Jerry Beck, over on Cartoon Research, calls our attention to this article about the squabble between Disney and the folks who control Winnie the Pooh.

And Joshua Micah Marshall has a good, probably important observation on the Whitewater Report over on www.salon.com.  Alas, it's over in the subscribers-only area but it's sure to turn up on some free site soon and, when it does, I'll post a link here.  In the meantime, Gene Lyons continues to expose a lot of the dirty-dealing behind the prosecution.  Here's a link to a recent piece about how Judge Starr was able to go as far as he was.

In 1995, the Resolution Trust Corporation issued a $4 million report by the San Francisco-based (and heavily Republican) law firm of Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro that concluded that there had been no criminal wrongdoing on the part of William Jefferson Clinton or his wife Hillary in connection with the land deal known as Whitewater.  This report was either denounced (G.O.P. Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, then the House banking committee's ranking minority member, charged that the R.T.C. was illegally withholding Whitewater documents that would incriminate the Clintons) or ignored (most of the media, including the so-called liberal press).

Now, after six years, $70 million dollars and multiple reports of prosecutorial misconduct, the Office of the Independent Counsel has issued its Whitewater report.  It concludes that there was no criminal wrongdoing on the part of William Jefferson Clinton or his wife Hillary in connection with the land deal known as Whitewater.  Oh, it tries to hint that there were crimes that couldn't be proven but that's basically what it says.

Democrats will say, "Let's put this behind us," because they've decided that there's no upside to them in anything that involves repeated usage of the name, "Clinton."  Republicans will argue that somehow, justice has been denied; that there must have been a crime there…or maybe that it doesn't matter since they proved that Bill did something wrong and it helped them capture a few offices including, perhaps, the presidency.

I think both should be furious that so much time and money was wasted on a witch hunt but they won't be.  Politics over principle.

For those in the Southern California area:  This coming Sunday evening, March 24, KCET (channel 28) is rerunning the episode of Great Performances subtitled, "Chuck Jones: Extremes and In-Betweens, a Life in Animation."

I have a number of magical friends…folks to whom the mundane laws of science do not apply.  One of these is Charlie Frye who, with his lovely spouse Sherry, performs one of the best acts I've ever seen on a Las Vegas stage.  To say he is a juggler is like saying Château Lafitte-Rothschild is a beverage.  He's one of those entertainers who has a surplus of gifts: He not only can juggle, he does magic and physical comedy and has an amazing gift for expressive pantomime.  He and Sherry are not playing Las Vegas at the moment but when they did in the past, I'd go see them and grow impatient for the nude women to get off the stage so Charlie would come back out and juggle more Indian Clubs.  Then we'd go out to dinner afterwards and, in the restaurant, Charlie would juggle the plate and the silverware and the water glasses and, if the waitress looked light enough, the waitress.

He's a very funny boy and he's been doing this kind of thing all his life.  Recently, he put together a little "how-to" tape demonstrating a few of his stunts.  It's called Eccentricks and, while its intended audience is other performers, it's the kind of thing I'd have killed-for when I was a pre-teen.  If you have a kid and you'd like to inspire him to run away from home and join the circus, this is the tape that'll do it.  Surf over to Charlie's website where you can order a copy…and watch this space for info on the next time his act — Charlie Frye & Co. — plays Las Vegas.

Today's bitch about reporters is one my friends have heard out of me for years: The tendency to speak of elections in the future as if someone has a worthwhile notion of who'll be running, let alone who will win.  The next time we go to the polls to cast ballots for president is 959 days in the future.  No one has a clue who'll be running and how we'll feel about any of them by then.  Someone may die.  Someone else may get caught in a scandal of monumental proportion.  There may be more terrorist attacks or some marked victory over those who committed the last biggie.  The economy may go way, way up or way, way down.  And at least one prominent contender — you can just about bet on this one — will go out and say something so all-fired stupid as to marginalize his candidacy.

Everyone knows it's way too early to project whether Bush will run or win or, if not, who will.  But, as reporter Jack Germond once said, "We aren't paid to say, 'I don't know.'"  So they say things even when they don't know, aided by the Bush fans/detractors who are over-eager to declare that G.W.B. will win in a landslide or be ousted from office.  I especially love the pundits who say, "It's way too early to tell who'll run" and then, in the next breath, tell us not only who'll run but how many states each will carry.

Among reporters these days, one sees a tremendous personal contempt for Al Gore and an eagerness to write him off.  I am no fan of the man and hope not to see his name on my ballot.  Still, he did get more votes for President than the man currently in the White House.  I'm not sure that doesn't trump all the catty remarks about his beard (which he has now shaved-off) or wardrobe choices.  I also suspect that, at some point, the pendulum will swing back and we'll be reading of Al Gore's remarkable comeback…not that that means he'll be the Democratic nominee.

Here's one example of how things can change.  One year before the '92 election, Saturday Night Live did a sketch in which various theoretical Democratic presidential contenders debated.  The premise was that none of them wanted to be the guy who lost to Bush, and each argued that he should not be the candidate.  That's how unbeatable the previous President Bush looked then…only 365 days before Election Day.  Somehow, Bush lost that election.

"Professor" Irwin Corey is the World's Foremost Authority on…well, I never knew what.  Or cared.  After all, just being the World's Foremost Authority is an achievement unto itself, isn't it?  Are you the World's Foremost Authority on anything?  I always found the man very funny, especially in the days when talk show hosts didn't insist on having every second of their program planned and scripted down to the nth degree.  Corey — the man who once said, "If we don't change our direction soon, we run the risk of ending up exactly where we're heading" — is eighty-something years of age and, according to my pal Larry Steller, just as incoherently hysterical as ever.

Larry was prompted to go see the Prof, who performs every Sunday evening at the New York Comedy Club, because I posted a link to www.irwincorey.com.  The original idea was to get a whole group together but Larry was only able to drum up one friend and, as it happened, the two of them comprised the entire audience.  Larry files this report…

Richard Corey [son of Irwin] did a funny-enough warm-up and intro, centered around an impression of Andy Kaufman doing an impression of Elvis, which Richard said he had done so many times it had now become an impression of himself doing an impression of Andy Kaufman doing an impression of Elvis.  He then started to introduce The Professor, but was harangued off-stage by Corey, correcting him with such timely advice as "You've already established that there are no ladies present, so why do you persist in saying 'Ladies and Gentlemen' when there are only these two gentlemen here?"

So Corey got his laughs before taking the stage, and it just got better.  It was a fun, exciting and wonderfully unique night for me that had to be no-fun and demoralizing for Corey — he had an audience of two — yet he gave it his all.  He went on with the show, peppering his act with appropriate lack-of-audience jibes, and gave as good a show as I had hoped, with a solid performance worthy of a full house.  And that is the measure of a true professional.  I will loudly sing the man's praises from now on, because no one would have blamed him if he'd given a lesser performance.

Me again.  Corey's playing Sunday night dates at that club for a few more weeks.  If I could get back to New York in that time, I'd be front-and-center for one of them.  If you're in the vicinity, take my place.

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.