Darren Margolis writes…

Mark, it seems that the Nation article (and you probably should have disclosed for the benefit of most people who don't know that The Nation is a very far left viewpoint magazine) is misleading in saying that Ashcroft is 0 for 5000. That implies that all 5000 have actually been tried and out of 5000, there have been no convictions. I don't know at this point how many have been tried. A more accurate statistic would have been to state the zero convictions figure as a function of how many have actually been tried.

But the vast majority have never been tried and will never be tried. They get detained, perhaps kept in a cell for an extended period without benefit of counsel, cited as an example of the superb job the Justice Department is doing, rounding up dangerous evildoers. And then, at some point, they're quietly released — because the authorities know they don't have enough evidence to make any sort of case. In most cases, they probably didn't have enough to warrant arresting these people in the first place.

I don't know why this doesn't bother people, including those who believe in an aggressive policy towards domestic terrorist suspects. But then I'm also amazed at how many people who favor the Death Penalty are unbothered by the number of folks who are apparently convicted in error. It's like the goal here is to make sure the government pursues the "right" course of action, and it doesn't really matter if they do it with a great deal of competence.

Filmmaker Russ Meyer left us with only one regret: That he didn't die from being crushed to death by a pair of enormous breasts.

Here's an excerpt from an article about the wonderful job the Attorney General has been doing in prosecuting terrorists…and then I have a couple of questions.

On September 2 a federal judge in Detroit threw out the only jury conviction the Justice Department has obtained on a terrorism charge since 9/11.

[snip…]

Until that reversal, the Detroit case had marked the only terrorist conviction obtained from the Justice Department's detention of more than 5,000 foreign nationals in antiterrorism sweeps since 9/11. So Ashcroft's record is 0 for 5,000. When the Attorney General was locking these men up in the immediate wake of the attacks, he held almost daily press conferences to announce how many "suspected terrorists" had been detained. No press conference has been forthcoming to announce that exactly none of them have turned out to be actual terrorists.

Okay, so here's my first question: How could John Ashcroft be doing a worse job on this? I mean, if they'd given me the job, I could have arrested 5,000 suspicious-looking swarthy men and obtained zero convictions. Hell, by dumb luck, I might have been able to convict one of them of something.

Second question: It's always possible that someone can be guilty but even a competent prosecutor is unable to get a conviction. Does anyone think that most of those 5,000+ detainees fall into that category? Or any significant number? Or is it more likely the case that people were being arrested on very little evidence?

It bothers me greatly that so many apparently-innocent people could be jailed, prosecuted, terrified, etc. but since they were mostly foreigners and it was done with the intent of fighting terrorism, I doubt most Americans will care. You'd think though that some of them might wonder if all that erroneous prosecution might have made us less safe, if only because it devoted so much of our resources towards apparent dead ends and wild goose pursuits.

But they probably won't. Years ago, I had a couple of long conversations with a screenwriter, Al Levitt, who'd been blacklisted back in the Commie-hunting days. Levitt made the comment that the people who cheered on the blacklisting were oblivious to how ineptly it had been done. Even if you bought the notion that Communist-sympathizers in Hollywood threatened the American way of life, those trying to eliminate such people were ignoring real threats and destroying the lives of a lot of innocent folks based on fourth-hand rumors. But, he said, that didn't seem to matter. He suggested — and this is me paraphrasing — that it was like "You go to a doctor because your teeth hurt and he amputates your foot…and then you don't object because, after all, he was making a bold effort to wipe out the problem." I think a lot of folks today don't really care if we catch or stop terrorists, just so long as we look like we're doing something.

John Kerry gave a pretty good speech this morning. If he could give a few dozen more just like it, no one would ever accuse him of being vague on issues or flip-flopping or of not having real plans as to what he'd do as our Chief Exec. You can read the text of it here or you can go over to the C-Span page and seek out the online video. (This link might bring up the video in your browser if you have Real Player installed. And then again, it might not.) Even if you're against Kerry, you might want to check out this speech, if only to see more clearly what you're against.

Michael Tomasky makes what I think is an important point: That the U.S. is not that divided on the subject of the Vietnam War.

Assignments — some even of the paying variety — have me waaaay backlogged on e-mail. (What is he working on? All sorts of things but the main one will probably be announced in the Hollywood trade papers within a week or three.) Anyway, this is another one of those pathetic, irresponsible postings to tell you that if I owe you a response, please forgive me. And posting may be light here until I finish most of those responses and maybe, just maybe, a smidgen more of that distracting real work.

Which reminds me: Thanks to all of you who sent donations in response to my experiment to see if the economy was truly growing. It turns out the test was inconclusive. I received about half of what I got the previous time I asked, but that may have been because several folks informed me that, while they'd love to send me cash, they know the economy is in bad shape and didn't want to contribute to the delusion that it's better. If you were one such person, I hereby declare the survey to be over so you can donate now and it will not count as an indication that the Bush tax cuts stimulated the nation's finances. In fact, if donations increase now, I'd take that as a sure sign that the Bush plan has failed.

Yeah, I know. Shameless.

Several of you have written to ask what I think of Identity Crisis, which is a new series of some sort from DC Comics. Answer: I haven't seen it. Several more of you have written to ask what I think of that new Sky Captain movie, whatever it's called. Answer: I haven't seen it, either. And a lot of you have written to ask what I think of the allegedly-forged National Guard memos. Answer: I don't know if they're forged. It sure looks that way…but then again, that view is being sold hard by a lot of folks, including rival news organizations, that have been dying for an opportunity to humiliate Dan Rather. That doesn't mean they're wrong; just that we should be…well, a lot more skeptical of all "experts" than CBS was in accepting the documents in the first place. In any case, I still think Bush skated on his National Guard service and I still don't think it's much of a reason to vote against him. I mean, if what's going on with Iraq doesn't convince you…

Caught a little of the Miss America pageant the other night, largely by accident. I can dimly recall when this contest mattered but I can't quite remember why. Once upon a time, I guess the idea was just to pick someone who could be crowned The Most Envied Woman in America and sent off on a tour of car shows and store openings…kind of a manufactured celebrity. Now, of course, we manufacture celebrities faster than the Nabisco people manufacture Wheat Thins…and The Most Envied Woman in America is probably a supermodel, recording artist, Playmate or movie star. In other words, she's not someone who will gladly spend the next year in the employ of the Miss America people, cutting ribbons and promoting an antiquated worldview. Still, the company that runs the pageant has this business going and they need someone to wear the tiara and sign autographs, so they keep the competition alive.

But the host (who was that guy?) just takes the thing too seriously, and the winner is no longer snaring an honor that every little girl dreams of winning…and every year, fewer and fewer people tune in. They may notch a bit of a ratings spike this time since they made the world-shattering leap to allowing the ladies to wear bikinis, but that's a trick that won't resuscitate a dying institution. What they may have to do — and I'm actually half-serious about this — is to acknowledge that the whole contest is turning into a joke and then beat everyone to the punchline. It ought to be more tongue-in-cheek and camp, either with an emcee who's hip enough to conduct and simultaneously mock the proceedings, or someone who'll play it just like Bert Parks would have if he were still with us. And then they'd need to get away from the idea that being Miss America is the crowning achivement of any woman's entire life. This year's winner is a Rhodes Scholar finalist who, the news reports say, was accepted into the University of Alabama's medical school but delayed her entry to compete in beauty pageants. That's not as vapid as it may sound because her winnings will finance her education. That's altogether worthy and that's what everyone ought to keep in mind; that being in a beauty pageant is just a real good summer job.

Okay. Back to work…

Harvey Pekar and Gary Dumm have done a little comic strip for the New York Times about the making of Brooklyn: The Musical, which is arriving on Broadway. The link to this is a little tricky so if this doesn't work, go to the Times theater page and look around for it.

I haven't seen a copy yet but Gary Owens tells me there's a nice mention of me in his autobiography…reason enough to plug How to Make a Million Dollars with Your Voice (Or Lose Your Tonsils Trying), which has just been released. Gary is one of the nicest, most talented gents in the business…and busiest. I know lots of performers who are happy to work twice a month. For Gary, a long stretch of unemployment is, like, he finishes a job at 10:30 AM and isn't booked for anything else until after lunch. You remember him from Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In, and you know all the cartoon voices he's provided — Space Ghost, Blue Falcon, Roger Ramjet, Powered Toast Man, etc. — and you may be familiar with his radio/disc jockey career. All of that still represents a fraction of all he's done, so this oughta be a most entertaining volume.

Gary's new book, co-authored with Jeff Lenberg, can be purchased from Amazon by clicking here. But if you live in Southern California, you might want to drop by Dutton's Books in the Valley, this coming Wednesday night. The store's at 5146 Laurel Canyon Blvd. and that evening, from around 7:00 to 9:00, Gary will be writing his name in copies, and he's invited a lot of his friends to be there. Since Gary knows everyone in show business, it oughta be quite the event.

Since he went on the air, I've been listening to Al Franken's radio show. It isn't back on the air in Los Angeles but one can hear it streaming via the Air America website or, even better, this website archives the old shows for download. I had not expected to like the show since I've generally found "talk radio" to be less an intelligent discussion of issues and more like wrestling but with even cheaper theatrics. Very few radio talkers have ever convinced me they're doing much more than an "act" that they've found attracts listeners, and if Al was just going to be the Bizarro-Rush, saying Liberals were right about everything and Conservatives were wrong…well, even if I thought that was true, I had and still have no interest in listening to that. I think it's a sign of weakness to avoid other viewpoints. It's like an insecure business tycoon surrounding himself with "Yes Men" who tell him what he wants to hear. I also think it's more a sign of stubbornness than principle to operate off the assumption that The Other Side is evil, misinformed, treacherous, stupid, etc.

But I like Al Franken. I didn't always like the old, smug Al Franken of Saturday Night Live, but I like what he's become. I liked his books and I liked him when I heard him speak last October. I was also intrigued by the fact that unlike most who get into Talk Radio, Franken was not a nobody looking to make his fame and fortune in the arena. So I gave him a try and I've generally enjoyed what I've heard. One thing that I appreciate is that Franken has friends and guests who don't just endorse everything he says. He occasionally has on people like G. Gordon Liddy and Grover Norquist…not often, granted, but the fact that he has them on at all is indicative of a somewhat healthier attitude than the kind of show that you tune in just to hear that your side is doing God's work and the other side is the Spawn of Satan. (I tried listening to Air America's Randi Rhodes and gave her up because she seemed to be just that.) There are moments when Franken veers into Michael Savage Land and we get a festival of Bush-bashing and Rush-roasting…but you also get moments like, for example the other day, when Franken and Bob Barr found a lot of common ground on the Patriot Act.

My biggest problem with Franken's show has been that I simply can't spend the fifteen hours a week to listen to him. Fortunately, they've now begun videotaping the proceedings, editing it down to an hour of highlights and airing it on The Sundance Channel each night. Much better. If you haven't checked it out, you might give it a try…that is, assuming you get The Sundance Channel. Someone must.

Over the last year or so, I became unhappy with my cellphone, which was a Sony Ericsson 310. Sound was okay but controls were clunky and I couldn't hook it up to my computer and transfer my phonebook into it, nor did there seem to be a good car kit so I could use it hands-free while driving. (I've become increasingly fed up with drivers who steer with one hand while holding a phone to their ear, and I don't want to be one.) My contract with Cingular doesn't entitle me to a free phone switch for another year so I finally decided to just buy a new phone, and I picked out the Motorola V-400. So far, it looks like I chose wisely. Sound is great, the screen is quite readable, controls are simple and I can hook it up to my computer via a USB cable and transfer phone numbers and photos. (It has a built-in camera.) Yesterday, a nice man came to my house and installed the kit that lets me use it in the car and…well, it's all working quite well. There's a new, probably-superior Motorola model (the RAZR V8) just coming out but I figured if I waited for it…then by that time, there'd be an even better model about to come out and I'd wait for it. And then when it became available, there'd be another, much-better model on the horizon and…well, you know how this works. At some point, you just have to make your selection, buy it and be content that you made the best possible choice…this week.

I meant to link to this the other day and forgot. Elizabeth Drew reviews The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

On Friday, September 3 on his Fox TV show, Bill O'Reilly went to the mailbag and read a missive from an alleged viewer…

Jack Mehoffer, Springfield, Massachusetts says, "O'Reilly, I see the new Fox definition of fair and balanced means interviewing DNC chief Terry McAuliffe at both conventions."

Well, right you are, Mr. Mehoffer. Newt Gingrich appeared with us at both conventions. So did Mr. McAuliffe. What's the beef, sir? It is long past time to stop the partisan nonsense. Fox News gives airtime to all responsible viewpoints. And our commentators are clear and lively. No hidden agenda here, just flat out stimulating TV. And that's memo.

Uh, given the correspondent's name and address, do you get the idea that Bart Simpson put one over on "Mr. No-Spin Zone?"

Jay Leno discusses his political views and how they manifest themselves in his monologue.

Dennis Donohoe sends the following message with regard to what I wrote about the Iraq War…

I have my doubts about the Iraq war, but there is one thing that genuinely puzzles me (and this is not the start of an ideological rant). You say you were for the war at the start and now fault Bush for having the same view that you did, based on roughly the same evidence. Richard Cohen is more voluble, but essentially says the same thing. I don't see what your point is on this issue. Are you slamming Bush for agreeing with you on going to war (which seems ridiculous)? Or are you slamming him for not conceding the current reality (which is certainly a good point)? Bush has a lot of faults and some definite virtues, but omniscience is not one of his or anybody else's virtues. I sure wish the election were tomorrow and this would all be over.

I sure agree with that last sentence. What I don't agree with is that Bush had "roughly the same evidence" that I did — and God help us all if he did. He's allegedly the President of the United States and he ought to have had (and have actually read) detailed intelligence reports and be briefed by (and maybe even listen to) experts. If all he did was read a few newspapers and websites and watch C-Span a little, which is how I get my info, then something is very wrong. We should not be going to war based on even a rough version of the limited evidence that you and I get.

It wasn't so much that I was "for" the war as that I was not against it. That's a significant difference. I assumed, especially after Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N., that there was some solid evidence that Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was poised to use them on us. I also assumed our leaders were better planners and that the early estimates of the war's cost (Remember the $2.7 billion?) couldn't be that far off. It turns out all that was wrong, so my view changed. I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to think that there's some value in being resolute and clinging to their old beliefs, even in light of new revelations…or that it's okay for our government to make that many mistakes over something so important. I don't expect omniscience from our elected officials…but I do think that there are certain kinds of misjudgments that warrant someone being fired. There are times I wonder if anyone in the Bush administration believes that.

One of my all-time favorite comedians was a wonderfully-silly gent named Charley Chase, who worked alongside Laurel and Hardy on the Hal Roach lot. You may not have heard of him, and up until recently when this DVD set came out, it was difficult to see his best work today…but he was a very funny man, and his best shorts are as good as anything by any of the more famous classic comedians. If you're as interested in him as I am, you might enjoy a visit to The World of Charley Chase, a new website devoted to this sadly-neglected talent. (The DVD set is part of a fine new series of silent comedies. We're grateful for it, but we'd really like to see some of Chase's talkies released, as well.)