Here's an excellent piece by Fred Kaplan on the latest terrorist alert.

I posted the previous message before I read this piece by David Boaz [L.A. Times registration required, I think]. It's a Libertarian screed but I agree with most of it. You'll agree with at least half.

I have no real guess as to who'll win the presidential election in November. It feels like Kerry to me but I can recall times when it felt like Dukakis or Gore…so I don't know. I do think that the undecideds will decide based largely on events that have not yet occurred, and I don't necessarily mean another 9/11-style terrorist attack. One suspects the Bush side will start claiming that they've expertly and courageously foiled many such attacks and that if someone like John Kerry had been in the White House, those disasters would surely have happened and thousands would now be dead. I also have a hunch that the Kerry side (or maybe just the anti-Bush side, which is not exactly the same thing) is going to start insinuating that Bush is coming apart in various ways. Some of you may have glimpsed the story that was posted on a less-than-reputable "news" site that Bush is on medication to cope with severe depression. I don't believe that's true but I do believe that by the end of October, both sides will openly be spreading much worse about the other.

At times, I think the best thing is just to, as George Carlin and the Loew's Theater Chain put it, enjoy the show. Me, I love the backflips. Not that long ago, back when Clinton ran against Dole or the previous Bush, war hero versus draft-dodger was No Contest for some people. The military records of the candidates were all you needed to separate Great Man from Worthless Scum…or so said various Conservative pundits and pals. Now, all those same folks are swimming feverishly in the opposite direction, and also pretending they never said what they once said about Balanced Budgets. At the same time, an awful lot of Democrats who don't even know what Stem-Cell Research is have suddenly decided it's the most important issue in the world. After all, it may be able to cure diseases…like rising Bush numbers.

I'm skeptical about everyone's sincerity on these issues, just as I'm skeptical when Bush claims he wouldn't have done anything different with Iraq if he'd had better intelligence, or when Kerry talks about Faith. In Kerry's acceptance speech, he had a good line about…well, here's the quote: "For four years, we've heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without actions taken are just slogans. Values are not just words." I agree with that but I'm not sure it applies any more to Republicans than it does to Democrats. It could certainly apply to Kerry's attempts to convince "swing" moderates that he's a deeply religious guy and therefore shares their sense of the world. I don't know that he is or isn't, but I've never heard a politician anywhere talk about Faith and God and not felt that the words were coming from a speechwriter, as opposed to the speaker's heart. I also think folks in both parties have salivated over a lot of candidates who said the "right" thing in speeches and then either never took the promised actions or actually worked in the opposite direction.

And what's with this new contest to be crowned King of Optimism? Both candidates are claiming to be the more optimistic, which is silly enough. But one has his people raising the Terror Alert and warning that buildings will soon be crumbling while the other tells us how badly everything's going on all fronts. I hate to think what these guys would say if the focus groups told them voters appreciate Pessimism.

The word "cynicism" gets thrown around a lot in politics, especially when you point out that most of the names on our ballots are folks who are mediocre, at best. I don't believe that anyone really, deep down, thinks Bush and Kerry are great leaders…and I think what would be cynical would be to believe these men are the best we can do. Deep in my gut, I keep thinking that someday, some candidate will come along who will transcend all the finance deals and politician-marketing, and actually stand for the betterment of us all. That's real Optimism on my part, almost to the point of Blind Stupidity.

Since that's not going to happen this year, if ever, we might as well sit back, relax and, like I said, enjoy the show. I'll get the Raisinets if you'll get the popcorn.

One of the most prolific comic book artists of all time is also one of the best and one of the nicest men. So I have to call your attention to an interview over at Adelaide Comics and Books with Mr. Jim Mooney.

Every year, they do a one-night-only musical up at the Hollywood Bowl. Big stars. Minimal sets. And minimal rehearsal. I'm not at all sure how I feel about stripped-down, hastily-prepped musicals. On the one hand, you do get to see shows that might otherwise never be performed, and you get to see all-star casts that could never be assembled for a long run. On the other hand, you often feel like you're watching the first preview of a show that will get even better with more performances…only there aren't going to be enough (or even any more) performances. Last year, they did My Fair Lady with John Lithgow as Henry Higgins. As I wrote here, the only thing that was missing was that the show needed to be done for more than the one night. Performers grow into a role and a company learns to work together and to enrich one anothers' performances. This is why shows have outta-town tryouts and preview performances.

Last evening, the Bowl offered this year's underprepared musical…Mame, with Michele Lee in the title role. Supporting her were Christine Ebersole (as Vera Charles, the role Bea Arthur made famous), John Schneider, Allyce Beasley, Fred Willard, Cliff Bemis, Edie McClurg, Alan Thicke and a lot of other very talented folks, all backed by the wonderful Hollywood Bowl orchestra. A number of things went wrong. As I mentioned when I was there a month ago, there's a new, very expensive and visually-impressive bandshell adorning the Hollywood Bowl. Looks great but the acoustics in the place are not (yet) as wonderful as they used to be. A friend who arranges for the orchestra there told me that the crew may not have mastered the intricacies of the new configuration and that work needs to be done on the sound system. I'll say. Last night, a number of body microphones didn't seem to be functioning properly, either.

And of course, there were missed cues and flubbed lines. At one point, the actor playing Mame's houseboy announced a phone call and then the phone rang. It was one of those moments when the actors on stage have to just stand there and, like the audience, laugh at the obvious mistake. Fred Willard then got the biggest laugh of the night by saying, "Let me talk on that amazing phone."

But the main thing that went wrong for me, I guess, was that I don't think much of Mame, period. The tunes by Jerry Herman are great (Mr. Herman was there and came out at the end for a huge, loving ovation) but the book, with which I was not familiar, struck me as extremely uninteresting. The life of the free-spirited Mame Dennis was fun and logically illogical in the play, Auntie Mame. Chopped down to accommodate songs, it seemed full of arbitrary twists and turns. She gets married abruptly, then abruptly widowed, then she has an abrupt falling-out with her nephew, and so on. There was a real feeling of "Let's get all this pointless plot stuff over so we can get to the next great song." I'm sure this would not be the case — or as much the case — if the cast had a few more weeks or even days of rehearsal…but last night, the weaknesses in the book showed and really dragged things down. Some of that may have been the audio problems. Carolyn and I didn't have bad seats but we still missed a lot of dialogue that might have made things go smoother. (Yet another problem: The Bowl stage was just too big for this show. A lot of folks had to run to make their entrances.)

Michele Lee is a wonderful actress and I thought she was very well cast as the flamboyant aunt. She seemed to be having a little vocal problem in Act One but rebounded nicely in Act Two. As she and Christine Ebersole were almost nailing "Bosom Buddies," I found myself thinking, "Gee, I'd like to see what she'd do in a real, fully-rehearsed production of this," and then I caught myself and thought, "No, I'd like to see her in a better show than this." I would also love to see Allyce Beasley in just about anything. Perhaps because her role of Agnes Gooch called for her to be unpolished and clumsy, she fared better than anyone and stole the proceedings.

In the end, it brings me back to that conundrum: Is a flawed, could-be-better performance by a great cast better than no performance at all? At times, the show is so wonderful that the answer is a resounding yes. I don't think I feel that way about Mame.

One of the high points of the Comic-Con International for many folks (and I'm among them) was the Saturday afternoon tribute to the First Lady of Cartoon Voice Work, June Foray. She was genuinely thrilled that so many of you packed the room, and I gather that most of you were thrilled to be able to hear and applaud her. I'm also wondering if any of you taped her, because I'd like to give her a copy of the panel and I don't seem to have one. If you recorded it, please drop me a note. For that matter, if you recorded any of the panels I hosted and recorded even a portion of them, drop me a note. You will have my eternal gratitude. These days, that and $2.69 will get you a gallon of Super Unleaded at the Union 76 station up on Beverly.

A few weeks ago here, I recommended that you catch the interview that Jon Stewart did with Wolf Blitzer on The Daily Show and promised to alert you if and when they posted it on the Comedy Central website. Well, they have. At the moment, it's reachable on this page. Actually, what they posted is a five-minute excerpt but it'll give you the essence of what was said…and a pretty good idea of why (according to this article) Ted Koppel isn't fond of Mr. Stewart.

Let me correct a bit of awkward phrasing on my part. A few messages ago, writing about the Wondercon in San Francisco, I wrote…

Though operated by the same crew that runs Comic-Con International, it also lacks the overwhelming quality that disturbs some about its big brother.

Bad way to put it. I meant that the Comic-Con International has the quality of being overwhelming, not that the Wondercon lacks quality. The Wondercon is a great convention. I was just trying to say that it has the same operators but is not as overwhelming. Sorry.

Also, I just amended the previous post to clarify that Kim Campbell is the former Prime Minister of Canada, not the current one. Thanks to Michael Ryan for this catch and for also joining the chorus of those asking about my "overwhelming" error.

I also fixed the spelling of the surname of Congressman David Dreier. (This one, I caught myself.) I got the errant spelling off the HBO page for Real Time but should have double-checked.

In other news, you can all breathe a sigh of relief. My TiVos are communicating again.

Bill Maher's Real Time show is back on HBO. The first episode of its new season aired Friday evening and you have several more chances to catch it this week. I'm not sure if you want to. It's very funny in places, and some very interesting things were said. But I felt a little uncomfortable watching Maher and two of his guests (Michael Moore and former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell) largely eviscerate Rep. David Dreier. I used to think Dreier, a California Republican, was a pretty smart guy but you have to question the wisdom of someone who even steps into an arena where he's so hopelessly outnumbered, and not just by the other panelists but by the studio audience…which like all studio audiences, sides with the host. Some might call it courage to go in and defend your side against all enemies, but it came off more like either cluelessness or, as I felt with some Conservatives on Maher's program last season, a belief that getting on TV and being humiliated is better than not being on TV at all. There are folks on all sides of the political spectrum — including most Democrats who venture onto the Fox News Channel — who'd do well to consider whether a bad representation of their viewpoint isn't worse than no representation at all. Even if you're in the right, when the other side has Home Court Advantage, you can lose big time.

So if you want to see a Bush-defender get walloped, tune in. If you cringe at lopsided fights, you might want to give it a pass.

This is not to suggest, by the way, that many of Dreier's bruises were not self-inflicted. He started attacking Moore's film for being full of lies, then had to admit he hadn't seen it. In the immortal words of Rocket J. Squirrel, "That trick never works." I'm not the brightest guy in the world but I think that if I were going on national TV to attack the maker of a movie for its content, I'd swing by the Cineplex and at least watch the movie before the confrontation. One can dislike Moore and his work in general without a screening, but you sure can't be credible arguing the specifics of a movie you have to admit you haven't seen. Later, with everyone else ganging up on him, Dreier was called upon to defend Bush's non-action on the morning of 9/11 and the defense was so lame, I couldn't believe the Congressman even believed what he was saying. (The case for Bush went roughly like this: Upon being told "our nation is under attack," he — though lacking any details of said attack — did the right thing by spending time in contemplation. I get the feeling the tape of that morning really worries Republicans who think Bush's strongest asset is that many view him as a courageous, in-control leader.)

The best part of Maher's first new show was a brief segment with "surprise guest" Ralph Nader. Like all "surprise guests" on talk shows, this one was no surprise…but it was funny to see Maher and Moore get down on their knees (literally) and beg Nader to get out of the race.

At the end, Maher did a nice "New Rules" segment and then he thanked his guests…who by then, did not include Representative David Dreier. He mysteriously disappeared from the set at some point. I suspect he was backstage, firing whichever advisers did not stop him from going on the show in the first place.

I post the following for the enlightenment of you all. As you may recall, I recently networked my TiVos. They're in different rooms but I can now record a show on one and then transfer it to another (via my home network) for viewing. Or at least, I could do that until a day or two ago.

Today, I noticed they were not connecting. As I recently made some changes in my network, I figured I had confused them or changed a setting or otherwise caused this lack of communication. I spent a lot of time today adjusting settings on the one in my office, then running downstairs and adjusting settings on the one in my TV room, then running upstairs and adjusting settings on the one in my office and up and down and up and down…and they just wouldn't acknowledge each others' existence.

Finally, searching for a clue as to what I was doing wrong, I logged into the TiVo Community Forum, a discussion group of TiVo owners. There, I discovered what I was doing wrong. I was assuming the problem had been caused on my end and was fixable. A message on the forum from a TiVo support staffer said, "Folks, we had a bit of a glitch with the multi-room viewing authorizations today." This means that when my TiVos connect with TiVo Central to download program information and other data, they're being told that they're not supposed to interface with other TiVos on the same home network. The TiVo Tech Guy goes on to say, "The problem affected a small number of customers. We apologize for the problem. We believe it is completely resolved at this time…"

Well, it isn't resolved on my machines. They still don't talk. But at least I know that I didn't cause the problem and probably can't fix it without the TiVo folks doing something on their end. I could have saved a lot of time and stair-climbing if I'd checked that forum first. Let that be a lesson to me.

Several folks have written to tell me their complaints about this year's Comic-Con International. Almost all of them spin off the premise that the convention is just too big, and many lament that a certain something is absent that was there in 1977 or 1986 or whenever. The best thing I can say to the latter is that time moves in but one direction and that the con is not going back to the El Cortez Hotel and a 3000 turnout. There are a number of conventions around the country that still have that "small" (or at least, "smaller") convention feeling. Last evening, I dined with a group of friends that included Roger Price, who runs the Mid-Ohio Con every Thanksgiving weekend in Columbus, Ohio. This is not a small con — attendance is in the 4000-5000 range, I believe — but the ones I've attended have had that friendly, unfrazzled ambiance. And the next Wondercon will be February 18-20 in San Francisco. Though operated by the same crew that runs Comic-Con International, it also lacks the overwhelming quality that disturbs some about its big brother. There are others…you just have to look.

As for the Comic-Con International being too big…yes, of course it is. As complaints go, I think that's a lot like buying front row seats for a Gallagher performance and complaining that you got splattered with watermelon juice. The convention has become what the convention has become. What I find so appealing about it is the diversity. Again, you can find the convention you want to attend in there somewhere…you just have to look. A smaller con now would only be less diverse.

In any case, telling me your complaints about the Comic-Con will not do a bit of good. I'm not on the committee. I just run thousands of panels there. You may get a response or some action if you direct your suggestions to the folks who actually run the thing. The address is Comic-Con International, P.O. Box 128458, San Diego, CA 92112-8458, and it's been my experience that the committee members take input seriously. I wouldn't waste time writing to ask that they downsize the convention to what it was twenty years ago…but if you have some idea how they can make this con more enjoyable, I'm sure they'd love to hear it.

Want to hear your vice-president speak? Well, you'll need to sign a loyalty oath. (Thanks to Alan Light for the pointer.)

Sad to hear of the passing of a darn good actor named Eugene Roche, who died last Wednesday at age 75. Frequently recognized but never enough of a star that everyone knew him by name, he still managed to work constantly and to be widely respected by his peers. He was a regular or semi-regular on a wide list of TV shows including All in the Family, Webster, Soap, Dave's World and Magnum, P.I., and turned up in an awful lot of movies, too. People often recalled him from his role in Slaughterhouse Five but I always think of how good he was in the Art Carney starrer, The Late Show. I can't recall ever seeing him in anything where he wasn't good.

I had the honor of meeting him a few times and almost working with him once. He impressed me as one of those actors who loved acting and gave it just as much seriousness as it deserves. I was looking forward to seeing him again at the Hollywood Collectors Show in October and am sorry than none of us will have that pleasure.

Speaking of Laurel and Hardy, as we love to do here, several folks have recommended to me a new BBC radio play, about 30 minutes in length, called Stan, by Neil Brand. It's a touching — some might say overly-sentimental — supposition of the last meeting of Stan and Ollie as Ollie was dying. That moment has been dramatized a few times by alleged historians (there was once a TV special hosted by Dom DeLuise that stated, wrongly, that Laurel was at Hardy's bedside holding his hand when the latter passed) but this is the first time I know of where it's been the subject of dramatic speculation.

The author seems to know his history though, and the Stan impersonation by Tom Courtenay is pretty good. You should be able to access it on Real Player by clicking here but if that link doesn't work, go to this page and find the link to listen to last Friday's show.

A couple of quick notes if you're going to do this: First, the bandwidth there seems to be stretched thin so if you try during peak hours, you may experience pauses and delays. Secondly, the "broadcast" starts with some other material and Stan doesn't commence until a few minutes in. Lastly, the link may only be up for a few more days so if you want to listen, listen now.

When talking films came in, the movie studios had a problem: How to market their product overseas. In the past, it had just been a matter of redoing the title cards in another language. Later on, the equipment would be developed to redub the soundtrack in a foreign tongue. But for a number of years there, an oft-employed solution was to actually film one or more alternate versions. A number of early Laurel and Hardy movies received this treatment. After the standard American version was completed, the crew would go back and film the movie (or at least, the talking scenes) again in French and/or Spanish and/or German. Stan and Oliver would repeat their roles, reading phonetic translations of their dialogue from an off-camera blackboard. Sometimes, their American co-stars would do likewise but more often, other actors would be brought in to play opposite them. Boris Karloff was never in one of their American films but he has a key role in the French version of Pardon Us.

Of special interest to Laurel and Hardy fans is that most of the foreign editions contain scenes that either were never filmed in English or filmed and discarded. This is especially the case when the overseas films were patchwork features, as some were, created by stitching two or more shorts together. New scenes with The Boys were written and filmed to connect and/or expand the shorts…and in some cases, rather elaborate extra scenes incorporated. A film called Politiquerias, for example, is the Spanish version of the American Laurel and Hardy short, Chickens Come Home. A number of popular Spanish variety performers were incorporated into the plot, performing their acts and padding a two-reel short (in English) to more than twice that length.

A few of the French and Spanish films exist but until recently, there were no known prints of any of the movies Laurel and Hardy made for Germany…so it's good news that one has been found. Spuk um Mitternacht was made by uniting Berth Marks (1929) and The Laurel and Hardy Murder Case (1930). In the latter, Stan and Ollie show up at the mansion of Stan's late uncle Ebenezer for the reading of his will. The former is all about them trying to get to sleep in one upper berth on a train…so in the connected version, the idea is that they're travelling on the train to the reading of the will and new dialogue presumably establishes this.

Some reports say that this newly-found treasure may not be complete. The film library that is soon to exhibit it at screenings says it's around 30 minutes, whereas records say the original release was closer to 40. (Berth Marks and Murder Case are each about 20.) Still, any unseen Laurel and Hardy is better than nothing. Heck, any Laurel and Hardy at all is better than nothing. Even when they're speaking German.