Those of you interested in the squabble between the Writers Guilds East and West, which I discussed here, might like to read an article by Walter Bernstein [Los Angeles Times, they make you register]. Bernstein is a fine screenwriter — he wrote The Front, chronicling a tumultuous era in his own life — and a member of the WGAe leadership.

I agree with him that the most recent WGA deal was insufficient, though I'm not sure he's realistic about what it would have taken to get a better one. The little suggestion he makes about linking arms with directors and actors in negotiation strikes me as pure, never-gonna-happen fantasy. In any case, the arbitration is going forward and Mr. Bernstein's op-ed piece reads like he does not expect the WGAe to emerge unscathed. Note his statement that "…one union is more interested in fighting and even taking over the other." I told you that's what this was all about.

Several times here, I've complained about the term "support the troops," as in the accusation, "You're not supporting the troops." I think that charge is usually a bunch of emotion-loaded hooey…but there are those out there who literally are not supporting our fighting men and women. They include those who have cut back on pay, pensions, health insurance, etc. — but also, it turns out, finance companies looking to foreclose on their homes. I'll quote the first part of this article in the New York Times…

Sgt. John J. Savage III, an Army reservist, was about to climb onto a troop transport plane for a flight to Iraq from Fayetteville, N.C., when his wife called with alarming news: "They're foreclosing on our house."

Sergeant Savage recalled, "There was not a thing I could do; I had to jump on the plane and boil for 22 hours." He had reason to be angry. A longstanding federal law strictly limits the ability of his mortgage company and other lenders to foreclose against active-duty service members.

But Sergeant Savage's experience was not unusual. Though statistics are scarce, court records and interviews with military and civilian lawyers suggest that Americans heading off to war are sometimes facing distracting and demoralizing demands from financial companies trying to collect on obligations that, by law, they cannot enforce.

I'm quoting this because it makes me angry but also because I couldn't help noting: How many comic book characters have there been now named Sgt. Savage or Captain Savage or darn near any first name or title plus the surname of Savage? No disrespect at all to the gentleman in the above piece, but I did have to check the article's byline and make sure it wasn't by Stan Lee.

As I explained in an article that's no longer posted on this site, I am/was a big fan of a chain of almost-defunct barbecue restaurants called Love's. There used to be a lot of them, at least throughout California, and we're now down to just three, one of which is in Jakarta, Indonesia. I like their ribs but not enough to make that trip.

The other two are in Chula Vista and Lakewood, both in my home state, though they seem about as far as Jakarta. So I pretty much have to be content with Love's barbecue sauce, which I order from their website and employ in my expert gourmet cooking…which means I sometimes pour a little on a chicken or beef sandwich. I use the mild, and I should warn you that it's rather sweet. I usually prefer a smokier, less sweet sauce but for some reason, I really like theirs and why am I telling you this? This is not an ad for Love's restaurants, or what remains of them. This is a posting about a little mystery that just occurred in my life.

I recently installed the 2005 edition of Microsoft Streets & Trips, which is a map program, especially handy because it notes hotels, points of interests, restaurants and so forth. Sergio and I are going to an event tomorrow night in the Westwood part of Los Angeles and I thought I'd look up the area, even though I know it well, and select a place to maybe get a bite to eat beforehand. Here's a piece of a screen shot of the map that came up for me…

As you can see, one of the dining establishments they pinpoint on Westwood Boulevard is a "Love's Wood Pit Bar-B-Que," just north of Olympic. This is a shameful lie. I have studied Love's restaurants for years. I also know Westwood very well, having grown up in that area. (The little label that gives the name is right over Westwood Elementary School, which is where I learned to play Dodgeball.) There has never been a Love's on Westwood Boulevard or anywhere close by. There once was one on Pico about two miles away, but that went out of business long ago and is now a Ford dealership. There was also one on Olympic, a mile the other way, but the building has been empty since the Love's in there closed more than five years ago.

Microsoft Streets & Trips…you are so full of it.

The program gives an address and a phone number for the hypothetical Love's on Westwood. I called the number and got the voice mail system for a company that I'm pretty sure has nothing to do with Love's. I cross-checked the address via a search engine and it seems to be that of a large office building…and no, the corporate offices of Love's are not in that building. I thought of that. They're in Diamond Bar and before that, they were in Beverly Hills. Further experimentation shows that if you ask Microsoft Streets & Trips 2005 to map all the Love's restaurants in the nation, it shows you five — the two which still exist, two that closed long ago (at least five years) and the wholly imaginary one. I can understand a map program being way out of date about something…but how does it pinpoint a restaurant that never existed?

Maybe this isn't a big deal to you but for one brief second there, I thought Divine Intervention had occurred. I was looking for a place to eat and cosmic forces had suddenly placed an outlet of my favorite, long-lost restaurant chain in the perfect place. But it was not so. It was just Microsoft Streets & Trips screwing with my emotions. That dirty, lying program.

If anything positive comes out of the Terri Schiavo case, it may be that it's prompting a vast amount of Americans to draw up Living Wills or other documents that will specify what they want done with their bodies when they can no longer decide. I was amused to see my pal Daniel Frank say, "I want tubes; I want machines; I want Definitely Resuscitate orders; I want heroic efforts; I want Superman to make the world spin backwards on its axis and save me in time."

Which is, of course, his right. I have a somewhat different wish. I don't recall exactly what I signed a few years ago, but my Business Manager is getting it out of the safe deposit box and I'm going to make sure it declares the following: That I don't want to be kept "alive" by a biological technicality. If I can't have thoughts and communicate them, it's over, insofar as I'm concerned. Pull the plug, yank the tubes, put me in the largest-size Hefty Bag and leave me out on the curb.

One of the reasons most of us don't want to be kept alive by artificial means or in the much-discussed Persistent Vegetative State is that we don't want to be a burden to our loved ones. Even a level slightly above P.V.S. would horrify me. I once watched a beloved neighbor go so utterly senile that his spouse of 50+ years had to dress him, feed him, carry him to the bathroom, wipe him…and at least five times a day, pick him up off the floor when he fell. Some nights, she was so exhausted that she had to call me to come over and help her, often because he'd slipped off the toilet and was wedged between it and the sink.

For the last year or so of his life, he never uttered one intelligible word or showed the slightest sign of knowing who or where he was. If he'd had a second of awareness, I'm sure he'd have killed himself on the spot, the same way he'd have taken a bullet for his wife. He loved her dearly, and caring for him was occupying her every waking moment, destroying her health…and because of expenses not covered by their medical insurance, driving her towards poverty. When he finally stopped breathing, every single person who knew them said, "Thank God." Sadly, she did not live much longer after that, and I'm sure the main reason was all she'd gone through to take care of him.

When I hear people say that life by any definition must be maintained as long as possible, I think of that couple and disagree. In at least that case, the "pro-life" position would have been for the rest of him to die when his brain did. If his heart had stopped beating a year sooner than it finally did, the woman he loved might have lived another ten.

If you'd rather define your life like my friend Daniel, fine. I can certainly understand that, and you should have it the way you want it. But I wanted to throw one other thought out there…

All the talk about Ms. Schiavo seems to go to the issue of What She Wanted and to the extent that's been reasonably determined, that's what should be done. But your decision as to when you wish your life declared over doesn't have to just be about you. For instance, if I wind up revising my instructions, I'm going to try to put something in there about what's best for my loved ones. If and when they have to decide to discontinue life support, I don't want them thinking only about What Mark Wanted. I'm going to order them to turn me off when I become a threat to their health and their lives. If I can't feel anything, don't worry about making me comfy. Do what's best for the living.

I'll tell them if I ever reach Persistent Vegetative State — and some who read Groo have sensed that may not be long — I won't matter anymore, so discontinue feeding. Or if you prefer, keep feeding me, dress me up as Elvis and sell tickets to people who'll think that's where he's been all these years. If it would make you feel better, have me stuffed and put on display in the foyer. I think I'd make a nice fountain…posed on one foot, with a continuous stream of water trickling out of mouth. Whatever. I just don't want someone obligated to wipe drool from my chin because I can't, or to pick me up every day when I get wedged between the crapper and the bathroom sink. So my Living Will says (or will say) that I want the wires pulled, and not just because that's what I want. I also want my guardians to be able to decide when it's time for them to be rid of me, and to be able to avoid legal problems or even anyone accusing them of murder. I want them to be able to say, "This is what he wanted," even if it's what they also want.

I don't know if Michael Schiavo is an unfairly vilified man or if any of the denunciations of his morals and motives have some truth to them. What I do know is that I'm appointing people I trust and care about to make that decision about me. And should it someday be necessary for them to do that, I don't want anyone else getting involved or even having an opening to express an opinion.

Here's a question from Rick Mohr…

I was just wondering something. Is it just me, or have Jay Leno's monologues become meaner as of late? Calling people stupid and idiots, making fat jokes, and attacking Robert Blake and Michael Jackson in what are to me, very mean spirited jokes, not social commentary. Do you think his involvement in the Jackson mess has made him more cynical?

I don't think it's cynicism so much as a decision, not necessarily incorrect, that it's what works with the viewers. Leno is darn good at monologues and in connecting with his live audience, maybe even better than Mr. Carson. Which is not to say Johnny was not better at any number of other things. One suspects Jay may also be reacting to the criticism of him that he's lost his "edge" as a comedian and that, as host of The Tonight Show, he became too puppy-dog nice.

Some of Leno's Robert Blake material did strike me as unfair, and I said so a few times on this page. Blake may well be guilty but it struck me that an awful lot of people — and not just Leno — leaped too quickly to that position, not because they'd examined the evidence but because it was too irresistible a position for joke writers to assume. At one point, there was something almost tragic about Blake; like, innocent or not, we were starting to see him crack up way beyond what seemed usual for him. I love a lot of what some would call Bad Taste Humor, but there's occasionally a point where I feel like it's picking on someone who's on their way down and can't stand up for themselves. I don't feel that's true of Blake now but for a while there, I did.

In the case of Michael Jackson, he may not be guilty of the crimes alleged in his current trial but he sure seems reponsible for his image as a pedophile, and that's Jay's main point of attack. He's also a very public figure with the means, if necessary, to defend himself.

Back in the Carson era of Tonight, there was a period where Johnny was doing a lot of jokes about the sleaziness of The Gong Show and its producer-host, Chuck Barris. Mr. Barris was a nice, likeable guy if you met him, but he wanted it both ways: He wanted the large sums of cash that were his for creating shows like The Dating Game and The Newlywed Game, but he didn't want the King of Schlock reputation that came with those offerings. At one point, he got very vocal within the industry, and I believe he even authored an article for National Lampoon on his thesis, which was that Johnny Carson was a bully, using his monologues to slander people who couldn't fight back. Barris did not get much sympathy because, first of all, most felt that he had access to the airwaves and to the press, and more than enough loot to hire an attorney if he'd been genuinely slandered. In other words, he could fight back. More to the point, he was to a large extent the architect of his own reputation. A member of his staff I knew once said, "Chuck doesn't know it but he really isn't mad at Johnny for telling those jokes. He's mad because the audience recognizes enough truth in them to laugh."

I don't think comedians are always blameless in what they do to popular images. There have been personal vendettas pursued that way, though they are rare. It is also possible to help spread false news that way and to give rumors more credibility than they deserve. But quite apart from Leno, Michael Jackson has done a superlative job of convincing the world that there's something creepy about him and especially about his interactions with young boys. I might wish that Jay seized a bit less often on the topic but I can't blame him for exploiting it.

The weekend late night Saturday Night Live reruns have begun jumping around from season to season again. Last week, they had one with Charlton Heston from the 1993-1994 season. This weekend, they hop back to the tenth season, which was the one with Billy Crystal, Martin Short, Christopher Guest and (briefly) Harry Shearer. The scheduled episode is from 11/17/84 with guest host Ed Asner. I seem to vaguely recall that Bill Murray was originally announced to topline that episode but that at the last minute, Mr. Asner appeared. The musical guest was The Kinks and the most memorable sketch was the 60 Minutes parody where Shearer did his uncanny replica of Mike Wallace looking into a potential scandal in the area of novelties and party tricks. Martin Short played a nervous lawyer named Nathan Thurm.

The following weekend, the scheduled rerun is Show #4 from 11/8/75 with Candice Bergen. This was the episode a lot of folks around NBC thought was the first real good one — so much so that some of the network execs wanted to sign Ms. Bergen as permanent star of the series. The show included the first "land shark" sketch and a very funny film by Albert Brooks previewing alleged new NBC shows. Also, Andy Kaufman did his "foreign man" character doing bad impressions. It's probably worth TiVoing just for those three segments.

It's getting to be fun to watch those old The Name's the Same episodes on GSN. It's still a lousy game show and I still wince at some of the phony planted questions. (The other night, the panel had to guess that guest star Joan Alexander was going to display a photo of her new baby. Someone obviously told panelist Audrey Meadows to ask, "Is this something a woman would show off proudly if she'd just gotten engaged?" Ho-ho.) But the program's getting steadily more amusing thanks to the presence of hosts Bob Elliott and Ray Goulding.

For years in this country, every city had a radio station with at least one team of disc jockeys — usually the morning men — doing Bob and Ray. Sometimes, they did actual Bob and Ray material, shamelessly burgled. Other times, they just did funny interviews and soap opera parodies…though it's doubtful that all of them put together were half as funny as the genuine articles. I have about thirty hours of real Bob and Ray radio stuff on CD and it's quite brilliant, in large part thanks to a clever writer named Tom Koch. What Mssrs. Elliott and Goulding did seemed so effortless that a lot of people just assumed they ad-libbed it all. Not so. Most of it came from Mr. Koch, whose byline you may also be familiar with from decades of MAD Magazine. Not long ago, a small but overdue book came out about his career and you can purchase it here.

But to get back to Bob and Ray: Ray is no longer with us, sad to say, but I am reminded by Don Brockway that Bob Elliott will be 82 years old tomorrow. Don further reminds me that loads of vintage Bob and Ray material is available at The Official Bob and Ray Website. Moreover, he says, one can send Bob a Happy Birthday e-mail via that domain. I don't want to post the address exactly because that will cause them to receive a lot of Spam so do this: Address your e-mail to "Bob," then put an "@" sign. Then type "bobandray.com" and you'll have it. Don says all mail sent that way will be forwarded to the Birthday Boy.

I've always loved Bob and Ray. I've always thought they were good but I never realized how good. Not until I saw them actually make The Name's the Same entertaining.

Have you noticed that for about the last week or so, no matter what the latest development may be in the Terri Schiavo case, the news stories are usually headlined either,"Judge Denies Request to Reinsert Feeding Tube" or "Terri's Parents Low on Options"? For people who were low on options seven days ago, they sure seem to have found a steady supply.

I may have erred in posting anything here about this sad dispute. It prompted a flood of e-mail, some of it even from people who fully understood my position, which is that I don't fully understand my position. After hearing more about this case than I have about any number of more important issues, I've come hesitantly to a viewpoint which some will think is contradictory but, hey, that's how these things sometimes go.

To some extent, this whole debate has been about process. Terri's parents, the Schindlers, have lost petition after petition, court decision after court decision. They have lost at different levels of government and they have lost before Democratic-appointed judges and Republican-appointed ones. (One of the 11th Circuit Judges who voted against them is William Pryor, who was recently and stubbornly appointed by George W. Bush over fierce Democratic opposition.) Now, our courts are fallible and there should be a multi-level appeals process, especially when a matter of life and death is involved. But our courts also can't work if a perpetually-losing party can keep getting do-overs for all infinity, demanding endless new hearings in new venues, desperately trying to find some judge who'll see it another way. At some point, in the absence of better "new evidence" than the Schindlers seem to have, the appeals process has to end.

So I must be in favor of pulling the plug on Terri, right? Well, no. First off, I don't think it's my decision, nor is it yours. In fact, one of the things that bothers me here is the vast number of people who have injected themselves into a case that should involve the lady's immediate family and the appropriate court…and no one else. Terri Schiavo has not been helped by all these strangers weighing in, since strangers bring with them other issues, unrelated to her actual welfare. They also, as should be obvious by now, bring in a lot of bogus information and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric. What's my vote? I don't think I have a vote. I don't think I should have a vote.

If I did, I'm not sure what I'd do. Against my own logic, something about ending Terri Schiavo's life feels wrong. When those who stand with her parents (including both Bushes) say they believe in compassion and erring on the side of life, they almost convince me. Where they lose me, I guess, is when they try equating this with pure murder and dragging in inadmissible religious arguments. I also don't see them "erring on the side of life" regarding so many other people in this world — many of them, more "alive" than Terri Schiavo will ever be and perhaps a better investment of our limited national compassion. Which is another reason I don't think I should have a vote on Terri's fate. I don't know what it would be. but it would probably be something impractical like, "I vote to feed Terri Schiavo if we don't stop there. Let's pass a law that we feed everyone who's in danger of starving to death."

Three things interest me about this case. One is watching how dysfunctional the public debate has become, littered as it is with grandstand plays, questionable data and people arguing against the positions they press for on non-Terri matters. The most meaningful medical care Ms. Schiavo has received was funded by a large medical malpractice award and by Medicare. Now, we see people who have always opposed large medical malpractice awards and who wish to slash Medicare arguing that everything possible must be done to keep this woman alive.

The second aspect that interests me is the Strange Bedfellows factor. Positions have not divided on a straight Right/Left axis so, for example, you have people who have always loathed Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson now welcoming their support. This kind of thing is always amusing.

Lastly, we have yet another example of folks who attempt to use a situation for political advantage probably achieving the opposite of their goal. Some of the loudest voices in this argument have come from those who want to roll back or eliminate the "right to die." As a result of their efforts, millions of Americans are scurrying to write Living Wills and to declare inarguably to their mates and friends that they want the plug pulled if they ever get anywhere near Terri Schiavo's condition. I'm specifying that I want my breathing terminated if my continued existence ever becomes a topic on Hannity and Colmes. Once a matter of life and death gets to those forums, there's zero chance of a decision that will focus on what's best for me. Just as we long since passed the stage where the Schiavo case is about what's best for that poor woman in Florida.

An article in the New York Times by Brent Staples raises the old question of how much of the credit Stan Lee deserves for the Marvel Superheroes…but doesn't supply much of an answer. Mine, as you may know, is that the characters should be described as co-creations.

That crazed Liberal, William F. Buckley, weighs in on the Terri Schiavo matter.

Michael Palin is sitting on top of the world. [Los Angeles Times, registration needed]

Frank Rich on those who exploit religion to pander to what is really a rather small chunk of the American electorate.

For those of you who are not sick of the Terri Schiavo matter, here's a link to an interesting FAQ which seeks to dismiss some of the myths and misunderstandings of the case.

And here's Andrew Sullivan writing about the matter, but more importantly about the contradictions he sees in the present-day Conservative movement.

Neil Gaiman wrote me last night asking me to explain what's going on with the current rift between the Writers Guild of America, West (hereafter referred to as WGAw) and its Right Coast counterpart (WGAe). That's right, Neil. Give me the impossible assignment. I'm almost afraid to tackle it because the dispute sounds so petty and childish, but it may explain why these affiliated organizations do not achieve more for their members, and why some of us have opted to excuse ourselves from Guild politics. I did my time, thank you, and this is yet another example of why I don't go back.

As briefly as I can tell it: The two Guilds have existed for decades as parallel, largely-united entities. They are closer than sister organizations but not quite Siamese Twins. They negotiate together, they do many things as one…but they have separate leaderships. They also fight a lot. No matter who's running the WGAw, they always seem to be fighting the same battles with WGAe and forming uneasy compacts when the two must link arms in some crusade.

The dividing line, by the way is the Mississippi River. If you're on this side and you write TV or movies, you're under the jurisdiction of the WGAw. If you're on the other side, you're WGAe and proud of it. But of course, some writers are bi-coastal. Some productions go back and forth. And there are many services, especially in the area of screenwriting, which the smaller WGAe is unable to provide…so the WGAw provides them for all. The constitutions of both organizations require a screenwriter living in the east to join the WGAw and specifies that half of those folks' dues will go to WGAw. If I understand my history correctly, this was the practice until some time in the seventies when it stopped.

Why did it stop? No one seems able to explain, but things have been pretty volatile in the WGAw since that approximate time. We've spent a lot of time and energy battling with the Producers…and when we're not battling the Producers, we attack each other. Every so often, someone out here has tired of fighting Management or Ourselves, and they raise the issue of the WGAe allegedly not living up to the agreement. Nothing has ever been resolved or seriously pursued until just recently when the current WGAw board made a major issue of it and things got very nasty. Let's see if I can fairly summarize both sides…

The WGAw contends that the WGAe is waaaay in arrears on paying bucks to the WGAw for services and that a lot of its screenwriter members were long ago supposed to join WGAw and that all this needs to be mopped up. The WGAw maintains that this is all spelled out unambiguously in the similar (but not identical) constitutions of the two organizations.

The WGAe responds that, first of all, the wording ain't that clear — there are questions — and that those parts of the constitution haven't been enforced in 30-some-odd years so why start now? The WGAe is currently involved in an important negotiation regarding newswriters and in an election dispute. They say that even if the WGAw is right (which they aren't conceding), the WGAw has picked the worst possible time to raise these issues and is doing so to harm the WGAe.

The WGAw has replies to all that, but the important thing is that there is an arbitration process, described in both Guild's constitutions, that can bring in a neutral party to play Solomon and carve up the baby. The WGAw invoked the clause that triggers this process and it specifies that the arbitration must commence in 60 days, which in this case means April 10. First order of business is for the two sides to agree on an arbitrator. After some delay and an accusation of stalling tactics, they agreed on a Justice Joseph Grodin…though the WGAe told the WGAw not to contact him until there was further communication. Then there was no further communication.

Worried that the 60 days was being frittered away, WGAw President Daniel Petrie composed a letter over both his signature and that of WGAe President Herb Sargent. Addressed to Justice Grodin, it merely asked if he was available to serve as mediator. Petrie sent it to Sargent and said, in effect, "if you have no objection, I'm going to send this." There was no reply so Petrie sent it. Sargent became furious that it was sent at all, but also that it was sent with his signature since, for one thing, he hadn't written or okayed it. The WGAe therefore withdrew its approval of Grodin as mediator. A new one has been selected and since I haven't heard anything in a week or so, I assume things are on track for the arbitration to begin…but that something will soon arise to get everything off-track again. Betting on WGA discord is like laying money that the Milwaukee Brewers won't be in the World Series.

So what's really going on here? My expert analysis, which is worth about a dime on the open market, is that it all goes to the defensive posture of the WGAe, seeking to maintain its independence. It's a much smaller entity and given the way Show Business has migrated steadily west over the years, it will only get smaller. There are a lot of folks who have suggested that the WGAw go all-out to absorb the WGAe, and the WGAe probably sees all this as laying groundwork for such a takeover. I don't know if that would be better or worse for writers as a whole but I can certainly understand how some WGAe members fear getting lost in a bigger labor organization. The WGAw expends its best efforts on screenwriting and whatever kind of prime-time TV is currently hot. The last 30-or-so years, WGAw members who write game shows or variety shows, to name two categories that don't have big constituencies, have felt that their Guild does not pay enough attention to those areas. It's easy to imagine that the localized concerns of WGAe members could get the shortest kind of shrift if, officially or unofficially, they become a subset of the WGAw. On the other hand, there are those out here who think a merger or takeover would end the squabbling and help writers on both coasts, and that the primary obstacle is that the WGAe's paid staff enjoys high salaries and wants to keep enjoying them.

How this will all play out, I dunno, but I doubt it'll be healthy in the long run. In the short run, it may just be a temporary Cease Fire, which is sometimes all you can hope for in Guild disputes. The expectation seems to be that the arbitrator will work out a compromise that will say neither side is wholly in the wrong. That's kind of what arbitrators do, especially in a case like this.

The WGA, when it works the way it's supposed to, is a grand and vital organization that has made it possible for creative folks to swim with sharks and not get too badly mauled. Even when it doesn't work, it's preferable to no representation at all…and I say that as someone who has written loads of teevee shows with WGA coverage and without. The "without" jobs have been animation projects. Cartoons were once wholly outside the WGA's purview but they're slowly-but-thankfully moving under Guild protection. There's a reason that darn near every single person who has written animation the last thirty years wants that to happen.

Still, the WGAw is too often a dysfunctional organization that splinters along a wide array of party lines — haves versus have-nots, militants versus statesmen, young versus old, hyphenates (writer-directors or writer-producers) versus full-time writers, etc. It's an enormously democratic institution but at times, letting everyone have their say can be quite immobilizing. Most committees are "open," meaning that any members can be on them, and I once chaired what I think was the largest Guild committee ever. It proved rather tidily that when you get enough opinionated people in a room and they all get to speak and vote, nothing can ever get done. As more than one WGA member has commented, "Management doesn't have to try and divide us. We do a fine job of that, ourselves." The current WGAw/WGAe dust-up is yet another chapter and the end of the book is nowhere in sight.

I dunno the release date yet but Warner Home Video is preparing DVD sets of the first seasons of The Huckleberry Hound Show from 1959 and The Yogi Bear Show from 1961. That is to say, one set of Huck, one set of Yogi. These are some of my all-time favorite cartoons, especially due to the superior vocal performances of Daws Butler, but also because the timing and gags are often quite wonderful. So I was delighted that they asked me to appear for an interview that will be part of a documentary for the Yogi set. Also appearing in supplementary material on one or both will be Earl Kress, Nancy Cartwright, Charlie Adler, Corey Burton and Tom Kenny, plus some other folks. That's what I did today: Drove through pouring rain to be videotaped for this project.

(Confidential to Fred Hembeck: Tom "Spongebob Squarepants" Kenny told me to tell the world that your review of the songs he co-authored for the Spongebob movie and/or CD — the review is somewhere on this archived page — was uncanny in that you nailed all the "in" references. Nice job, Hembeck.)

I have another public appeal to animation buffs here. As you might just recall, The Huckleberry Hound Show and The Yogi Bear Show once featured little segments (they call them "interstitials") of Huck and Yogi and everyone before, between and after the cartoons. They were discarded later when the cartoons were repackaged a dozen different ways for syndication…but when they were part of these half-hour shows, these short segments were part of the experience.

Warner Home Video would like to include as many of these bridges as possible on their forthcoming DVD sets of those programs. Problem: They can't find all the interstitials. Even as I blog, grown men are combing through warehouses for this footage which hasn't been broadcast in umpteen years. They've found a number of them…and in a few cases, they've located the audio but not the video of one, or the video but not the audio. Anyway, this is a real longshot but does anyone reading this have any old 16mm prints or VHS tapes of whole episodes of The Yogi Bear Show with the interstititials? They've located all or most from ol' Huck's show but some of the Yogi spots are missing in whole or part. Even if you just have a bad quality videotape, the audio may be usable to dub over footage that is lacking a soundtrack. If you have anything of this sort, please drop me a line and I'll forward it on to the appropriate folks…but hurry. There isn't much time before the DVDs have to be finalized. Thanks — and if you're on an animation discussion board, please copy this paragraph and the one before and post it, or just direct people to this item.