Lots of e-mails asking me to write something about the upcoming Path to 9/11 "docu-drama" on ABC which will portray a version of history that, many are arguing, is a right-wing fantasy, intended to minimize the shortcomings of the Bush administration and to affix blame to the Clinton team.

As I've said before here — like when CBS had that TV-Movie, The Reagans — I'm not a fan of works that purport to dramatize history but reserve the right to fictionalize whenever it pleases them. It's one thing if you write or produce something and are willing to say, "I believe this is a reasonably accurate depiction of what happened." Then there can be a clear debate on the truth, or lack thereof in the work. It's quite different when you claim the right to fictionalize and say, in effect, "I'm just making stuff up here because it's more fun this way." Then everyone knows that it's bull. The docu-drama form, to me, is an attempt to have it both ways; to present something that many will take as history but to give its presenter an alibi for inaccuracies and even a free pass for intentional distortions. I don't like Oliver Stone movies for the same reason.

I haven't seen the upcoming semi-fictionalization of what led up to 9/11 but the advance hubbub does not sound encouraging as to the project's integrity. Left-wing websites have identified what they say are numerous wrenchings of the truth, often citing folks who were there at the time and/or on the 9/11 commission, on whose report the TV-Movie supposedly relied heavily for research. The people who made the new TV-Movie seem to be balking from claiming it's what actually happened, instead employing statements like "…for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression." Every dramatization does that to some extent. I'd be more impressed if they offered specific defenses or sources for some of the alleged fibs.

They have also heavily embraced the right-wing blogosphere, freely distributing advance screeners to the Limbaugh crowd while denying them to any party (including those depicted in the film) who might find advance fault with their accuracy. At the same time, an ABC press statement said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible." But of course, they have already distributed a version of it to folks they knew would embrace its every anti-Clinton moment and scream over any excisions that were later made. That's called Stacking the Deck.

I see utterly no reason to view this one any different from The Reagans, except that this one is about a more serious subject and has more relevance to an upcoming election. Blogger Glenn Greenwald has resurrected a lot of quotes from prominent right-wingers about how unfair it was to semi-fictionalize the lives of Ron and Nancy. I think they all apply to this one, too…though I would stop short of arguing that the work should not be broadcast at all.

If some network wants to yank a show or film because they decide it's seriously flawed, that's their right…but it shouldn't be done just because they were pressured into doing so. Pressure, as it's applied in these cases, is a capricious thing that often has more to do with who's efficient at rallying the troops — and getting to key affiliates or advertisers — than with any fair assessment of the offense or public outrage. I do think it's fair game to criticize the work in advance to perhaps make ABC (in this case) reconsider if they want to put their corporate integrity, such as it is, behind the project. If they do, fine. If I were the guy in charge at the network, or had I had that post at CBS when The Reagans was igniting controversy, I'm not sure what I would have done…other than to question the responsibility of green-lighting such factually-arguable "docu-dramas" in the first place.

The Reprise! Theatrical Company stages musicals up at the Freud Playhouse at U.C.L.A. with minimal sets and costuming but maximum talents. In the past, my reviews of their offerings came too late to do much good for Los Angeles theatergoers: Their shows only run for sixteen performances apiece and my season tickets were for the next-to-the-next-to-the-last performance. Ergo, by the time I could post my rave recommendation here, it was too late for most of you to scurry out and by tickets.

Not so, this time. Last evening, I attended opening night of the Reprise! presentation of My One and Only, which is sub-titled "The Gershwin Musical." Actually, it's a Gershwin musical but let's not quibble. If you live in L.A., you have to scurry out (or over to this website) and purchase tickets.

Some history. In 1927, George and Ira Gershwin did the score for Funny Face, a musical with a book by Fred Thompson and Paul Gerard Smith. Several of its tunes, including "'S Wonderful," "He Loves and She Loves" and the title tune were quite popular and the show itself ran 244 performances, which was a respectable number back when theaters weren't air conditioned and shows often closed for the summer because of it. (Funny Face opened November 22, 1927 and closed June 23, 1928.)

In the late seventies and early eighties, a number of shows that made it to Broadway were highly-revised revivals of old musicals with familiar tunes. Usually, someone would come in to revamp and modernize the book, and they'd interpolate a few hit songs from other shows by the same composer(s). When Ira Gershwin — he was still alive at the time — gave the okay to bring back Funny Face, that was the idea: Update its rather silly story and toss in some other great Gershwin tunes. By the time it made Broadway in May of 1983, My One and Only (the new title) had changed more than its makers had expected. Tommy Tune starred with Twiggy, Roscoe Lee Browne, Charles "Honi" Coles, Denny Dillon and a whole bunch of great hoofers. Mr. Tune also co-directed and co-choreographed with Thommie Walsh…and the show must have delighted audiences because it ran 767 performances and has had a healthy life since.

Peter Stone and Timothy S. Mayer supplied the new book and I don't know why but I'm going to try to summarize the plot. It's the story of Captain Billy Buck Chandler and famous swimmer Edith Herbert. He's a somewhat-unkempt hick (no one is ever too unkempt in a Gershwin musical) who wants to be the first man to ever fly a plane non-stop from New York to Paris. This is before Lindbergh, obviously. He is distracted from this goal momentarily when he falls in love with Edith, who has recently made headlines by swimming the English Channel. She is the third woman to do this but, as her scummy manager boasts, "…the first attractive one." The manager is a slimy Russian who is keeping her under his thumb because he has her passport…and also some naughty photos she posed for when she was younger. She needs Chandler's help to escape this horrible relationship…and that's pretty much what it's about.

No…come to think of it, that's not what it's about. It's about performing Gershwin tunes. What's in the previous paragraph is just the excuse to sing "Strike Up the Band" and "How Long Has This Been Going On?" and "I Can't Be Bothered Now" (several times) and other glorious tunes. Since the company does a splendid job of this, a good time is had by all.

Michael Gruber plays Cap'n Chandler. He's terrific, striking the right notes of hayseed and suave sophistication at the right moments. Rachel York plays Edith. Rachel York has been wonderful in everything she's ever done and the streak continues, unabated. Vicki Lewis, who was so good in the last Reprise! show I saw (City of Angels, though I neglected to mention her at the time) just about steals the whole show. The only thing that stops her is that Betty Garrett is also in the cast and you can't steal what someone else has already stolen.

Yes, it's Betty Garrett…Betty Garrett from Words and Music and On the Town and My Sister Eileen and talk about your Living Legends. Someone — maybe director-choreographer Dan Mojica — had the genius idea to cast her in the role played on Broadway by Charles "Honi" Coles. Well, why not? Ms. Garrett's late husband Larry Parks did okay working in blackface, playing Al Jolson. Why shouldn't his widow play a part written for a short, older black man? (I got to speak with her after the show and she joked she was worried about being "typecast" in that kind of role.)

The whole cast is excellent…and I'd like to single out Richard Israel, who played the Russian. As you may know, these "concert-style" shows are done with very little rehearsal and Richard had less than anyone. Another actor was to have played the part until he suddenly got cast in a new TV series. Mr. Israel was called in and began rehearsals last Saturday and there was a preview performance on Tuesday night. Most human beings could not even learn half the dialogue in that time, let alone all the staging and blocking and dancing that goes with it. If he'd screwed up a bit, you could forgive the guy but that wasn't necessary. It was a thoroughly polished, flawless performance.

I had a rollickin' good time at My One and Only and as far as I could tell, so did everyone else who was smart enough to get tickets. It's almost a no-brainer: You can't beat The Best of Gershwin and note for note, tap for tap, this cast more than does justice to the legacy of George and Ira.

If you're going to send donations to Lea Hernandez via PayPal — something we greatly encourage — use this link. Don't use the PayPal link in the margin of this page because that sends the money to my PayPal account and then I have to either return it to you or forward it on to her.

Gail Simone is one of the better writers to enter the comic book field in the past few years but that has nothing to do with why I'm posting this at her request. I'm posting it because Lea Hernandez is a great talent and a great lady. Please do what you can to help…

Early this morning, the Texas home of award-winning writer/artist Lea Hernandez, my friend and co-creator of the graphic novel Killer Princesses, caught fire and burned. Half her house is now gone, and the rest is smoke-damaged. In addition, she lost at least six of her family's beloved pets, two dogs and four cats. If you knew Lea, you'd know how devastating that is.

She's lost a great deal of her family's possessions, including irreplaceable art. She doesn't yet know the full accounting of what's been lost at this time.

Most know Lea as the brilliant creator of such works as Rumble Girls and Cathedral Child. She drew the Marvel Mangaverse Punisher book, and has drawn for Transmetropolitan, among many other accomplishments. She is also the co-founder and original editor for Girl-a-Matic, one of the most important venues for female-friendly comics created to date.

She's also my friend, and it's entirely possible I wouldn't have a career in comics if she hadn't asked me to write Killer Princesses for her to draw.

And finally, Lea is one of the last great firebrand hellraisers in comics.

Lea has two (wonderful, amazing) special needs children and right now they need a place to stay and some clothes to wear. More than that, they need some help, and fast, in the form of donations to her PayPal account. Lea's a proud person so I'm going to ask for her. This is important, and a great chance to do a wonderful thing for a creator who has consistently enriched this industry we all love so much. Please, take a moment and send whatever you can to Lea's PayPal account and help make this time a little bit less painful for someone who would do the same for you if the positions were reversed.

If you're a retailer, I ask that you set up a donations jar. If you're a creator, I ask you to think of how devastating this would be to your career and donate what you can. If you're a reader, I'm asking you to take a moment and hit the PayPal link. You'll be doing something heroic and you'll feel great about it, I promise.

Read what Lea had to post on a neighbor's computer while wearing her pajamas at Livejournal.com/users/divalea.

Donate (PLEASE) to her PayPal account at divalea@gmail.com.

Finally, if I understand the story correctly (as told to me by Lea's good friend and current Girl-a-matic editor), it was Lea's daughter hearing the smoke alarm that allowed the family to get out in time, so for God's sake, do everyone you love a favor and CHECK YOUR SMOKE ALARMS.

Thank you so much for helping. Really, any amount you can send will make a difference. That's all I can say.

And also, if you have a blog or a myspace account, please spread this around as best you can. Every little bit will help and every eye that sees this might be someone who donates.

Sincerely and gratefully,
Gail Simone

Nothing I can add to that except that if you've been thinking of making a donation to this website, send it to Lea instead. Our field needs people like her to be drawing and creating, so the sooner she gets her life restored to normal, the better off we'll all be.

Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed the bill that would have established Universal Health Care in California. Here's the statement he issued explaining why. There may be some argument for his position with regard to the dollar costs — I don't have enough info to calculate that, nor do I have the math skills. But I wonder if anyone at this stage has enough information to evaluate the price tag…or even if it could possibly be worse than what we have now in this country. Where I become suspicious of the reasons for the veto is when he says…

I want to see a new paradigm that addresses affordability, shared responsibility and the promotion of healthy living. Single payer, government-run health care does none of this. Yet it would reduce a person's ability to choose his or her own physician, make people wait longer for treatment and raise the cost of that treatment.

Every time someone in this country opposes any sort of government-controlled health program, they trot out the claims that it would strip people of the right to choose their own doctors and force them to submit to the poking, probing and prescriptions of doctors selected by the government. That was said by those who opposed the national plan proposed by Hillary Clinton in 1993 and it was an outright lie, as anyone who read the plan could clearly see. The bill Schwarzenegger is vetoing is pretty explicit in saying you could choose your own physician. You can see the text of it here.

There's a bit of double-talk in a claim that under a government-run health program you'd be limited in picking your own doctor. Under a system of total free enterprise, you're limited in picking your own doctor, too. In fact, if you can't afford decent medical care, you're very limited. I suppose someone will point out that very rich people — like, say, multi-millionaire actors — can pretty much get the doctor of their choice…but your average Californian cannot. A pretty horrifying percentage of them, when they get sick or injured, have to just go to some hospital's emergency room and wait for hours upon hours to see whoever's on duty and receive a little assembly-line care. A half-dozen times the last year (once for myself, the other times for someone else), I've had to be in those emergency rooms. Anyone who'll tell you the current system isn't broken obviously has not.

As for the claims that the bill he's vetoing would "make people wait longer for treatment and raise the cost of that treatment," I'm also skeptical. I'd love to hear the explanation of why those things would occur. I suspect there isn't one, other than some general distrust of government involvement.

I believe we will soon see the kind of government-run single-payer Universal Health System that Schwarzenegger is nixing and that Republicans have long opposed. We'll see it established in some states, work in those states and then become national. Businesses increasingly want it so they can get the responsibility of employee insurance off their backs. The medical community seems to want it because they see how the present system is not working. Your average citizen/voter either wants it or would if people weren't scaring them with claims that they'll have to go to a doctor they don't like and even then, they'll have to wait months to have that broken leg or bleeding treated.

It'll happen. It's just that a lot of people are going to die or at least suffer from the current, inefficient system before that happens.

To the best of my knowledge, today is not this possum's birthday and I'm not putting this photo up instead of buying him a present. I'm putting it up because I just looked out at my back porch, saw him there and thought you'd enjoy a peek at him.

Do we think this is true? Does the Bush administration really want to kill large portions of the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996?

Today is the birthday of my collaborator and Best Friend (Male Division), Sergio Aragonés. This is a day when I traditionally post a photo of him on my website instead of buying him a present. It's cheaper, I don't have to worry about sizes, and he can't return it.

A fifty second preview of the new Dick Cavett Show episode which was mentioned here, item before last.

Some time ago, I began listing "released jokes" here. These are jokes that have been told so often that they've not only lost their humor value but people should be ashamed to use them. In light of all the publicity lately about our solar system and the reclassification of planets, I need to add another one to the list…

…jokes that flow from the fact that "Uranus" sounds like "your anus."

Please stop. Don't do them any more. Don't even explain or alibi or point out that others do it more than you do. Just stop.

Thank you.

More than two years ago on this site, we wished aloud that someone would rerun old episodes of The Dick Cavett Show. More than four months ago, we told you it was about to happen, at least for a few episodes cut down (alas) from 90 minutes to an hour…and those few start airing this Thursday on Turner Classic Movies.

Actually, the first one (which airs this Thursday and again on Sunday) is not a rerun. It's a new episode with Mel Brooks and of course, TCM will surround its airings with a couple of Mel Brooks movies. But then on September 14, we get an old show with Cavett chatting with Woody Allen. On September 21, it's a show from 1971 with Robert Mitchum and then on September 28, TCM will air Cavett's 1972 interview with Alfred Hitchcock. In October, they're running Cavett shows with Bette Davis, Groucho Marx and a two-parter with Katharine Hepburn.

I was also a big fan of Cavett's late night show and always felt ABC made a huge mistake by cancelling him when they did. No, he wasn't sending Johnny Carson to the unemployment line…but neither did anyone else for 30+ years. Cavett's show finished (usually) a respectable second and turned a profit, which is more than can be said for the shows that occupied that time slot for the next few years after he was booted out of it. Perhaps of greater value was that at a time when his network didn't have the most uplifting schedule, The Dick Cavett Show won awards aplenty and garnered critical acclaim.

In later years, I think a lot of network execs would have been thrilled to have a show that did that well against Johnny…but Cavett was working in an environment where being Numero Uno was all that mattered. That was his loss, ABC's loss and our loss. It's nice to see those shows hauled out of the vaults.

While I've got your attention: Very early tomorrow (Wednesday) morning, TCM is running Zenobia, the 1939 movie that stars Oliver Hardy with Harry Langdon but without Stan Laurel. It's not a great film but Hardy's performance makes it worth watching. This is followed by the three "Topper" movies — Topper, Topper Takes a Trip and Topper Returns, all starring Roland Young as the oft-tormented Cosmo Topper. You could do worse than TiVo the lot of them.

Daniel Preece makes a good point…

Not to be picky, but there is no "non-conspiracy" theory about 9/11. The official Bush explanation is itself a massive conspiracy theory, involving dozens (or more) of extremist Muslim plotters spread from the U.S. halfway across the world to Afghanistan.

I point this out because some people use the phrase "conspiracy theory" merely as a label for explanations they don't like. This is dangerous to encourage, because it predisposes some people to disregard unpleasant explanations out of hand. And given the truth about the Boston Tea Party, the sinking of the Maine, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident (to list a few), we should keep a healthy skepticism regarding "official" explanations.

You're right. There are real conspiracies in this world and I certainly would never believe anything just because the voices that comprise "the government" at some point in time asserted it. On the other hand, I also don't give extra points to any theory just because it wasn't the official explanation. I think some people do, especially when the official version is of no use to them in their personal campaigns. Anyway, I'll try to be more precise about this in the future.

I received an unusual number of messages relating to the commercial I linked to for the Marx Rock 'em, Sock 'em Robots. Several people informed me that the version that is currently being manufactured is — in the words of one correspondent — "a scaled-down piece of junk lacking the magnificence of the original toy." Others who wrote said similar things but seemed less outraged.

Someone who didn't sign his name tells me that the boy on the left in the commercial is Bobby Buntrock, who played the kid on the TV series, Hazel. Someone who did (David Oakes) calls my attention to the illustration work of Eric Joyner, especially this print.

Jim Kakalios, who bills himself as "Your Friendly Neighborhood Physics Professor" writes the following…

Of course, there's an easy, elegant solution to the problem of an only child wanting to play Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots…play by mail! You do it just as in chess — each postcard has instructions such as: move red robots left arm two inches forward, etc. Reflexes and timing are de-emphasized and it beomes a true game of strategy! In this way, I became Mid-West regional Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots champion in 1972 — until the damn judges discovered that I had Crazy Glue-ed my robot's head down in place!

Oddly enough, no one wrote about the truly sad moment in the saga of the Rock 'em Sock 'em guys. It began when the Blue Bomber got drunk one night on WD-40 and signed that one-sided management contract with Don King. It ended one night behind a Toys R' Us when, bankrupt and reduced to picking up the occasional buck as a sparring partner for a couple of Transformers, the one-time heavyweight champion (plastic division) took his own life by throwing himself in front of a Big Wheels Tricycle. The whole sordid story stands as a sobering example of what happens when robots turn to a life of violence in the ring.

The conspiracy theorists are working overtime on 9/11. Read all about it.

It's a commercial for the Marx Rock 'em, Sock 'em Robots, a toy I never owned. I was 14 when they came out in 1966 so I was a little old for it but I remember a younger kid down the block who was always trying to get me or anyone to "box" with him. I think he sometimes made his mother operate the Blue Bomber and then he'd knock her block off and complain she'd let him win. I wonder if anyone in the toy industry ever did a psychological survey of those who buy toys that can only be played by two or more, contrasted to toys one can play all alone.

The two robots had enormous staying power. After many years out of production, the Red Rocker and Blue Bomber made an amazing comeback. Mattel now manufactures the toy…which looks to me like the exact same design. There can't be a lot of playthings that went away and returned like that, and it's especially amazing in a toy that involved a certain amount of mechanics. You'd think something that came out in '66 would seem technologically ridiculous today…but the fight goes on. Here's one of the TV spots that promoted this epic battle in the first place…