About three weeks ago, I got a call from a friendly-voiced lady who said she was conducting a marketing survey for a national research company, the name of which I didn't catch. On a whim, I agreed to answer her questions and the first few were pretty innocuous…things like, "Do you like chocolate?" and "Have you ever rented a DVD?" But then, maybe twenty queries in, she started asking me about my household income and I said, "Put down 'declines to state.'" I don't think my income is the business of anyone except me, my Business Manager and the Internal Revenue…and if I could cut the last of these out of the loop, I would.

The lady got a bit upset that I wouldn't answer. She told me the survey was anonymous…but of course, she had my phone number. I said no, I would not answer questions about money, and if that's all she had left, the call was over. She replied, unconvincingly, "Listen, we're not supposed to say this but if you don't answer all the questions, I don't get paid for this. I only get paid for each survey that's fully completed."

I said, "Then just put down any numbers you like. Make something up."

She said, "I would, but they check."

I asked her, "How do they check? They don't have my name or my income. All they know is that I like chocolate. How do they — whoever 'they' are — check to see that you haven't made up the numbers?"

She mumbled and stammered and then she said, "Well, they monitor these calls. This is being taped."

"Aren't you supposed to inform me at the start of a call that the conversation is being taped? This isn't Linda Tripp, is it?"

"Uh, well, it isn't exactly being taped. It's more like…I can't explain but they check on us."

I announced, "Well, when they check on you, they'll see you made a noble effort. Bye!" And that was it for that conversation. I put it out of my mind and went back to whatever she'd interrupted. Performing a liver transplant, as I recall.

A week or so later, I got another call, this one from a man with some Marketing Research company. I didn't get its name but I think it was different from the earlier one. He asked if I'd answer some questions. This was during the time I was busy getting my mother in and out of the hospital and I really resented the call, so I guess I was a bit abrupt with the guy. I told him to leave me alone and hung up.

The next day, I got a call from someone who claimed to be his supervisor at the same firm, apologizing for the previous call. I said, "Fine, apology accepted." He asked if I had time to answer the survey. I said no. He asked if he could call back at a later time to ask me the questions. I got suspicious and asked, "Is there anything in there about total household income?" He said, "Uh, I'm not sure which questionnaire I have here for you…"

I said, "Please don't call here again…you or anyone from your company." And I ended that call.

Yesterday afternoon, someone from (allegedly) another Marketing Firm called with a survey. A woman began, "Your number has been chosen at random…"

I told her, "No, it hasn't. Please put down, 'This person will not answer our questions and we should never call him again.' Goodbye!"

I can be slow but I catch on, eventually. All these calls, I'm guessing, are from the same outfit, and they couldn't care less if I like chocolate or rent DVDs. They're out to build some sort of financial index/profile of the person at this phone number and their computer system still has me in the "need income data" category. They've worked out a routine: If one person can't get the info out of you one way, they wait a week and have someone else call and use a different approach. It wouldn't even surprise me if that "I don't get paid if you don't answer all the questions" routine is part of one script.

That's about all there is to this at the moment. I'll report back if I get another call. And next time, I think I'm going to see what I can find out about the company that's phoning me.

David Frum, a writer for National Review, had much the same reaction I did to the news coverage of that airplane crash at the airport in Toronto. The main difference is that I found CNN, MSNBC and Fox all lacking…and he just watched (and criticizes) CNN.

I apologize that I didn't give you a "head's up" about an episode of To Tell the Truth that was rerun the other night. The panel had to guess which of three men was Theodore "Dr. Seuss" Geisel.

One of the many things I found interesting about it was that for years, learned men and women — including one of my professors back at U.C.L.A. — had insisted that "Seuss" was pronounced, "soice," as if it rhymed with "voice." A prominent author once berated me at length for saying it as if it rhymed with "goose." I argued back that there were examples like the TV special, Dr. Seuss on the Loose, that suggested otherwise. "No, no," said the man who was lecturing me. "Seuss is his middle name and it's pronounced 'soice,' no matter what the Troglodytes in the TV business think."

I said, "Uh…why would he give permission for someone producing his work to maul his name like that?"

The reply: "Well, he may have given up by now…so many morons getting it wrong. But he always pronounced it "soice" and out of respect for the man and his work, that's how we should pronounce it."

That might make sense — Mr. Geisel's middle name was, indeed, Seuss — but there he was on a 1958 game show and he himself pronounced it to rhyme with "loose" and "goose" and "juice." So if the world got it wrong, there's the reason.

The August edition of Back Issue, which I have just received, contains an interview that was conducted via phone with Sergio Aragonés and me. It's not a great interview and it's marred by a number of terrible transcription errors…like when I talk about a character named "Palandrone" in Groo, that's actually a reference to a team of characters we have named Pal and Drumm. There's also a place where I am quoted as saying our lawyer was incompetent and I can't imagine how that got in there because I have always thought that particular lawyer was brilliant…and twenty-some-odd years later, he still represents me.

There are a number of other errors but the real annoying one comes when I'm quoted as talking about a Marvel exec named "Carol Staley" who was responsible for getting Groo over to that company. The lady in question was the late Carol Kalish, and I apologize to her memory that I didn't demand to proofread the interview before publication. I shall have to remember to do this in the future.

It's been a bad few months for comedy writers and for folks affiliated with the Sid Caesar TV shows. My friend Gary Belkin was both.

That's Gary at a 1996 event called "Caesar's Writers" held at the Writers Guild Theater.  He was seated one person away from Danny Simon, who passed away last week. When Gary got the invite, he scanned the names — Carl Reiner, Mel Brooks, Neil Simon, Larry Gelbart and others, including himself — and remarked, "My God. I'm the only one on here I've never heard of." Actually, a bunch of us had to practically threaten Gary to get him to the event. His wife had passed away not long before and he'd become something of a hermit. But he went.

Writing for Sid Caesar was only one of Gary's many credits. He wrote for Danny Kaye. He wrote for Carol Burnett. Some of his other credits are listed in this obit and yes, it's true. Gary even wrote for Muhammad Ali. He was engaged, at what he described as a handsome salary, to pen the rhyming quips for which Ali was once so famous. He also worked as a "troubleshooter" for comedy-related projects. One of the leading agents of stand-up comedians used to hire Gary to midwife new comics through their early appearances on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. He'd help them select and edit their material and he'd critique their rehearsal sets. I remember running into him once outside the Improv and he dragged me in to hear a set by a new comic named Ellen DeGeneres. He was helping her to get ready to make her debut with Mr. Carson.

One credit you won't find in that article is MAD Magazine, but that was okay. Gary didn't often mention that he was one of the earlier writers for MAD after Al Feldstein assumed editorship of the publication from Harvey Kurtzman. His job there didn't last long, as he quarreled with publisher Bill Gaines over MAD's insistence on owning all rights and refusing to pay royalties or reprint fees.

You may notice in the obit that Gary was nominated for an Emmy in 1985 for his work on Sesame Street. One of the other people nominated in that category (Best Writing in a Program for Children) was me. At the ceremony, I went up to him and asked him how much he'd want to throw the Emmys. He quoted a bargain price — I think it was fifty bucks — then asked, "Now, how does one go about throwing the Emmys?" I told him he should commit an act of vulgar, distasteful sexual deviancy that would cause the Academy to shun him. Gary said, "Yeah, but that's what I was nominated for!" (We both lost, by the way…to Mr. Rogers. But it was okay, especially for Gary. He had a shelf full of awards.)

As a comedy writer, he was a clever man with an acerbic, cynical sense of humor…kind of like the way Buddy Sorrell would be if everyone in the world was Mel Cooley. He was quietly outraged about a great many things in the world, most recently the Iraq War and the Bush administration. But before that, I heard him spend entire lunches railing about the Writers Guild and its neglect of his main area, the writing of variety shows and specials. And he really disliked (with good reason) a producer we both once worked for. Out of a spirit of justice, not greed, he kept after the guy to pay us every nickel he owed us. Every so often, he'd call to say that the shows we'd written had, he learned, aired in Venezuela and we were owed eight dollars for that and, by God, he'd go after that money and I'd eventually receive a check for my share of the eight dollars.

That's far from the only reason I already miss Gary. I just spent a few minutes looking back through my e-mailbox for old communications from him. The next to last came on May 24, right after our mutual friend Howie Morris died. Gary wrote to me about it, and I think this is the only message he wrote that didn't have a punch line. The entire thing read as follows, typos and all…

I just learned that Howie died. In recent months I've been in touch with Delores (so I know who sick he was) but you're the one I thought of to whom express my condolences. Lovely man, always a pleasure to see him.

One could say the same of Gary: Lovely man, always a pleasure to see him.

Just watched Bill Maher's latest HBO Special, which is entitled "I'm Swiss," and which reruns often over the next few weeks. (It's on tomorrow night, to name one instance.) Mr. Maher has developed an annoying little giggle that punctuates many a line, as if to suggest he just thought of it and can't help cracking himself up. It's a bad habit that amateurs often apply to material of questionable mirth…a way of suggesting bogus spontaneity and implying, "Hey, even if you don't find this funny, I do." The special also has a couple of jarring edits in it. All taped stand-up specials are edited but it's usually not this obvious.

Those problems aside, I thought it was terrific. I remember Maher from his early days at the Improv. He took stage with smart material but if the audience didn't get with him by the fourth or fifth joke, he often turned on them. I think he's gotten better but he's also been discovered by a slightly brighter breed of audience.

The material is highly political and if Bush-bashing gives you gas, you might be happier watching something else. But I found myself laughing even at some stuff with which I didn't agree, and any political comic who can manage that has my respect.

Great news: All 309 folks aboard that jet that crashed at the airport in Toronto escaped with their lives. I sure didn't think that would be the case when I watched about a half-hour of news coverage this afternoon, dancing between CNN, MSNBC and Fox. The folks covering the accident obviously thought the opposite had occurred, and some were using a lot of phrases to indicate as much. I recall a reporter on one of the channels (I forget which one) saying, "In a crash of this magnitude, you have to figure on major casualties." That must have been comforting to those who had friends or family members aboard.

We get a lot of this in today's highly-competitive news market, especially when they put newsfolks on the air to fill an hour with maybe three minutes of actual facts. At some point, they weary of repeating the same known info over and over and they start speculating and implying things. I remember hearing a Journalism professor once say that the sad fact of the news business is that you get more credit for being first than for being accurate. One suspects the producers and on-air talent at the major news channels are ever-conscious of the fact that you can and will change channels if you think they've said all they have to say.

In fairness, some of what I heard showed restraint and caution. But, boy, I'd have hated to be watching the news desperately to find out if a loved one had perished. For quite some time there, they didn't have any information…and even when they didn't, that didn't stop some of them.

I am told that the Lena Horne episode of What's My Line? aired this morning (I'm behind on watching what's on my TiVo) so that would mean the one with Lieber and Stoller is on tonight.

Michael Kinsley points out that our Iraq policy seems to be based on continually changing our minds about who the Bad Guys are or why we don't like them.

For reasons that defy all concepts of wisdom, logic and human understanding, the vintage game shows run on GSN in the wee, small hours of the morning are no longer identified by TiVo as What's My Line?, To Tell the Truth and so on. Perhaps this is temporary but if you want to record these programs, you need to take a Season Pass to Black-and-White Overnight, which is how they're listed as of today. As far as I know, what's airing hasn't changed…merely the way it's listed on TiVo.

I think tonight's What's My Line? (that is, the one that airs early Tuesday morning) is one with Lena Horne as the Mystery Guest. Then the Wednesday morning one, if it's the one I think it is, is kinda interesting. Jack Paar is the Mystery Guest but before him, the panel has to guess the occupation of Jerry Lieber and Mike Stoller, who were songwriters for — among other notable folks — Elvis Presley. Last time this one aired, I wrote this message about it.

In the meantime, the new channel fronted by Al Gore called "Current" is coming through on my satellite on station 366, though the satellite still thinks this is NewsWorld International or whatever used to be there. Based on the last half hour or so, humans may not notice it there either, since the material on Current seems to be anything but current. So far, it's a lot of disconnected videos about lifestyles and couples shopping together. On the other hand, I don't think there's been a new cable channel that didn't suck for its first few months so I'm guessing things will change a lot.

Every so often on this site, I abandon what little dignity I can sometimes muster and ask you to donate cash so I can feed the neighborhood raccoons, pay the costs incurred in maintaining this site, or just buy something silly off eBay. Many of you respond each time, and I am grateful. But the last time I passed the cyberhat, I received an unusual offer from a casual acquaintance. Here's a seriously-edited quote from him. He engaged in lavish praise of me, my writing and everything on this site that is unrelated to politics and then he wrote…

…but it breaks my heart when between the items I enjoy so much, I see you linking to political articles or even writing them yourself showing so little respect to our Commander in Chief and the leader of our great nation. I respect your work in TV and comics and I even admire the way you express yourself but I cannot agree with your view of George Bush and the War in Iraq and I think we need more than ever to get behind him and support what the U.S. is doing over there. I fail to understand how someone as obviously bright as you cannot see that.

Since it pains me so to read one of my favorite writers being on the other side, I would like to make you a serious offer. I would be glad to make a monthly donation and not a tiny one if you could see your way to eliminate political posts from your site. I am not asking you to change your mind about anything. I would just like to see you confine yourself to comics and TV and movies and all the other things I enjoy reading about when you cover them. You are not going to convert me to your point of view and I wish you would stop trying.

Okay, first point: Anyone who wants me to take them seriously when they say that good Americans support their president and show him respect will have to either (a) show me some proof that they felt this way when the previous occupant of the White House was being trashed or (b) tell me how someone who feels any Chief Exec is making serious errors can express this without having their patriotism and respect for the office impugned. It has never been part of any serious concept of America to believe that we must show blind fealty to whosoever happens to be in a public office at any given moment. In fact, I've never encountered anyone who really believes that. They just believe it while it's their guy getting bashed.

Secondly: If someone wishes to understand why some of us think George W. Bush is a bad president — one who's doing great damage to this nation and not even serving the causes he claims to be serving — I suggest you read this article over on Salon by Doug Bandow. You may need to watch an ad or something but it may be worth it if you really want to understand. Mr. Bandow, by the way, is not a crazed, partisan Democrat. He's a pretty well-respected Reagan-brand conservative.

Thirdly: Thanks for the offer but it would be no fun to do this weblog if I couldn't write anything that popped into my head. I haven't even taken paid advertising here because the few offers I've received have been from outfits I might want to criticize some day.

Lastly: I don't believe that postings on a weblog ever really change anyone's mind about anything of substance. I think we just do them because it feels good to express yourself. I am under no delusion that I will ever convince even one human being with an opposing worldview to come on over to my side. If I could, I'd want to get them to stop looking at the world through this "Them vs. Us," red state/blue state mentality where everything their side does is noble and wise and competent, and everything the other side does is treacherous, treasonous and inept. Decades ago, a teacher I had suggested that one should always read the opposition viewpoint and attempt to understand why people felt as they did, and to what extent their views were valid. These days, especially on the Internet, people seem to flee from opposition views. If they read them at all, it's to find some way to hurriedly dismiss them as crackpot and disingenuous.

Don't be afraid of views that don't match yours. Recently, I posted that I thought folks on both sides were believing a lot of "facts" on the Plame/Rove/C.I.A. story that were of dubious veracity. I said I don't think we know as much about this case as we think we do. I got an almost matching pair of e-mails — one from a gent who is certain Rove is heading for the slammer and that it's foolish for me to suggest it isn't so; another, from a lady who believes firmly that the matter has been settled and he's already been proven innocent. I think that if these folks opened themselves up to views that didn't tell them what they want to hear, they might get a little more accurate picture of the situation. But maybe that would spoil the fun.

Over at IGN (a fine site, well worth browsing every day), the eminent scribe and historian Peter Sanderson reports on the Jack Kirby Tribute Panel at this year's Comic-Con International.

I need to correct/clarify one thing about the upcoming Marvel book reprinting Fantastic Four #1 in a deluxe, coffee table format. Peter quotes me as saying "I wouldn't buy it if I were you." Perhaps I was misquoted but more likely, I just misspoke. I was explaining that I'd written a commentary piece for it, and I thought I was saying something like, "I wouldn't buy it because of that if I were you." I haven't seen any other part of the book so I have no idea if it will be worth the money. If you're thinking of purchasing a copy, don't let me stop you.

As Peter also mentions, I am nearing the home stretch on my massive biography of Mr. Kirby and will soon be putting it into what I call "beta-testing," meaning that I'll be asking selected folks to read it and rip it apart in search of errors, muddy phrasing, inanity and other elements that fit so perfectly into Groo but belong nowhere in a book about Jack Kirby. Before I get to that, I'll be setting up a little private forum/mailing list where folks who want to help me with research can do so. If you're one of those people who know old comics (especially Marvels of the sixties) better than you know your own family history and wish to volunteer, drop me a note.

Remember my recent problems with PayPal? I received a number of e-mailed apologies from the company and then my postings here got picked up over on Harry McCracken's PC World blog. That prompted someone from PayPal to phone me to apologize…which I suppose is nice but really, apologies from total strangers are pretty worthless. I get them every time something goes wrong with a merchant, and they never make anything better, especially since the person apologizing to me had nothing to do with the screw-up.

I wish companies would realize that when they err, the thing they need to do is to assure the customer that efforts are being taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. A few times when there's been a reason for a business to tell me they're sorry, I hear from someone of sufficient rank to effect change and the person assures me that they understand the problem and are at least attempting to deal with it. That's nice. Even better is when they say something like, "Here's my direct phone number so you never have to languish on hold calling the 800 number again. Call me directly if you ever have another problem." If I were running a big company, I'd hire someone to be the Vice-President in Charge of Mollifying Pissed-Off Customers — though I wouldn't call them that — and have them act as ombudsmen for the victims of screw-ups committed elsewhere in the firm. Refunds and financial considerations are also good.

But I wish they'd stop acting like having a stranger apologize to you means something. I don't want to be stroked, at least not in that way. I want results.

Hey, I liked his music, too. But is it really a good idea to name a post office after a blind guy?