A number of folks have called my attention to this posting over on one of my favorite Internet stops, Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo. It may remind you a lot of…well, of the previous post on my site here.

One reader of this site recommended I read James S. Robbins on "Comparative Barbarism." I don't know that we need someone to explain to us that beheading Nick Berg is a more savage act than humiliating prisoners but it doesn't hurt to make that point. Robbins is wrong though that "No one has sought to justify these actions [the prison tortures], not even those who committed them." Take Senator James Inhofe, for instance.

I don't think most of America will buy the argument that some seem to be making that the Nick Berg video somehow minimizes or erases the torture pix. The lesser of two evils is still evil. If there really is a strategic justification for the torture practices, I'd love to hear it. At the moment, it seems like both a moral failing and a foolish thing to do in a land where we wanted to be "greeted as liberators." The fact that there are maniacs out there capable of worse doesn't change that. (As Jon Stewart notes, we can't possibly "out-psychopath Al-Qaida.")

Thanks to all of you who wrote about this issue. Unfortunately, I am so swamped with e-mail that wishes to engage me in one-on-one political debate that I can't answer much (if any) of it. I'm not quite in Deadline Hell at the moment but it is getting a little warm…

Here's part of an e-mail I got this morning. I won't give the gent's name…

Question: What do www.newsfromme.com blog entries and radical islamo-fascist newspapers have in common?

Answer: A large number (10 seperate entries at last count) of articles on the abuse of muslim criminals at Abu Ghraib prison by relatively few US Army Soldiers. No mention of the murder of American Citizen Nick Berg by militant islamo-fascists.

You use terms like "ghastly", "horrifying imagery", and "horrible stuff" when describing Abu Ghraib. What descriptors do you have about the decapitation of Nick Berg? Your blog demonstrates where your priorities are.

Actually, I was working on a post about Nick Berg but hadn't come up with anything to say about it beyond the obvious. In the case of the torture stuff, you have some prominent folks out there trying to spin that all as a bunch of fraternity pranks and/or something that was commendable so I wanted to weigh in. In the matter of Berg, I think we're all pretty much on the same page, aren't we? There's no controversy there insofar as evaluating how horrible the act was. It's awful when anyone dies and particularly nauseating when it's done for show.

I think sometimes people don't get the way a weblog (and certainly this one) works. You don't comment on anything unless you think you have something noteworthy to say about it. Often when a celebrity dies, I get an e-mail from someone saying, "Well, since you didn't post an obit on So-and-so, obviously you hated him." Well, no. Maybe I just didn't think I had anything to say about him that was worth reading. It's also sometimes the case that we get busy and can't put aside paying work or personal obligations to post on the no-pay, no-deadline weblog…or at least to post something deep and thoughtful.

The piece I started to write about the murder of Mr. Berg was about the effects of the video being available for general viewing…but then I stopped because I hadn't viewed it and didn't really want to. I finally had a moment of curiosity since I was writing about it. I went over to a site where I'd noticed it had been posted and nervously clicked the viewing link. After about five seconds of Berg sitting there identifying himself, my screen froze up and I decided that if my computer didn't want to see it, I didn't either. (You'll note I'm not providing a direct link to the video. If anyone wants to see it, they can surely find it but I don't even feel comfortable linking to it.) Anyway, sight unseen, I agree it's what we all know it is…and I don't see that it makes the torture photos any easier to take. As others have noted, we expect more decent behavior of our soldiers than we do of "militant islamo-fascists." Our expressed outrage about the former might also cause such actions to be stopped, whereas the islamo-fascists aren't about to bow to American public pressure.

My above-quoted correspondent goes on to make some insulting remarks and to say that he used to enjoy my comic book and TV writing but apparently won't anymore. I think it's silly to link those things to this, too.

The other day, John Kerry got what must be the worst news he's had in a while: Pollster John Zogby is predicting that Kerry will win the presidency in November. Why is this bad news? Well, have you followed Zogby's track record? This is the man who in the New York Senate race of 2000 said it was too close to call and predicted "I think we're looking at a one point race." He said this the day before the election and the next day, Hillary Clinton beat her opponent 56%-44%. You and I could have just picked numbers out of a hat and been more accurate.

So if Zogby was that far wrong the day before an election, why should anyone listen to him a month before it, let alone six? I dunno. The bigger question to me is why he is climbing out on this limb now. At the moment, every poll shows Kerry and Bush pretty much tied, given the margin of error. If I were a nationally-known pollster who earned his income on the basis of accurate projections, I don't think I'd be calling it for a guy who doesn't have a lead — or even a running mate — no matter what my numbers indicated.

Zogby qualifies his forecast noting that "anything can still happen" and that Kerry could blow it. Obviously, this is so. We can all imagine dozens of things that could happen in the next six months including another terrorist attack, the capture of Osama Whatzisname, more revelations like the Abu Ghraib ones, Halliburton-related scandals…and of course, every candidate will say a couple of really, really stupid things that their opposition will successfully exploit. But doesn't the fact that "anything can still happen" only point up the futility of a prediction this far in advance? Especially during a volatile year for this country? I still think that when we look back at the election of November, 2004, we'll say it hinged on events that occurred in the few months before the vote.

Speaking of premature predictions: Some time ago here, I predicted that John Kerry's running mate would be Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico. I hereby withdraw this prediction. Since then, Republicans have hammered Kerry on being a pro-choice Catholic. I don't think that's a serious charge but I think it is a distraction Kerry doesn't need…and he therefore doesn't need another pro-choice Catholic on the ticket with him. My guess now would be Dick Gephardt who's a boring speaker but who could be of use in winning Ohio, Missouri and Iowa. If Kerry can win those states, he'll probably win the Oval Office. Personally, I'd rather see John Edwards because I think he's a more interesting speaker.

On this site, we have articles devoted to some of the great animation voice thespians, including Daws Butler, Mel Blanc and June Foray. Once a week or so, someone writes to ask, "When you are going to put up something about Paul Frees?" He was certainly in that category. In his day, he did as many cartoons as any man alive, and was darn near ubiquitous in commercials, narration and even the redubbing of other actors in movies. So he certainly deserves attention but, as I write the folks who ask why I haven't done an article on him, I never really met Paul Frees (only once on the phone) and have never felt I knew enough about him to write anything worth reading.

Fortunately, someone else does and has. I'm just enjoying Welcome, Foolish Mortals… which is subtitled, "The Life and Times of Paul Frees," a much-needed book by Ben Ohmart. It has an intro by June Foray, who played Natasha when Paul played Boris Badenov. It has an outro by Keith Scott, an amazing Australian voice talent who has since assumed some of Paul's roles. And in between, Ben tells us who Paul was, how he worked, how he lived…everything. Much of this book is a recitation of parts that Frees played, and you'll find yourself saying, "I didn't know that was Paul Frees."

(Here's one Ben missed: Near the beginning of the movie Gigi, there's a scene where Louis Jordan has a scene with several men who have been skillfully redubbed by Guess Who.) If this kind of thing interests you, you need this book. The title, by the way, refers to the job many people identify with Paul: The host at Disneyland's Haunted Mansion.

You can purchase this new book from Amazon at this link or directly from the author's company at this link. Ordering from the second of these may cost you a buck or two more (and will not pay me my Amazon kickback) but personally, I always like to see as much of the money as possible going to the author. And while you're at it, also order Scenes For Actors and Voices, a collection of scripts written by the great Daws Butler and compiled into a book by Joe Bevilacqua and Ben. Here's the link for Amazon and here's the link for the publisher. Lots of good stuff at the latter site.

He's directing more than acting these days but Charlie Adler is still one of the best performers I've ever worked with. And when I was his director, I occasionally got him to go three minutes without uttering a single naughty word.

I got a lot of e-mail (way too much to answer individually) from folks who disagreed with my saying that I didn't think Donald Rumsfeld should resign over these revelations of torture. Actually, I phrased that poorly. If Mr. Rumsfeld wishes to resign, it wouldn't bother me, just as long as no one thought that meant much. What I should have written was that I don't think he should be forced to resign. That may seem like a subtle difference but I generally think calls for someone to resign are a lot of posturing, especially in the case of someone who can be dismissed from his position or otherwise easily removed. If Rumsfeld is incompetent or culpable or not running the war the way Bush wishes, he shouldn't resign. He should be fired. If he's not incompetent or culpable or displeasing Bush, he shouldn't be forced from his position because a lot of people — some of them, unabashed political opponents — are turning up the heat in the press. He should stand or fall with the whole administration.

This is not really a defense of Rumsfeld so much as it is a desire to de-politicize this matter. Almost everyone who wrote made the point that we have to tell the world that America does not tolerate the kind of brutality that has been revealed. Okay, fine…then fire all those responsible, right on up to the top, and tell the world that what they allowed is unacceptable. That would be a lot more meaningful than letting one guy quit, take a cushy job in the private sector (probably for Halliburton) and say, as he would, "I left because I didn't want to be a campaign issue in the re-election of our great president…" Do we really think that would do anything to improve America's image around the globe, especially now that Bush is on record as saying the guy's doing a "superb" job? Why would anyone then think American policy is changing because Rumsfeld was pressured into quitting? I mean, if Bush thinks that's a superb job, wouldn't he then look for a replacement who'd continue the same modus operandi? It's the attitude and the policy that need to be changed more than the guy implementing them. I don't think it will settle anything if we punish a few scapegoats, whether it's a couple of brutal prison guards or the Secretary of Defense.

Last night and today, I read a batch of articles on Rumsfeld and the scandal, and I'm leaning towards the view of him expressed by Fred Kaplan in this article. If someone wants to point me to an opposite view, I'm willing to read. So far, a lot of the counter-arguments strike me as falling into the general category of "We're bad but not as bad as they are," which I reject because…well, as Senator Lindsey Graham said, "When you are the good guys, you've got to act like the good guys." I think it's also amazing that the "not as bad" line of thought is being offered for the most part by people who in the past have seen the battle as Good versus Evil and dismissed all nuance as "moral relativism." Now, apparently, there are degrees of Good and Evil in their world.

Here's an article on the fall of the notorious Stan Lee Media, a company (full disclosure) for which I briefly worked. Does the phrase, "Boy, did I get out of there in time" mean anything to you?

I decided to start this new feature a few days ago and then promptly forgot about it, so I have some catching-up to do…

One of the best announcers and cartoon voice actors working today is Corey Burton. His website also has some fine demos, advice about how to get into the business and a good editorial about the problems with some modern microphones.

Another fine announcer and cartoon voice actor working today is Gregg Berger, who I've worked with on almost every cartoon show I've ever voice-directed. When you hear his demos, you'll understand why.

Everyone knows Nancy Cartwright from her role as Bart Simpson. That's only part of what this talented lady can do.

Okay, I'm caught up to today. I'll try to get one up every day from now on.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't think Donald Rumsfeld should resign over the revelations of torture by American troops. If some of the reports are true as to when he learned of the problems — or when he should have, based on reports that he avoided reading — a case can perhaps be made that he should be fired for negligence. And of course, another case can be made that he and Wolfowitz should be fired over incompetence relating to the Iraqi war…but how often do people at that level ever get fired for incompetence or negligence or anything other than crossing their superiors?

This is not just a Republican thing or a Bush thing. If you are in a high appointed office and you develop (or even dare voice) the view that your leader is leading in the wrong direction, you're usually sacked within the hour. But I think you could be really, really inept or possibly even criminal and not lose your job.

Leaders like to blame unnamed subordinates but don't like to actually name or fire them. Back during the Watergate mess, Nixon seemed to agree that the break-in was a criminal act and that it was planned within the White House. But he didn't actually get rid of (or even seem to get mad at) Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell or any of those guys until events forced him to respectfully and reluctantly request their resignations. Maybe he was afraid of them turning against him if fired but he sure convinced a lot of folks of his complicity and/or guilt by not punishing anyone. A lot of things have happened to George W. Bush that if they happened to me would sure be cause for someone to be dismissed…like who told him to put that stuff about Yellow Cake Uranium into the State of the Union address? Apparently no one because no one got fired. Clinton kept a number of guys around him who gave him very bad advice or very faulty data, too.

I'm on the fence on a lot of Iraq-related issues. I can still imagine this whole thing turning into something we'll be proud of or something we'll wish had never been suggested. But I can't imagine not thinking there have been some really major screw-ups that caused more damage and loss of life than was necessary. And it's getting harder to imagine the folks responsible for those screw-ups being fired over them…or to even lose out on a raise and promotion.

I haven't linked to a Paul Krugman column for a while but this one is pretty good. I think the Bush crew has asked us to trust them on an awful lot of things…and you shouldn't trust any administration unless you're willing to trust all administrations to the same extent.

The other day, I was unable to find a picture of Alan King's best record album…but his death brought a flurry of Alan King items to eBay and many of you alerted me to this one. Like I said, Alan King in Suburbia was the performance of his I liked best. He tells jokes about crabgrass and neighbors and I remember a funny bit about Girl Scouts who accuse you of being a Communist if you won't buy their cookies. (This was 1960 and that almost wasn't an exaggeration.) Anyway, don't go out of your way to find a copy but if you get one, play it. That is, if you still have one of those machines to play records on.

An ugly traffic accident closed the Cahuenga Pass and made us (my friend Adam Rodman and Yours Truly) late for the Writers Guild Informational Meeting this evening. This was a gathering in a ballroom at the Sheraton Universal to update members of the state of the current negotiations and I think I heard enough to be able to file this report.

The old deal expired at 12:01 AM on Sunday, May 2 and we continue to work without a contract as our Negotiating Committee seeks to hammer out an acceptable new three-year contract with the AMPTP (i.e., "The Producers"). At the moment, that doesn't look easy. The biggest issue is that the Writers Guild Health Plan Fund is running out of cash owing to the national increase in medical costs. In the last few years, the WGA has had to cut back on benefits and change eligibility rules to kick a lot of writers off the plan. To prevent further reductions, the WGA needs to get the employers to kick in around $43 million over the next three years. The Producers are offering $10.6…and this is the best part of their offer. In several other key areas, they are offering nothing at all and there are even places where they want us to take cuts.

So will there be a strike? Not yet. The current plan of the WGA is to go on working without a contract. We have also proposed a modest one-year deal that will allow some of these issues to be discussed at length between now and then. I tend to doubt the Producers will take this. A more likely scenario — this is me speculating — is that they will make a "Last and Final Offer" (they make a lot of those) perhaps in the next few days which will add another ten or fifteen million to the Health Plan. They'll say, "This offer is good for X days," X being the length of time they think it would take the membership to accept or reject, and they will threaten explicitly or implicitly that there will be a lockout if it is not accepted at the end of that period.

I don't know what the mood of the membership is…I honestly don't. We have a total membership of around 9000, and I couldn't get a fix on the militancy of the 500 or so in attendance, let alone those who didn't brave the traffic in the Cahuenga Pass to show up. Everyone present was curious and concerned and eager to learn more but beyond that, you had a wide range of views in the room. Some people are clearly angry enough about the low Health Plan offer and the issues that have gone unaddressed. At times, I think we get bewildered that the Producers, while bragging about huge profits in the press, turn around and plead poverty when we ask for enough money to stay even. We have had WGA strikes that were about little more than the studios' desire to save ten million dollars or some other amount that is trivial to them. It wasn't that long ago that Disney gave Mike Ovitz a $90 million severance package for leaving…and yet all the major studios collectively are horrified at the thought of kicking in around three million apiece to keep our Health Plan intact. That kind of inequality does make some writers outraged enough to go on strike and there are others who simply feel they don't have any choice. If your salary and benefits keep getting whittled away, eventually you have to take a stand against that.

For what it's worth, I remain pessimistic that the Producers will come across with what anyone would call a Fair Deal. Well, let me amend that. They'll call whatever they offer us a Fair Deal and insist they can't come up with another nickel and that it's their Absolutely Final Offer. Like I said, they make a lot of those. One strike, they made five or six Absolutely Final Offers. But their goal, of course, is not to give us a Fair Deal but one they think a slim majority of the Guild will consider just barely acceptable. They have a long history of underestimating us in this regard, which is why the WGA has a long history of going on strike. They may be making the same mistake again.

Want to use your computer to watch people dig a hole? Here you go.

For some time, I've heard tales — some of them, apparently true — of an almost-legendary sweep that a Blackjack team composed of M.I.T. students made a few years ago in Las Vegas. Like most things in and around that town, stories are exaggerated and embellished to a lustrous shine, and I know there have been a few books and screenplays written about the effort and I think there's even a motion picture in production. It is now the subject of a fascinating 2-hour documentary that just debuted on The History Channel.

Actually, there are enough re-created scenes that "documentary" is hardly an apt term. It's more like a TV Movie starring most of the key participants, some of them photographed in silhouette to conceal their faces. The true story (assuming this is the true story) is minus some of the more colorful anecdotes and plot twists I heard but it's still an amazing tale. It's also amazingly well-told in an intriguing mix of interviews and dramatized scenes. The title is Breaking Vegas and the next airing is next Saturday afternoon. Set the TiVo.

Stephen Soymonoff points me towards the press release via which Pentax announced that theirs was "The Official Digital Camera of the Internet." I believe this is the same way Michael Jackson became "The King of Pop."