Just corrected a factual-type error in the news item before last.  It was Pageant Magazine — not Redbook — that almost lured Harvey Kurtzman away from MAD.  And I can even tell you why I got it wrong.  The late Archie Goodwin, whose early comic book writing/editing reminded many of Kurtzman's, was at one time on the editorial staff of Redbook.  Ergo, the association.

Thanks to Batton Lash for the catch.  If you're not reading Batton's Supernatural Law, you're missing one of the cleverest comic books out today.  Here's a link to a page that'll tell you all you need to know about it.

Speaking of MAD — as I was, about an hour ago — this is the cover of a recent catalog for Lands' End, a company which sells stylish clothing.  Or, at least, they used to sell stylish clothing. Is there anyone you'd less want to look like when selecting your wardrobe than Alfred E. Neuman?  But, then again, maybe this is marketing genius.  For years, we've all been inundated by catalogs featuring models whose looks we can never hope to equal, no matter what we purchase from those pages.  I mean, I can empty my bank account buying Brooks Brothers shirts.  I'm still not going to look like the male models wearing those perfectly-tailored outfits on perfectly-toned torsos.  And it's not like those ladies in the Victoria's Secret catalog would have any trouble getting their men fired-up if they didn't wear Victoria's Secret undies.

(I've never quite understood the premise behind sexy lingerie.  If it's any good, it shouldn't stay on for very long, should it?)  Anyway, we can all purchase Lands' End shirts and pants and sweat socks and jock straps, secure in the notion that we'll look as good in it as the guy on the front of their catalog.  For once.

I spotted the above photo on the wire services — in conjunction with the passing of Irene Worth and the weekend nuptials of Liza Minnelli — and couldn't resist usurping it for here.  It's from the 1965 Tony Awards and the winners are, left to right, Walter Matthau (for The Odd Couple), Ms. Worth (for Tiny Alice), Ms. Minnelli (for Flora, the Red Menace) and Zero Mostel (for Fiddler on the Roof).  Other Tony Awards that year went to Neil Simon, Jerome Robbins, Mike Nichols, Harold Prince, Jack Albertson, Alice Ghostley, Jerry Bock and Sheldon Harnick.  Quite a line-up of prestigious theatrical names, wouldn't you say?  I'm not sure that they still hold the records but a few years ago, The Odd Couple was the comedy that had received the most performances across America, while Fiddler on the Roof held that honor among musicals.  Both debuted in the same season.

The photo also summons up a great show biz anecdote.  Mostel initially turned down the lead in Fiddler and its makers began auditioning others, including Matthau, who had yet to be cast in The Odd Couple.  Halfway through his reading, Matthau stopped and turned to the director and producers.  "Hey, you know who you should get for this part?" he exclaimed.  "Zero!"

Someone yelled back, "If we could get Zero, do you think we'd be auditioning you?"

Bill Carter is back with another article about the Letterman-Koppel matter.  The ABC folks are trying to spin the story to say, "We almost got Dave" while the Letterman forces are trying to emphasize that Dave wasn't really willing to see Ted Koppel ousted.  I doubt that very many folks — apart from those who have a reason to believe these assertions — will believe these assertions.  Perhaps significantly, Carter talks about the impact that his original story had on the negotiations and mentions that ABC feared the fact that they were talking to Dave would leak…but Carter does not say something like, "Letterman's people were shocked to find that the story had leaked."  This sure sounds to me like the writer is doing a certain amount of butt-covering, trying to please certain of his sources without fibbing in the pages of The New York Times.

It all raises the age-old question of reporters protecting sources at the risk of presenting an incomplete or inaccurate story.  Back when Ken Starr's office was being accused of leaking to the press, you had reporters who were allegedly the recipients of those leaks, who were also reporting on the accusations without commenting on their veracity.  As many onlookers noted at the time, those reporters knew whether or not they'd received leaks from Starr's crew.  If they had, then when they quoted Starr's denials, they were printing statements they knew to be untrue.  If they hadn't received such leaks, then they were reporting — without comment — allegations of lawbreaking they knew to be unfounded.  Either way, they were knowingly letting someone fill their articles with either false denials or false accusations.

Based on the timing and the fact that Letterman seems to have benefited from Carter's initial story, it is widely presumed that Dave's side leaked it.  Carter denied that casually on the Charlie Rose program but sidesteps the issue in this new, for-the-record article.  If Letterman's people did plant the story, then Carter — by omitting that information — is protecting a source at the cost of leaving out perhaps the most significant part of the story.  If Letterman's people didn't plant the story, then Carter is allowing a lot of people to wrongly assume a bit of negotiating skullduggery.  I'm not sure this conundrum can ever be avoided if reporters are going to protect sources…but it's worth noting that, when they do, it often means that some facet of the truth is not going to be served.

An article in in today's USA Today heralds the fiftieth anniversary of Mad Magazine and spreads a couple nuggets of misinformation.  Here's a link to the whole article and here's a quote that I might as well correct here…

In 1955, MAD transformed itself into a magazine to avoid the sanitized Comics Code Authority, which publishers formed under pressure from Congress.

Not true.  MAD became a magazine because Harvey Kurtzman — its founder, editor and, at that point, sole writer — wanted to get into slick magazines.  Kurtzman had repeatedly suggested that MAD stop being a comic book and become one.  He was embarrassed by the image that comics had at the time and feared that censorship — and perhaps the demise of the industry — were in the offing.  So when he received an offer to work for Pageant Magazine, he told MAD's publisher, William Gaines, he wanted to accept it.  Gaines then believed that Kurtzman was irreplaceable and offered to take him up on his suggestion to transform MAD.  This was done.

It would seem logical to assume the change was made because of the Code, especially since it occurred the same month that Gaines began (reluctantly) submitting the rest of his line to the Comics Code Authority.  It might also be logical to presume that Gaines was equally concerned about the future of comic books but, to his dying day, he insisted that neither was the case.  He said he'd changed MAD to keep Kurtzman and that, at the time, he thought the Code would work for him.  (One of the books he began submitting to the Code Administrator was Panic, his own imitation of Mad.)

Just to tie up the loose ends of this story: A few months later, Kurtzman demanded 51% ownership of MAD.  Some say he did this because he couldn't stand having Gaines controlling his work.  Others say he wanted to accept an offer from Hugh Hefner and was looking for a way to sever his relationship with Gaines.  Either way, the end result was that Kurtzman went to work for Hef, and Gaines found out that Kurtzman was replaceable.

I've lately spent a fair amount of time watching The Biography Channel, a fine network that probably isn't on your cable system.  But just in case it is — or in case you have a satellite dish — I'd like to recommend a fascinating documentary that is rerunning on Wednesday and Thursday.  (Click here to visit the channel's website if you want more specific info.)  The show I enjoyed so is called Lost In Las Vegas and it really isn't a biography.  It's a documentary that follows the dubious career of a couple of Blues Brothers impersonators as they try to find steady work in the "Legends in Concert" show at the Imperial Palace in Vegas.

I found it fascinating, not just for its view of that end of the business but also because, when the filmmakers decided to get a camera crew and follow these guys, they obviously did not anticipate the odd, unsatisfying ways in which the story would unfold.  The ersatz Jake and Elwood do not succeed but they don't completely fail…and what it results in is not a neat-'n'-tidy Hollywood ending but one that is brutally typical of how most show biz dreams end.

Last Friday evening, Carolyn and I attended a production of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, the season's closing production for the Reprise! series.  Reprise! (they spell it with the exclamation point) is the west coast equivalent of the New York-based series called Encores! — also spelled with an exclamation point.  The premise with both is to revive, however briefly, old musicals for short runs with, they hope, all-star casts.  Initially, the premise also included that these shows be staged with no sets, no costumes and no choreography…but many enterprises that mount such shows are now presenting minimal sets and a fair amount of costuming and choreography.

The amount of memorization expected of the cast has similarly evolved.  Initially, when a show was offered in a "concert version," they stood at music stands and read from their scripts.  Then some shows began building in more movement, and the actors took to carrying their scripts about, which generally meant learning the dialogue to the extent humanly possible and referring to the books when necessary.  Nowadays, no scripts are in sight.  As a result, these shows sometimes remind one of the proverbial dancing bear: You're impressed not with how well they do it but that they can do it at all.  Given as little rehearsal time as the budgets permit — in some cases, they're still operating with "concert style" schedules and fees — for the actors to simply learn it all and do it all is a Herculean achievement.

Reprise! does each show for less than two weeks.  My subscription tickets are always for late in each run, whereas my friend Len Wein has tickets for early in the run.  We compare notes and generally come to the conclusion that I'm seeing better performances than he is.  After their version of Strike Up The Band, I spoke with one of the actresses in it who said, "What you saw [at one of the final performances] was what we should have had on opening night."

The problem with Gentlemen Prefer Blondes the other evening was, I suspect, largely one of insufficient rehearsal and tryouts.  The book to the show — which I'd never seen before — is by and large a dated snooze.  Still, there might not have had so many awkward silences had the cast performed it 10 or 20 more times.  Some shows and performers require more work than others and, this time, I got the feeling everyone was still trying to remember where to stand; forget about finding the best way to deliver any given line.  Alice Ripley, who performed the lead, exuded charm and sexiness and there were others on the stage who sometimes rose above the prep time.  But overall, it reminded me of one of those shows one occasionally sees where an understudy has gone on in a key role and you're just praying from them to get through it in one piece.  In this case though, it wasn't one actor.  It was everyone…and it probably wasn't their fault.

Speaking of mad worlds, any of you following the saga of Kenneth Lay and the Lincoln Bedroom?  It's kinda interesting as an example of how inept (not biased; inept) the press can be and how phony reports seem to live forever.

You can read the whole saga over at www.spinsanity.com, though some of the
better episodes may require that subscription to Salon I've been recommending.  I especially love the parts where a newspaper prints the story, retracts the story and then one of their columnists repeats it.  The Washington Times printed the story, retracted it, printed it again, then retracted it again…and the day after the second retraction, radio newsman Paul Harvey broadcast it, citing that newspaper as his source!  (The Times, of course, got it from The Chicago Tribune, which had long since retracted it.)

This kind of thing is probably more common than we believe, especially since so many erroneous reports aren't as cleanly disprovable as this one.  And I guess what really rankles is that, in the age of the Internet and services like Nexis, this kind of thing ought to be extinct.  I can sit here, well outside the news biz and — employing only a free search engine — find multiple corrections and retractions of the story in less than thirty seconds.  Apparently, folks at papers like The Washington Times are not even bothering to search on their own web sites.  In this electronic age, there's no excuse for this…not that there ever was one.

Ahem! Coming your way in about 120 days — it's supposed to be out in time for the Comic-Con International in San Diego — is Comic Books and Other Necessities of Life, a paperback collection of columns I wrote over the years for Comics Buyer's Guide about the creation and collection of the great American funnybook.  They're a lot like the columns I have posted on this website except that they aren't posted on this website and you'll have to pay money and read them on paper like a normal human being, instead of off your computer monitor.  (By the way, we haven't made the final selections yet so if there's a specific piece you think oughta be included, drop me a line.  There will also be a couple of never-before-seen essays.)  The volume is being issued by TwoMorrows Publishing and above is the cover which, like a number of interior illustrations, is drawn by some guy named Sergio Aragonés who claims to know me.

I hope you like the cover because, if you visit this site, you're going to see a lot of it in the months to come.  I'll also be telling you how to order the book and practically shaming you into so doing.  This will be difficult — the book will only appeal to comic book fans, and comic book fans are notoriously difficult to shame — but trust me.  I will find a way.

Some recommended reading: Paul Krugman has an article in The New York Times that claims that all this talk of drilling for oil in Alaska is not the work of the oil companies.  That oil, he says (referencing some earlier N.Y.T. reportage), would cost too much to tap.  Says Krugman, the demands to drill are the work of a bizarre coalition: Union leaders want to show their memberships that they can force the government to do what it takes to create jobs…and certain right-wingers want to pass it just because it'll piss off conservationists.  This is either brilliant insight or crackpot analysis by Krugman.  Judge for yourself by clicking here.

As you may recall, we've been waiting, as if for Godot, for The Game Show Network to run the two episodes of Press Your Luck in which an unemployed air conditioning mechanic named Michael Larsen won over $110,000. We still don't know when that might be…but we do know that GSN is currently taping an all-new, higher-tech version of the show, which they're calling Whammy! They taped two pilots — one with original PYL host Peter Tomarken, one with Todd Newton, who emcees another of their original series, Hollywood Showdown. They picked Newton…and we'll see how he does and what they've done to our beloved Press Your Luck when the new version debuts on April 15. One does suspect that if they don't air the Larsen episodes soon, in order to promote Whammy!, they never will.

Jim Hanley calls my attention to a recent piece by Ron Rosenbaum that updates the 1971 article I mentioned here twelve hours ago.  Here's that link.

And speaking of hackers, Slate Magazine recently got taken in by an e-mail hoax.  This has led to this interesting article about their search to find the prankster…and this interesting article that describes, in layman's terms, how e-mail can be spoofed.  Well worth checking out.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. I've been cooking lately.  And that's scary because I belong in a kitchen the way Soldier of Fortune magazine belongs on Rosie O'Donnell's coffee table.  I have the ability to combine five very tasty ingredients into a dish, the taste of which is indistinguishable from sweat socks, fresh from the dryer.  About the only things I can manage are chicken breasts and the occasional turkey breast — that's right, I'm a Breast Man — both of which I usually nuke in my George Foreman Home Rotisserie.  They have two models.  I bought the smaller of the two, loved it and went ahead and purchased the larger.

The larger turned out to be clunkier and less efficient, so I went back to the smaller one and with it, I employ two secret weapons.  One is Love's Barbecue Sauce.  As mentioned elsewhere on this site, the Love's restaurant chain is not what it used to be.  Only a few remain open, all far from me and (apparently) far from their old excellence.  Fortunately, they haven't changed the sauce and I was able to connect with an exec from the company who sold me a case of it.  And when I don't feel like the taste of Love's, I've had good luck with the products of the Soy Vay company, especially their garlicky Chinese Marinade.  Soy Vay puts forth a small line of sauces, all strictly Kosher and without MSG, and I pick 'em up at Trader Joe's.  Give 'em a try…but if you do, keep the following in mind: You're taking cooking advice from a guy who could make Kobe Beef taste like last year's Odor Eaters.

Hawaii's goodwill ambassador of cartooning, Dave Thorne, calls our attention to this collection of editorial cartoons paying tribute to the late Chuck Jones. Thanks, Dave… and thanks to Daryl Cagle for assembling it!

In 1971, Esquire Magazine published an article by Ron Rosenbaum about "phone phreaks" — kids who'd figured out ways to hack Ma Bell's system and make free calls.  The "hero" of the tale was a blind gent who went under the handle of Captain Crunch because, incredibly, he'd discovered that a whistle that came in packages of Captain Crunch cereal could enable you to call all over the world without paying a dime.

The article was enormously influential.  In the computer age, many successful entrepreneurs would cite it as having inspired them to get into electronics.  Some became hackers of a new generation of technology; others founded the companies that were and are ripped-off…and, of course, both have a lot more in common than the source of their inspiration.  If you'd like to read the Esquire piece, someone typed the whole article out and put it on his website here.  I suspect this is a violation of copyright but, in this case, that seems somehow appropriate.

Speaking of clairvoyant Salon columnists: Eric Boehlert is the guy who wrote that series last year that was dead-on accurate in predicting the fate of the XFL.  He has a piece up now about the Letterman-Nightline scuffle that is pretty hard on Dave but probably not far removed from what most in the industry are saying today.  (Well, it's nicer than what Howard Stern said this morning…)  Basically, he endorses the assumption that everyone's making; that Letterman's side leaked the story that ABC wanted him and suggests a bit of hypocrisy in the assertion that ol' Dave would do nothing to hurt the esteemed Mr. Koppel.

(By the way: If someone thought that all this publicity would catapult Letterman out of third place, they were wrong.  Last night, Leno had a 4.5, Nightline had a 4.2 and Letterman had a 3.9.  One suspects that reporters — eager to prove that news should not be bumped by entertainment programming — will now be more inclined to report stuff like that.  Dave may have a terrific new contract but he's also got a lot more folks rooting for him to fail than he did before.)

By the way, I erred in the item I posted here earlier.  A year's subscription to Salon is thirty bucks, not twenty, but it's still worth it, especially for thoughtful, original pieces like this.  If you've already subscribed, here's a direct link to the piece.

One of my favorite political writers, Joshua Micah Marshall, posts interesting (and sometimes, clairvoyant) items almost daily on his Talking Points Memo website.  He also turns up in magazines and other websites like Salon, where he has a terrific piece on the final report from the office of Independent Counsel (i.e., Robert Ray, successor-in-interest to Ken Starr) on the matter of Clinton's alleged "crimes" in the Lewinsky caper.  I believe — and I expect this will be the judgment of history, if it isn't already — that the whole thing will be seen as a colossal waste of government funds and resources, and an appalling example of prosecutorial abuse.

That last aspect hasn't gotten nearly enough attention.  One of the moments when I found myself genuinely taken aback during it all was during a conversation with a friend of mine who regards himself as a Militant Libertarian.  He hates Democrats and considers Republicans the lesser of two evils…but still evil.  For years, I have heard him rabbit on about how government surveillance is immoral; how every teensy thing "they" do is an erosion of our freedoms; how the Feds shouldn't have the right to even know your address, let alone whether you own guns, smoke crack or hump small barnyard animals.  But it was perfectly fine with this guy that some of the Feds investigated our president's personal life and published the most personal, irrelevant details — especially the part about him masturbating in the sink.  That was just great because any principle can be overlooked if it harms your enemies…and this guy regarded (still regards) Bill Clinton as his enemy.

This is a disappointment I have in some way with all our leaders — Dems, Repubs, Greens, whatever.  It's the placing of simple political expediency — harming one's foes, especially — above principle.  Did you ever see one Clinton opponent speak up and say, "This has gone too far?"  I didn't.  Most of them would not defend Starr's goons leaking to reporters, releasing slime and scaring the bejeesus (and life savings) out of almost anyone who worked around the Oval Office.  But if one of them ever said, "This is not right," I sure didn't hear it…and the Democrats who hid under their desks were no better.

Marshall's Salon piece points up how disingenuous much of the Ray report is, especially in its contention that they could have indicted Clinton but chose not to — a conclusion designed to please no one and put nothing to rest.  Starr was said to have a political "tin ear," showing no concept of how certain actions and statements would be received by the public.  The guy who followed him into the job has demonstrated similar people skills.  He's said to be about to announce for the Senate but who, on God's green earth, would vote for the man?  If you hate Clinton, you're mad that Ray supposedly had tons of evidence of criminal-wrongdoing but chose not to use it.  If you love Clinton, you're pissed at the whole drawn-out Witch Hunt.  And if you're indifferent to Clinton, you're still fed up with the whole story and unlikely to reward the guy who prolonged it into its second century…and who still hasn't issued the final reports on Travelgate and Filegate.

If you'd like to see what Mr. Marshall has to say, I can offer two options.  The article is on Salon but it's in their premium section, which costs $20 a year to join.  It's well worth it and if you've already gone that route, here's the link.  If you're too cheap to do that — or already (wisely) donating all your discretionary income to this site, the piece is copied over at www.smirkingchimp.com.  This is a website that started out to be one of those inane "Doesn't George W. Bush look like an ape?" things but it's evolved into a serious presentation of liberal issues.  Alas, it's on a server that moves at about the speed of a deadlocked Congress…but if you're willing to wait a spell for a good essay to come up on your screen, here's a direct link to it.

I'll quote one paragraph from the Marshall piece because I think it's so important.  Remember, if you will, that the TV show 60 Minutes gave a woman named Kathleen Willey a whole hour to tell her tale of being groped by President Clinton, and that Starr's office prosecuted — and darn near destroyed the life of — a woman named Julie Hiatt Steele who refused to verify certain details of Willey's claim.  Marshall writes…

So how credible is Kathleen Willey? Apparently, not very credible at all. And that's not the word from some Clinton lapdog, but from the OIC itself. Appendix B of Ray's report analyzes Willey's accusations and concludes, rather hermetically, that "there was insufficient evidence to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton's testimony regarding Kathleen Willey was false." But that conclusion is a comic understatement when read in the context of the report's Appendix B. The OIC lawyers couldn't even convince themselves that Willey was credible, let alone prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. They had already concluded that Willey was a liar.

So why is no one screaming about what was done to Julie Hiatt Steele?  During the impeachment mess, some Republicans spoke of perjury as a crime akin to molesting toddlers, and spoke of the "Rule of Law" being annihilated if a prominent perjurer went free.  How come they aren't calling for Willey's prosecution and 60 Minutes isn't airing this view of her?  Answer: It doesn't advance anyone's cause at the moment.  And these days, adhering to a principle ain't nearly as important as winning the current skirmish.