Since they will eventually dig up every single thing John Kerry has ever done, you might as well know this now: He was once in a rock band. Jerry Osborne has all the details, including a photo and the cover of their one album, at his weblog. (Thanks, Phil Conley!)

Dick Cheney is out there bashing John Kerry as being "on the left, out of the mainstream and out of touch with the conservative values of the heartland." I suspect there's some truth to that with regard to some values.

On the other hand, I'd like to see someone ask Cheney about some other values. Going off to defend America in a war versus escaping the draft via deferments because you had "other priorities," for example. I escaped the draft myself (high lottery number) and never felt there was anything wrong with that. But when it was Clinton against Dole, it was the guy in the uniform who supposedly represented the values of the heartland, and I don't think anything's changed now except which one is the Democrat and which one is the Republican.

Cheney also seems to love companies like Walmart as a model of how American business should operate. Walmart has done a good job of moving into a town, driving the small merchants (the "Mom and Pop" shops) into insolvency, then lowering the general wage scale of an area. Oh, yeah — and they no longer cling to Sam Walton's once-expressed goal of trying to keep manufacturing jobs in America. We all love lower prices, which Walmart is sometimes able to deliver, but I don't think they consider that a perfect trade-off in the heartlands.

And there are an awful lot of allegations about the Iraq War — lying, profiteering, human rights violations, poor strategizing, etc. — that I don't think are much exalted anywhere in the country. Nor is running up a massive deficit or causing former allies to hate us.

I sure hope Kerry and his running mate, whoever it is, don't get caught up in the game of defending the right to burn the flag. I'd much rather see them assert that doing right by the nation and its people is a value that trumps those "red meat" issues. Dukakis (and to some extent, Gore) made the mistake of going on the defense about their faith and patriotism and courage. In one debate, Joe Lieberman stood there like Venus De Milo, saying nothing as Cheney asserted he'd never made a dime off the government. If the Democrats play it that way again, they deserve to lose. And they will.

It doesn't get much mention in the "mainstream" comic book community but there's a thriving world out there of Christian-oriented comic books. My pal Nate Butler maintains a webpage about some of the more important figures in this area, and has recently added a new page about the late Al Hartley, who is perhaps best known for writing and drawing the Christian Spire comics of Archie, Jughead and the gang.

My friend Earl and I spent this evening plowing through crates of old videotapes that I've had in storage for, in some cases, two decades. I'm transferring everything I want to keep to DVD and getting rid of the tapes themselves. Over the last few months, I've converted most of the labelled tapes that contain stuff worth keeping and tonight, we went through a few boxes of unlabelled ones to see what was on them.

Lots of interesting finds in those boxes, some of which caused me to wonder, "Why the hell did I keep that?" There were also loads of shows and movies I kept, blithely unaware I would someday be able to buy high-quality copies. I kept episodes of Monty Python's Flying Circus and The Dick Van Dyke Show and I had several bad bootleg videos of Disney features. It seemed like a big deal to have these in 1979. Now you can get much better copies at K-Mart.

But we also found things that aren't out on DVD and probably never will be…like I seem to have a tape of National Lampoon's Disco Beaver From Outer Space, which was one of the first original programs made for HBO. It came out in 1978 and the thing I remember most about it takes me back to 1981 when the Writers Guild went on strike over, among other things, fees for made-for-cable shows. I was brought into a Guild strategy meeting because someone thought I knew something about the technology and might help the lawyers figure out how to construct a formula for reruns of cable programming. This National Lampoon special was the best example at hand, so grown men in ties had to keep talking, over and over, about Disco Beaver From Outer Space while the fate of Hollywood employment was left to dangle.

(There were also tapes I didn't find and doubt I will. Does anyone out there have a copy of Ricky Jay and His 52 Assistants?)

Here's a question that's probably just for friends in the Los Angeles area. Does anyone have a good use for a lot of old videotapes in the Beta and 3/4" U-Matic format? I have a few hundred Betamax tapes — some store-bought copies, some I taped myself. I also have around a hundred 3/4" tapes I don't want. Most of the latter have stuff on them you wouldn't want and which you'd just tape over. The Betas contain some goodies…but nothing you can't find, generally in better quality, on DVD or VHS. I'm asking folks in the L.A. area because I don't want to go through the hassle of mailing. I'd like someone to come up with a van, haul them off and put them to constructive purpose. Drop me a line if this is you.

I'm working here today with the TV tuned to TV Land's marathon of The Flip Wilson Show. They're rather pleasant with a nice "small" feel — no big sets, no line of dancers, etc. Whatever money they spent, they spent on guest stars…and having worked on a number of shows where the guests had no real affection or respect for the host, I can spot that on this one, they generally do. It's also nice to hear all (or most of) the singers singing live and to see sketches performed with few obvious edits.

These are half-hour versions of what were once hour shows. I'm not sure if they chopped some of the hours in half to create two half-hour reruns or if they just cut each one down. Looks more like the latter since there are few pure musical numbers.

Just noticed George Carlin listed among the writers of an episode in which he did not appear. I seem to vaguely recall that he briefly had a deal to be a frequent guest star and to contribute to the scripts of other installments.

Anyway, I'm going to keep it on while working this weekend. These shows hold up pretty well.

Illustrator John Cullen Murphy passed away yesterday morning at the age of 85. Murphy, as we reported here, recently drew his last Prince Valiant Sunday page after 34 years on the job and before that, he did a long stint drawing Big Ben Bolt. He was a widely respected artist, both for his comic strip work and his magazine illustration. You had to be good to follow Hal Foster on Prince Valiant, and most folks thought he was a worthy successor. Here's the newspaper obit, here's an interview with Murphy, here's another interview with him, here's a 2001 online chat with him and here's an interview with his son. Earlier this year, Murphy's passing was reported erroneously in a comic news magazine. Sad to hear the story wasn't so much erroneous as a few months premature.

This week, Frank Rich talks about what constitutes a scandal these days.

Spinsanity, which I haven't mentioned lately, is probably the best site to find an unbiased, fact-based analysis of some of the more egregious distortions and fibs in politics these days. Once in a while, I think they get a little absorbed in parsing precise words as opposed to the effect a speaker manages to convey, but the guys there are generally very good debunkers.

They just posted this article which discusses Fahrenheit 9/11. In a couple cases (the stuff about John Ashcroft being defeated by a dead guy, for instance), I think they're examining a joke as if were presented as a literal statement of fact. But apart from that kind of thing, they're on target.

For obvious reasons and probably for a limited time, Playboy has posted the 1979 interview with Marlon Brando on its website. At the time, it was hailed by journalists as an example of how a clever interviewer — Lawrence Grobel, in this case — could get even a reluctant subject to open up. Brando spews a lot of nonsense that sounds like he's putting Grobel on but there's also a lot of substance in there. If you want to read it, don't delay. They'll take it down soon and Brando probably won't die again.

Less for your enlightenment than mine, I spent a little time last night reading websites that purport to cite errors in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. I found some that struck me as splitting hairs and others where I thought the critic had turned backflips to try and interpret Moore in a manner that could be disputed. But I also found several instances of the kind of thing I had in mind when I wrote (back here) that "…you have a real smart man who's good at entertaining, good at socking home his points…but he won't stop where the supportable facts leave off…"

The troubling points fall roughly into two categories for me. One is when Moore insinuates something without carrying it to the point of making an actual charge which could be confirmed or disproven. He is probably right that the Bush family and their circle of friends have had a lot of contact with Saudis of dubious motives…but there's something unseemly about guilt-by-association and indictment by innuendo. The appearance of impropriety is not the same thing as impropriety and the two should not be confused. So on the one hand, I'm about 85% annoyed at Moore for that kind of excess. It would be total but I've also read and cannot completely discount two arguments in his favor…

One is that, as others have noted, the past business dealings of the Bush family and their associates with certain Saudi businessmen have been woefully under-reported and under-investigated by the press. It shouldn't take Michael Moore and his sloppily-made charges to bring this to public attention and to maybe, just maybe, get the press to stop interviewing Gennifer Flowers again and shine some light in that direction. Maybe they'll find everything is legit but we have a right to know if there's any "there" there, and from a better source than Moore. If his vague accusations prompt some more responsible coverage, they may not be worthless. His over-the-top statements that Bush was a "deserter" in the National Guard did lead to some reporters doing more legitimate inquiry.

And the other point, made by others, is that this kind of circumstantial accusation is practiced everywhere these days, including by people who are now denouncing Michael Moore for it. I mentioned the attempts to link John Kerry and Jane Fonda and to get people to infer something negative about Kerry from their proximity. It also extends to things like the much-discussed question of whether Americans were duped into thinking we had to invade Iraq because Saddam and/or others there had a hand in the 9/11 attacks on us. The Bush Administration says they never claimed such a thing. I think that's disingenuous. I think there are a number of instances of them doing so, including Bush's letter to Congress and his speech on the aircraft carrier. At the very least, the strategy seems to have been to mention Saddam and 9/11 so often in the same context that people might assume a connection…and that's really the same stunt Moore is pulling. He shows every possible shot he can find of a guy named Bush embracing a guy dressed in a Saudi thawb and invites you to speculate on their relationship. It's a seedy tactic but it's not like he's the only one doing this.

Then there's the second kind of inaccuracy that Moore appears to have committed, which is the category of Judicious Editing. In the film, for instance, he shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." The full quote which he trimmed, is reportedly: "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York." The truncated version is not a fair representation of what she said in that particular instance.

Again, Moore is hardly the only person doing this. The Republican spin machine (and at least one of Bush's own campaign ads) claims that John Kerry has referred to Yasser Arafat as a "statesman" and "role model." A look at those words in context shows that the strip-quote is just as dishonest as what Moore did to Rice.

All of this brings me back to one of the first things I wrote just after viewing the film: "A polemic such as this movie forces me to confront a question for which I have no easy answer. To what extent should we tolerate fighting dirty against opponents who are not only fighting dirty but winning?" I am not comfortable with Moore doing any of this but I am also not comfortable with him being condemned and dismissed in toto for tactics that are s.o.p. throughout talk radio and the general political circus these days…and even practiced to some extent by the guy in the Oval Office. It all comes down to another of those reasons why I can never get too enthused about anyone who stands for election in this country or most of those who report and comment on them. I think Moore is fighting dirty but what I resent more is that it seems to be the way the game is now played.

I have nothing of note to say about Marlon Brando…a great actor who made a lot of great movies. I'm sorry he's gone, and I hope I don't have to look at that clip of him kissing Larry King.

One member of the Reagan Administration I kinda liked was C. Everett Koop, who was the Surgeon General. He has some interesting comments to make about why more was not done then about the growing AIDS crisis. I tend to believe his statement that Reagan was not as blind to the problem as some have charged.

The clever Heidi MacDonald now has a weblog of comic news. Go see, go see. And by the way, did I mention that I'd networked my TiVos?

Henry Beard, who was one of the founders of the National Lampoon, offers a brief comment on Dick Cheney's use of the "f" word. (Thanks to Michael Reaves for the tip.)

I have networked my TiVos. I already had my three computers and one of them (all in my office) on my in-house network. Yesterday, I paid a nice man to poke holes in my walls and run network cables to two other rooms. Haven't hooked up a TiVo in my bedroom yet but the one in my TV Room downstairs can now communicate with the one in my office and also with the Internet.

I have networked my TiVos. This means that I can now program both of them online at the TiVo website. It also means they both now get their program info via frequent communication over the 'net instead of once-a-day calls over slow phone lines.

I have networked my TiVos. A show recorded on one can now be moved to the other. In fact, I can record a movie, watch half of it in my office and then go downstairs and watch the conclusion in the TV Room. (TiVo will not only transfer the movie but remember where I paused it.) If there are two shows I want to record that are on at the same time, I can record one on each machine and then watch them on either machine.

I have networked my TiVos. Because they're both on the network with my main computer, I can do the following: I can "publish" MP3 or JPG files from my computer to a program called TiVo Desktop. Then I can view the JPGs or play back the MP3 files on any TV connected to one of my networked TiVos. So I can sit down in the TV Room and look at pictures that reside on my computer.

I have networked my TiVos. The one downstairs is the Pioneer DVR-810H which has the built-in DVD burner. The one in my office is just a plain ol' TiVo. One drawback is that if I record a show on the upstairs TiVo and move it to my downstairs TiVo, I can't burn it to DVD. It must have been recorded on the machine with the burner in it in order for that to happen.

But I don't care a lot about that. I have networked my TiVos. And I'm damn proud of myself.