Michael Kinsley [Washington Post, registration usually required] talks to us about "values" and how meaningless that word is becoming. Personally, I think a lot of folks like it because it's so vague, it can mean almost anything and make whatever it is sound noble.

Here's a hot new invention: The TV B-Gone. It's a small device you put on your keychain and when you press a button on it, it turns off every television set in the room.

Almost immediately, someone came up with — and is now selling on eBay — the TV B-Gone Scrambler Device, which prevents the TV B-Gone from working.

And you just know someone is now working on a device to block the scrambler, while some visionary is starting on a device to scramble the blocker that blocks the scrambler. This is known as Progress.

Folks who own 'em aren't happy about recent developments. Go read.

As you probably heard, there was a brawl at the Pistons-Pacers game a week ago — one that started when a cup of water or beer (accounts vary) was hurled from the stands and struck player Ron Artest. A man named John Green has been mentioned as the hurler, though I have not heard of him being formally charged with anything.

Immediately following the incident, a number of sports columnists and actual human beings began declaring Green guilty not only of throwing the cup but of being a very stupid individual. At first, I though they were leaping unfairly to their conclusions but then I saw Green sit, with his lawyer next to him, for a live interview with Larry King. The whole transcript is here and I'll quote the part I found most amazing…

KING: What do you make of the prosecutor who says that you were the fan who threw the cup that led to this thing?

SHAWN PATRICK SMITH, ATTORNEY FOR JOHN GREEN: Larry, I'm going to have to field that question.

KING: All right, Shawn, go ahead.

SMITH: The prosecutor has made a lot of statements about this case. I've talked to the police about it. We're not going to comment on the cup and who threw the cup. The video — it's pretty clear the cup comes from the direction where John is. The problem is not the cup. If you take yourself out of viewing this thing and starting with the cup and really look at it clearly with the way it should be looked at is that these players are out of control and things are happening, then you'll understand where we're coming from.

KING: Yes, but if John says he didn't throw the cup, why can't you answer that he didn't? Because while the players shouldn't go into the stands, a fan shouldn't throw a cup at a player, either.

SMITH: You know, I agree with that. I agree with that on a regular level. But as a lawyer, you know, I need to tell you how I feel. And I'm not going to let John sit here and comment on whether or not he threw the cup or if he knows who threw the cup or anything like that. But I can tell you that after the investigation's done we'll be answering all the charges fully and things will be fleshed out and we'll deal with them.

In other words: Yeah, he threw the cup. If he didn't, he'd say he didn't throw the cup. In fact, if he threw the cup and there was any chance that couldn't be proved, he'd say he didn't throw the cup. No attorney advises an innocent man to not assert his innocence.

Why did Green and his lawyer go on this show? How did they think it would help his situation? I mean, they must have known he'd be asked, "Did you throw the cup?" — a question so obvious, even Larry King couldn't avoid putting it to him. If he didn't toss it or thought he could get away with denying it, then it would make sense for him to go on and declare his innocence. He could try to drum up support…perhaps rally public opinion on his side and thereby protect his good name and put pressure on the prosecutors not to indict.

So exactly how was he accomplishing anything — except maybe making it easier for those prosecutors — by appearing on CNN and refusing to address the charge? At one point, he seemed to be trying to sell the concept that he played peacemaker, trying to break up the fisticuffs. This might be a nice "spin," but it's pretty much negated if the spinner is simultaneously confessing to having started the whole mess. He also seemed to be trying to advance the idea that even if he did throw the cup, everyone's condemnations should be directed at the player who charged into the stands. Yeah, I suppose some might accept that the player was more culpable…but no one's going to buy the idea that the cup-hurler didn't commit a foolish and dangerous act. Elsewhere in the conversation, the lawyer says the people of Chicago are "behind John" and that he's receiving unbelieveable support. Well, if he didn't throw the cup, that would make sense but Green's non-denial pretty much shoots that down. I somehow doubt people are going to rally around the premise that it's okay to throw a cup of liquid at a professional athlete and that the thrower shouldn't be dragged off to the slammer.

For the record, I did not throw that cup and I have no problem with denying it and pointing out that I was thousands of miles away at the time. But if I had been stupid enough to throw a cup of liquid at a basketball player, I would have been smart enough to not go on TV and decline to deny it. The sports writers who are describing John Green as an idiot are being too kind.

And here we have Frank Rich, who I seem to link to every week. This time out, he's talking about the ginned-up controversy about that segment on Monday Night Football. The modus operandi of the protesters is that they spot something on TV they think they can hype into an object of protest. And even though no one objected when the "offending" material was originally broadcast, a few days later it looks like a groundswell of outrage that demands satisfaction. Someone's gotta stop these people.

I rarely link to articles over on Salon since reading them requires either being a subscriber (which I am but you might not be) or watching some commercials. If you don't mind one or the other, this article by Joe Conason is a pretty good summary of some of the economic problems we may be in for due to four more years of George W. Bush. The brief summary is that tax burdens will be shifted from wealthy folks who make most of their money via investments to poor and middle-class people who hold more conventional jobs; that folks in so-called "blue" states will pay more than folks in so-called "red states;" and that the plans to privatize Social Security could amount to an incalculable disaster.

Last year at this time, we were reporting that DirecTV, the system via which some of us receive our satellite television programming, was about to drop Trio. This is the eclectic cable channel that runs old episodes of Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In, Late Night With David Letterman and many intriguing specials and shows, as well as occasional airings of a "lost" TV series like Cop Rock or The Ernie Kovacs Show. At the last minute, a deal was struck to keep Trio on the satellite, which was fortunate for us but also fortunate for Trio. Trio has never been on a lot of local cable line-ups and was getting more than half of its viewers via DirecTV.

Well, it's happening again: DirecTV has announced that they're dropping Trio, effective at the end of this year. A friend in the business thinks there will be no reprieve this time, and doubts that Trio will survive the massive loss of viewers. NBC Uni (as the parent company is now called) has stated that they're nearing a decision to shut the thing down and this looks like the moment. I'll be sad to see it go. It ran some odd things but that's good. I'm still amazed that with so many channels to choose from, there are still hours when there's nothing on I want to watch, and I wish we had more diversity in the programming.

This morning, I watched a documentary on Trio entitled Final Cut: The Making of "Heaven's Gate" and the Unmaking of a Studio. It is, of course, the tale of how in 1980, writer-director Michael Cimino made a movie that just about bankrupted United Artists. Based on the book by Stephen Bach (one of the U.A. execs fired as a result), it presents a fascinating, albeit one-sided view of the situation. Mr. Cimino declined to be interviewed, which is of course his right but also a shame, in a way. We've heard about how he was a megalomaniac who wanted to make his movie his way and didn't care who or what got trampled under to achieve this. It would be nice to hear the other side of story, assuming there is one.

It was a pretty good documentary and I was going to recommend it to you all. Alas, I see that its next Trio airing is on 12/31, and then it's supposed to rerun often during January of 2005. By then, the channel will probably be off the satellite…and possibly off the air, altogether.

Dan Rather has become such a quirky relic that it's easy to forget he was once a pretty good newsman. During the Nixon Administration, he was the guy who asked the blunt, cut-through-the-spin question…the kind that few have put to any president in a long time. I think all chief execs, including the ones I like, should have a few of those interrogators lurking in the Press Corps. It's sad that one of the effects of the recent election is that Bush seems to feel he has a mandate to not only do what he wants but not to have to answer questions from reporters about any of it.

It's also easy to forget why the Nixon White House put Rather on its enemy list and accused him of Liberal Bias. It was largely because Rather was reporting things that they were denying but which turned out to be accurate. Rather was way too serious for his own good and he always seemed to project this snotty attitude that all three branches of government were answerable to CBS News. But he was also a good reporter and a working example that the role of the press is not to just accept dictation from those in power — or even their opponents — but to dig, question, demand proof and to even, at times, decide the facts of an issue. Today, what too often passes for "investigative reporting" is being a conduit for leaks that frequently turn out not to be true. (And by the way, it's amazing how little it has harmed some careers to pass that stuff off as legitimate news.)

Rather was named to his post on the CBS Evening News in part because Conservatives were lobbying against this, and CBS wanted to not be seen as yielding to their pressure. Rather's critics were furious when he got the job anyway but they should have celebrated. By giving him Walter Cronkite's desk, CBS turned a dangerous reporter into a usually-safe anchorperson. It also helped contribute to the growing irrelevance of the evening network newscasts. As the world of communications has changed, Rather has steadfastly adhered to the old school of broadcasting, thereby putting his show out of touch with much of America. The cold, clipped delivery and bizarre folksy expressions have also contributed to this.

The interesting thing to me is that when Rather steps down, he'll have held the CBS anchor chair for 24 years, which is five longer than Cronkite…and yet, no one seems to care all that much who replaces Dan. When it was Uncle Walter stepping down, it was a matter of national concern as to who'd be his successor. The post was that important. That so little attention will go to the question of who'll get it now is a pretty good sign of how much it's been devalued. And while a lot of that is not Rather's fault — the communications industry changing and all — some of it is. He stuck around long past his usefulness…long enough to downgrade the job and make it an easy one to fill. I'm thinking Tom Arnold…maybe Carrot Top. Looks like Ozzy Ozbourne's going to have some free time…

How much would you bid for Ringo Starr's stapler? Meryl Streep's? Donald Trump's? How about Florence Henderson's stapler? Well, here's your chance. What are you waiting for?

As predicted here — and I'm not bragging 'cause this was an easy one — the Writers Guild has just overwhelmingly voted to accept the newly-proposed contract. Here are the details of the vote.

I still think this was a crummy contract but I understand why it passed. Very few members spoke up against it and those who did offered no real "Plan B." In a sense, it was like a friend of mine who thinks Bush has completely bungled the Iraq War. The friend voted for him anyway, because he was unconvinced that Kerry had a better — or, at least, markedly different — idea of what to do. I don't like this thinking, either with the presidency or the WGA, but I can certainly understand it.

The Screen Actors Guild is the next major Hollywood union that will have to negotiate a new contract and try to improve DVD revenues. They don't stand much of a chance. What keeps happening in these deals is that Union A settles for no increase but they get some sort of language that suggest that if Union B gets an increase, it will apply to Union A. Then Union A goes to its members and says, to save face and make it sound like a possible gain, "We've locked ourselves into whatever raise they get." But that's not really how it works. What actually happens in this situation is that Union A gets zero and, in the process, locks Union B into the same deal. The Directors Guild settlement undermined the Writers Guild's negotiating position and now the Writers Guild has done the same to the actors.

The good news is that we may have seen the last of the big Hollywood strikes and the bad news is that we may have seen the last of the big Hollywood strikes. I know some people think everyone in show business is overpaid but lately, the weakness of the unions has caused more and more people in the bottom-level jobs to lose ground (and, too often, health insurance) and for that money to go to the folks in the Michael Eisner jobs. At some point, this trend will have to change…but it's going to get worse before it gets better.

We recently wrote here about the Tom and Jerry cartoon series — not the cat-and-mouse but the earlier one about a short guy and a tall guy. We forgot to mention how available their cartoons are if you want to cruise by the cheapo DVD displays at some department stores. I generally find that most of what they put on those cheap videos of public domain material is unwatchable, ninth-generation prints. I once bought a VHS of the p.d. Laurel and Hardy feature, The Flying Deuces, that was so fuzzy, you could barely tell Stan from Ollie. But there are exceptions. Someone went to the trouble of digitizing nine cartoons of the original Tom and Jerry, and they're available on decent-quality DVDs that routinely sell for an entire dollar.  David McLallen found one at a Target store that was put out by Genius Entertainment, whose website is, at this moment, screwed up and not working right. I found a different one at a 99-Cent Only store — a saving of one cent! — which also includes a ten-minute phone card. Even without the phone card, it's a bargain. So if you're like me and you usually bypass cheap video, this is one time you might want to make an exception.

Jonathan Franzen on growing up with Charlie Brown. Not the best piece of this nature that you'll ever read but worth a click.

Somewhere on this page, you'll find a wise and perceptive review of this book.