You may remember some time ago here, we were highly amused by the fact that Costco was selling original Picasso art. Well, it turns out they may not have been selling original Picasso art. Questions have been raised about the authenticity of the pieces and you can read all about the maybe-scandal at this link.

If you want to see the tribute to Al Jaffee on The Colbert Report last Monday, go here.

As mentioned here more often than its significance warrants, TiVo is discontinuing their lifetime service price. It was announced that last Wednesday was the cut-off date to sign up…but my spies inform me that the TiVo website is still processing orders. We know not how long this will last but one website claims the new cut-off date is April 15. I'm guessing they got a flood of last minute subscriptions and are enjoying the sudden cash flow.

Can anyone suggest a great website that lists all DVD releases by date, including the previous few months? I see lots of sites that will tell me what's coming out next week or the week after from the major distributors…but what if I want to look up what came out six weeks ago? And if I'd like to see some of the more obscure releases, too?

I didn't catch Neal Adams last night on the Coast to Coast radio show but I'm hearing today from several folks who did. They tell me that the conversation included some references to my old employer and friend Jack Kirby, and that a caller claimed that during World War II, Jack was a spy and that he spoke German and…

Well, I'm not sure exactly what the claim was. But don't believe it. Not true.

A bill has been introduced into Congress which would basically let the government eavesdrop on anyone at any time for any reason if the president thought it was necessary for "national security." There presently are no restrictions on who can be spied upon as long as the executive branch can demonstrate to a judicial oversight entity, either before or after the fact, that there's a reason for it. I don't know why this isn't enough for some people, even George W. Bush, but obviously it isn't.

My natural suspicion — which I admit is unsupported by any evidence so far — is that the White House has spied on a lot of Americans who are utterly unconnected to terrorist activity and for whom no judge would ever authorize surveillance. It might be as treacherous as Karl Rove wanting to tap the phones of political opponents or it might be overzealous or inept aides. This administration has certainly had an amazing history of bad aim and hitting the wrong targets. In any case, I suspect there'd be a full-blown, Nixon-like scandal if we ever knew whose phone calls have been monitored…so the Bush people need this kind of blanket "he can do anything he wants" law to avoid that.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans have this attitude that we have to give the president every possible weapon he claims he needs to protect us or we'll all die. They've been led to believe (wrongly, as far as I can tell) that the existing arrangement stops the president's staff from listening in on calls to and from Al Qeada, or might stop it, or might somehow block something that would prevent another 9/11. I don't know why they think this…or even why they think, if the Bush administration did have such information, it would know what to do with it. The National Weather Service told them almost exactly what Hurricane Katrina would do to the Gulf Coast and we all saw how the Department of Homeland Security snapped into action on that one.

These folks are so terrified that they want to gut the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, authorize the president to spy on anyone he wants without accountability, and even make it retroactive to absolve him for what he did before the enactment of the law they're proposing. They aren't the majority but they may be hysterical enough to ram this one through the legislative process, threatening that anyone who opposes it is pro-terrorist or not serious about fighting them. (And by the way, why isn't that charge being hurled at all the Republicans who just defeated a proposal to spend more on port security?) Personally, I don't think any president should have that much unsupervised power and this one certainly hasn't earned that kind of trust.

For more on this new proposal, read this blog post by Glenn Greenwald. And then imagine what the Republicans would be saying if a Democratic president wanted the power that this bill would instill in our Chief Exec. I think we'd already be well past the stage where folks would be worried about losing the argument just because they introduced a Hitler analogy.

Might as well link to this one, too. Earlier this week, I subjected you to the excrutiating demo film that Batman TV producer William Dozier whipped up for a proposed Wonder Woman series. In 1967, the Batman crew made a seven minute short to spotlight Yvonne Craig as Batgirl.

There seems to be some question as to why this film was made. What I always heard was that the Batman show's ratings were down and ABC was considering cancellation of one or both half hours that ran each week. Trying to convince the network that the show still had life in it, Dozier went to New York and huddled with the DC Comics staff to discuss adding some new element to the world of the Caped Crusader and the Boy Wonder. What they came up with was the idea of introducing a new Batgirl character into the comic. Dozier then proposed to ABC that Batgirl could be added to the show and that this would make it worthy of renewal. The network folks were skeptical so the demo was made to show them how Batgirl could energize things, and how good Dozier's choice, Yvonne Craig, would be in the role. (Actress and former Miss America Mary Ann Mobley was reportedly set for the part before Dozier changed his mind. Ms. Mobley had a bad couple of years there, having just come equally close to the title role on The Girl From U.N.C.L.E.)

The Batgirl demo is a lot better than the Wonder Woman demo…but then, it would kind of have to be. It's really no better or no worse than what the Batman show had become…and there's some faint praise. The anemic villain in the demo, Killer Moth, was the antagonist in the issue of Detective Comics that introduced Batgirl. He suffered two back-to-back humiliations: Beaten by a girl and then he never got to actually appear on the series.

The short accomplished half its intended goal: ABC renewed Batman, though for once a week instead of twice, for what turned out to be the last season. Batgirl was cute but she did not alter the gimmick and formula of the show with which audiences had grown weary. Few hit programs ever wore out their welcome with the American audience as rapidly as Batman and though Ms. Craig's clinging tights brought a brief bump to the Nielsens, things settled back down pretty rapidly. The show seemed less interesting when it aired once a week, sans cliffhanger, and it also felt cluttered with the new character. The cancellation notice came halfway through its third season, in part because the studio behind it — Twentieth-Century Fox — wanted it that way. Airing once a week, Batman brought in half the revenue it had when it was on twice a week…but each episode cost a lot more than when they were making two at a time. Budget-slashing, of course, also didn't help things that final year…plus, it had stopped being the "hot" show on which big stars wanted to guest. The long-rumored Guest Villain appearance by Frank Sinatra might have boosted the numbers but it never happened.

Some histories say that Dozier's intention with what you're about to see (if you click) was to sell ABC on the idea of a spin-off Batgirl show. While the producer may have fantasized about another Bat-series, it doesn't seem likely that he thought it seemed likely; not with Batman ratings trending downward as they were. I think it was just an attempt to keep a sinking series afloat…and it did manage that, though not for long.

Harold Meyerson, who doesn't like George W. Bush very much, still thinks impeachment is a bad idea. Click and he'll tell you why.

Also, here's Mark Schmitt on why John McCain ain't all that different from the Republicans some of us thought were worse than him.

I was remiss in my blogging duties to not note the recent 85th birthday of MAD Magazine's Al Jaffee. He was born 3/13/21 but is still producing the monthly MAD Fold-In feature, which he's been doing for the magazine since 1964 with only the occasional month off.

Jaffee, according to the definitive book on people who've drawn for that silly publication, began his comic book career in 1941 at Quality Comics. He later became a writer-editor and occasional artist for Timely Comics and soon segued into a close relationship with Harvey Kurtzman, which led to him participating in some of Kurtzman's last issues of MAD as well as several post-MAD projects. It also led to him working for Kurtzman's successor at MAD, Al Feldstein, and becoming a mainstay of the magazine, first as a writer and later as a writer-artist. Along with the fold-in, he created the recurring feature, "Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions," which David Letterman has (actually) cited as a fine summation of all he does for a living.

Al is also a wonderful gentleman who loves to talk about comics and Mad and just about anything else. He is much loved by his colleagues and, of course, his readers too. And probably other people, as well, now that I think of it. It's hard not to like Al Jaffee, which is why no one's ever tried it.

Fortunately, though I forgot the guy's birthday, Stephen Colbert didn't. He did a nice little tribute to Al at the end of Monday night's The Colbert Report. He even displayed a cake decorated to read "Al…you have repeatedly shown artistry & care of great credit to your field. Love, Stephen Colbert."

Of course, when you remove the center section and push the left and right pieces together, it says something else.

A black theater group in New York has mounted a play called Kingfish, Amos and Andy that resurrects the characters from the old Amos and Andy TV show. One of these days, someone's going to put those old programs back on the air and everyone will wonder why they were ever taken off.

I've removed a section of this website…the one called Mark's Las Vegas Guide. I decided that since I haven't been to that town for a few years, its advice and reviews were way too far outta-date. I'll bring it back someday if I ever feel it's properly updated.

There's a new report from the White House explaining our foreign policy and goals. Fred Kaplan reads it so you don't have to.

This is from last December. Nathan Lane appeared on Late Show With David Letterman and performed scenes from a forthcoming musical based on Brokeback Mountain. If Richard Rodgers hadn't died in 1979, this would have killed him…

Last week, the C-Span show Q & A had an hour-long interview with Keith Olbermann. I found it quite interesting. Whatever you think of Olbermann (and obviously, I like him a lot), he's been a pretty persistent and outspoken competitor in the businesses of sports and news broadcasting. I can't link directly to the video — and wouldn't, since it's an hour long — but if you want to watch it, it's viewable on this page. There's also a transcript there if you don't want to go the video route.

I think George W. Bush has been a disaster as a president but I also don't think much of moves to impeach or even censure him. Why? Well, censure seems like an excuse for not doing one's duty. If you think the guy really broke the law, you impeach. If he didn't break the law, you don't. Make up your mind, people. Which is it? If I'm accused of robbing a bank, I either go to prison or I don't. The judge is not going to split the difference and censure me.

But impeachment isn't much of an option, either…and it's interesting that most of the online articles that advocate this do not mention one unavoidable fact. It's that this guy Cheney is next in line. No one who wants to impeach Bush thinks Cheney would be an improvement so they just sidestep that little problem with their dream.

The problem the Democrats have, as I keep saying here, is that you can't beat something with nothing. Bush is at somewhere between 33% and 41% approval. I bet that number would drop at least ten points if his current supporters could see a viable alternative on the horizon. The trouble is that even most folks who think Bush is a terrible Chief Exec have trouble completing the sentence, "I would feel so much more confident with ______ in the White House" with a proper name. "Anyone else" is not a proper name. And even if we had a likely candidate, we have to wait until January of 2009 to inaugurate anyone who isn't currently in the presidential line of succession.

Face facts: We're stuck with Bush. Democrats should be running on the platform of "You need an opposition Congress to stop this guy." And they shouldn't be pretending that censure resolutions and talk of impeachments that aren't going to happen are the kind of opposition they're ready to supply.