I'm a little puzzled (my usual state) about the new allegations that George W. Bush authorized illegal wiretaps of folks living in this country. For one thing, though all the Liberal sites tell me it was a prima facie violation of the law, there are Conservative sites (this one, for example) explaining how it isn't illegal. For another, if I read the law correctly in my layman's way, it would have been very easy to secure clear authorization for these wiretaps but the Bush administration didn't go that route. That seems to be leading some to the conclusion, perhaps erroneous, that the outrage may lie not in what was done but in who it was done to, and for what reason. The American public will probably forgive some bending of the law to go after people who could reasonably be thought to have links to known terrorists. They won't be as forgiving if it's spying on citizens whose "crime" was to oppose George Bush.

But what really confuses me is that I think I'm on the same side of this issue as Bob Barr, a man who I think twisted the law into pretzels to use it against Bill Clinton. He has somehow turned into a champion of Civil Liberties, which is a little like O.J. Simpson opening a marriage counselling service with Robert Blake. Still, there's this short debate he had on CNN yesterday with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Here's a video link and here's a link to a transcript. It's an odd discussion since Rohrabacher is a pretty solid "those of my party can do no wrong" guy. Having Barr debate him is like having Ebenezer Scrooge at the end of A Christmas Carol argue with himself before he met those ghosts…but ol' Bob pretty handily wins the argument. In this country, we don't allow our Chief Exec to decide which laws he'll obey and which ones he won't. I think every Republican who wants to defend Bush on this one should be forced to utter the sentence, "I would not hesitate to see President Hillary Clinton have the same authority."

Here's one to 3400 Cahuenga Blvd. in Hollywood, formerly the home of Hanna-Barbera cartoons. And here's one to the Hollywood Bowl and here's another to the Pacific Cinerama Dome (or whatever they're now calling it) in Hollywood. Here's the Capitol Records Building, also in Hollywood, and here's the Queen Mary down in Long Beach.

If you're playing around with Windows Live Local, you can see all sorts of interesting places. Here are some links…

• The Playboy Mansion
• Disneyland
• The home of TV producer Aaron Spelling
• Mandalay Bay hotel, Las Vegas
• Circus Circus Hotel, Las Vegas
• University High School, Los Angeles (my alma mater)
• Town Square, Burbank (Warner) Studio
• NBC Studios, Burbank
• CBS Television City, West Hollywood
• Statue of Liberty, New York
• The Ed Sullivan Theater, New York (where Letterman tapes)

From what I can tell, the photos are 3-4 years old in most cases but not all.

Picture of a raccoon standing in my swimming pool on the top step, probably freezing his adorable tail off. Or maybe it's freezing her adorable tail off. I don't look that closely.

Thank you, Don Pardo! Yes, it's time for another installment of the greatest game since George W. Bush played Find the Weapons of Mass Destruction! As always, we give you links and descriptions for five websites. Four of these actually exist somewhere on the Weird Worldwide Web. One, to the best of our knowledge, was made up by our crackerjack staff of fibbers. Your job is to spot the lie. So…hands on mice, get ready. This is for the 1963 Studebaker, a battery-powered battery changer that's only good for changing its own batteries, a rare photo of Paris Hilton fully clothed, ten thousand shares of stock in a chain of self-service massage parlors, a Diebold brand calculator that can't add properly, and a big, wet kiss from Al Roker. Go for it…

• Street Mattress – Ever notice how many times you see a discarded mattress on the street or curb? Ever wanted to visit a website full of pictures of some of the more notable ones? Now's your chance.
• Stare Down Sally – You've probably participated in Staring Contests where you have to not blink before the other person. Well, you've never faced an opponent as formidable as Sally.
• DVD Rewinder – The perfect Xmas gift! You'll never pay another fee for not rewinding your rental DVDs if you own the DVD Rewinder.
• Rate My Cow – And not only can you rate other folks' cows, you can upload photos of your own cows and allow others to rate them. An udder delight.
• The Sid Melton Veneration Site – Devoted to celebrating the life and times of the man who played Danny Thomas's agent and one of the carpenters on Green Acres.

P.S. If you'd like to help with future installments of There's No Such Website!, we could use some suggestions of real but unlikely websites.

I took this one a few days ago. While walking through the kitchen, I looked out the patio door and noticed that the food dish was empty and that a very sad, confused raccoon was studying the dish and nudging it a bit. I think he thought that if he hit it just right, Friskies would appear. So I grabbed a sack of chow and my camera, opened the door and stepped out onto the step…and the raccoon did not flee. He just pulled back a few steps, waited while I filled the bowl and then posed obligingly for pics while eating. Which is not to say he was the perfect model. See that ceramic bowl at right that's filled with water? Later that evening, either he or one of his relatives knocked it off the step and broke it.

Jack Cafferty had a short but pungent bit of commentary today on CNN, and I thought I'd link to a video clip of it and print a transcript…

Who cares if the Patriot Act gets renewed? Want to abuse our civil liberties? Just do it! Who cares about the Geneva Conventions? Want to torture prisoners? Just do it! Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA agents? Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it! Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMDs is accurate? You want to invade Iraq? Just do it. Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court? Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it. And the latest outrage, which I read about in The New York Times this morning…who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens? Want to wiretap their phones conversations? Just do it. What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.

I see a lot of the Conservative websites are not upset that the Patriot Act may not get extended indefinitely. A year or so ago, they were throwing the "t" words (traitor and treason) at all who opposed them. But Bush is below 40% and we may be closer to a Democrat in the White House than some of them would like. Time to start pulling back on those presidential powers.

Here's an aerial shot of The Magic Castle, a sorta-exclusive private club in Hollywood to which I belong. If you want to get a neat picture like this to put on your blog, it's easy: Just get a digital camera and rent a helicopter and pilot. Have him fly over whatever you want to photograph while you hang out the door of the chopper and snap away.

Or I guess you could do it the easy way via the new Windows Live Local feature which offers maps of the world. For many areas (mostly urban), you can click into a "bird's eye view" and get aerial photos from all four directions. The pictures, at least in my area, seem to be about five years old. (I notice that a market building near me is vacant in the photo. Whole Foods moved in there about four years ago.) The "locate an address" feature does not work flawlessly — most of the ones I've tried have been off by a block or so — but it's worth the effort of figuring out where you should be. Some of the visuals are quite astounding.

Robert Novak has left CNN "by mutual agreement" (which means he was dumped) and is joining Fox News. What a surprise.

I'm sorry my father isn't around for a great many reasons. One is that he would have enjoyed seeing just about everyone on both sides of the political aisle decide Novak was low-level bottom-feeding plankton. My father used to watch Novak on CNN and say, "There's nothing that matters to that man beside making sure the rich get everything they can out of the government but that the poor pay for it all." I have yet to see any indication that my father was exaggerating.

Here's a solution I've found to a small but annoying problem. I always seem to have tons of loose change lying around my house. I am not good at taking it with me when I go shopping. It sits in an array of jars and mugs all over my kitchen.

I used to have a solution to the problem. I used to bank at a bank that had a huge, wonderful counting machine. Every year or so, I'd haul in a bag of change and have them dump it into the hopper and they'd add the total to my account. Unfortunately, I changed banks and the new one has no such device at any of their local branches. So for something like eighteen years, I've just been letting the coins accumulate.

One day in my local Ralph's, I thought I'd found the answer: Coinstar. Coinstar is a company that installs coin-counting machines in markets and drugstores. You carry in the coins, dump 'em in and the machine sorts, totes and then prints out a little certificate you can use at that merchant…less a counting fee of 8.9 cents per dollar counted.

That counting fee stopped me.

I know, I know: It sounds like I'm being cheap but we all have certain things that bring out the Jack Benny in us. 8.9 cents sounded exorbitant to me, especially since my bank used to do this for nothing. So I let the coins pile up…until I found the solution.

The solution is the Coinstar machine…only you don't take your money as credit at the store. I found out that if you take it as an Amazon gift certificate, there's no counting fee. You can also do this with several other merchants such as Starbucks, Pier 1 Imports, Hollywood Video and Linens 'n Things. Since I spend a couple hundred bucks at Amazon each month anyway, a gift certificate is like cash. You can find out more about the deal and locate a machine near you at the Coinstar website.

And while I'm near the topic, let me mention that I've decided not to shop at Ralph's Markets any more. I'm usually not a big believer in boycotts, as I think they go generally unnoticed and usually inconvenience the boycotters more than the boycottee. But every so often, a company misbehaves so egregiously that I just feel uncomfortable giving them my money. Fortunately, there are Coinstar machines in other local businesses.

It's just getting started but I have set up a new website to replace the Old TV Tickets section of this one. Over at www.oldtvtickets.com, we'll eventually have posted hundreds of images of tickets issued to grant admission to the tapings, filmings and even live broadcasts of television (and a few radio) programs. Each gets accompanied by some anecdotes and/or info about the show.

Right now, there are about 25 listings up. Each day, I'll be trying to post one new ticket or at least one ticket from the old gallery with a new, updated description. I may not make it every day but, like I said, I expect to some day have a few hundred up there. If you have some old TV tickets and wouldn't mind sharing a scan, drop me a line.

Michael Kinsley explores the logic (or lack thereof) regarding certain arguments against the banning of torture.

Here's something I should have asked Thomas Meehan about last night. It is not unusual for filmmakers to have to agonize about cutting something they love in a movie. He joked about how the big problem was that someone had to go tell Nathan Lane his opening star number was out…but the big problems were, first of all, that the folks behind the movie loved that song and felt it belonged there even when audience previews indicated otherwise. Also, of course, an awful lot of time and moola had been spent on the material that was now to be removed, and some would probably have a hard time with the admission that they'd "wasted" so much cash and effort.

So here's the question part. I'm wondering if in this era of DVDs getting to be so important and becoming the primary source of movie income, it's a lot easier to make that kind of decision.

Years ago, I escorted an actress friend to the cast 'n' crew screening of a movie she'd been in. As we arrived, the director pulled us aside to inform her that her part had been cut. Strictly for time considerations, he said. He consoled her that her scenes would be reinstated when the movie came out on home video. This was back in Beta/VHS days when it was not automatically assumed that every movie would even have a home video release and when that wasn't such a big deal. (In this case, the movie didn't come out on tape for a couple of years and when it did, my friend's scenes were not reinstated.)

These days, the DVD is almost as important as the theatrical release — with some films, more important — so there wasn't even a moment when it was conceivable that Lane's hard work in the deleted number would be lost or go unseen. In fact, it will even become a selling point for the DVD. You know: You saw it in the theaters but you didn't see all of it. Perhaps they'll incorporate it on that DVD in some way that allows you to view the entire movie with or without it…or maybe some future DVD release will put it right back as if it had never been omitted at all. In any case, it's not lost or relegated to obscurity the way some musical numbers were when they were chopped out of movies in the past.

So I'm wondering if that has changed the filmmaking process and made it simpler and less painful to cut a big scene. I suspect Meehan's answer would have been that it would have been more painful but they still would have made the same decision, and that's probably so. But it may matter with close judgment calls and it may even be that some studios tell the producers or directors, "Remember…we want a few deleted scenes to include on the DVD," thereby freeing the makers to go ahead and shoot scenes they think might not make it in. Has anyone seen any director or producer say this was the case?

On the way to see The Producers last evening — the movie based on the musical based on the movie — I suddenly expected not to like it a lot. I somehow imagined myself back here at the weblog, composing something about how I loved it as a film and I loved it on the stage…so how come I didn't love it when they put it back on the screen? And then I'd write some mumbo-jumbo-gooey-gumbo about how back in film form, the comparisons to the original are too stark and who can enjoy Nathan and Matthew when you still have Zero and Gene burned into your subconscious?

Well anyway, that's what I figured I'd be writing.

Instead, I'm writing that I had a very good time and I can tell you why in two words. One of them is "Nathan" and the other is "Lane." He is just so good in this movie, so much fun to watch, that it quickly becomes Zero Who? Not that he's better than the original Max Bialystock — in almost all cases, when a line is repeated from the earlier film, I prefer the Mostel version to the Lane — but there's so much else there, especially in terms of reactions and face work that…well, Nathan Lane ought to be the first performer to have his eyebrows insured with Lloyds of London. He does more with them than Tiger Woods can do with a nine-iron. I wasn't enraptured with Will Ferrell, who plays the Nazi, or Uma Thurman, who plays the Swede. And I liked Matthew Broderick, though not as much in his first scene where he takes Leo Bloom to unreal heights of hysteria. (He gets better.) But what won me over was Nathan Lane and the sheer energy of his performance…and I guess I also liked the effortless way the proceedings segue from dialogue to song and back again.

I have no idea what the box office will be like. Disappointing returns for Rent have people saying again, as they always do except when a Grease or Chicago has just come out, "There's no market out there for musicals." Funny how when an action film flops — and many do — no one says there's no demand out there for shoot-'em-ups. I didn't see Rent but it's a movie with no stars and tepid reviews, based on a Broadway show that lots of people saw but not a lot of people loved, plus that show has been generally ignored in the press since it opened almost ten years ago. One wonders if the film's failure to light up the Moviefone website is why most of the ads for The Producers seem to stress how funny it is without mentioning that anyone breaks into song. Regardless, I hope people do go because most of them will have a very good time.

And I hope they know enough to stick around. As the credits rolled at the end last evening, about a fourth of the audience made the faux pas of bolting for the exits. That always strikes me as rude, especially at a free industry screening where folks who worked on the film are likely to be in attendance. It was also a mistake because those who departed prematurely missed a couple of good songs (and some funny lines spoken by Mr. Ferrell) over the credits…and then they missed an entire musical number that has been placed after the credits. It has a surprise ending which I won't give away.

When you go to a movie, people, stay in your seat until the credits are over. If you don't do it out of courtesy, do it because you might just miss something good. You will if you leave before The Producers is over.

The screening I attended was followed by a brief Q-and-A session with co-author Thomas Meehan and I took the opportunity to ask him about the deletion of Lane's opening number, "The King of Broadway." He confirmed that it was filmed — "we spent seven days on it" — and that it'll be on the DVD. But when they tested the film with and without it, it made a huge difference and they had to delete it. The hardest part was deciding who would tell Nathan. Meehan added — this is a paraphrase but close — "For a while, I was sure we'd wind up cutting 'It's Bad Luck to Say Good Luck on Opening Night.' For me, it's the weakest number in the show and when we filmed it, we filmed some additional dialogue that conveyed the same information so we could stick it in if we cut the song. But somehow, it wound up staying in." In reply to another question, he said that he and and Mel are still on the first draft of a planned Broadway musical based on Young Frankenstein. Mel has completed ten songs, he says, and they're "all great."

I dunno how I feel about Young Frankenstein on stage. It sounds like a bad idea to me. Then again, turning The Producers into a Broadway musical initially sounded to me like a bad idea and even after it proved not to be, making a movie of that version struck me as a bad idea. I keep being wrong about this — as wrong as Max was when he proclaimed Springtime for Hitler "a surefire flop." So I'm going to shut up about this kind of thing.

The Internet Movie Database is a handy service and I consult it many times a week. But every so often, I look at my own listing there and wonder about their over-all accuracy. There are quite a few things I've written that aren't on my page but, okay, that's no big thing. I can't even remember all of them. What amazes me is that there's almost always a credit for me on something I didn't work on. While looking up something about Richard Pryor the other day, I chanced on my entry and discovered — much to my amazement — that I was in The Muppet Movie!

The listing, reproduced above, says that I did the role of Ernie. This would have been for the big group shot near the end where hundreds of Muppets sing the closing lines of the song, "The Rainbow Connection." In addition to the regular Muppeteers, it became necessary to recruit other puppet manipulators and since Jim Henson was probably working Kermit in that shot, someone else had to operate Ernie. That someone was my close friend, Earl Kress. Earl has a history with the Muppets, he did the part, and I got no closer to that film than seeing it in a theater.

So I'm wondering how my name got connected with the part in the I.M.D.B. Someone must have believed this and submitted it, and I'm guessing it's someone who reads this weblog. If it's you, would you drop me a line and explain? I promise I won't be mad or shame you in public. I'm just curious.

In the meantime, I've notified the I.M.D.B. that it should be Earl's name there. Let's see how long it takes them to make the correction.