Here's a little more than four minutes from the memorial service for Graham Chapman. This was apparently excerpted from a full-length TV special that I've never seen (anyone have a copy?) and I should caution at least one reader of this site that the clip contains a few naughty words. You get the feeling Graham would have wanted it that way.

Carl Bernstein says that the Bush administration needs to be investigated for possible impeachment proceedings. I don't think there's a chance of this happening, and Bernstein drags in a lot of stuff that doesn't necessarily relate to allegations of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Still, there's going to be an impeachment dialogue in this country, if only because it puts Republicans in an awkward position. We might as well get used to it.

Fred Kaplan on negotiating with Iran. One of the reasons I keep linking to Fred Kaplan articles is that I never see anyone rebut them or say he doesn't know what he's talking about…and I cruise some pretty extreme websites on all sides. I visit sites where they twist themselves and common logic into balloon animals, trying to deny every scrap of news that is bad for their team…but I never see anyone say Kaplan doesn't know what he's talking about.

Running out to a meeting so here's another number from Monty Python's Spamalot. This is "Find Your Grail," as performed on the 2005 Tony Awards telecast, with Sara Ramirez and Tim Curry and other people who are no longer in the show…

Last year at this time, sources within the vast Disney organization were saying that a DVD release of Song of the South was imminent. Fears of bad reaction to the film's racial depictions were being put aside. They figured that if they wrapped its presentation in endorsements and intros from prominent black personalities, the corporation could market the movie without creating a lot of upset. It looked like a definite "go" for this year, which is the 60th anniversary of the feature.

This has changed. Last month at the annual shareholders' meeting in Anaheim, Disney CEO Robert Iger was asked about it. He said he'd recently screened the movie for the first time in decades and that…

Owing to the sensitivity that exists in our culture, balancing it with the desire to maybe increase our earnings a bit but never putting that in front of what we thought were our ethics and our integrity, we've made the decision not to re-release it. [This is] not a decision that is made forever. I imagine this is going to continue to come up but for now, we simply don't have plans to bring it back because of the sensitivities that I mentioned.

(The entire audio of that shareholders meeting can be heard online on this webpage. You might find a lot of it interesting but if you just want to hear the Song of the South exchange, zip ahead to 1:42:40. By the way — here's a full disclosure — I am a Disney stockholder. I own two shares.)

What it all translates to, of course, is: "I'm still afraid of protests so I'm putting it off." I would imagine that there's also the feeling — and this part, I suspect they're right about — that releasing the film today wouldn't be all that lucrative. I think it's a great movie and it should be available but would it have a major impact on Disney earnings? Doubtful. It wouldn't surprise me if a marketing survey of some sort was done to determine that. And since they're not likely to try and build on the property — no Song of the South II sequel, no new major merchandising of Brer Rabbit, et al, the monetary upside looks not to be worth the possible hassle. They also may simply be waiting to see the response to Universal's new animated DVD feature, The Adventures of Brer Rabbit.

I dunno if I'd call it cowardice or caution. There might even be a small nugget of "let's do the socially responsible thing even if it does cost us money" in there. Whatever it is, I think they're erring on the side of too much of it. If they put the thing out, a few folks would seize on the opportunity to get on Entertainment Tonight and Fox News by expressing outrage, a few pickets would spend a few days outside theme parks…and then the whole matter would die down forever. If it were up to me, I'd go ahead and get it over with, and not worry about it harming The Walt Disney Company in any way. Then again, I only own the two shares.

It's the "Camelot" scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, only someone has redone it with Lego blocks and figures. Enjoy.

Glenn Greenwald writes about something that has long bugged me, which is the debate trick of likening every potential enemy to Hitler and to argue that to not attack him now is to make some wimpish Neville Chamberlain mistake. It not only bothers me in regard to things like the Iraq War, it bothers me in less crucial, day-to-day battles. Back when I was active in the Writers Guild, every committee I was on seemed to have a couple of members who were rabid to go to war against some enemy — calling a strike, filing a lawsuit, etc. — and it had to be done right away to prove our manhood and stop this particular Hitler before he invaded Poland. Should you dare to suggest that the problem could be settled in a manner other than all-out combat — or even (shudder) that it didn't have to be fought at all — someone would haul out ol' Neville Chamberlain and use him as an insult.

Long before it became a cliché to do so, I used to argue on computer bulletin boards that it was unfair to compare anyone to Hitler unless the person was arranging for mass genocide. If they were actually killing Jews, okay, you could call them Nazis. You couldn't invoke the analogy if, for example, they wouldn't let you smoke in restaurants or park in a loading zone. By the same standard, not every time someone is hesitant to resort to fisticuffs does not make them Chamberlain-style appeasers. You have to pick your battles in this world. If you try to fight every one, you won't win any. If someone wants to make the case for war against Iran, they'd better be able to make it without that little trick.

The head of Exxon testified last year that gas prices were high because of global supply and demand. It's just been revealed that this gent is receiving a $400 million retirement package, this after years of multi-million dollar paychecks ($51 million in 2005 alone). This is in keeping with the fact that last year, Exxon made $36 billion, which is more profit than any company has ever made anywhere in the known universe.

In this news report, a lady at the Institute for Policy Studies says, "I think it will spark a lot of outrage." I don't think so. I think it will spark a few snarky comments here and there but most of America will never hear about it and 98% of those who do will shrug and go right on paying inflated prices. And tomorrow, if all the oil companies get together and raise prices by another buck a gallon, a few of us will grumble and then we'll go in and fill our tanks at the new prices.

Back in the late seventies, when gas inched up towards a buck a gallon, there was outrage in this country. People organized boycotts or demanded that their elected officials do something. Even advocates of free-market capitalistism toyed with the notion of capping gas prices or at least limiting CEO compensation. But we've given up on that. Now, we just bend over, grab our ankles and shout, "Thank you, sir. May I have another?"

MGM Home Video is about to release a deluxe, widescreen DVD of the 1955 movie of Guys and Dolls, which starred Frank Sinatra in the role of Nathan Detroit, and Marlon Brando in the role that Sinatra should have played.

Hollywood, of course, has a long history of taking hit Broadway shows, bypassing the stars that made them hits on Broadway, and miscasting them. The other day, I caught a few minutes of the 1969 film of Hello, Dolly! and it dawned on me that Barbra Streisand is just now hitting the right age to play the role she played then. It's amazing that often when they did cast the right person, it was only after the filmmakers had tried and failed to get someone else. When they made My Fair Lady, Rex Harrison was the third or fourth choice to play the role made famous on Broadway by…Rex Harrison.

Sam Goldwyn obtained the film rights to Guys and Dolls. When it was suggested to him that he get Sam Levene, who'd created the role of Nathan Detroit on Broadway, Goldwyn reportedly said, "No, I don't want someone Jewish." That was not anti-Semitism. It was his way of saying he wanted a movie star in the role. That's not an unreasonable position but owing to Mr. Levene's inability to sing, Nathan Detroit was a largely non-singing part. So who'd they cast in that non-singing part? Only the top male vocalist of the day, Francis Albert Sinatra. And because they had Sinatra, they suddenly had to find reasons to have Nathan sing…so Frank Loesser wrote this dreadful, unnecessary song for him called "Adelaide." In fact, it's worse than unnecessary. It's against character. Nathan Detroit, until near the end of the story, is trying to avoid marrying Miss Adelaide and here, because they told Loesser to write a love song, Nathan's singing about how wonderful it would be to marry this lady. They also stuck Frank in the "Guys and Dolls" number, which is about how men always fall for the right lady. Nathan shouldn't have been singing about that, either.

So that pretty much destroyed Nathan Detroit's character arc. In the meantime, they put Marlon Brando, who didn't sing, in the role crafted for a strong singer. Brando is so charming and charismatic in the speaking scenes that he almost pulls it off…but I still think Frank would have been better.

You know who they should have gotten for Nathan Detroit? Think about it: A weasely gambler who tries to fast talk his way out of jams, matrimony included. There was a perfect actor available but unfortunately, Phil Silvers was busy making a new TV series in which he played an Army Sergeant. And of course, they also could have hired Sam Levene.

There are a couple of other odd choices in the film. One of the best songs, "A Bushel and a Peck" was replaced with a not-great tune called "Pet Me, Poppa." I don't know why unless Frank Loesser was eager to write something that might qualify for an Oscar. I also don't understand why, after spending so much money to acquire the rights and hire that cast and build those incredible sets, the producers didn't spring for a few bucks to get more extras to people the streets of New York. On stage, you can replicate Manhattan with a handful of people but on screen, it looks barren and uninhabited.

Anyway, it's still a fun movie in many ways. If you want to pre-order the new DVD, here's a link. And let's see if anyone in the supplemental material points out the appearance of a young Jerry Orbach in the chorus of the "Oldest Established" number. A decade or two later, he'd be more qualified to play either male lead than Frank or Marlon.

Molly Ivins writes about the continued easing of consumer protection laws.

And now for something completely the same. Here it is: The original "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch as performed on At Last, the 1948 Show by John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Tim Brooke-Taylor and Marty Feldman.

One of the founders of Greenpeace, who used to fiercely oppose nuclear energy, now doesn't think it's such a bad idea.

A former Marine Captain who served in Iraq explains his disillusionment with the war effort.

A couple of folks have written to ask about this morning's B.C. strip with one character turning into another for no visible reason. (I may not recall the players' names accurately but I think that's Peter in the role of I.R.S. agent…and then the other guy is B.C. in the first panel and Clumsy Carp in the second.)

No, I don't get the switcheroo, either. It looks to me like a mistake…or maybe Johnny Hart did it deliberately to see if anyone would notice. At least three people who read my site did.

Today is supposed to be the last day of the TiVo Lifetime Service offer…but my pal Harry McCracken seems to be having a little trouble getting it.