An Associated Press story says that Joe Barbera has written a letter to the L.A. City Council urging them to preserve his old studio at 3400 Cahuenga. That's about all there is to the story, which you can read here if you like.

But if you do go read it, you'll see one error. It says that building is "where Tom & Jerry, The Jetsons and Yogi Bear…were first sketched." This is not true. The Tom & Jerry cartoons were done, starting in 1940, on the MGM lot in Culver City. Yogi Bear's first cartoons were done in the first Hanna-Barbera studio, which was on La Brea near Sunset, in 1959. The building on Cahuenga was first opened in 1962, even as the first — and for a long time, only — season of The Jetsons was being completed. (Most of that show was done on La Brea.)

Thanks to Charles Apple for calling my attention to the story.

Here's a link to an article by columnist Leonard Pitts who says pretty much the same thing I did.

From "ArizonaTeach" comes this…

Please explain to me the difference:

"I don't support the war but I support the troops."

"I don't support homosexuality but I support homosexual people."

If you're claiming that Santorum is "winking to his supporters" then you're calling any anti-war people anti-Americans who want our troops dead.

And that's not a slippery slope.

Okay, here's my explanation, but let's note that the second quote above is not exactly what Senator Santorum said. What he said was that he was fine with the notion of people being homosexuals as long as they didn't commit homosexual acts. That's pretty much an internal contradiction. It's like someone saying, "There's nothing wrong with disco music as long as no one actually plays it." Homosexuals are, pretty much by definition, people who commit homosexual acts. So the distinction Santorum was attempting to draw was a bit disingenuous. It is possible in a spiritual sense to condemn what you believe to be a sin yet still love the sinner, and perhaps that was what he meant. But he was talking about enacting or not enacting laws, and laws are based on prohibiting behavior.

Now then. The distinction between the two statements you laid on me goes to the definition of the word, "support." This whole notion of "supporting the troops" goes back, at least in my experience, to the Vietnam protests. I assume it has existed with earlier wars, but that's where a lot of us first heard it. Then, we heard an ever-increasing number of folks who felt that that war was either unjustified or that it was being so mismanaged that we should cut our losses and bring our soldiers home before any more of them got killed or maimed. Somehow, the rejoinder to that sentiment became, "You aren't supporting our troops." This was one of those instances — way too common in our society from all angles — where one side of an issue deals with opposition by misrepresenting it into something more noxious and inarguable. It's like when Jerry Falwell voices a political viewpoint, wraps it in Biblical references, and claims that to be against his viewpoint is to oppose God.

There are a lot of folks out there — and I am not among them — who believed and perhaps still believe that the whole Iraq invasion was an utter mistake, and perhaps one with unstated, business-related motives. That is a criticism of White House and Pentagon decisions, not of the fighting men and women. One can certainly have nothing but positive feelings towards the troops themselves yet still feel that the higher-level decisions that sent them off to fight are wrong. So you can "support" the fighting men and women without supporting the war. But I don't know how one supports homosexuals in any real way while saying they shouldn't be allowed to commit homosexual acts.

I think Santorum is advocating an unreasonable governmental control of folks' sex lives and implying he wants to work towards something even more restrictive. Once you start denying any right to privacy in the bedroom, you're looking to become more intrusive in policing sexual activity. But saying that anti-war folks want to see soldiers killed is just plain misrepresenting a political opposition.

This thing is puzzling. MSNBC has this clip online of Matt Lauer interviewing Tim Robbins the other morning. It's a fairly innocuous interview, at least for Robbins, and it ends rather normally. It's also short enough (about two minutes) to make one suspect that there was more said, either before or after — but maybe not.

Just thought I'd mention that after several days, I'm extremely happy with the software I set up to run this weblog. It's called Movable Type and it's free, though they ask for donations and charge a modest fee if you want them to install it on your server. On the old news from me page at POVonline, I hand-formatted things, so to do an entry meant a certain amount of time fiddling with software and HTML codes and uploading.

With Movable Type, any time a thought hits me, I can just open a window, enter text like this, click and — ZAP! — it's up on the website. If while surfing the web I come across something I want to recommend to you, I right-click, select the MT option and it not only opens a window for me to type in but pastes in the link for me, as well. I don't have to worry about archiving, either. Movable Type handles all that. The downsides were that since I didn't want to use any of their standard templates for my page format, I had to design a page, then figure out how to make Movable Type create that page. This meant learning a little something about XHTML, the new web format, but it was worth it. Hope you agree.

David Bachman writes…

Strictly speaking, voters who elected Senator Santorum aren't the only ones (as you stated) who have the right to remove him from the U.S. Senate. The Senate itself, as provided in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States, "may…, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." I believe this was done last year, in the lower House, to The Honorable James Traficant (I love the irony inherent in some formalities, don't you?). I'm sure your general meaning was that voters in states other than Pennsylvania have no voice in Senator Santorum's future as a Senator, and I haven't an argument with that. Still, I hope that you'll be as interested in knowing this bit of Constitutional trivia as I am in sharing it.

You're right, of course. But of course, the "honorable" Mr. Traficant was on his way to prison for a crime when he was booted out of the House. Santorum has been charged with no crime — though if he goes the route of many public moralists, he'll be caught in some men's room molesting the towel dispenser before the year is out.

I guess calls for someone's resignation usually strike me as grandstanding and kind of arrogant: "Yes, you've been duly elected to this position by the voters in your state (or district or whatever) but you've offended me so I demand you quit." Often, it's obvious that the person making the demand really doesn't want the offending party to quit. Democrats were calling for Trent Lott's abdication at the same time they were hoping he'd stay right where he was, driving minority voters from the G.O.P.

Hey, how about that statement of support from our semi-elected president? Ari Fleischer said, "The president believes the senator is an inclusive man." I think that means Santorum even wants people he considers immoral criminals to be a part of the Republican party. And I liked a comment that I spotted on a couple of websites. For all the right-wing's condemnation of the morals of men like Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank, neither one of them ever did an interview and brought up the topic of men humping dogs.

Works perfectly, and way ahead of schedule. I can "publish" JPG files from my computer so that I can view them on my TV. I can "publish" MP3 files and access them through my television. Once I get the downstairs TiVo hooked into the network, I'll be able to sit down there and listen to music that is presently on my computer.

I tried the on-line scheduling, deliberately selecting a show that conflicted with a recording I already had scheduled. Went to the TiVo site, picked it…and within moments, TiVo had sent me an e-mail telling me that it was not scheduling the recording because of the conflict. It also sent a TiVo message that I could view on my TV screen. Neat.

Took no time to set up and so far, it's doing everything it's supposed to do. Why can't all technology be like this?

I am told that some people who do not own TiVos are sick 'n' tired of those of us who do waxing enthusiastic about them. Well, tough. TiVo has elevated my enjoyment of television a couple hundred percent by allowing me to watch what I want when I want without hassling with tapes and silly programming codes and all that this involves. With TiVo, you just press a couple of buttons that say, in effect, "Record The Jerry Springer Show every time it's on," and that's it. You will never miss another episode in which some guy's mother goes on national television to reveal to him that she's always been a transvestite pygmy.

You can pause, jump ahead, watch at double speed, freeze-frame nude scenes…whatever thrills you. I enjoy this invention so much that I have upgraded every time they've brought out an improved model and, though it hasn't been around all that long, I am now on my fourth and fifth TiVos. The two latest are both the new Series 2 model which, among its other innovations, allows you to install a package of services jointly called the "Home Media Option." I just installed this on the TiVo in my office.

Briefly, Home Media Option allows me to connect my TiVo to my home network which, in turn, connects to the Internet. Instead of obtaining program info via a phone line, TiVo now connects to the web and downloads it — faster and more often — from the TiVo website. I can log into the TiVo website (from my home computer or a remote one) and select shows for TiVo to record. This means, at least in theory, that if I'm over at Marv Wolfman's house and I suddenly realize I forgot to set up to record Mr. Personality, I can hop onto Marv's computer and tell my TiVo to add it to its task list. I can also take the JPG and MP3 files on my computer and send them through my home network to play or be seen on my TV screen. And once I get around to running a cable down to my downstairs TV room, I can connect my two TiVos and swap recorded programs from one to the other. At least, this is how it's all supposed to work.

Does it? I don't know yet. I just set it up, and it's supposed to download the required software to make all these things happen in about three hours. Check back then and we'll see.

Larry Gelbart has an article there tomorrow morning, all about flying the Concorde to and from Europe. Here's that link.

Here's a link to another Lewis Black commentary from The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. Again, the dreaded RealPlayer is required.

Got a couple of e-mails from folks who believe — as I suspected — that the story of Tim Robbins getting cut off the air on The Today Show might not be all it's cracked up to be. Here's Paul Harris…

It's probably something a lot less devious. NBC has a hard cutaway to local stations at :25 and :55 every hour of Today. They break the network at that point so affiliates can do local commercials and news inserts. These are never preempted unless the full network is in preemption mode (as on the morning of 9/11, for instance) when they don't even break for commercials because of continuous coverage of a major event. So the more likely reason is that someone — in the booth, on the floor, or in Lauer's ear — got the timing wrong, or Lauer ignored the cutaway signals because he was so caught up in what Robbins was saying.

Makes sense, but Standard Broadcasting Procedure would then be for the host, following the break, to say something like, "Our apologies to Tim Robbins for a technical error that cut him off." On the other hand, we don't know that this wasn't said. I just think it's funny that, intentional or not, Robbins got cut off while he was going after Corporate America on NBC, just like a Saturday Night Live sketch in which Tim Robbins got cut off while he was going after Corporate America on NBC.

And don't forget to visit Paul Harris's splendid website after you get through reading this splendid website.

…of hearing about Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks and whether the right-wing is trying to make criticizing G.W. Bush seem like treason, you might like to read this interview with Roger Ebert.

Maybe I'm misremembering but it seems to me that back when Tim Robbins once hosted Saturday Night Live, the monologue bit went like this: Robbins began criticizing the parent company of NBC, General Electric, and suddenly he was cut off and an announcer proclaimed that Saturday Night Live would never be seen again. Something like that. (I think it turned out to be a nightmare. Lorne Michaels woke up in bed with Phil Hartman…)

If this account is true — and I don't know for sure that it is — then a very similar thing not only happened for real on The Today Show recently but actually happened to Tim Robbins.

Just read a wide range of Internet comments on the controversy. Some called for him to resign, which I usually think is showboating. Good, bad or indifferent, a representative under this kind of fire is there at the service of those who elected him. Only they really have the right to remove him and if they so desire, there are processes by which they can do that, including the next election. I also see a lot of folks doing backflips of logic to try and explain the difference between legalizing homosexual unions and leaping onto that much-mentioned "slippery slope" towards incest, polygamy, bigamy, going to Yanni concerts, and other no-nos. (I am generally suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments. Some are quite valid but some are just ways of masking your inability to argue the immediate. It's like you want to ban cheeseburgers and your arguments are feeble, so you argue that eating cheeseburgers is that fatal first step down the slippery slope to killing puppies. You know, if cheeseburger consumption increases, we would eventually run out of cows, and we'd have to make them out of something…)

What I think bothers me about the Senator's remarks are, first of all, that folks are seizing on the homosexuality = incest end of it while ignoring his more offensive (to me) remarks about the children who were molested by priests, trying to pretend they were mainly consenting teens just shy of the age of consent. No, some of them were quite non-consenting 4-year-olds. Secondly, there's a kind of soft, coded bigotry underscoring this kind of thing.

Analogies between gay rights and the rights of racial minorities only go so far, but I think this one applies. Years ago, a "mole" who worked in the George Wallace campaign revealed that Wallace and his aides had actually rehearsed saying the word, "nigra." It was deliberately picked as a kind of halfway-point between "negro" and "nigger." The idea was to send a message to potential Wallace supporters: In order to get along in the world and perhaps win the presidency, ol' George couldn't use the word he really meant…but you know what he means. If someone called Wallace on it — and some did — he'd feign innocence and say, "Why, shucks, that's just my accent." It was a way of sending coded messages to his people while being able to disavow use of the word.

Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this but during the Trent Lott brouhaha, I thought a very apt comment was that the Republicans were not promoting or advocating bigotry but that they were trying real hard to wink at it and not lose the votes of such folks. It's the same way that their "big tent" philosophy causes them to try and have it both ways on abortion. There's a large chunk of people out there who believe that anyone who isn't actively working against abortion is a baby murderer…and the Republican leadership has done a good job of assuring such folks that they agree while at the same time saying those baby murderers are welcome in the party and that the G.O.P. has their interests at heart, as well.

I initially thought Santorum's remarks were just that of a gay-basher thoughtlessly shooting his mouth off. I dunno. Maybe they were more calculated than that. An awful lot of other prominent Republicans seem to be making the same kind of "have it both ways" remark that assures a certain core constituency that it will do what it can to roll back gay rights and similar causes, while at the same time trying not to alienate that part of the voting bloc that believes — as hard-core conservatives perhaps should — that the government should stay out of the bedroom. When you say you have no problem with homosexuals, only with homosexual acts, that sounds glib and, yes, it has its Biblical antecedents. But in the world of politics, I think it's a way of hinting a stronger position without having to actually say it.

As usual, Spinsanity is right. There has been a lot of misrepresentation and misquoting of the infamous remarks by Senator Rick Santorum. Here's their debunking of some of it.