If you've been following this site, you've seen an ongoing discussion of drunk driving, which is one of those crimes I think should be punishable by…well, by more than the customary punishments these days. An acquaintance of mine, Bob Cosgrove, weighed in here on the matter and then an anonymous (to you, not to me) person was quoted here. Now, it's Bob's turn again…

It's really all about the trade off between encouraging people not to drink and drive and fairly punishing those who do. (Actually, it's really about keeping people alive.) It would be interesting to see some research on that issue — what's the ideal "tipping point" beyond which jacking up the penalties yields little perceptible gains. With luck, your posts on these issues will get people thinking. Your concern probably has a bigger impact on people, coming from someone they tune in to for your interesting comments on entertainment and related issues, than from someone with a perceived ax to grind.

Anyway, I thought to just shut up and not bother you again, but at least for your own information, I felt I had to make one comment on the very interesting post from the fellow who had the dui conviction. As you would expect from my original comment, I agree with a lot of what he had to say, especially about sentencing. But two comments, then I promise to shut up on the subject.

Given a normal rate for metabolizing alcohol (and some of us are faster, some slower), to have been one above the "legal limit" (and I assume from the rest of his post, he's talking .08), he would have had to have consumed those three beers within one hour, and he would have to have weighed about 110 pounds. For a guy 200 lbs., consuming 3 beers in the same amount of time, the result would be under .05, low enough to get the charges dismissed in most states. Maybe he's a lightweight, maybe he has a slow metabolism, or maybe he lost count of how many beers he actually drank. There are various charts people can play with on the internet to figure out averages by weight and time — they just have to google something like "blood alcohol chart" and take their pick.

Second, if there is a phrase I could consign to hell, it would be "legal limit." The press uses it all the time, though I've never seen the term in a statute. The implication is that it's like fishing — catch ten fish and you're fine, catch eleven and you're fined. What the "legal limit," so-called, usually is, is the point where the blood alcohol level alone is high enough for the jury to draw an inference of guilt, absent any other evidence of impairment. But you can be impaired (as I tried to suggest in my comment you were kind enough to quote with my story about blowing a .06) at levels far below the "legal limit." (And frankly, a practiced alcoholic may drive better substantially over the "legal limit" than a lapsed teetotaler with a few drinks under his belt). That may be why the "legal limit" for airline pilots is zero.

Well, I assume the "legal limit" for pilots is zero because they can get an awful lot of people killed or hurt. I think there should be more recognition that a drunk behind the wheel of a Plymouth can do that, too. A message I received but didn't post here included the observation that drunk drivers who don't get into accidents frequently get off with little or no punishment out of a sense that they didn't endanger anyone but themselves. But of course, that's a fallacy; they endangered lots of people. They just didn't hit any of them.

Not that you're suggesting this but the idea of people deciding if they're sober enough to drive via math strikes me as appalling. It's easy to imagine someone thinking, "Well, I weigh 241 pounds and I only had 3.5 Coronas in forty-three minutes so it must be safe to drive." It may be that what I'm really seeking is not so much more severe penalties for drunk driving but less inclination to give the marginal case the benefit of the doubt.

I also think that in all areas, I'd like to see more societal rejection of the notion that you're not responsible for your actions while tipsy. Among the many reasons I don't drink is that I've seen a number of people — including, alas, a few close friends — do and say enormously rude and even harmful things…and then, later, offer "I was high" as if it's some sort of acceptable excuse. One of the drunk drivers responsible for a friend's death seemed genuinely convinced that being drunk was a form of Temporary Insanity so you were not legally or even morally culpable for what you did in that condition. (He further argued that someone else had forced libations upon him so he was not even responsible for being intoxicated.) I'm generally a very forgiving person but I cannot find any forgiveness in myself for the evil that men do when plastered. If you're a jerk when you're drunk, you're a jerk, period.

Since some may think this sounds prudish or puritan, I should add that I really have no problem with people drinking or doing drugs. I don't think people who are stoned should be stoned. I just don't want them around me. If the world ever became a dictatorship with me in charge — and call me pessimistic but I'm starting to get the sense this might not happen soon — I would liberalize the laws for private use of drug and drink, and tighten them for doing it in public. I'd also do something about Regis Philbin being on TV so much but that's another matter.

We may have beaten this topic into the ground so I'll just thank everyone — Bob Cosgrove, especially — for participating. And now, I think I'll link to a video clip of Allan Sherman…

Very early Sunday morning, Turner Classic Movies is running Pretty Maids All in a Row, a 1971 movie produced and written by Gene Roddenberry. It's not a very good film but it interested me greatly when it came out because much of it was filmed at University High School in West Los Angeles, shortly after I graduated from the place.

Well, actually, what really interested me was seeing my alma mater depicted as a place crawling with beautiful young ladies who'd have sex with anyone and everyone. Given the reality of Uni High, I always thought of the movie as Roddenberry's greatest contribution to the world of science-fiction…as if casting Rock Hudson as a rabid heterosexual wasn't incredible enough.

And then all day long Sunday, TCM is running film after film starring Walter Matthau…or as we described it in here, "Walter Matthau, ad nauseam."

On Wednesday, they're running Soylent Green. In case you weren't aware, Soylent Green is (SPOILER ALERT) people.

On Thursday, they have a heaping helping of Carole Lombard. Then on Friday, you can get sick of seeing Bela Lugosi. It's quite a week on Turner Classic Movies.

What we have here is a short interview, a little over three minutes, with the wonderful Mr. Gary Owens. It's plugging his book, How to Make a Million Dollars with Your Voice, which is a pretty good introduction to the voiceover business. We recommend it and the following link…

Hey, what's Mort Sahl been doing lately?

I've never liked seeing myself on television but since I lost a lot of weight, it's become an especially odd experience. Earlier this evening, I finally watched a little mini-doc on the Huckleberry Hound DVD with me among the interviewees. It was shot in March of last year and I must have been near my top weight of 366 pounds at the time. I'm currently at 274 so that's close to a hundred pounds more of me.

Once I get past my discomfort at looking at any version of myself, I have two opposing reactions. One is that I want to have Warner Home Video to recall all the Huck Hound DVDs and issue a "corrected" edition with the shots of me updated. I'm sure they'd be delighted to do this. The other is that I'm glad the old footage is out there so that when people see me now, they'll go, "Hey, you've lost a ton of weight." There are about a dozen other DVDs that have come out in the last year or three that have footage of the old me somewhere amidst the bonus material but I haven't watched any of them.

I'm also aware there are more mixed feelings to come. The Dungeons and Dragons DVD comes out in November and there's a "making of…" documentary on it in which I weigh about 350. At some point in the future, a deluxe 'n' fancy DVD is supposed to come out with the recent Fantastic Four movie on it. As another of those plots to get you to buy another copy of a movie you already purchased, it will be full of special features and extras, one of which is a nice documentary about Jack Kirby. I probably weigh at least 340 in that one. By the time it comes out, I should be under 240.

(To answer the most-asked weight-related question in my e-mail: My doctor thinks I will level off in the vicinity of 220-230. A chart in his office says that "ideal weight" for a large-framed 6'3" Jew is 218 so that should be nice…though I tell everyone that if the shrinking process stopped today, I'd still consider it a success.)

Needless to say, now that I look more like I think I oughta, no one is asking me to appear in any video documentaries about anything. All I'm getting is occasional requests for radio interviews. That's not a hint because I still don't like being in front of a camera and am quite sure I never will. I'm just sharing the irony.

Fred Kaplan on what U.S. intelligence agencies can learn from their British counterparts.

Frank Jacobs — the poet laureate of MAD Magazine — wrote to thank me for a recent message here. In his note, he suggested I link to this article by Ben Stein. I'm not sure it's an accurate representation of what's occurring and I sure don't agree with the part about George W. Bush being a "hero for the ages." But hey, I'll do anything for Frank Jacobs.

From last night's Daily Show with Jon Stewart…

Eric Boehlert on what's wrong with the Washington punditry. I don't always agree with the articles to which I link but I think this one's on to something.

Longtime talk show host Mike Douglas has passed away and yes, I have an anecdote.

I barely met Mr. Douglas — just a quick handshake was all — but I feel like I knew him. First of all, I watched his afternoon talk fest for a long time, especially during the years it was being broadcast out of Philadelphia. Located there, he wound up with a guest list that was more esoteric, and therefore more to my liking, than if he'd been in New York, picking up whoever was plugging their latest movie or record album. Who else would have had Moe Howard on all the time? The show wasn't nearly as good after it relocated in Hollywood and began booking all the same people you could see on competing programs.

Also, I worked for several years with a producer named Woody Fraser who had produced The Mike Douglas Show and, many said, "discovered" its star. Woody was forever talking about Douglas and it was almost always a compliment. He spoke of a man who was keenly aware of his own strengths and weaknesses as a performer and who was willing to compensate for the latter through hard work and a strong dedication to doing whatever it took to make the show work. Once while I was associated with Woody, a current (and failing) talk show tried to hire him as a consultant to save the series from cancellation. I somehow wound up in the meetings where Woody made the point that the failing show's host was too non-participatory, refusing to do things that might muss his hair or tarnish his image. The host had refused to wear a funny costume in a sketch. The host had refused to be part of a stunt where jugglers would toss Indian clubs on either side of him. The host had refused to do an exercise demonstration with a bunch of leotard-clad starlets would have had him down on a mat…and so on. Woody was practically shouting, over and over, "Mike Douglas would have done that in a second. That's why he was on for so many years!"

Okay, so here's my Mike Douglas story. I'm backstage — this is after Douglas had moved his show to Television City in Hollywood — because a comedian I write for is a guest on what is about to be taped. I'm chatting with the Stage Manager and he says, "We're close to tape time. Mike will be down any minute now to tell us today's dirty joke and to stammer on the dirty words."

I say, "Beg pardon?" And the Stage Manager explains to me that someone had told Mr. Douglas that the way to establish a rapport with the crew on his show is to tell dirty jokes. Dirty jokes do not come naturally to this man so he'd delegated an assistant to dig some up and, each tape day before he comes down to the set, he memorizes one to tell the camera guys and grips.

Sure enough, Mike Douglas soon appears, expertly dressed and made-up, looking very much like a Big TV Star. He tells the Stage Manager, "Hey, get the guys together. I've got a good one," which is apparently what he says before every taping. Two minutes later, the lighting guys and the grips and the cable-pullers are all massed around him and there, displaying none of the professional ease he will shortly muster on-camera, he tells an utterly sexless dirty joke — the kind of dirty joke that's only a dirty joke because it has the "f" word in it. It's not a bad joke but it would be better if he could utter the "f" word without stuttering on it, which he can't. He adds about six "f's" to the beginning.

The crew laughs, more at his unease and to be polite, than at the joke. Then everyone disperses and Douglas untenses, since he's finished the part of his job he most dreads and now only had to go out and appear before millions of people. That's easy for him by now. In fact, as I watch him from the sidelines, I'm impressed by how totally in command he is of the show, and how devoted he is to making the guests look good. The comedian I write for scores big, both in his stand-up spot and especially after when he's seated next to Mike and Mike is throwing him the set-ups for pre-planned anecdotes. The segment is in no way about Mike Douglas being funny. It's all about my comedian friend.

Later, you could watch that show at home and think, "Boy, that comedian was good." And if you thought about Mike Douglas at all, you'd probably think of him as the dull one in the equation. But there's a reason The Mike Douglas Show was on for — what was it? Twenty-one years? — and that reason was Mike Douglas. The man who could do anything but tell a good dirty joke.

Someone wrote and asked me why I like Lewis Black so much. Rather than try to explain, I thought I'd link to this clip. (And after you watch it but not before, go read this item I posted some time ago.)

Just got an advance copy of MAD Magazine #469, which I think comes out next week. It has a cover with Barry Bonds (only with Alfred's face, natch) and inside is brilliance. Inside is a three-page poem by longtime MAD scribe Frank Jacobs about Bonds and the steroid scandal that is as clever and funny as anything that's ever been in that publication. Let me know if you see it online anywhere so I can link to it. Otherwise, pick up the issue and take a look.

Before you order the forthcoming DVD collection of Magilla Gorilla, read this post from my comrade, Earl Kress.

One of the dumber political discussions I currently see on the Internet is whether Joe Lieberman should withdraw from the Connecticut senate race for the good of the Democratic Party and who might be able to convince him to do this. It's dumb because it's never going to happen…and this is not even a criticism of Joe Lieberman. It's simply the way politics is: Elected officials (or even people who come close to becoming elected officials) act out of personal preservation. They may say they're putting the party or their country ahead of their own personal needs and desires but no one ever does and it's silly to expect it.

Richard Nixon was especially obvious about this. Time and again, especially during the Watergate scandal, he'd say something like, "I will make my decision based on what's best for America." And then he'd make his decision based on what he thought was best for Richard Nixon. Once in a while, they corresponded but never was self-interest anything but the first consideration.

That's how they all function. Each and every one of them, including the good guys.

Because politicians' careers are all based on a simple premise: Electing me is what's good for the people. Joe Lieberman has spent his entire political life selling the notion that the best thing for the voters of Connecticut is to elect Joe Lieberman. He must believe it. Even if deep down, he thought Ned Lamont or the Republican candidate (whose name few will ever learn) would do a better job…well, that's the kind of thought that never makes it to the surface.

Lieberman may withdraw from the race but if he does, it'll be because the polls and his campaign coffers are low and he decides he'd be better off getting out and looking like a hero to some than staying in and looking like a loser to all. Maybe someone will even offer him something tempting, like 72 virgins or a new career. (I like the suggestion I saw on one blog that Fox News should hire him to replace Alan Colmes on Hannity and Colmes. He'd be perfect for that, defending Liberal values but never in a way that offends those who think Liberals do the work of Satan.)

But right now, the polls aren't out, his campaign seems to have enough money — maybe even to hire someone who knows how to set up a website — and he stands a very good chance of retaining his seat in the senate. And discussing who might be able to persuade the man to throw himself on a grenade for the good of the party is a waste of time because he's not going to do it. Nobody would.

In the last twenty-four hours, four different friends have sent me pretty much the same e-mail…

Just a reminder…from July 12, 2006, all cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing companies and you will start to receive sale calls. YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS. To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone: 888-382-1222.  It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will only take a minute of your time. It blocks your number for five years. HELP OTHERS BY PASSING THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS.

Scary. But in less than twenty seconds, I found the following over at www.snopes.com, the website that tracks urban legends and hoaxes…

Despite dire warnings about the imminent release of cell phone numbers to telemarketers that continue to be circulated via e-mail year after year, no such thing is about to occur, nor do cell phone users have to register their cell phone numbers with the national Do Not Call registry before a soon-to-pass deadline to head off an onslaught of telemarketing calls. The panic-inducing e-mails (which circulate especially widely every January or June, since many versions of the warning list the end of those months as a cut-off date for registering cell phone numbers with the national Do Not Call registry) have grown out of a misunderstanding about the proposed creation of a wireless directory assistance service.

You can read the full debunking on this page but basically it says it ain't true. As far as I can tell, the Snopes people are always right about this kind of thing. When they're wrong, it tends to get corrected quickly. This particular page is more than six months old and includes links to other sources.

I get an awful lot of these. People are always sending me the essay on politics by George Carlin that Snopes says Carlin didn't write. Or they send me the comedy monologue about 9/11 by Robin Williams that Snopes says Robin Williams didn't perform. Or they send me something else that they could have found out easily is of at least questionable veracity.

Please…I appreciate the desire to share something fun or important with your friends. But before you pass on some message to everyone in your address book, take the few seconds necessary to do a search over at the Snopes site. If they say it's bogus, it probably is.