Johnson & Johnson.

Okay, those are pretty good reasons. And a few other folks suggested bad experiences when the Google Toolbar or Desktop was installed on their computers by some piece of software and wasn't easy to remove. I guess that could all lead to 6% of the population having a negative view of Google.

In the case of Johnson & Johnson, no one had any suggestions but I thought of one. They're a drug company. I thought everyone thought of them as a company that made band-aids and baby shampoo but it's not unreasonable to think that some amount of people are aware that they make pharmaceuticals, including some pretty expensive ones.

My doctor had me on one of them last year for a few months. He gave me four weeks' worth in free samples and wrote me a prescription to get filled when the freebees ran out. When I took it in, I found out that it was not covered by my health insurance and that another month of it would have been $400. It was something like six and a half bucks a pill and I needed two a day. I told my pharmacist not to bother filling it, then I wrote an e-mail to my doctor and he said, "Come on by and I'll give you more samples." I hadn't recalled that the medicine was made by Johnson & Johnson but when I just now looked them up on the web and saw they made it, I could see why some people might have a negative view of the company. I know I think a little less of them now that I've made that connection.

Kevin Drum, who invented Friday Cat Blogging, isn't doing any today so I will. This is The Stranger Cat, who has been feeding at my back door for many months now. Actually, there are two Stranger Cats. There's the Stranger Cat you see above, who is not shy about sitting on the porch and howling 'til fed. Then there's the stranger Stranger Cat, who asks for nothing and rarely comes near a human. They're probably related but I wouldn't presume to guess how.

The Stranger Cat demands food, eats a little of whatever is put in the dish and then wanders off. During all this, the stranger Stranger Cat is either lurking in a far corner of the yard or peeking through a hole in the fence from the adjoining property. When the Stranger Cat finishes dining, the stranger Stranger Cat sneaks up and helps herself to whatever's left. Should anyone approach, the stranger Stranger Cat stops eating and sprints out of the yard…except that once, I was actually able to go out and pet both. I don't know what made that possible that one day. Anyway, they have a nice tag-team arrangement worked out there. Sometimes, I even see the Stranger Cat standing watch as the stranger Stranger Cat eats.

We also have a couple of Stranger Possums out there and the occasional Stranger Raccoon. There are also a lot of huge Stranger Crows in my yard lately. I still seem to be the only person worrying that the crows in this area are now the size of Toyotas. Someone needs to look into this.

Yesterday, we linked to a piece about Jack Hanrahan, an Emmy-winning comedy writer who's been living on the streets of Cleveland. Here's a link to an update which tells us that his plight has brought forth many offers of assistance. And I know some folks in Hollywood are doing much to help, as well.

We're always wary of polls here, especially when they seem to confirm that which we'd like to believe is so. This new one from the Pew Research Center — which I assume never took a survey to determine if that was a good name for a polling service — is therefore to be taken with great caution. Others can analyze its findings in a lot more depth but the bottom line is that the Bush/Cheney/Rove policies are driving voters away from the G.O.P. and also from traditional G.O.P. positions. This does not seem to be a case of Democrats doing anything right but of Republicans scaring people away.

One thing that caught my eye was this item…

The public expresses highly favorable views of many leading corporations. Johnson & Johnson and Google have the most positive images of 23 corporations tested. At the bottom of the list: Halliburton, which is viewed favorably by fewer than half of those familiar enough with the company to give it a rating.

How could anyone have a bad image of Johnson & Johnson or Google? I mean, let's leave aside someone who might have worked for one of those companies and been routinely flogged and caned while there. If you're part of the general public, what could possibly bother you about either firm? All you probably know about Johnson & Johnson is that they make band-aids and baby shampoo. Google is for most people, nothing more than a free search engine that gets you where you want to go on the Internet. Where are the negatives in any of that? How did those companies get even a 5-6% unfavorable rating, which is what the survey says?

I can understand people having problems with McDonald's or Coca-Cola, feeling that the companies are too pushy in selling unhealthy products. I can understand people having bad feelings about any of the airlines mentioned due to bad flights. I can see being down on Pfizer because it's a drug company and there have been some charges of it paying off government officials to keep drug prices high…and the low ratings for Exxon/Mobil or Halliburton are easy to fathom. A lot of people probably hate Starbucks just because they're so hard to avoid.

But what's the complaint that 6% of respondents have about Google? What exactly has that company done to bother anyone?

Steve Winer, who among his other accomplishments used to write for David Letterman, shares with us the story of Calvert DeForest's unlikely leap to stardom…

As one of the two writers responsible for the film, King of the Z's, I thought you might like a little background on Calvert's rise to fame. All the obits that I've seen seem to suggest that David saw the film and then sent staffers out to find Calvert. Not quite. The film Karl Tiedemann and I made was a parody documentary about the world's cheapest movie studio of the 40's and 50's. We cast Calvert as one of the major players in the fake film clips from that studio. David and Merrill Markoe saw the film and became intersted in us as writers. During our interview with them, Merrill said "We're looking for someone like that little guy in your movie for our show," and I said, "You're not looking for someone like that guy. You're looking for that guy." We were ultimately hired for the show and brought him with us. (The Melman name was Merrill's, as was the Frankenstein bit that opened the first show).

Calvert was a very sweet man who always wanted to be a star and through this somewhat unusual crossing of personalities, became one. I have many great memories of Calvert and "Melman," but the one that comes to mind first is the night Bob Hope and Calvert were on the same show. Calvert was star struck and went up to Hope to compliment him. Hope, who had watched Calvert work from backstage, told Calvert that he thought he was very funny too. And as I watched Bob Hope compliment Calvert DeForest, I remember thinking: "Only in America!"

I'm going to miss him.

We already miss him. A lot of people have written to tell me of encounters with Calvert and how sweet he was to them. I only had two encounters with the guy, one a brief meeting up in Letterman's NBC offices. He was trying to make small talk with the office staff and I remember thinking, "My God…this man really can't ad-lib." Couldn't even say anything bright standing in the reception area. But that was okay because he had some sort of odd quality in front of the camera that made him fascinating to watch, even if he was just cluelessly reading cue cards.

I have to admit I've never been a big fan of humor (or attempts at humor) that come from putting the stagehands in sketches or counting on the utter lack of professionalism on the part of the deli owner around the corner. With occasional exceptions, I don't find these bits funny. I think they're often a substitute for actual writing…and maybe a way of protecting the host, preventing him from having to compete with someone who might upstage him a tiny bit. But Larry "Bud" Melman was a usual exception. He was genuinely funny and not just because he was awkward and inept. When they did bits like "Ask Mr. Melman," Dave's writers knew how to write for the guy and give him lines that worked when they were read right and worked even better when read wrong. The point of the bit wasn't just his clumsy delivery.

And hey, some people said that all Bob Hope did his last twenty years in show business was to read cue cards badly…

I think this is from Caesar's Hour, the series Sid Caesar starred in after Your Show of Shows. It's a pantomime sketch with Sid and Nanette Fabray miming "Argument to Beethoven's 5th." It runs about six minutes and it's a very nice piece of material.

The post office is joining forces with the Star Wars franchise. This will not change anything as far as I'm concerned because my mail is already delivered by a Wookie.

Is an expansion of Disneyland in the works? I certainly hope so. The Santa Ana Freeway isn't quite crowded enough.

I can't recall the last time I watched it…but I'm still saddened by the decision of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to discontinue the annual Hollywood Christmas Parade, a holiday tradition since 1928. Generally referred to as "The Santa Claus Lane Parade," it caused no end of traffic nightmares as floats and stars (including some you actually had heard of) marched down Hollywood Boulevard and sometimes portions of Sunset on, usually, the day after Thanksgiving. Here's an article about the decision and there's also some video and a photo gallery.

As a kid, I used to watch it every year. A local TV host named Bill Welsh often covered it live, running out to every passing car that contained a celebrity for a quick chat. I remember one year when Walter Matthau was riding in the event to promote his then-current film, Cactus Flower. Matthau had a little blooming cactus plant as a prop and I think he'd decided to see if he could set some sort of world record for the longest, most shameless plug in television history. He made his driver stop in front of the TV cameras and Matthau began relentlessly selling the film into Welsh's microphone, talking about how funny it was and how great it was to work with Goldie Hawn and how everyone had to go see it. The whole parade just came to a total halt and Welsh stood there with nothing to report on…nothing he could do but let Matthau go on and on, which he did, until a sheriff on horseback came by and ordered the driver to move it. If he hadn't, Bill Welsh and Walter Matthau would have remained on that stretch of Hollywood Boulevard until long after Cactus Flower had come and gone.

Oh, well. At least now if I have to go anywhere near Hollywood on the day after Thanksgiving, I may be able to get there.