I went ahead and subscribed for a year to TimesSelect even though most of the political columns seem to turn up for free somewhere on the 'net. Here's a link to the column by Frank Rich for this last weekend.

Driving around this morning, I listened to about twenty minutes of Rush Limbaugh and twenty minutes of Al Franken, and I came up with an idea that I think will help both shows. Rush needs to borrow Al's fact-checkers and Al needs to borrow Rush's drug-suppliers.

I am told by several correspondents that the footage I linked to which contained the Smurfs being bombed was not a minute and half commercial. It was, rather, a news report that included the thirty (or so) seconds of the Smurfs' village being annihilated. I suppose that means that the actual commercial is fully (or more fully) animated and that a link to that version will turn up shortly.

Time to pre-order Volume Four of The Complete Peanuts. There's no real point to me doing a sales pitch for these Fantagraphics collections because if you bought the first two books, you're in for the long haul. They've got you. You have to buy every new release, especially the next few in which you'll see Charles M. Schulz and his characters really blossom.

Aw, heck. Let's be honest: We're going to buy all of them. By the time we get to the years when Schulz started to get a bit repetitive and shaky, we'll have something like eighteen volumes on our shelves and nothing short of electric shock treatment is going to make us quit then.

But as fun as The Complete Peanuts is, I have to confess to a certain nostalgic fondness for an earlier series of Peanuts books…the first ones, the ones in which I discovered Charlie Brown and his friends. The paperbacks were published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston and they came out every year or so, though every so often they'd surprise me with a semi-annual release. That was reason enough for me to check the table at Bookhaven every time my parents took me there, which was every week or two.

Bookhaven was a little bookstore and rental library that was situated on Westwood Boulevard in West L.A., about a half block north of Ohio Avenue. It was run by two elderly women who seemed to have read every book in the place and who knew the names and reading habits of all their steady customers. They rented books that were too new to be at the public library and often, my father would go in and they'd say, "Oh, Mr. Evanier, we held onto a copy of this one for you. We knew you'd want to read it." They were always right but there was a price to be paid for their familiarity. My father would check out that new book and then they'd say, "Oh, please get it back to us by Saturday morning because Mrs. Parnell is coming in Saturday afternoon and we promised we'd have a copy for her." My father might have preferred to linger until Monday or Tuesday over the novel — it was only a dime a day — but he'd have to stay up late and finish it punctually because he didn't want to let the Bookhaven ladies down. Once, he even returned a murder mystery without finding out who'd dunnit because he promised to have it back on a certain date.

While he was haggling over return times, I'd check out a table over by the far wall that displayed new (not rental) joke and cartoon books. If I found a new Peanuts book, it was a happy day. The Bookhaven ladies always saved a copy for me when a new one came in. If not, I'd pick out something to read while my parents browsed the shelves. I recall trying and giving up on the Pogo books several times over several years before I finally reached an age where I could understand most of the dialogue. That's when I started buying them, too. I discovered a lot of great non-cartooning authors at Bookhaven, as well.

The Holt, Rinehart and Winston books weren't complete but I didn't know that until years later. Someone, perhaps Schulz himself, decided certain strips were unworthy of inclusion. It baffled me a bit at the time. I counted how many strips appeared in each book and couldn't figure out why they didn't come out more often. Mr. Schulz was drawing one Peanuts per day and that should have yielded more books than it did. To bide time between them, I read and re-read the ones I had — and they were especially good when we were going somewhere I was likely to have to wait…say, a doctor's office. I can vividly recall reading Good Ol' Charlie Brown over and over the day my father was hospitalized for a bleeding ulcer. My mother and I spent all day in the hospital waiting room and by the time my Uncle Nate drove us home, I had the book memorized. To this day when I see a copy, I get a little jolt of the emotions I felt that day.

One more memory of those books. One Saturday when we went to Bookhaven, we found it unexpectedly closed. A note on the door explained that one of the old ladies had passed away and the other wasn't certain when the store would reopen. "Please phone us next week to find out," it said. "In the meantime, no fees will be charged on outstanding rental books." A few weeks later, Bookhaven was open again but just so rentals could be returned and the entire stock could be liquidated at half price. The other old lady had decided to close the business. We bought a lot of books there that day and as we were checking out, the remaining proprietor added an extra book to my pile. It was a copy of We're Right Behind You, Charlie Brown…the fifteenth book in the series. It had just been released and while she'd halted delivery of new books to the store, she made a point of getting that one for me and wouldn't allow me to pay for it.

Every time I drive down Westwood and pass where Bookhaven used to be, I think of that wonderful little shop and the ladies who ran it for what must have been the most meager of profits. And when I see a copy of any of the early Peanuts books at a store or convention, I think of the place where I discovered Peanuts and so many other wonderful things to read. The Fantagraphics volumes are superior in every way as reprint collections but they don't include as many precious childhood memories. That's why I'm buying them and putting them right next to my ragged, dog-eared Holt, Rinehart and Winston Peanuts books, the first fifteen of which I got at Bookhaven.

There's no point in me trying to paraphrase this. Here's the lede from this article…

The people of Belgium have been left reeling by a public service commercial featuring the Smurfs, in which the blue-skinned cartoon characters' village is annihilated by warplanes. The 25-second commercial is the work of UNICEF, and is to be broadcast on TV across Belgium next week as a public fundraiser. It is intended as the keystone of a drive, by UNICEF's Belgian arm, to raise about $145,000 for the rehabilitation of former child soldiers in Burundi. The animation was approved by the family of the Smurfs' late creator, "Peyo."

Here's a link to a version of the commercial that runs a little over a minute and a half but contains the Smurfs sequence in the middle. The whole video is in still pictures like a filmstrip and I'm not sure if this is a special "no movement" edition for the Internet or if this is the way it's going to air wherever it airs.

Not being able to understand the language or the context, I don't have an opinion about it other than that it's really weird. If you didn't know it was authorized by Peyo's heirs, you'd figure it was one of those Robert Smigel cartoons on Saturday Night Live. I will note though that back when a 90-minute bloc of Smurfs programming anchored the NBC Saturday morning schedule and trounced the competition, executives at CBS and ABC used to fantasize about something very similar.

I find it amazing to type that TV Guide as we know it is coming to an end. The issue currently on the newsracks is the last in the traditional digest-sized format on cheap paper. Next week, it becomes an eight-by-ten-and-a-half inch magazine full of color — i.e., less handy to use but more conducive to big advertising buys. The change probably signals a recognition that its primary raison d'être — to serve as your handy-dandy guide to what's on the telly — has long since expired. Onscreen program guides seem to have made riffling through a little magazine obsolete. You'd think the explosion of new channels would make such a publication more of a necessity but I think the opposite occurred: It made TV Guide too unwieldy to be of much use. I haven't subscribed for more than a decade and when I page through a copy at the checkout counter, it all looks like a blur to me.

Back then, it was the best-selling magazine in the country. Some of my friends would go through each isssue with hi-lighter pens and plan their week's viewing. I had one buddy who used two markers: Pink for must-see, yellow for might-watch. Another friend, once he got his first VCR, would use it to make out an elaborate taping schedule. So much of our lives revolved around it that I would have bet then it would be around forever and in pretty much the same form.

Historians of the magazine — if there ever are such people — will probably divide its history into two periods: The Annenberg regime, when it was founded and run by Walter Annenberg; and the Murdoch era, which began in '88 when Annenberg sold out to the Australian media mogul, Rupert Murdoch. Amazingly, it was less a right-wing publication after the owner of Fox News took it over, Annenberg having been a close Nixon buddy. There was a period after Nixon's downfall when articles were filled with gratuitous asides that supported the publisher's pal and I seem to remember one issue where the article section veered from the topic of TV to predict history would judge the ousted president in ways that history has yet to judge him.

It was also a petty institution. Around 1978, I tentatively sold them an article on Johnny Carson and the then-current rumors of his imminent retirement. The piece was accepted, scheduled for publication…and then some higher-level person in the TV Guide organization placed Mr. Carson on the magazine's Enemies List. Johnny, it seemed, was not being "cooperative," doing awful things like refusing to pose for cover photos and such. I was told my article suddenly needed to be rewritten. Instead of being a fearless (and accurate) prediction that The King of Late Night would remain on his throne for years to come, it had to be changed into an exposé about how everyone in the industry felt he should step down, which was not true. My editor was embarrassed to tell me this and not surprised when I elected to withdraw the piece instead.

When Murdoch took over, he brought in people to try and "modernize" the article section and they went to stunts like multiple collector covers. I suppose they kept the circulation up (or kept it from falling faster) but by then, I'd discovered that I wasn't even opening my subscription copies and when it came time to renew, I didn't. Guess I wasn't the only one.

I wonder who, if anyone, will be the beneficiary of this format change. The underlying strength of TV Guide's circulation for years has been the little rack of the magazine that's prominently situated at something like 95% of all supermarket check-out counters. That is prime marketing space and the items that are displayed thereabouts are the result of complicated financial arrangements. As a couple folks in the comic book business learned when they attempted to market digest-sized comics, you can't just publish in that size and expect to be available at Safeway, right next to the Tic-Tacs and those little booklets on astrology or recipes. You have to make deals and negotiate, and the fact that the Archie digests and Disney Adventures are usually there is a result of years of effort. One assumes the new magazine-sized TV Guide will be elsewhere on those checkout stands but there's a space now…a physical space that can accommodate something else of comparable dimensions. Maybe it'll be a new digest-sized magazine…or maybe it'll be more Altoids. I'm guessing Altoids.

In 2000, I worked (briefly) for Stan Lee Media, the Internet company that collapsed soon after, sending some of its financial heads to prison for various forms of stock fraud. Today, The Washington Post has a long article about Stan Lee Media and what went on when it underwrote a gala fund-raising event for Hillary Clinton. If you're following this story, it's "must" reading — though you might wince at the reference to Stan as the "creator of Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk." (Here's why.)

The other day, one of my Clinton-hating acquaintances wrote me to pay attention to this then-forthcoming article because it would "blow the lid off" the scandal that will ultimately, he insists, destroy Hillary. Reading the piece, I don't see quite how that's going to happen, nor did I see that in any of the past articles he said would blow that lid. One does get the impression that the case is pretty much over but that certain parties are still trying to wring some benefits out of it. I found the following paragraph of special interest. It's about Peter Paul, the main guy behind Stan Lee Media, who is presently living off welfare as he awaits sentencing, and Judicial Watch, which is the firm whose lawyers represented him for a time…

Paul is pursuing his civil suit against the Clintons and expects oral arguments to be heard in the case later this year. He's also feuding with his former friends at Judicial Watch. Paul accuses the group of letting his criminal case languish while they used his civil suit to raise more than $15 million in donations for their coffers from people who dislike the Clintons.

That's kind of what this is all about. I got e-mails from Judicial Watch years ago that said, in effect, "Send us money and we'll nail Hillary." Apparently, there are enough people out there who loathe Bill and Hillary to make that a lucrative offer. You wonder if any of the folks who sent that $15 million think they got their money's worth…and how long they're going to keep falling for it.

For some reason, I'm fascinated by ads for old Vegas showrooms, especially from back in the days when you could pay what now seems like next-to-nothing and see not only a headliner but two acts you'd heard of. Most showrooms stopped featuring headliners during the eighties and the ones that kept them either got rid of opening acts or booked cheap (and presumably low-paid) performers for that slot. These days, you usually get one guy and if he's a comedian, there's not even an orchestra on the premises.

Some of the ticket prices strike me as rather high and inconsistent. George Carlin gets $54.50 a seat (does he still have Dennis Blair opening for him?). Elton John is $100-$250. Jerry Seinfeld charges $75-$150. Tom Jones is $70 and Dennis Miller is $79. Howie Mandel is $60. Ray Romano tickets are $90. Don Rickles, Steve & Eydie, David Spade, Damon Wayans, Hall & Oates and Dana Carvey all want $70 a seat. And Tony Bennett is about to play a limited engagement at the Golden Nugget where tickets will start at $200 each. Of all these, the best entertainer is probably Carlin.

I don't know what it cost to see Perry Como with the Doodletown Pipers opening for him but it was a lot cheaper than most of these today, even adjusting for inflation. I wish I'd been going to Vegas in those days. Even in the eighties when I began regular visits, I caught some pretty wonderful shows for pretty reasonable prices.

I asked about the Spider-Man credo, "With great power there must come great responsibility" and boy, did I get answers. As to the question of whether Winston Churchill said it, the answer apparently is no. What he said was "The Price of Greatness is Responsibility," which was the title of this essay. This was pointed out to me, one way or the other, by Stan Taylor, Jim Drew, Ken Quattro, Jeffery Stevenson, Tom Leach, Allen Montgomery, Martin Gately, Jason Crane, Russ Maheras, Bob Heer and some guy named Marv Wolfman who owes me a lunch.

Earl Wells writes that something like it was uttered or almost uttered by someone named Roosevelt…

As far as I know, the quote that comes closest to the line in the Spider-Man story is from a speech that FDR was going to deliver at the Jefferson Day Dinner in 1945; he died the day before: "Today we have learned in the agony of war that great power involves great responsibility." (From Nothing to Fear, ed. by Ben D. Zevin, p. 464 of the 1961 Popular Library paperback; the book was originally published in 1946 by the World Publishing Company.)

A similar remark is in FDR's 1945 state of the union address: "In a democratic world, as in a democratic Nation, power must be linked with responsibility… ." (From Living Ideas in America, ed. by Henry Steele Commager, p. 703 of the 1951 Harper & Brothers hardcover.)

And Theodore Roosevelt said something like it in a 1908 letter: "…I believe in power; but I believe that responsibility should go with power…" (From T.R.: The Last Romantic by H.W. Brands, pp. 628-9 of the 1997 Basic Books hardcover; the letter was published by Harvard in The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, 8 volumes, 1951-54.)

These are just the ones I've noticed over the years; I wouldn't be surprised if there are others. But Lee & Ditko said it best! (All or some of this may be on the Internet somewhere, but I'm too lazy to check.)

My pal Nate Butler thinks it may come from a higher authority…

I heard Stan Lee speak at a college in Connecticut many, many years ago…and/or I read it later in an interview with him…where he said he enjoyed reading the Bible as Great Literature and a source of story ideas. I think he may have said at that time that the "with great power comes great responsibility" quote was adapted from what Jesus Christ says in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 12, verse 48: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

That's the King James version that Stan might have read years ago. A contemporary translation reads: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Some other quotes were pointed out to me as being similar but not exact…

• "Responsibility walks hand in hand with capacity and power." — Josiah Gilbert Holland. (Sent by Jeffery Stevenson and Russ Maheras.)
• "Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes responsibility." — Louis Armstrong. (Sent by Russ Maheras, who notes this was apparently not the Louis Armstrong with the trumpet.)
• "Power without responsibility…the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages." — Rudyard Kipling. (Sent by Stephen Soymonoff.)
• "It is a sad reflection…that a sense of responsibility which comes with power is the rarest of things." — Alexander Crummell. (Also sent by Stephen Soymonoff.)
• "To whom much is given, much is required." — John F. Kennedy. (Sent by Ron Goldberg and Ali T. Kokmen.)

Also, Lee Barnett sends us to this page where several authors fiddle with the concept, including Christine de Pisan, according to whom, "the greater the power that individuals have, the greater their responsibility for the moral and material welfare of the people who depend on them."

Lastly, several folks pointed out that I left a word out of the quote. Here's a note from Danny Fingeroth, who used to be the editor of all the Spider-Man comics at Marvel…

The actual line from Amazing Fantasy #15 is said by the narrator. It goes: "And a lean, silent figure slowly fades into the gathering darkness, aware at last that in this world, with great power there must also come — great responsibility!"

The "there must also" part is often left out, but one could say that it's what makes Peter a hero and not a villain, since a villain might not see that he has a responsibility, even after a lesson like Peter got. (Although, of course, the best villains see themselves as responsible heroes.)

A good point. In fact, I remember a couple of different periods of the Spider-Man comic (not yours, as I recall) where I sure got the feeling that the writer either didn't get that or simply didn't understand the concept of volunteerism. I made that observation to one of his associates and got the reply, "Yeah…him writing about helping others is like an Orthodox Jew writing about the joys of pulled pork sandwiches."

Danny also suggests that I ask Stan Lee if he remembers where he got it. That's a good one, Danny. And thanks to all who answered or tried to answer my question.

I have a silly question that I should know the answer to and don't.

An oft-quoted line from the Spider-Man comic book goes as follows: "With great power comes great responsibility."

Was that line (reasonably) original to the comic? Or is it a quote from somewhere else? I have a vague idea that it was famously uttered by Sir Winston Churchill but the quotation books I have handy here either don't mention it or attribute it to Spider-Man or Stan Lee.

Can someone give me an answer? And if you're saying it was a known quote before that, could we have a source, please?

Comic book retailer Brian Hibbs has prevailed in a lawsuit against Marvel Comics. Here are the details but if you don't want to click over there, I'll give you a quick summary: The contract by which comic stores used to receive their comics from Marvel specified that they could return unsold copies if the books shipped late and/or if the creative team was not the one advertised. Hibbs charged that Marvel was not accepting returns under such circumstances and he sued and has now agreed to a settlement. Nice work, Brian.

Posting here's been light because (a) my cable modem keeps cutting in and out and (b) my brain seems to be hard-wired to the cable modem. Things will normalize soon.

The L.A. Times obit [reg. req.] for Hamilton Camp is up. It says the cause of death is still to be determined but that he fell on Sunday. I was told it was a heart attack but perhaps that is not so.

Whatever it was, it robbed us of a very talented man. A lot of you have written me to recall your favorite Hamilton Camp TV role — like the short guy who tried to date Mary Richards on The Mary Tyler Moore Show or the stereo store owner who got robbed on WKRP in Cincinnati. Hamilton played an amazing number of memorable roles on popular shows.

The L.A. Times [register, baby] has an article about the closing of Book City, a wonderful clutter of old volumes located up on Hollywood Boulevard.

The piece blames the changing nature of the neighborhood, and that may be a factor, but I think they're missing the real cause here. Old book shops have been in steady decline the last 20+ years in all neighborhoods everywhere. There are one or two areas, like out on the Golden Mall in Burbank, where a few stores have found cheaper rent and have congregated to create a little shopping mall of antiquarian booksellers. But apart from that kind of huddling, I don't think you can find a single neighborhood in California that doesn't have fewer of those establishments than it did in the seventies. Many now have none.

It's not geography. It's not location. It's that second-hand book stores are a dying industry. To the extent some survive, it's mostly been by becoming online merchants, selling on eBay and through services like abebooks. To do that, you don't need the overhead and expense of operating a retail store in a commercial area. You can do it out of someone's garage.

Once upon a time, I was the biggest patron of old book stores you've ever seen. I went to every one in Los Angeles and I went often. I can't tell you how much cash I spent at the Book City on Hollywood Boulevard and I also patronized their old second location over on Lankershim. But I haven't visited Book City or any such establishment in years. When I buy now, I buy online.

Yes, you lose the fun of browsing the actual books but the trade-off, which I find more than acceptable, is that you get a much wider range of choices and prices. A few weeks ago, I wanted to find a certain book and if I'd gone to Book City, it would have taken me an hour or two and I might (might!) have found one copy and it would have been priced on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I might also have wasted the trip either because they didn't have a copy or because I didn't like the price or condition of the one they had. Searching online, it took under a minute to find 40 or 50 copies — different editions, different conditions, different prices, etc., and after a couple of clicks, one was en route to me. I feel bad about Book City closing because it once did so much for me, but I've gotta admit: I don't feel so bad about these places closing that I'll forego the ease and comfort of no longer going to old book stores.

Actor Nicolas Cage and his wife Alice have named their new child Kal-el, which is Superman's birth name, which is of course their right.

But don't I remember a sketch that Nicholas Cage did when he hosted Saturday Night Live back in 1992? He played a man arguing with his pregnant wife (portrayed by Julia Sweeney) about what to name their kid. The premise was that she kept suggesting names like John and George and he kept rejecting each one, explaining how it would cause their son to be ridiculed and beaten up. The punchline was that it turned out he was so sensitive to the issue because his name was Asswipe.

I'm not sure what point I'm making here. It's just that every time I hear of someone saddling their child with an odd given name, I think of Nicolas Cage and that sketch. And now, here he is…

Oh, well. Guess I'll forget about that and just wait for today's Tom DeLay indictment. Then again, if I miss it, there's always tomorrow's.