Several of you have e-mailed me copies of this column by William Safire which seeks to alert the world to the clear and present danger presented by the Bush Administration's snooping on the citizenry.  I've got to admit I've come to disbelieve anything Mr. Safire writes.  This is the man who was dead certain that Hillary Clinton (and maybe Bill, too) would be indicted in Whitewater, Filegate and Travelgate.  This is also the man who claimed that our government had proof of an "Iraqi connection" to 9/11 conspirator Mohammed Atta.  Perhaps he's right this time, but I sure hope not.

I flipped through a copy of the new MAD at the newsstand.  The parody of The Onion was written by Scott Maiko.

We've spoken here before of Brad Oscar, who is subbing (matinees and some evenings) for Nathan Lane in The Producers on Broadway.  Brad is now getting reviewed by the New York critics and, so far, they love him.  Here's one review and here's another.

Just added a column about my little buddy, Billy Barty.  Read all about him here.

A not-insignificant percentage of America watches its TV shows without at least fully hearing them.  They read them via closed-captioning, which puts the text on the screen, often inaccurately.  Vast howlers have emerged when speech-to-text conversion devices have been used on live events, since the devices "mishear" and do not distinguish between homonyms — "frees" and "freeze," for example.  But even shows that are captioned in a more leisurely, stenographic manner sometimes promulgate altered or truncated dialogue that way.

A few years back, folks at the Writers Guild were briefly considering raising a creative rights stink about them.  For some reason, on a flurry of shows, whoever was doing the closed-captioning was taking great liberties with what WGA writers wrote, doing major paraphrasing and condensation, often for no visible reason.  A couple of members wanted to lodge a protest and/or a lawsuit; others feared that it would somehow look like the Guild was making it more difficult for hearing-impaired viewers to be serviced.  Eventually, the issue was dropped due to a disinterest and because the captioners seemed to be getting more faithful.

For some time, it has been — well, not exactly a secret but something that no one mentioned out loud — that a few shows would censor/bleep spoken words but leave them in the captioning.  David Letterman's was among them.  Recently, this was the case with a joke about Gatorade.  Letterman's speech, which was bleeped, said something about the product including "5% gator urine" but these words turned up in the closed-captioning.  (The procedure is now being changed.  For more info, as well as a good explanation of different captioning procedures, check out Joe Clark's explanation here.)

Here is a possibly-interesting aspect to this issue: What if the Gatorade people decided to sue for slander?  They almost certainly won't but what if they did?  I'm a layman but, as I understand it, to win a defamation case, you generally have to prove (1) that the statement was false, (2) that the conveyor(s) of the statement knew it was false or should have known, (3) that it was defamatory and (4) that they acted either with malice or with a reckless disregard for accuracy.  It would seem to me that by cutting the joke, the producers are admitting the first two and would have a hard time defending the third.  After all, someone at the network made the decision to delete the reference for most of America.  That person would be put on the stand and asked why it was cut.  A reply like, "Well, we knew it wasn't defamatory but someone was afraid someone might think it was unfair to Gatorade" would not likely sway a jury.

That would leave (4) as the last line of defense and that would seem shaky to me.  It's easy to imagine some well-dressed Johnny Cochran-style barrister packing the courtroom with deaf people the day of his summation, gesturing to them and proclaiming, "These people make up X percent [whatever it is] of the American population.  Is the defense claiming that they don't exist?  That these people are so insignificant that we don't acknowledge them as a part of society?  That it isn't worth the twenty seconds it would have taken the producers to phone the closed-captioning company and have the offending line deleted?"  And so on, establishing some approximation of reckless disregard.

This is moot in the case of Letterman/Gatorade since, as I say, the company is unlikely to sue, if only because it would only prompt more (and worse) Gatorade jokes elsewhere.  But it has often dawned on me that the networks' Standards and Practices departments, in their never-ending quest to stop their networks from getting sued, often achieve the opposite; that they make their companies more vulnerable by admitting — and even arguing — that a given line which ultimately gets on the air is actionable.  I can't count the number of times a Censor Person told me that a given joke might be cause for legal action.  The joke usually aired anyway and nothing happened…but the Standards 'n' Practices person always wrote a cover-your-ass memo to say, "I warned him this was defamatory" and if someone had sued, that memo would likely have been subpoenaed and offered as some sort of admission on the network's part.

Just something to think about.

By the way: If you have know someone who is hard-o'-hearing, you might consider touting them on closed-captioning — and they don't have to be deaf to find it of value.  My father never went deaf but his hearing deteriorated to the point where he was having trouble watching television — especially shows with a lot of crowd noise (like sports) or background music intermingling with dialogue.  At the time, closed-captioning was not standard on TV sets, so I went to Sears, which was then the leading vendor of them, and bought a device to attach to his Zenith.  He left the sound on and was still able to distinguish about 85% of what was said…but the captioning helped him with the other 15%.  That 15% was the difference between enjoying a show and constant frustration.

When he passed away, my mother had me take the machine off his set and I stuck it in the trunk of my car, figuring I might someday find a home for it.  Six months later, I was at a San Diego Comic Convention, talking with a lovely man named Dick Giordano, who was then the head honcho at DC Comics.  Dick has a hearing problem and we somehow got to talking about closed-captioning.  He said he'd never tried it, and didn't know where to purchase one of the decoders.  I said, "Wait here a second…" and ran out to my car.  Dick used it for years, all the time wondering how it was that I just happened to have a spare closed-caption device with me.

• War is Heck by Frank Rich, New York Times
• Justifying War by Alan Keyes
• The Political Clock is Ticking by Kevin Phillips, Los Angeles Times

The above links, like most posted here, are to articles that the operator of this website believes are interesting and which contribute to the national debate. He does not necessarily agree with all or any of what they say…and you won't, either.

I thought it might be interesting to demonstrate how our nation's current war strategy can be completely summarized by two comic book covers.

The Big Press Recount of the Florida vote has come and gone without us learning much about anything. Most of the stories in the "consortium" papers didn't seem to think much of their own survey, and didn't seem to know what was so newsworthy that it justified the time and trouble. (The fairest story seemed to me to be the one moved by Associated Press. Here's a link.)

Watching the partisans frantically spinning, one got the feeling they weren't too thrilled with the thing, either. The pro-Gore folks seem disappointed that it did not yield hard evidence that Gore clearly got more votes than Bush, but was cheated due to thuggish Republican tactics. The pro-Bush folks seem frustrated that it pretty well establishes that substantially more Floridians who cast votes were trying to cast them for Gore.

Personally, I think more folks on both sides should be outraged at how sloppy the whole voting/counting procedure was. Can anyone doubt that, using that system and those machines, we've had a number of wrong guys declared the victor in elections past? And probably not just in Florida? But of course, no one in the public discourse gives a fig about voting accuracy if it doesn't lead to their guy getting in.

The reportage with which I would most disagree is that the claim that, had the recounts gone forward, Bush would probably have won; ergo, the Supreme Court decision is somehow vindicated. I think it proves the opposite. Ostensibly, they were arguing the application of the law, not that they were finding a justification for installing the correct guy. A lot of press reports (including The New York Times) have come perilously close to saying, "Well, the right man got in; ergo, the decision was sound." Clearly, a fallacious court decision can, via the old stopped-clock theorem, yield the correct result. A proper decision would have stood the test of either outcome.

Moreover, the press recounts show that "recoverable overvotes," (i.e., ballots that had two votes for president, both the same) could easily have altered that outcome. The Supreme Court decision was ostensibly about "equal protection" but its result was that such overvotes were counted in some Florida precincts and tossed in others. And, despite the screw-ups of Gore's lawyers, which now look more formidable than ever, more votes could have been counted and should have been counted. Ultimately, the decision of who won Florida — and, therefore, the presidency — turned on which voters had their ballots tallied and which ones didn't. And it all came down to a court decision that sought to prevent "irreparable harm," not to the voters but to the candidate who'd triumphed in the first, incomplete counts.

That America is not more outraged at the Supreme Court is, I suspect, indicative that we have come to regard that institution as just another partisan body, with no wisdom to rise above the fray. We're used to our legislative and executive offices occasionally going foolishly liberal or conservative on us, depending on who happens to comprise them that week. Now, more than ever, we track control of the Supreme Court with the same expectation of power shifts that accompanied one recent Senator switching political parties. We are no more surprised when the highest court in the land is "wrong" (as per our views) than we are when we lose a skirmish in a Congress or Senate.

The theory behind appointing Supreme Court justices for life was to remove them from the political fray. Sure ain't worked out that way, has it?

(For more on all this, check out this recent piece by Mickey Kaus, who seems to have been the first commentator, many moons ago, to zero in on the significance of all them overvotes.)

We're still waiting for The Game Show Network to rerun the two episodes of Press Your Luck in which an unemployed air conditioning mechanic named Michael Larsen figured out a way to beat the "wheel" for over $110,000. It was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen on TV. The latest out of GSN is that they have the episodes and will soon announce when they'll air. When I hear, I'll post it in this spot. Stay tuned.

I mentioned it here before but one of the most amazing things I ever saw on television occurred on two episodes of the game show, Press Your Luck in 1984.  Briefly, an unemployed electrician named Michael Larsen figured out how to "beat" the game board and, instead of walking off with $10,000-$20,000 like most winners, took the show for $110,237.  CBS was humiliated and didn't rerun the two episodes on which he did this and they were also skipped a few years ago when USA Network reran the series.

Well, Game Show Network is now rerunning Press Your Luck, two per day.  In fact, they're currently running the episodes that lead up to the Larsen sweep.  Word is, they're going to skip over Larsen's appearance when they get to where it would run in sequence (some time next week) and run them instead as part of a big, heavily-ballyhooed promotion later this month, probably during a marathon they've announced for part of the Thanksgiving weekend.  If I hear when they're going to air, I'll announce them here…but I'd like to suggest that you keep an eye open for news and also that you catch a few "normal" episodes of Press Your Luck.  It's a fun show most of the time, and you'll appreciate the Larsen episodes all the more if you're conversant with the program's slightly-complicated rules.  I'll also post some of the backstory here.

That is all for now.

Nathan Lane has been missing performances of The Producers in New York due to a throat problem.  A polyp, they say.  Anyway, last I heard, he's back but not doing matinees.  When he's out, my pal Brad Oscar plays Bialystock instead of Franz Liebkind, and someone else plays the Nazi playwright.  I haven't seen Brad in the role but if I weren't swamped with work, I'd hop on a plane and go back just to catch him.  Everyone who has seen him says that he's terrific.

Speaking of terrific musical comedy-type performers: My friend Shelly Goldstein will be doing her one-lady show — with the inimitable Scott Harlan at the piano — at the Gardenia in Hollywood, the evening of Wednesday, November 21.  Shelly spends way too much of her time these days writing top TV shows and not nearly enough singing funny and poignant tunes in front of paying customers.  You can reserve to be a paying customer (it's ten bucks) by calling the club at (323) 467-7444.

The morning of November 7, 2000, the Gannett News Service carried the following handicap of one of the most eagerly-watched competitions…

The Hillary Rodham Clinton-Rick Lazio Senate race, which most polls show will be close, follows the tradition of tight races in the Empire State.

Less than 24 hours later, Ms. Clinton defeated Mr. Lazio 56%-44%.  In other words, the vote wasn't close.  We use the word "landslide" to describe closer elections.

I think it's important to remember things like that when we watch political discussions these days.  I keep seeing predictions about what will happen in the next presidential election (3 years from now) or even when Hillary's up for re-election (5 years from now)…and not only predictions but confident, can't miss predictions: Bush can't lose, Bush can't possibly win, Hillary has no chance…

As Tom Snyder used to say on The Tomorrow Show, "You wonder what goes through their minds."  We don't, at this moment, know if Hillary Clinton will run again, who her opponent might be, what shape the country will be in then, what she may or may not have accomplished in the next five years, et cetera.  But folks who, 24 hours before her last election, were sure she'd lose are now insisting that their projections for the next one should be taken seriously.

The interesting thing is that, in the above-quoted Gannett story (which you can read by clicking here, though it isn't necessary), they say that the polls in the Clinton/Lazio race vary to show Hillary with anywhere from a 2% to 12% edge.  To me, this translates to "could be close, could be a rout," but no one is ever paid to write that the polls are meaningless, and the author of this story started with the premise that elections in New York are always close.

Well, maybe they are.  The one the other night was pretty close — and, significantly, the pollsters didn't think so until just a few days before voting.  I'm just real skeptical about any samplings more than about a week prior to an election.  Most people think they're worthless…and I think they're a lot less valuable than that even.  And I'm really sick of folks wasting bandwidth and insulting my eminently-insultable intelligence by saying that certain elections far in the future are definitely going to go their way.  Do a search for "Bush 2004" and see how many people are trying to convince everyone that it's already decided.  Once upon a time, and a lot closer to Election Day, his pop was a shoo-in for that second term.

I mean, can't we declare some kind of cyberspace moratorium on handicapping the 2004 presidential election until we at least have some clue who'll be running?  Call me crazy but I have a feeling that might affect the outcome.  At least a little.

Also, I have the following comment on the New York mayor's race: I get a couple of New York TV channels and both those men should be deeply ashamed of the commercials they ran.  In fact, no one who would allow such swill belongs in public office.

A fine comic book/strip artist named Gray Morrow died on 11/6, reportedly taking his own life after months of despondency over months of illness.  Morrow was a true gentleman and a fine illustrator who got into comics a few months too late to be part of the legendary crew at EC Comics.  They almost certainly would have hired him because he fit in well with their tradition.  He later distinguished himself as both interior artist and cover painter when Creepy and Eerie started up, reuniting most of the EC craftsmen.  Later on, he did work for DC and Marvel, and had recently been drawing the Tarzan newspaper strip.

Morrow was one of those artists — and sadly, there a number in this category — who are universally admired but often unhired.  Editors who thought his work was beautiful often feared it was too realistic and well-crafted to sell comics.  Of course, the books done by most of the artists they do think are commercial aren't selling either…but the biz is often lean in logic once it decides something won't sell, and Gray remained a great, untapped resource.  I didn't know him well enough to say, "I'll miss him" but I'll sure miss his work.

• Operation Enduring Avarice by Arianna Huffington
• FBI Claims Bin Laden Inquiry Was Frustrated by Greg Palast and David Pallister, Guardian
• America's "Either/Or" President by Troy Headrick, Democratic Underground
• The Counterwar Redirected by William F. Buckley, Jr.
• 2 Months Later, It's "Same-Old, Same-Old" on Airport Security by Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times

Someone — are you reading this, Leonard? — oughta write a book called something like Flawed Masterpieces, all about films that came thisclose to being great.  As good an example as any was a movie I found myself watching on satellite-via-TiVo this AM — The Comic, a 1969 comedy/tragedy written by Aaron Ruben and Carl Reiner and directed by the latter.  In it, Dick Van Dyke plays an arrogant, unsympathetic silent comedian named Billy Bright, whose story combines elements from the lives of Stan Laurel and Buster Keaton, with a wee bit of Harry Langdon tossed in.  Mickey Rooney plays his sidekick and some of the scenes from Billy's later life (like the talk show appearance depicted above) actually play out like Mr. Rooney's last few decades.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if Mssrs. Van Dyke, Reiner and Ruben were well aware they were basing scenes on Rooney while he performed in the film, oblivious to this.

The film has a stellar cast that included Michele Lee, Cornel Wilde, Pert Kelton and Nina Wayne, among others.  The best joke belonged to a character actor named Ed Peck who managed to turn up at one time or another in every situation comedy of the sixties, and quite a few movies.  He usually played some serious authority figure — a general or a cop — who turns out to be a cross-dresser or who gets a pie in the face.  In The Comic, it was a pie.  (One memorable exception: On an episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show, he played Buddy Sorrell's rabbi…but in another episode, he played a serious Army Captain who revealed that, deep down, he wanted to be a choreographer.  That was the typical Ed Peck role.)  He passed away in '92 and since then, Hollywood has lacked a good actor who can play an intense, all-business FBI agent who later turns up in drag.

Those of you who are into Cartoon Voices or Industrial-Strength Trivia take note of the following: Paul Frees can be heard dubbing at least four parts in the film, and June Foray dubs one or two lines for the little boy playing Billy Bright's son.  Also, the venerable Silent Movie Theater (subject of this article) is the backdrop for one poignant scene.

That The Comic was not a hit, I can well understand.  I seem to recall it playing less than one week in the first-run theaters of Westwood.  I think I saw it on a Friday, recommended it to a friend on Saturday and when he tried to go the following Tuesday, it had been replaced by something else.  The hero is unlikable in many of the wrong ways and the narrative places him pretty much in free-fall with few surprises en route to his inevitable end.  Van Dyke is superb in the comedy scenes; not quite as wonderful when made-up, at times unconvincingly, as an old man.  Still, enough treasures abound to make it all well worth an occasional viewing.

Buzz Dixon also sends along this link to Monster Kid Magazine, an online "publication" in the spirit of the old Famous Monsters of Filmland.  It's put together by Kerry Gammill, whose artwork is sadly missed these days around the comic book business.  You might especially enjoy Bill Warren's article about visiting the set of one of Boris Karloff's last films and meeting the man himself.

An old pal of mine, Jay Zilber, is running a good political/news commentary web page and I've placed it on my "check out almost every day" list.  If you'd like to sample it so you can consider adding it to yours, click right here.

Let's all thank Ed Golick for calling my attention to a great article on Soupy Sales so I could call it to your attention.  It's in the Detroit News and you can read it by clicking here.

A few years ago, Playboy Magazine ran a pretty good interview with Albert Brooks.  An Albert Brooks fan site has posted it; in fact, they have a version of it that includes some stuff that Playboy trimmed for space.  Here's that link.

• In Defense of the '90s by Jacob Weisberg, Slate
• Ours to Lose by Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic
• Bush Team Wallows in Self-Praise by Bill Press, CNN
• Keynote Address by Bill Moyers
• And How Much Blame for the Fourth Estate? by Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate
• Bad News Bearers by William Saletan, Slate

My pal Buzz Dixon recommends this link to an article about things like bio-terrorism, chemical warfare and other so-called weapons of mass destruction. It's by a retired military weapons expert who says that such tactics are not as easy nor as lethal as some think. In other words, it's a fear-calmer, and it's about time someone wrote one.

In a week, it'll be two months since we all stared open-mouthed at the scenes of destruction on "The Day of Infamy." Is it just me or do phrases like, "Everything has changed," uttered as gospel at the time, now seem a bit overwrought and hysterical? Things have changed in the sense that things always change, and we have a lot of issues before us that weren't there in the good ol' days of Gary Condit and Monica. But I think we're a lot closer to normal now than we thought we'd be…and probably also farther from some sort of satisfying victory over the Forces of Evil.

I mean, a few days after 9/11, when it became clear that this Bin Laden guy was the baddie, did you think we'd be sitting here, almost two months later, hearing the Secretary of Defense saying, in effect, "Well, maybe we won't catch him"? I sure didn't.

Things seem amazingly normal to me. We've had the World Series, we've had the Emmy Awards, the Republicans are finding ways to shovel more of the treasury at wealthy Americans (especially those in the oil/energy business who gave money to the G.O.P.) and the Democrats are doing little more than saying, "Shame, shame."