Just watched the East Coast telecast of tonight's 60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke. Oh, my God.

Here's Frank Rich on the new (and, I think, inane) movement towards censorship of radio and television. Here's one key section…

The strange history of Bono and the Golden Globes is a case in point. It was 14 months ago that the front man for U2 inadvertently used a contraband seven-letter word as a modifier preceding the word brilliant in expressing his joy upon winning a best song award for the film "The Gangs of New York." The F.C.C. received only 234 complaints nationwide and ultimately ruled that Bono's word, free of carnal innuendo, was not actionable. But that was in 2003. In 2004 the Bush-chosen F.C.C. chief, Michael Powell, having failed to achieve much else in his job, has reopened the case to reverse the original verdict.

In other words: The Bono matter never really bothered anyone at the time and it's long since been forgotten. But we have to go after the guy now because we need to intimidate some people and to show the Religious Right we're fighting for their values.

Incidentally, I'm using a new means of linking to New York Times articles. It should allow you to read them without registering over there…though for the life of me, I can't understand why some folks object to doing that. It should also cause the articles not to become unavailable as quickly…but I wouldn't count on it.

A few months ago, this site presented a stirring history of the little-known comic book version of The Dick Van Dyke Show published in the sixties by Gold Key Comics. Some of you have written in to ask me about some of the other comics Gold Key did based on popular TV shows so in the coming weeks, I'll try to present some of them here. The two featured above all lasted one issue apiece.

In the case of Gilligan's Island, this was probably due to the show being cancelled. The last episode of the TV program (before it achieved eternal life in syndication) aired in August of 1967. The comic book came out the previous June…so I'm guessing Gold Key purchased the rights late the previous year, put an issue into work around February and then heard that the show would not be getting a fourth season, so they aborted the comic book. The story inside ("The Castaway Cookbook") was about Mr. Howell getting bored with the food on the island. In the tale, he announced a contest — one million dollars to whichever of the others could cook up the best dish. Naturally, they all went scampering to win. Gilligan found some tasty plants on the far side of the island and whipped up a stew…without realizing that the plants were a rare breed that had very odd side effects, transforming everyone the way Red Kryptonite used to change Superman. The story was silly but then so was the TV show, and the comic was nicely drawn by Warren Tufts, who was best known for his work on the newspaper strip, Casey Ruggles. (He later drew the Gomer Pyle comic book for Gold Key, which I'll feature here in a few days.)

The one issue of The Odd Couple was prepared out of Gold Key's New York office. There is no official record of the writer but the artwork was obviously done by Sal Trapani, who earlier had done the Get Smart and Hogan's Heroes comics for Dell. The story was very clever but apparently when Neil Simon heard about this, he had his lawyers inform Paramount Television that they did not have the right to turn Oscar and Felix into comic book characters. Kind of a shame, really. The story in this issue — "Murray's Manhunt" — was a good one. The Odd Couple's pal, Murray the Cop, hasn't arrested a real criminal in something like ten years and a new Sergeant orders him to make a bust or get into a new line of work. Oscar and Felix try to help him but one investigation after another goes wrong. Finally, he manages to break up a bookmaking ring and arrests his first actual criminal in quite some time…Oscar Madison!

That's it for this time. In the future, I'll be showcasing more obscure Gold Key comic book versions of great TV shows. If you have any requests, send 'em in.

I've received a number of suggestions and explanations regarding the problem I've been having with my Panasonic DVD Recorder. One gent — and I'll thank him by name once I'm sure he's right — told me to switch from 4X disks to 1X. The Panasonic manual doesn't seem to say what kind to use (other than to recommend "Panasonic brand") and neither does their website. I started using 4X since that's what what my Pioneer DVD Recorder likes and for more than a month, they worked fine in the Panasonic, too.

Today, I went by CompUSA and bought a batch of 1X DVD blanks of their house brand, and also some 2X from TDK. So far, I've dubbed about three of each in the Panasonic with no problem. So things are definitely looking better. If I get through another dozen or so without a problem, I may declare the matter solved.

We love TiVo about as much as this author in the New York Times. And we'd like to believe that this author is incorrect that TiVo may not be long for this world.

As mentioned here, my Panasonic DMR-E80H DVD Recorder is not working properly. I know this because after spending too much of yesterday watching it crash and destroy blank DVDs, today I spent an hour on the phone — most of it on "hold" — before a nice lady at the Panasonic Help Line told me, "Your machine is not working properly." She suggested I take it to an Authorized Service Center, and I sure got the feeling I was speaking to someone who knew a lot less about my machine than I did.

Several folks who own Panasonic DVD Recorders have written to ask me what the trouble is, and the rest of this post will probably only be comprehensible to them. It worked fine for the first month but yesterday I wanted to dub two groups of programs — a group of five shorts of 5-6 minutes onto one DVD-R, two half-hour shows onto another. When I tried to do either, the machine went into an annoying ritual it has suddenly learned. The dubbing aborts after about twenty seconds, then the machine stops recording and locks up (it even seems to turn itself off for an instant), then it comes back to life and the front panel says "Recover" for a while, then displays — in some order — "An error occurred, please check the media" and "Press Enter" and "Bye." I wrecked a lot of blanks this way, then cruised the Internet for folks with similar problems. Some said it was due to incompatible media, which I suppose is possible, but that would mean that after successfully handling 50 or 60 blanks of the brand I use, the machine suddenly decided it didn't like them. Others in discussion groups suggested that the Panasonic's harddisk gets fragmented and that periodically, you have to forget about all the stuff you've recorded on it, reformat and start over. And still others suggested it means the harddisk is simply faulty.

Anyway, I was able to dub the group of five shows to a DVD-RAM disk but not to a DVD-R so I did that and unplugged the machine overnight. This morning, I plugged it in and was able to dub the 2-show group to a DVD-R. In fact, I made two copies. Then I turned my attention to the 5-short group, tried to dub it to a DVD-R and the machine began performing its crash ritual again. I rebooted, reformatted the harddisk, dubbed the 5 shorts from the DVD-RAM to the harddisk, then dubbed them without problem to a DVD-R. When I tried to run a second copy of the same shows, the machine crashed…and there the matter stands. I'm starting to think it may be a bad harddisk but maybe the machine just doesn't like the shows I'm dubbing.

Today, the unique creature known as Scott Shaw! presents the one-thousandth installment of his Oddball Comics column over at his page. It's not the one I was expecting but it's a goodie: Jacky's Diary, a comic book version of a very funny, short-lived comic strip with the same name. Written and drawn by Jack Mendelsohn (age 32½), it was a one-of-a-kind creation and I hope some enterprising publisher will someday get around to republishing the entire run of the newspaper strip. Scott's column will tell you all sorts of fun facts about our mutual friend, Jack, but I do want to add my endorsement of both the comic and the column. (I told Scott which bizarre funnybook I thought he'd pick for #1000 and he said, "Hmm…that would have been a good one." If he's any kind of friend, he'll feature it soon.)

Here we have an article about what's happened to Paula Poundstone, a comedienne who oughta be working a lot more than she's apparently working. Last time I saw her perform live, I became a big fan.

If you'd like to know how close the coming presidential election might be, take a look at this article by Ronald Brownstein.

Saturday evening, C-Span says they're broadcasting an hour-long panel discussion entitled, "Political Humor and Campaigning" that was taped in Aspen at the recent U.S. Comedy Arts Festival. The dais includes Garry Trudeau and some people who don't draw comic strips. The current schedule says it airs at 8 PM Eastern time and runs 65 minutes…but C-Span has been known to juggle shows around so I'd suggest checking their website as late as possible if you want to catch or record it.

Hey, remember how I waxed (somewhat) enthusiastic about the Panasonic DMR-E80H DVD Recorder? It was back here if you don't recall. Well, the machine has worked flawlessly until today when it has begun working…well, whatever the opposite of "flawlessly" is. Suddenly having big problems. I'll let you know if and when the Panasonic folks straighten things out but for now, I hereby put my recommendation on hold.

To the surprise of few, Charles Holland has stepped down as President of the Writers Guild of America, West. Holland was elected Vice-President in our last election and ascended to the presidency when it was determined that the elected President, Victoria Riskin, was ineligible for the job. Daniel Petrie, Jr. was named Vice-President when Holland moved up and now Petrie will be Prez as we head into what looks to be a very nasty contract negotiation.

Holland came under fire when it was charged that he has told numerous lies about his past, including claiming military service and some football honors that never occurred. Fibbing about your past is not actually against the WGA Constitution but a pretty loud group of Holland's detractors circulated e-mails and demanded that he do the "honorable thing" and step down. The premise here was that in the coming battle, it would not do to have the WGA led by someone so controversial. From a practical standpoint, that's probably true…but there is something unbecoming all around. There is a due process for removing someone from office and this ain't it.

Petrie is a good choice as he has unquestioned credentials as a writer (most famous credit: Beverly Hills Cop and its sequel) and he has been President before, so he knows the territory. The Board will probably appoint someone equally credible — like Frank Pierson or John Wells — to be the new Veep.

I still think the WGA is facing a down-and-dirty round of bargaining which could lead to either a long, destructive strike or a short, destructive collapse. Most folks in Hollywood think it's time for the "talent unions" (the Directors Guild, the Screen Actors Guild and us) to get a larger share of DVD revenues…but SAG recently settled without getting into that issue, and the DGA never sets precedents that help other unions. So the WGA is out there fighting this battle on its own at a time when the economy is not good. And it's going to be bloody.

Dennis Donohoe writes…

I am one of many (I hope) who find Saletan's shrill hostility against Bush unpersuasive. I am curious, and I bet a lot of your other blog addicts are also, what you find compelling about Kerry that would get you to vote for him. If it is just an attitude of "anybody but Bush", I can sort of understand that since that is what I thought about Clinton. If it is something else, who knows – maybe if you blog it you could persuade people over to the Kerry side, not that you have any obligation to do that. I hope your leaning toward Kerry is not just knee-jerk voting for the Democratic candidate, regardless of the merits. Somehow I can't believe that is the case.

No, it isn't. I've voted G.O.P. at times and long disdained party-line voting. (I always think it's high on the ridiculous scale when we see "news stories" that Bill Clinton has endorsed the Democrat in some race or that Bob Dole has endorsed the Republican. Like those guys have taken an unencumbered look at the contest and honestly come to the conclusion that the guy from their party is by far the best choice.)

You have not seen me post much positive here about Kerry because, frankly, I haven't seen anything yet that gives me a reason to cheer on his candidacy. Then again, I haven't seen anything particularly negative…so I guess to some extent, I am operating in "Anybody but Bush" mode. Perhaps between now and November, I'll find reasons to get enthusiastic about Kerry. If not, I'll probably vote for him with the same "lesser of two evils" motivation that has underscored too many of the ballots I've cast in my lifetime.

I don't find Saletan "shrill" by any definition. In the last piece I linked to, he quoted Bush and his crew, then cited what seemed to me like pretty solid evidence that those charges are not true. He didn't call anyone a pathological liar or a "scumbag" or any of the hysterical insults that too often infect political discussions. Do you think Saletan was wrong? If he wasn't, then he was doing his job as a political commentator. If he was wrong, then that's the problem with his piece. (I should confess to another of my prejudices here: I think about 90% of all political "attack" ads are not only nasty but are written with the deliberate intent of distorting the record and quotes of the attacked candidate.)

For reasons I've mentioned and others that will be posted here between now and November, I think Bush has been a terrible president, making things worse in almost every category. The one thing I'll give him is that he's done a good job of convincing a large segment of the population that he's being "tough" and that Daddy is in charge and protecting us from the mean ol' terrorists. That is not a small thing but I do think a lot of it is illusory. When I finish a deadline I'm presently battling, maybe I'll write more about this.

[The above message was updated at 7:05 PM to clean up some sloppy phrasing.]

William Saletan does a pretty good job of disassembling the current Bush-Cheney attempts to sell a negative caricature of John Kerry to America.

Anyone who reads this page knows I hope George W. Bush does not win the election this November. But if he does, I really hope he wins a clean victory and not one that winds up going to the Supreme Court.

As you may have heard, Justice Antonin Scalia today declined to recuse himself in the matter of the Sierra Club's suit against Dick Cheney. Even to a legal layman, his 21-page memorandum [Adobe Reader required] has to raise some eyebrows. He claims, for instance, that if Justices recuse themselves, there can too easily be 4-4 tie decisions. Okay, fine…but isn't a tie preferable to a 5-4 decision that will widely be perceived as dishonest or tainted? More to the point, when a Justice retires or dies, we always go through a long period where we have eight members on the High Court. If an even number of Justices is so undesirable, why has no one proposed whatever legislation would be necessary to hasten the confirmation process and get us back to nine? And of course, during those long periods of eight Justices, one recusing him or herself eliminates the possibility of a tie, so recusal doesn't always result in judicial gridlock.

The following passage also struck me as flailing about to find some way to argue his side…

…while friendship is a ground for recusal of a Justice where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue, it has traditionally not been a ground for recusal where official action is at issue, no matter how important the official action was to the ambitions or the reputation of the Government officer.

Perhaps there are few (if any) precedents but I don't see the distinction here. If Dick Cheney loses this case and is forced to reveal that which he has fought to keep hidden, he could suffer enormous personal embarrassment. He could be sued or even lose his job. What the heck difference does it make to argue that — well, technically — it's his official action not his personal fortune. One could also make a pretty good case that Cheney's personal fortune has been enhanced in huge amounts by his official actions. Wait 'til later, when it's too late for Bush to drop him from the ticket and the Democrats begin unleashing the "war profiteering" accusations. At some point, we're going to hear Democrats saying things like, "Dick Cheney isn't really that interested in a second term. He wants to hurry back to Halliburton and collect his commission on the war."

In any case, it seems to me that recusal is not about the technicalities of a conflict of interest but about making sure that the court's decisions are above suspicion. Is there anyone today who feels, in light of Scalia's attitude, America is more likely to embrace the next 5-4 decision that favors the Bush administration with Scalia among the five?