As you might have heard — and as I only heard after writing the preceding — ABC's Standards and Practices folks have vetoed the material that Robin Williams wanted to do at tonight's statue-presenting festival. Here's an article about it, and here's an e-mail from Pat O'Neill…

What do you think the chances are that ABC/Disney's real objections to the song Robin Williams was planning for his gig as presenter of the animation Oscar was that too many of the references were to characters they own and which represent significant marketing revenue…revenue they wouldn't want tainted in any way, including a comedic one? Or am I just a skeptic who looks for hypocrisy everywhere these days?

Well, it's not like there isn't a lot to find. In this case though, I would guess the concern at ABC goes beyond the sanctity of Mickey Mouse. The mindset there is probably that they'd love the Oscars to become an orgy of scandalous remarks and wardrobe malfunctions, just so long as the network could effectively say, "It wasn't our fault. We took all reasonable precautions." The whole Janet Jackson incident did a lot to shake up the television industry, not because anyone was shocked at the quick flash of a breast but because they felt CBS was held unduly and excessively responsible.

There's a little game that is sometimes played at TV networks where you have the Programming Department pressing for more salacious, exploitable content…but the Standards and Practices folks are telling you to tone it down. As a writer or producer, you find yourself trapped in the middle and at first, you want to tell them, "Hey…you guys hammer it out and let me know what the decision is." But what you eventually come to realize is that they want it both ways. They want the steamy stuff because it gets ratings but they also want to be able to say they acted responsibly, cut out the more egregious offenses, etc. A lot of the success stories in television are a matter of being able to navigate that contradiction and satisfy the two opposing concerns at the same time. The networks aren't used to being actually slapped if someone doesn't like something that gets on the airwaves.

A certain amount of the Oscar telecast is simply outside ABC's control. If the Best Supporting Actress gets up there and says George W. Bush should be impeached, it will upset a certain portion of America but they won't be mad at the network; won't even be able to say ABC could have prevented that. The piece Robin Williams was planning to do was prepared material, written in advance. Since it was a piece of music, it would have to be rehearsed before the telecast, which would therefore put ABC on the spot. They couldn't say, "We didn't know what he was going to do" and of course, they couldn't bleep a two-minute bit that had come as no surprise. So they've prohibited it, just out of fear and probably because it's good p.r. with a faction they figure could give them trouble. If Mr. Williams comes out tonight and does something equally provocative as a seeming ad-lib, ABC will be less responsible for it than if they'd allowed the scripted bit.

By the way: In that article, you'll note that one of the Standards and Practices folks at ABC who covers the Oscars is a lady named Susan Futterman. I had a long series of battles with Ms. Futterman (or "Futterperson," as everyone but me called her) when I was writing shows for ABC. At one point, she was in charge of a bunch of Saturday morning shows (one of which I story-edited) and one prime-time show (which I was also writing). So we'd get together several times a week and argue, and in a few cases, I traded off cutting something on one show if she'd allow something else on the other. Most of the Standards and Practices folks with whom I dealt in television came to the post with an attitude of, "Hey, don't blame me if the rules are silly. I'm just in charge of enforcing them." Futterman was the only one I encountered who seemed to fervently believe in the rules and in saving America from her concepts of subversion. Others could be talked out of this or that if you gave them a credible argument which they could repeat to their superiors to explain why they'd let the questionable joke in. Susan never seemed to care what her bosses said. She had her personal sense of morality and was determined to apply it.

At one point in the eighties, a package of classic Warner Brothers cartoons passed from CBS to ABC. CBS had chopped them up a lot, omitting much material that now airs routinely on Cartoon Network and Boomerang without turning America's children into werewolves. When ABC got them back then, they cut everything CBS had cut, plus a lot that CBS had deemed acceptable. That was Futterman at work. She certainly could have justified airing the same prints CBS had been running for years, but she felt some of what the other network had broadcast was unacceptable and that a show on ABC had to conform to her views. I thought she was mistaken about that, and about a lot of the things she cut in other shows, but I had a strange respect for her efforts. At times in show business, it's almost refreshing to see someone making the wrong decision out of principle, as opposed to the right one out of expediency. I haven't dealt with her in decades but I doubt she cares much about the health of Disney licensing. Unless she's changed a lot, she's making her determinations — right, wrong and maddeningly inconsistent — because she really believes something does not belong on network television.

Cruising the blogs, the Oscar predictions seem to be less about what will win than about whether Chris Rock will outrage some section of America. I suspect the answer is yes, not because anything he'll say will be that harsh but because a certain segment of America now actively looks for ways to be outraged and to define Hollywood as some aberrant, elitist cult. Outrage can be a very useful political tool.

A few months ago, it looked like these people were hoping/expecting that Fahrenheit 9/11 would be nominated all over the place while The Passion of the Christ would get shut out. That would have enabled them to raise funds on the premise that "Hollywood" (whoever that is) hates religion but loves America-bashing. Never mind that a lot of very religious people hated the Mel Gibson film or that a lot of good citizens thought the Michael Moore documentary was highly patriotic. It still would have been a good, saleable bit of red state/blue state division, and the whole point of hyped outrage is to make one group of Americans hate another.

Unfortunately, the Academy voters screwed up that marketing plan by not nominating either film. I got a few feeble e-mails from folks trying to sell me on the concept that the absence of a Best Picture nomination for The Passion of the Christ proves that the elitists out here hate religion or Christians or traditional values or something of the sort…but the campaign was a half-hearted exercise. I only bothered to write back to one guy and point out that, first of all, those who cast ballots do not consult Barbra Streisand or one another and come up with one, simple reason for their votes. That presumption is one of the phoniest things about the Oscars…the post-vote simple reason for each win. Tomorrow, we'll hear that the voters picked Clint Eastwood for Best Director because they admired his choice of a non-commercial script…or maybe we'll hear that they went for Martin Scorsese in that category because they felt he's been overlooked for too long. They'll also talk like it was some sort of unanimous viewpoint even though for all we know, the winner may have only won by one vote.

There can be a hundred different motives why ballots go one way or another, just as everyone who voted for John Kerry didn't all have one particular message in mind. A lot of folks probably thought the Mel Gibson film was too violent to honor…or in some cases, even to see. Others may have simply felt not that it was something to be condemned but that it was only the sixth best movie of the year. Whatever the mindsets, it lost its potency as a topic to polarize Americans, helped on by the failure of the Academy to nominate Fahrenheit 9/11, and Mel Gibson's statements of fellowship with Michael Moore. So those who wish to generate outrage tonight are instead going to have to pick through Chris Rock's remarks, and also pray that some winner will say something controversial. They'll probably find what they need.

Maybe it'll be early in the show when Rock needs to prove that just because it's the Oscars and he's in a tux, he's still Chris Rock. Maybe it'll be later when we get some sort of line about how if the show runs any longer, they'll have to get Clint Eastwood up there to put it out of its misery. But the Academy Awards are of no use to these people unless they find some reason to act shocked and to condemn some seemingly-expressed value…so they will. Or, at least, they'll try.

Here we see some promo art for Calvin and the Colonel, the 1961-1962 prime-time animated series. Yesterday afternoon, I went to an A.S.I.F.A. screening of three episodes of the largely-forgotten cartoon show, followed by a panel with some of the folks who worked on it. Like a lot of things from my childhood, it was fun to revisit but I wouldn't want to live there, if you follow me. This was not that great a show, and it's easy to see why it never caught on. First off, it was all talk, no action. Devotees of full animation have often insulted TV animation by calling it "illustrated radio" but Calvin and the Colonel really was. Moreover, the characters weren't all that appealing, falling uncomfortably between between good guys you enjoy seeing win and bad guys you enjoy seeing lose, plus there was a laugh track that makes you want to get up and smack somebody.

There were some clever moments and a jazzy theme song but, like I said, it's not surprising that it didn't make it.

One correction: Earlier, I accidentally wrote that Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll had created Calvin and the Colonel, when I knew full well that the show was created with them in mind by producer-writers Bob Mosher and Joe Connelly. Several folks wrote in so I corrected the record…and then yesterday, watching those episodes, I saw the title card: "Created by Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll." So even though I was wrong the first time, I was right the first time…or something like that.

In 2002, the publishing giant known as TwoMorrows Books brought you the acclaimed (by not only them but me, as well) collection, Comic Books and Other Necessities of Life, a must-have paperback full of articles by Yours Truly. In it, I tackled such vital issues of the day as my old comic book club, The Comics Code, crooked model kits and Carl Barks.

In 2003, TwoMorrows yielded to popular demand and released a second collection of my columns. We called this one Wertham Was Right and it included deathless articles about Charles Schulz, Bob Kane, The Fox and the Crow, and why Wertham was and wasn't right.

Then, in 2004, TwoMorrows bowed to the inevitable and brought forth what was surely the third of these volumes, Superheroes In My Pants, which featured the lowdown on unfinanced entrepreneurs, cheap comic book fans, bad convention panels and Julius Schwartz. Another bookshelf essential.

And now, in 2005, I am pleased to announce…no book. Not this year. To have the next collection out for this year's Comic-Con International in San Diego, I'd have to be prepping and editing it about now, and I'm swamped with other work. So I've decided to delay Volume 4 in the series until 2006, and I thought I'd post this to answer the questions I'm getting about when it'll be out, what it will be called and what will be in it. Answers: Next year, I dunno and I dunno — in that order. But I thank you all for your inquiries and interest…and we will get around to more.

June Foray is not only the first lady of cartoon voicing. She's also the author of Perverse, Adverse and Rottenverse — a collection of humorous essays that are no less funny than all those Stan Freberg records and Jay Ward cartoons that featured her. You can order it from BearManor Media by clicking here. Or if you live in Southern California, there's a better way. Wednesday evening, March 9, June will be signing said book at the Barnes & Noble in The Grove, the upscale shopping center affixed to the Farmers Market. She'll be there at 7:30 and so will a lot of her friends and fans. Show up, meet June and get her to sign your copy.

According to this article, a town hall meeting was planned for George W. Bush's trip to Germany but it has been cancelled. The reason? Bush's crew was insisting that the questions be approved in advance so that no one would ask anything our Chief Exec did not want to answer…but the German reps insisted that an unscripted event had to really be unscripted.

If this were any other American president, I'd be skeptical of a report like this. But I recently watched a little of one of Bush's open forums in this country on C-Span, and the toughest question was along the lines of, "How do you manage to achieve such greatness?"

One of the most sacred principles of democracy is that elected officials are answerable to The People, and have to be prepared to answer the hard questions. Good to know this concept is alive and well…in Germany.

Frank Rich discusses how the Oscars are being sold this year on the promise of a little indecency.

I wish I had more details on his life and death. All I know is that Bill Yoshida, the longtime comic book letterer, passed away last week. He began lettering comics in the late sixties and became the main letterer for Archie Comics around 1980. Occasionally credited as "Bill Yosh" or "Saburo Yoshida," his handiwork had a lot to do with the look and feel of that company's books ever since, appearing on almost every cover and something like 90% of the interior stories, plus the Archie newspaper strip. He was said to be dedicated and dependable, which you'd have to be in order to letter that many comic books over the years.

An interesting article over at Jim Hill Media. Jim Hill himself explains that the Disney-MGM Studio theme park down in Florida may be in for a very expensive name change later this year.

Nikki Finke on what Chris Rock may or may not do on Oscar Night.

Well, maybe. This afternoon, my friend Tracy Abbott sent me this link to a website put up by the State Controller of California. It's a database of unclaimed property listings…meaning that they have money or other assets for people but don't know where to send it. They have nothing for me but there's some money for a deceased uncle of mine, and I think I qualify to receive it.

I got hooked and spent several hours plugging in the names of every friend I could think of. I probably found about $35,000 worth of unclaimed property for people I know, and I duly alerted them…and now I'm alerting you. I think this pretty much applies to folks who live in California…though I did notice $800 due to a friend of my mother's who moved to New York twenty years ago. The website tells you what you have to do to collect if you think a given listing is you. Happy hunting.

Mary Wallace informs me that The Today Show will be running a feature on the 100th birthday celebration for Charles Lane. The segment, prepped by correspondent Bob Dotson will air either tomorrow morning or Friday, and it will be repeated thereafter on MSNBC. Included will be footage from the party, much of which will also be seen in an upcoming documentary on the man. I'm setting my TiVo.

Just noticed this nice report by Dave Sikula on the "Art of the Cover" panel I moderated at WonderCon.

I misunderstood the identity of my benefactor. The gift of a copy of the Gerry Jones book, Men of Tomorrow, was not from Jim Henley, which is the name of a fellow who writes me often here. It was from Jim Hanley, who operates Jim Hanley's Universe, which consists of two of the best comic shops in New York. He arranged for the book to be handed to me by Rory D. Root, who sells an equally fine array of goodies at Comic Relief in Berkeley, California. Any of these stores would be a dandy place to buy a copy of this volume…or anything else.

One of the many issues I've flogged over the years (in articles like this one) is that it's ridiculous to state that the Academy Awards have an audience of a billion viewers. The number isn't even close to that. It may not even be close to a quarter of that.

In a piece in the current issue of The New Yorker, Daniel Rodosh says all the same things I've been saying about this.

By the way: I've decided not to Live Oscar Blog this year…but my friend Gary Sassaman will be doing so over on his page. Tune in and see what Gary has to say.