Earlier, we linked to one online trailer for upcoming movie of The Producers. Here's a link to another trailer. One might note, as I did, that almost all the non-singing dialogue in this trailer consists of lines that were in the original movie.

Michael Kinsley on free speech: Your right to talk and a reporter's right not to.

Not long after the death of Tommy Bond, who played the bully in the Our Gang comedies, we now have word of the passing, on October 16, of the actor who played Porky. He was known off-screen as both Eugene Lee and Gordon Lee…born in 1933 in Ft. Worth, Texas. He joined the Our Gang troupe at the age of two, chosen for his resemblance to George "Spanky" McFarland, who had become the real star of the series. Porky (as they called him on-screen) never had a lot of dialogue and when he did speak, it was usually to mispronounce "okay," which came out, "otay." It became a kind of catch-phrase both for him and Bill "Buckwheat" Thomas.

He stuck around until he was six, which is when he left Our Gang, and his place was more or less taken over by a young actor named Mickey Gubitosi. (Mickey later became more famous under the name, Robert Blake.) Lee's parents took him back to Texas and he eventually grew up to become a school teacher living in Minnesota and to occasionally turn up at autograph conventions and Our Gang reunions.

Over the years, there have been quite a few Our Gang impostors — adults who make personal appearances and who sign autographs claiming falsely to have been in the films. Usually, they make up a character name but sometimes, they insist on having been a specific on-screen player. In the sixties, Mr. Lee's earlier, brief moments of stardom were stolen by an unusually brazen identity thief who not only claimed to have played Porky but actually published an autobiography based on that premise. The fraud was finally unmasked by several film buffs who reminded the world that there was only one "Porky" Lee. Sadly, today we don't even have that.

No one indicted yet? Aw, shucks. Well, maybe it's just early.

Going to bed now. Hope someone (anyone) will be indicted by the time I wake up. Hey, how about Leonard Nimoy? He hasn't had his name in the news for a while.

I'm not sure I mentioned it but I wrote an article that will appear in Maximum Fantastic Four, a deluxe hardcover reprinting of the first issue of what Stan Lee was soon calling, in all modesty, "The World's Greatest Comic Magazine." I have not seen one bit of this book apart from what I sent in but I'm told it's a "panel-by-panel exploration of the entire issue that captures every single detail and nuance of Jack Kirby's groundbreaking artwork." The historic comic has been digitally-remastered and will be presented in an extra-large format with commentary by Walter Mosley and I'm eager to get my hands on a copy. It's supposed to be out in the middle of November and if you'd like to get your hands on a copy, you might want to pre-order it from Amazon.

One P.S. to what I wrote in the book. In my essay, I addressed the question of the uncredited inker of F.F. #1 and after running through a list of suspects, I wrote, "For now, this author's money says it was [George] Klein who did the decent, but somewhat ordinary interpretation of Kirby's pencils." This is a little more definite than what I've said before but it's even less definite than my current position. I've since seen some additional samples that have convinced me, probably once and for all, that the first two issues of Fantastic Four were inked by George Klein…and probably without assistance. In an upcoming Jack Kirby Collector and somewhere on this site, I'll explain what brought me to this position and present some visual evidence.

This is from Jef Peckham…

Lately, you have been opining quite a bit about the Plame/Rove story and the DeLay indictment. Please allow me to opine a bit.

It's all boring, and IMO means next to nothing, no matter which side of the political spectrum one happens to fall on.

Ultimately it comes down to the 'Bush-haters' trying to do just what the 'Clinton-haters' did during his presidency. The biggest difference to me seems to be that the current crowd is after revenge only, while the previous bunch seemed to at least have some scruples or principles. Plus, at least some of the Clinton crowd did actually break some laws. So far, that has not been shown to be the case with the Bush crowd, although I am sure some of them probably have done so. They are politicians in Washington, after all. (I only wish I were joking there.)

Now about those two specific cases:

DeLay: I have no doubt that guy is a crooked as a three-dollar bill. But what has he been charged with in this case? Conspiracy to violate a law in Texas two years before that law was passed. This indictment sounds mighty fishy to me. Could he still be convicted? Sure he could. Remember, Martha Stewart was convicted for lying to the Feds about a crime that the jury decided did not happen.

Rove, Plame, Libby, whoever: From the reports I have heard on the news from TV, Radio (NPR), and the right- and left-wing talking heads, the only law any of them have mentioned that the Grand Jury is looking at for a possible violation is one that makes it a crime to reveal the name of a covert operative at the CIA. Ms. Plame was not a covert operative, and had not been for at least five years from what I have heard. Apparently she was an analyst for the the agency. Revealing that fact would not be a violation of this law. The right-wing talking heads also insist that she was known to be a CIA analyst in the social circles in Washington. If that is the case, then I don't see where any law was violated by the Bush bunch. Now if the investigation has turned to obstruction of justice, or conspiracy to obstruct, and fraud, there may be a chance for indictments. But those should not be limited to Rove or Libby or others in the Bush bunch.

With all of this being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", I would find it extremely funny if indictments came down against some of the 'Bush-haters' and not just the Bush bunch. (Think about it. Wouldn't it be hysterical if Joseph Wilson is indicted for a crime because of the investigation over his wife's identity? Or would that just be ironic?)

Most of the "opining" I've done about the Plame/Rove squabble has been that I don't think we know as much about the case as we think we know. We're listening to a lot of analysis by folks who are guessing or basing their arguments on rumors of dubious origin. This Special Prosecutor's office and Grand Jury don't seem to have leaked as voraciously as some, thereby creating a certain vacuum that partisans have been able to fill with spin. Being largely unencumbered by the true details of the case, I think both sides have spun in some fanciful (or at least, arguable) directions.

Your explanation of why Valerie Plame was not an operative may be correct but I've also read just the opposite interpretation of her situation and the law (here's one example) and I don't know who's right. Ultimately, I suppose I think that (a) both sides are engaged in a certain amount of wishful thinking and (b) none of the folks making the case either way on Internet forums are the ones who'll make the final determination. I have the feeling that no matter who winds up being "right" in the sense of corresponding to the final legal decision, it won't necesssarily be for the reasons now being stated.

During the Clinton years, we lived through a lot of adamant explanations about how Filegate and Travelgate were certainly crimes that could not help but land Bill and/or Hillary behind bars. That was above and beyond all the years they'd definitely be serving over Whitewater, where there was a "mountain of irrefutable evidence" (to use Bob Dornan's term) of criminal action on their parts. I dunno what laws you think the Clinton crowd actually broke but I'd hope you'd entertain the notion that a lot of the charges against them were politically-motivated bunk. I'm certainly open to the idea that all this "Rove is certain to be indicted" talk is of the same stripe.

I think I'd disagree with you that any (or most) of the folks going after the Bush crowd are after revenge. I don't think revenge ever gets you anywhere in politics and so is rarely a motive. In fact, it strikes me that very few folks in that line of work are ever interested in much more than what will help them and/or their cause tomorrow, and are too eager for advancement to look back. Look at how John McCain, Hillary Clinton and many others have found it advantageous to work with people who, it could be said, were once involved in ruthlessly attacking them.

What I think the anti-Bush folks are after is to make more of America view this administration the way they do, which is as a bunch of thugs who smear their opponents. They also think this scandal will "expose" the many character flaws they see in G.W.B. If he keeps making lame, evasive statements like he made yesterday, he's going to make their job a lot easier.

Overnight this weekend (late Saturday night, early Sunday morn), NBC is rerunning a Saturday Night Live from November 9, 1985 hosted by Madonna, with musical guests Simple Minds. This was the season where the cast included Randy Quaid, Joan Cusack, Anthony Michael Hall, Jon Lovitz, Dennis Miller and others, and I don't recall this episode as being that wonderful. The highlight was probably the water tank card trick by special guests Penn and Teller.

Also, next week, the E! Channel's SNL reruns include the 1992 episode hosted by Nicolas Cage. This is the one that includes the sketch I mentioned here wherein Mr. Cage, who just named his kid Kal-El, plays an expectant father rejecting proposed baby names because they'll cause his kid to get beaten up. It runs Tuesday night at either 10 PM or 1 AM depending on what time zone you're in.

The Rhino Handmade website still doesn't have a real announcement about My Son, the Box, the Allan Sherman compilation for which we are all jonesing…but they have put up a tiny squib that says it's coming soon. They also say it's $120, which is twenty bucks cheaper than the Amazon listing. Aren't you glad you followed my suggestion not to order it yet from Amazon?

Two important (I think) articles over on Slate…

Jack Shafer discusses the journalistic embarrassment that Judy Miller's articles have been for the New York Times. I don't know why people say the Times is a Liberal paper. With Whitewater, with the whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" debacle and maybe with the Wen Ho Lee case, they obligingly published and gave great credibility and momentum to right-wing theories that turned out to be bogus.

And Fred Kaplan, whose online reporting on Iraq has been what the Times coverage should have been (i.e., correct) explains why the results of the Iraq constitution vote are probably more bad news.

Where are these indictments I keep hearing about?

Okay, there's Tom DeLay. Good start but it's only one and knowing him, he'll probably slip out of that charge…make some kind of plea bargain that admits no wrongdoing in exchange for which he'll do five minutes of community service — the first and last of his life. (I don't think he'll be so lucky in the Jack Abramoff matter…)

But people keep saying there are going to be indictments. Massive indictments. Shocking indictments. Indictments that are going to shake Washington to its core.

Okay, where the hell are they?

Every morning now when I awake, I hurry to my computer here and log into one of my favorite newssites to see the indictments…and there aren't any. This morning, everyone was talking about another hurricane and I thought, "No…we don't want another hurricane. We want indictments."

Of anyone. I'm not fussy. It would be nice if it were Karl Rove or Scooter Libby…although I have a hard time believing that any special prosecutor is cold-hearted enough to indict a guy named after a Muppet. But I'll settle for an indictment of just about anyone not in my immediate family. Geraldo Rivera would be nice. Or Carrot Top. How about a nice, juicy indictment of everyone currently producing a reality show? And while you're at it, that rude checker at the Whole Foods Market near me. And Bill O'Reilly, just because.

Come on…there are plenty of people out there to indict. Let's get on with it.

As readers of Marvel Comics know well, Captain America is alive today only due to a freakish miracle. During World War II, he was involved in an accident involving an airplane. He plunged into icy waters where his body was frozen, only to be thawed out many decades later. Or at least, that's the way Stan Lee and Jack Kirby presented it in the comics.

Me, I've always found that story kind of hard to believe. I buy the one about the guy getting transformed into a hulking green monster because of gamma ray bombardment. I believe the one about the kid gaining spider-like powers after being bitten by a radio-active spider. And of course, I believe that Thor, God of Thunder, comes down the rainbow bridge to visit Earth and arrest bank robbers. That's all highly credible. But a World War II combatant frozen in a glacier for all those years? Ridiculous.

…or is it?

Michigan J. Frog, as we all know, has been a drinking glass, a shoe shine kit and even some sort of ceramic kitchen figure I don't understand. He's also been a candle, a plush toy, a few thousand t-shirts, a pillow, a pair of scissors, a tape dispenser, a salt and pepper shaker and many other things, including the spokesfrog of the WB Network.

It may surprise some of you to know that he was also once the star of a very good animated cartoon entitled One Froggy Evening. There is now a website devoted not just to that cartoon but to a history of the famous songs sung by the warbling amphibian in what I believe to have been his greatest appearance. That is, if you don't count the Michigan J. Frog cheese grater.

I first became familiar with The Ramones from a wonderful little low-budget 1979 film called Rock 'n' Roll High School. I kinda liked their music and to date, I have bought a grand total of zero Ramones albums. This is because a one-time lady friend left hers behind when she exited my life. I almost bought their newest release — a CD box set — but lucky M.E., I got a free review copy of Weird Tales of the Ramones, the first-ever Ramones collection of its kind, compiled by Johnny Ramone just before his death last year. What do you get in this thing? Well, there are three audio CDs with a combined total of 85 Ramones tracks…about all anyone could ever need. There's also a DVD of rare footage and music videos and there's a pair of 3-D glasses and, best of all, there's a gorgeous comic book featuring the artistry of, among others, Sergio Aragonés, Scott Shaw!, Matt Groening, Bill Stout, Carol Lay, Xaime Hernandez and Mary Fleener. The book's worth the price all by itself.

What else can I tell you? Well, I can provide an Amazon link to order your copy today. Otherwise, all I can say is that if you like the Ramones, you have to have this collection. And if you don't like the Ramones, get it for the comic book.

Craig Robin is the one who told me about this link, which will take you to a site where you can download an Eddie Cantor video from around 1923 and, yes, it's a talkie. It's him doing part of his stage act…somewhat awkwardly because he didn't have a live audience there to laugh at the jokes. Or if you receive the Fox Movie Channel, they're running one of Mr. Cantor's better films — Ali Baba Goes to Town — next Tuesday during the day. (His best films, Roman Scandals and Palmy Days, don't seem to be scheduled anywhere.) If you do catch Ali Baba, keep your eye out for uncredited cameos by about half of Hollywood including The Ritz Brothers, Douglas Fairbanks, Tyrone Power, Ann Sothern and, yes, even Cesar Romero. It also has nice performances by Charles Lane and a lady named Louise Hovick who was better known under the name, Gypsy Rose Lee.