Message before last, I said that George W. Bush has — and I quote myself — "…this tendency to announce things and then forget about them." This brought two incensed, outraged e-mails from Bush supporters informing me that Bush is a man of convictions, that his word is like gold, that he has the integrity to do what he says, yadda yadda yadda. To these folks, I offer this news item that appeared on the wires less than 24 hours after the State of the Union address. Here's the first paragraph…

WASHINGTON – One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

That's one of the problems I have with Bush: He rarely means anything literally. When he said during the 2000 elections that he was against "nation-building," he didn't mean it literally. When he pledged money to rebuild Manhattan after 9/11 or New Orleans after Katrina, he didn't mean it literally. Not long ago, when he said that wiretaps require a warrant, he didn't mean it literally and when he signed a bill that outlawed torture, he immediately issued a "signing statement" that asserted his right not to follow the bill he'd just signed. He even hides behind the tactic. At one point, he and his administration very much wanted us all to believe, as they apparently did, that there was a provable link between Saddam Hussein and the guys who hit us on 9/11. When this turned not to be provable, the administration fallback was that they really didn't mean it.

I sometimes debate about this man with friends who say they like him because he takes bold action and he's a man of conviction. Personally, I think "bold action" is a negative unless it's coupled with some qualifier…like, say, the right "bold action" or the smart "bold action." And as for being a man of conviction, I'm sorry. I just don't see it. I see a guy who was told our country was under attack and sat and read My Pet Goat for seven minutes. I see a guy who announces Big Plans, like building a space station on Mars…and then he lets them wither away and anonymous aides have to go around and say, "He didn't mean that literally."

I don't hate the man. Dismissing someone as a "Bush-hater" is a too common way of trying to not deal with legitimate criticisms of a guy we elected to do an important job. I don't wish him ill or failure or anything negative because, as far as I'm concerned, he's driving the bus we're on and if he drives off the road, we all crash and burn. He just keeps failing to convince me that he knows where he's going or how to get there.

Nevertheless, he is our president and he has my support. Of course, I don't mean that literally.

Fred Kaplan on the State of the Union address.

Mark is very busy for the next day or three so don't expect a lot of wonderment on this page. If you're starved for something media-related to read, I have some new posts up over at my Old TV Tickets site. Read all about Saturday Night Live With Howard Cosell, The Newlywed Game and other classics.

I caught some of the State of the Union address and agree with those who say these things are always boring and that there's a strong level of phoniness regarding what the assemblage does and does not clap for. With George W. Bush, there's an extra layer of artifice because he has this tendency to announce things and then forget about them. How's that hydrogen car program going?

You get the feeling that Bush's poll numbers are pretty much frozen at about a 39%-41% approval rating? That nothing short of dragging Bin Laden in with his bare hands is going to help him much? No one seems to want to say that because the right-wing media doesn't want to believe it and the non-right-wing media is trying too hard to prove they're not the left-wing media. And hey, what's with Chris Matthews and a few other reporters, who seem to flip a coin before each on-camera appearance and decide if Bush is in trouble or making a spectacular comeback? Make up your mind, people, and cite some real evidence to support whichever position you take. A lot of this seems to me like trying to pretend there's important political news when there isn't any.

Back to deadlines…

I'm still sifting through e-mails in response to my question about tipping. But I thought it was worth posting and replying to this message I received from Mike Guerrero…

Even though this is only slightly related to your question, I hope either you or your readers can help me out. Are we as a society at the point where we can't question the act of tipping? [or have we been here all this time, and no one told me about it?] Should I just stop asking why I have to subsidize the service economy?

If a plate with Filet Mignon weighs about the same as a plate of spaghetti and meatballs, why do I have to tip more?

At the very least, I'd like to know where the boundary line between what the employer's paying for, and what my tip is paying for. In the example you gave, isn't the bellhop supposed to handle your baggage for you? Unless I'm mistaken, he was likely hired by the hotel to do just that, among other things. If we're talking about asking someone in the next room to carry your bags, that's a different story.

Is the tip a plea so your bags won't get thrown down the stairs, or rifled through by the staff? Or is it a bribe so they'll do it to someone else's? And what if they did it anyway? "Wow, that meal was great. And, because I said no pickles and there were no pickles, I'll throw in another 8%"

I will admit, so far in my life I've yet to work in a field where tipping was a part of my livelihood, so my perspective might be skewed.

Look, Ticketmaster sticks you for a "service charge." Why can't other places do it too? At least you won't have to wonder what formula to use, or you could choose to avoid places that have them.

I think there's a pragmatic answer to this and a philosophical one. The pragmatic is that there's a well-established economic model here and it presumes there will be tipping. Yes, the hotel pays the bellhop to carry guests' bags but they pay them a salary which is insufficient on its own and only becomes a living wage when tip money is added in. With some jobs where tipping is assumed, the Internal Revenue Service not only withholds part of the employees' salary but a portion of some rough estimate of their tips, as well. I've known people who essentially lived off tips. If they gave me lousy, insulting service, I might be able to justify not tipping. But I wouldn't want to cost them part of what they need to pay their rent just because I don't like the inconvenience of tipping.

I used to struggle with how much to tip in certain situations, and think like you do; that it would be great if they'd just institute fixed service charges. That way, the waiters and valet car parkers and everyone could take home the same pay and I'd be relieved of the responsibility to figure out who gets 15% and who gets 20% and whether you tip everyone who assists you in some venues or just the last guy. Eventually though, I learned what to do in most (not all) situations and I came to see it as a nicetie and not a hardship. Which brings us to the philosophical answer.

My "tipping policy" is something I stole from Bill Gaines, the publisher of MAD. His philosophy was to give standard, non-exorbitant gratuities to service employees he didn't expect to ever see again, and to tip lavishly in places to which he'd probably return soon. So I tip 15% in a strange restaurant and somewhat more in my regular places. It's a matter of establishing a bit of relationship with the folks who work there; of telling them you appreciate them. Some customers are enormously rude to food servers, car parkers, cleaning ladies, etc. I'd like to make it clear I'm not one of those rude people. Over the years, there have been many occasions where tipped employees have done way more than the minimum and helped me out, so it's been a wise investment. But that's not why I do it. I do it because it's a less impersonal way of saying "thank you" than paying a fixed service charge. And, speaking of tips…

You've been hearing that Jack Abramhoff is a very bad man. Here, in the Jewish Journal, a writer-friend of his presents a different view. I don't think I buy it but on this site, we sometimes link to something just because it offers a unique way of looking at someone or something.

There have been many movies, TV shows and cartoons that have given life to the classic comic book character, Batman. So far, my favorite is the one recently done with Lego blocks.

In the spirit of the In-n-Out 100×100 burger, Don Porges calls my attention to a place in Pennsylvania that serves a fifteen-pound hamburger. I think the classy thing to do with something like this is to order it with a Diet Pepsi and say, "I'm watching my waistline!"

Have you got four and a half minutes to watch a great act? Chris Bliss is a good stand-up comedian and an amazing juggler. He has three performance video clips over on this page of his website. Watch the one named "Must-See Finale." And if you enjoy it, thank Gregg Berger, who sent me the link.

When one goes to an In-n-Out Burger, one has the option of ordering extra burger patties and/or extra cheese in one's burger. It's not on the official menu but In-n-Out has all sorts of undocumented ways of modifying one's lunch. Some call it their "secret menu" but it's about as secret as William Shatner's hairpiece.

Their conventional Double-Double has two patties and two pieces of cheese but if you ask for a 4×4, you'll get four of each. A 3×5 is three patties and five pieces of cheese and so on. Recently a group of people went into one outlet and had them prepare a 100×100. See what happened.

Michael Kinsley on the state of the Democratic party. Such as it is.

Writers and directors will be interested in this. There's a lawsuit about an off-off-Broadway production that raises the question of what a director contributes to a play and to what extent that contribution is a copyrightable creation. This article in the New York Times will tell you about the dispute.

A lot of classy, intelligent people read this weblog so I thought I'd tap into your wisdom. Here's a situation I encounter almost every time I'm checking out of a hotel…

I call downstairs for assistance with my luggage. A person we'll call Bellhop #1 comes up with a cart and gets my suitcases. I tell him or her (it's usually a him) that I want to check them for later retrieval. He says fine and we go downstairs. He deposits my bags in a room near the Bell Desk and then either he or someone we'll call Bellhop #2 gives me some little tickets with which I will claim them later.

Hours later, I go back to the Bell Desk and give my tickets to Bellhop #3, who retrieves my bags. He hands off to Bellhop #4 who winds up helping me into a cab or car and loading the suitcases into the trunk.

Okay, here's the question: How many of these guys do I tip? My habit has just been to give a hefty one to the last guy and assume it'll be shared with all the others, even if the first couple were on a different shift. Is that the right thing to do?

Aardwolf Publishing is bringing out METHo.d. — thirteen dark tales by author Clifford Meth with art by Steve Lieber, Al Milgrom, Jordan Raskin, Michael Netzer, Wm. Messner-Loebs, and the Cockrums, along with an introduction by Peter David. The cover and book design are by Jim Steranko, his first notable project in years. Go here for more details.

Last week after I attended a public memorial for actor Hamilton Camp, I wrote something here that drew a great deal of e-mail response. Most of the event was wonderful, with people who knew Hamilton well telling tales that reminded us all what a special, gifted man he was. But there were a couple of folks who somehow seemed to think, "Ah! A microphone and a chance to talk at length about my career!" This has unfortunately been true at most of the funerals and memorial services I've attended the last few years, and not just those where a "show biz" crowd was gathered. Some people just don't seem to understand that you pay tribute to someone by talking about them, not about yourself, and that very few speeches are worth much more than about five minutes.

The two best eulogies I've ever heard were delivered by Alan Alda (at the funeral for writer Don Segall) and by Carl Reiner (at the services for Howard Morris). I think Alda spoke for around seven minutes and Reiner for about six, and those ought to be the benchmarks. Don't go over five unless you're as clever and talented as Alan Alda and Carl Reiner. And don't go over eight at all.

My posting last week brought notes of agreement from more than a dozen folks who were at the Camp memorial, and as many more who weren't there but have cringed at other such events when someone got up and made everyone sit through a half-hour infomercial for themselves. As one noted, and as I should have, "Part of the problem is this idea that at a public memorial, anyone who wants to should be able to get up and speak for as long as they want. Setting it up that way is practically inviting people who have very little to say about the deceased to get up at the podium and ramble on and on and on about whatever they feel like talking about."

This afternoon, I spoke at a different kind of memorial event. Every January, A.S.I.F.A. (the International Animated Film Society) joins with The Animation Guild and Women in Animation to stage "An Afternoon of Remembrance." It's kind of a mass service for everyone in the cartoon business who passed away the previous year. They had a lot of them this time: Don Adams, Rueben Apodaca, Henry Corden, Howard Morris, Ed Friedman, Vance Gerry, Joe Grant, Wendy Jackson Hall, Gene Hazelton, Selby Kelly, Derek Lamb, Norm Prescott, Joe Ranft, Thurl Ravenscroft, Hal Seeger, Paul Winchell and 38 others. Some friend or associate spoke about each, with speeches ranging from less than a minute to a strictly-enforced maximum of three. A gent in view of the rostrum held up a sign to indicate "one minute left" and another to tell people to wrap it up.

It worked very well. At least while I was there, no one used the whole three minutes but no one was rushed and no one really had the time or inclination to speak of anything but the deceased. I talked about Don Adams and Howie Morris…and I could have gone on about either of those guys — Howie, especially — for twenty minutes if I'd just wanted the joy of commanding an audience and if I hadn't cared about forcing people to sit there for too long. It was no hardship at all to keep it brief. If you ever find yourself about to get up at a memorial service to speak about a departed friend, show his friends and family the courtesy of keeping it brief. And it helps if you talk about the dead person.

I agree with this editorial in The New York Times about the Bush program of spying on whoever they feel like spying on, and ignoring laws that say they can only do so with judicial oversight.