The Shubert Theater in Century City is, as mentioned here a few months ago, closing…and, alas, it's closing without doing a great idea that several folks all had at the same time: Wrapping up with an all-star production of the James Goldman-Stephen Sondheim musical, Follies.  The place first opened in 1972 with a production of Follies, so it would have been a neat bit of bookending plus, of course, that show is all about the closing of a theatre.  But no.

The last tenant (a touring company production of Tommy) has vacated and the next booking — way off in November — is of the wrecking ball.  In the meantime, there's a nice article in The Los Angeles Times about its closing party, mentioning my friends Brad Ellis, Eydie Alison and Jason Graae who participated in what will probably serve as the last performance ever on that stage.  Here's the link and you'll have to hurry because the Times charges to read articles on-line after they're 14 days old.

As some of you may know, I have a strange, difficult-to-explain interest in weather forecasting.  It predated my brief experience, auditioning to announce predictions on the local news (described here) and had something to do with my leaky roof…but that's not the whole story.  Anyway, the Internet affords me — and you — an interesting means of getting perhaps the most accurate weather forecast that is humanly possible…moreso than listening to any one TV weatherperson or dialing the forecast on the phone or reading any newspaper.

There are several outfits that predict the weather, starting with the National Weather Service and continuing through private companies like AccuWeather and The Weather Channel.  Consulting all of them is like getting opinions from a number of doctors instead of just one.  If they all agree, you can have great (though not absolute) trust in the verdict.  If they don't, you can get some idea of the parameters. That is to say that if one says there's a 20% chance of showers and another says 40% and another says 60%, you can figure on 40% but with a lower level of confidence than if all said 40%.

More useful though are the sites where the forecasters explain to other forecasters, how they arrived at their forecasts, how much confidence they have in them, when they think they may have to modify them, etc.  As far as I know, only the NWS forecasters supply this and perhaps not all of them.  The one for Los Angeles can be read at this link and since it changes several times a day, it may have changed by the time you click over there.  Right at this moment though, it reads, in part…

BY WEDNESDAY, ALL BETS ARE OFF AS THE ETA AND CANADIAN MODELS HAVE MOVED TO A MORE PROGRESSIVE PATTERN WITH THE TROF WHILE THE AVN, MRF, AND ECMWF CONTINUING TO INDICATE MORE OF REX BLOCK PATTERN WITH THE LOW CUTTING OFF WELL OFFSHORE AND EVENTUALLY MOVING WELL SOUTH INTO BAJA. SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE HANDLING OF THIS PATTERN IS RESULTING IN A VERY WISHY WASHY FORECAST AT THIS TIME. MY GUT FEELING IS THAT THE LOW WILL BEHAVE MUCH LIKE THE AVN SUGGESTS AND LEAVE US HIGH, DRY, AND MILD. BUT I FEEL LIKE I CAN'T COMPLETELY IGNORE THE ETA/CANADIAN SOLUTION. EVEN THE 18Z MESO ETA CONTINUES THIS MORE PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION. SO HAVE DECIDED TO ADD A 20 PERCENT POP FOR WEDNESDAY IN ALL ZONES WITH THE CAVEAT THAT CONFIDENCE IN ANY ONE MODEL SOLUTION IS EXTREMELY LOW. CONCEIVABLY SPOTTY SHOWERS COULD ARRIVE ALONG THE CENTRAL COAST IN THE PRE-DAWN HOURS WEDNESDAY BUT WILL JUST INDICATE POPS FOR THE DAYTIME PERIOD THERE. IN ALL LIKELIHOOD REALITY WILL BE SOME COMBINATION OF THE CURRENT SOLUTIONS, BUT THE RESULTING WEATHER COULD BE JUST ABOUT ANYTHING. IN FACT, IF THE ETA WAS RIGHT ON TARGET THUNDERSTORMS WOULD NOT BE OUT OF THE QUESTION WEDNESDAY.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT ALL SOLUTIONS AGREE ON A DRY AND WARMER PATTERN FOR THURSDAY THROUGH SUNDAY SO THE ONLY REAL QUESTION MARK IS WEDNESDAY.

Some of that may seem unduly technical but all you really have to know is that they use various computer models, and that the gent who wrote this is trying to decide which one is giving the more accurate projection.  There's a low approaching the coast and it may dip down and move inland over Baja, or it may come straight on in through Southern California.  He's using the different computer projections the way I suggest you use the different services' forecasts — going by the majority opinion but allowing for any dissenting voices.  (You usually find, as a given weather-maker nears, diverging forecasts slowly merging.  That is, NWS will say a storm is coming on Thursday evening; AccuWeather will say Saturday morning and, as the front grows nearer, both will amend and inch over to mid-day Friday.)

I don't know about you but I find this kind of thing enormously helpful.  The forecast I can read in the paper or on any public site right this minute will tell me that Thursday and Sunday will be dry and warmer but they won't tell me that there seems to be great confidence of that.  (And not only do all the NWS models point that way but so do the AccuWeather and Weather Channel projections.)

The NWS public forecast tells me there's a 20% chance of showers on Wednesday but it doesn't tell me they're saying that because, essentially, they're hedging their bets.  Most of their computer models think the storm will come nowhere near us but one says it will hit L.A.  It would be quite a different thing if all indicators were saying that the storm would definitely come our way but there would only be a 20% chance of it yielding precipitation.

If you'd like to "triangulate" this way and read the various weather services' opinions, you can get your local NWS forecast at http://www.nws.noaa.gov and with that as a starting point, you may be able to find a "discussion" page for your local forecast.  The AccuWeather forecast may be obtained at www.accuweather.com and the Weather Channel forecast is over at www.weather.com.  There are several other services on the 'net that offer predictions — some, arrived at via still other computer models; others, disguised versions of one of these — but I tend to think that the three I recommend should do it for anyone.  My experience has been that, on occasion, all are wrong…but that by consulting them all, you get a much more accurate forecast than by consulting any one.

A prediction: Enron may be the news story du jour but it will never become a scandal of Teapot Dome, Watergate or even Whitewater proportions and will not directly harm George W. Bush.  A few Enron execs — though not those who had a lot of direct contact with our president — will be sacrificed, pleading Guilty or No Contest to some plea bargain.  They'll pay fines they can easily afford, and perhaps one will do some token prison time, and some token amounts of cash will be ostensibly returned.

Then it will all be over and forgotten.  (Note that I am not writing here what I think should happen but rather, what I think will.)

Why do I think this?  Because too much money has been spread around.  A Democrat with clean hands — assuming there is such a thing — is going to wound a lot of fellow Democrats to pursue the matter too far.  Yes, Teapot Dome — which this scandal most resembles — tarred all parties, but that was then, when partisanship was not as rabid and control of the House and Senate did not hang so precariously on a handful of elections.  Watergate and Whitewater were only about folks from one party doing wrong; the other could pursue them with grand outrage and talk of higher roads and morals.  The American public does not buy the distinction of, "Yes, we took money we shouldn't have but they took a lot more."

It'll all go on for a few months…or until some terrorist-related victory or disaster pushes it off the CNN website.  Bush, Cheney and several of their buddies will squirm a lot and make excuses that would have been called blatant, character-defining lies if uttered by someone named Clinton.  There will be much talk of campaign reform and no effective action.  And then it'll all be forgotten.  I think.

Terry Jones of Monty Python fame has authored a piece about Mr. Bin Laden, and it seems to be riling some of the Conservative websites who perceive it as anti-American.  I don't think it is but I'll let you judge for yourself.  Here's that link…know what I mean?  Nudge, nudge…

A term is awaiting invention.  Just as "McCarthyism" and "Willie Horton" entered the political vocabulary to denote long-standing tactics, someone is going to coin a term to identify something that now can be described by phrases like, "Moralizing based not on morals but on political advantage."  It is exemplified by Republicans who felt that Whitewater was a scandal of epic proportions that demanded full investigation and prosecution, especially of those in the Oval Office, whereas Enron can be explained away as an acceptable aberration of the Free Market.  It can also be typified by Democrats who thought the affront of the decade was when Republican congressional leaders would not allow bills that might pass to be voted upon, whereas Tom Daschle is a hero for blocking a vote on the so-called "stimulus package."  We could all name another dozen examples on both sides of the aisles.

(Another term we need is for when they give a bill a name like "The Economic Stimulus Package" or "The Patriot Act" so they can argue that anyone who opposes it for any reason is against economic stimulation or patriotism.  I forget his name but, years ago, some Congressguy was suggesting that he might name every bill he proposed, regardless of contents, "The Act To Stop Puppy Slaughter."  The premise was that no one would dare oppose it, thereby giving their opponents the chance to run ads that said, "He voted against The Act to Stop Puppy Slaughter.")

Getting back to the first one: Is there a person in this country who doubts that Democrats look the other way, or come up with tortured rationales when Democrats misbehave?  That Republicans adjust their indignation according to whether theirs political capital to be made?  Of course not.  (When I asked that question once on a panel discussion, someone in the audience proclaimed that his party didn't do that but the other guys did, all the time…thereby proving my point.)

So how come we don't have an easy, one or two word term for this?  I'm nominating "Bennetting," in honor of lawyer Bob Bennett, who did it constantly for his client, Bill Clinton, and also for his brother, public scold Bill Bennett, who never met a Democratic lapse that wasn't an outrage or a Republican mountain of immorality that couldn't be made a molehill.  I think it's a good name because it reminds us that no party has an exclusive on the practice, but I'm open to other suggestions.

A few months ago, a magazine called Brill's Content ceased publication without much fanfare — understandable, since it was never as wonderful as it should have been.  The premise was, I believe, sound: An independent forum that would watchdog and critique the press.  That has always been a void that needs filling in this country but only moreso in an era where so many sources of info are subsidiaries of Time-Warner, Rupert Murdoch or the Reverend Moon.  I subscribed, hoping that Mr. Brill and his staff would catalog and skewer shoddy reporting in every corner.  God knows no one seems to deny there's plenty of it.  And in a few issues, they did this…but I have a feeling that if they'd done more of it, they'd still be operational.

On this page, I've noted several examples of sloppy journalism…and none of these even seem to encroach on the areas of bias and deliberate misrepresentation.  Wouldn't it be a valuable service if some entity — a magazine, a website run with some funding and credibility, something — would take up this task?  In the era of the Internet, Nexis and online databases, one would think it would be easy to, at the very least, notate the batting average of some publications.  Last May, The New York Post ran a gigantic headline that proclaimed, "TORCH IS TOAST" and quoted a source within the Justice Department source as saying, of New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli, "We're going to indict him soon."  A few minor voices faulted this story for being based on a single, unattributed quote and being surprisingly bald on supporting details.  And, sure enough, it has recently been announced that the Senator will not be indicted.  (Makes you wonder if even the source believed it at the time or if the Post was planted to ratchet up the pressure on the target.)

Shouldn't more attention be called to the Post giving so much importance to what was apparently a pretty bad source?  Some jumped on The New York Times for its off-base reportage on Wen Ho Lee, but most of that was a case of publications that were eager to slam the almighty Times seizing a chance to rub it in.  (Significantly — and this ties in with the thought I posted earlier today — few have held the Times accountable for its equally-flawed Whitewater reporting.  This is because — gross generalization alert! — liberals think of the Times as their house organ, and conservatives don't like to admit that anything negative that has been published about the Clintons might not be true.)

But there hasn't been much of this and you'd think that — in this era when you can read outta-town newspapers with two clicks and access many of their libraries from your own home — the press would become more accountable.  Instead, the opposite seems to have happened.  The Internet and the rise of 24-hour news networks have changed reporting: It's no longer about getting the news ready to go to press at 1 AM for the morning edition.  Now, for competitive reasons, it has to get to the public a.s.a.p..  And it doesn't have to be accurate…just more accurate than Matt Drudge.  That is not a high standard.

Someplace, somewhere, an institution will emerge that will be what Brill's wasn't: An authoritative, non-academic, non-partisan voice that holds newsfolks accountable for their failings.  We have a lot of little ones but no one whose condemnation would make a bad reporter the least bit uncomfy.  Before I buy a new microwave oven, I can go to Consumer Reports and get a pretty good feel for the integrity of that product and the track record of its maker.  I'd love to see something truly comparable for reading the newspaper.

More on comics and cartoons tomorrow.  I seem to be in a political mood today.

I really enjoyed the first two episodes of The It Factor, which is a new, badly-named series airing on Bravo.  It's a "reality" show about the acting profession — at least to the extent that there's any reality in that world.  Basically, it's a matter of cameras following a dozen real, aspiring stars around New York as they go to auditions, take classes and work other jobs to pay the rent while they go to auditions and take classes.  This is a process I've observed throughout my career in open-mouthed amazement — amazed that anyone could subject themselves to it — for 25 years, and The It Factor captures it very, very well…perhaps, in some ways, too well.

If the twelve careers progress as any random twelve careers progress, we can expect to see a high quotient of denial, frustration and coming painfully close to the brass ring, only to see it sail past and well out of reach.  It's kinda like Fame, only they don't dance on cars in the street…or, at least, they haven't yet.  It's kinda like Survivor, only the contestants don't have to eat quite as many dead rats, they can't vote anyone off, and no one is guaranteed any prize at the end.  It's kinda like Marat/Sade, only no one in that had to wait tables.

If I understand correctly, thirteen episodes have been made.  The first two aired this evening on Bravo and will repeat on Friday, January 11.  Then the next two air next Sunday ( the 13th) and repeat the following Friday…and so on.  More info and a sneak preview can be found over on the Bravo website, on this page — though the website seems to be keeping the Friday replays a secret.  I think I'm in for the duration on this one.

Interesting article over in Shecky Magazine: Comedian Tom Ryan relates what he went through in making his first appearance on the Letterman show.  Here's that link.

For years I've been a member of the Magic Castle…a place so cool, I'll even put on a tie to go there.  I put on a tie last Thursday evening, taking friends to see one of the best acts that plays there or anywhere — The Pendragons, who are just wrapping a two-week stint.  Jonathan and Charlotte are impressive not just because they levitate, disappear, reappear, etc., but because the essence of their act is showmanship and skill, as opposed to cleverly-made props — though they have some of them, a couple of which are their own, patented inventions.  Still, the hardware is less important than what a master magician does with it…or can do without it.  There are tricks in Siegfried and Roy's show that you or I could do without much practice.  It's really the box or the tech crew that creates the magic.

But we could rehearse for years and not be able to do most of what the Pendragons do — especially their traditional closer, which is their unique version of a classic trick, "Metamophosis."  That's the one where (in this case) Jonathan is stuffed in a bag and locked in a trunk…then Charlotte hops up onto the trunk, pulls up a sheet of plastic and — ZAP! — she and her hubby change places so fast, you'd swear you're watching a TV show and someone did an edit.  Only it really happened right before your eyes.

I have seen other, experienced magicians sneak into the back of a Pendragons' performance just to see that one because it's truly amazing.  (In fact, it's so amazing that many in the audience don't even notice a little "extra" that the Pendragons provide:  Charlotte changes outfits in the process, going from one revealing outfit to another that couldn't possibly have been worn under it.  The trick doesn't need that to be stunning but they do it, anyway.  That's one of the reasons they're so good.)

Jonathan and Charlotte play all over the country.  If they're performing near you, run (do not walk) and get a seat as close to the front as you can.  You can also catch them on most TV magic specials and they're terrific on those, too…but it ain't the same.  You've gotta be there.

The management of this website directs your attention to Michael Kinsley's excellent article — "Listening to Our Inner Ashcroft" — over on Slate.  Click right here to read it, please.

• The Second Death of Religious Politics by Cal Thomas, Tribune Media Services
• Enron's Existential Problems by Jeremy Rice, The Spleen
• Let's Roll by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times
• Enron is a Cancer on the Presidency by Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times
• Media Blame Game Requires a Mirror by Joe Conason, New York Observer

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

When I got my satellite dish, I got something like a hundred different channels, all of them — that first week — running Hello, Dolly and/or Guide for the Married Man.  While I can always find something on I want to watch, I am amazed at how limited the selection is; how so many channels run the same shows.  I wish someone would start The Old Sitcom Network and run some old situation comedies that are not I Love Lucy, Andy Griffith, Leave It to Beaver, M*A*S*H, Taxi or The Jeffersons.  Where the hell is Sgt. Bilko?  Why is no one running He and She?  Car 54, Where Are You?  Or any of two dozen other great shows we could all mention?  For a time, the Game Show Network disappointed me, rerunning The Dating Game, The Newlywed Game and a few other awful ones,
ad nauseam.

They still do that but lately, they've made up for it by offering great delights via their Late Night Black-and-White series.  Each night between 1 AM and 3 AM — 4 and 6 in the East — they run three episodes of vintage game shows.  (Putting them in 40-minute time slots mean that they get run relatively uncut, instead of being trimmed to allow more commercials.)  After a brief period wherein they recycled all the episodes they'd run recently in a similar Sunday night slot, they're now running shows that probably haven't been seen anywhere since they originally aired in the fifties and early sixties.

The episodes of Beat the Clock, hosted by Bud Collyer, are as dreadful as I recalled…but the original What's My Line? is enormous fun, especially when it reflects TV history — like guest panelist Johnny Carson being wished well on his new job hosting The Tonight Show, or Julie Andrews popping over from playing in My Fair Lady to be Mystery Guest.  My father always hated the show because, to him, it had a palpable air of snobbery and the arrogance of the New York literati.  I see very little of that.  Mostly, I see people having fun and the occasional wonderful outbreak of utter spontaneity.

Even better are rebroadcasts of old episodes of I've Got A Secret.  Garry Moore took game show hosting to a high art form, and it's amazing how witty Bill Cullen and Henry Morgan managed to be.  There are moments on all these shows — and especially on a forgotten show that GSN occasionally airs called The Name's The Same — where it's obvious that some briefing of the panelists has obviously occurred.  It's not that they were given the right answers but that they were given the wrong questions.  That is, the producers obviously told certain panelists to ask certain questions that would get huge laughs…like Arlene Francis, quizzing a man she didn't know sold mattresses, "Could Bennett Cerf and I use your product together?"  But both Cullen and Morgan got some amazing quips off, seemingly without benefit of such preparation.  There are also installments of I've Got A Secret that show obvious traces of the humor of Allan "Hello, Muddah" Sherman, who was then its producer.

Yeah, they're on late.  But that's why God invented TiVo, right?

I haven't seen it yet but several friends have previewed and praised Conspiracy Zone With Kevin Nealon — a new series which debuts this Sunday on The National Network.  (The National Network used to be The Nashville Network and, like you, I didn't know about the change until long after it occurred.)  I've never met Kevin but, ever since seeing him at the Improv in his pre-SNL days, I've always thought he was funny and bright.  And, sure enough, he became one of the Saturday Night Live cast members with the longest tenure.

A pal of mine who wrote on the show while he was there used to describe him as "our Maury Wills," meaning that he rarely hit homers but you could always rely on the guy to get a single, steal second and somehow score a run.

After hearing that, I watched the SNL reruns on Comedy Central with a different attitude and, yes, that was an apt comparison.  Mr. Nealon rarely bowled you over with his comedy stardom but he was terrific in everything he did and made a lot of splashier performers look good.  No wonder they kept him around so long.

His new enterprise is basically Politically Incorrect but about things like U.F.O. sightings, folks who claim Elvis lives, E.S.P. and the like.  I'm told there will usually be one passionate believer, one outright skeptic, and then a couple of comedians plus Kevin, working the topic for laughs but also for truth.  Sounds like good reason for me — for the first time since I got my satellite dish — to figure out what channel TNN is on.  Perhaps you'll want to find out if you get that network and, if so, where it's located on your dial.

Happy year, happy year.  And wouldn't it be neat if we could wake up New Year's Morn and things really were different in undeniable ways?  You know: Like, the sky is yellow or toilet water flows in the opposite direction?  Then we wouldn't just have to tell ourselves it's a new time with new possibilities.  It really would be a different world.  Not that I think there's anything wrong with just declaring a Fresh Start and trying to make things better…

I was going to make a couple of predictions here but lately, I haven't seen anyone in any venue make a prediction that was worth the time it took to read it so I figured, why add to the clutter?

Just in case I don't get back here tomorrow, I'd like to wish all my visitors a happy '02.  Hell, I'll even go for a happy year for those who don't click onto this site.  I happen to think that economy I just mentioned is — and for a long time, has been — much worse than the traditional indicators would seem to indicate.  This is anecdotal, I know, but I certainly feel like folks are more uneasy and depressed than what is measured by the Dow Jones or various "misery indices."  In fact, I think a lot of the emotion surrounding the big news items of the last few years — O.J., 9/11, the Florida recount, Mr. Condit, various Clinton scandals and pseudo-scandals, etc. — flows from a general, excessive uneasiness that people have about their lives and futures.  At the moment, a lot of folks seem to think that all will be right with the world in every way if only Osama could be properly tortured and killed and maybe tortured some more after that.  This is not to suggest he probably doesn't deserve all that, but it ain't healthy for us to invest so much of ourselves in the elimination of one particular demon.  There will be plenty after he's toast.

I don't believe in New Year's Resolutions.  I think that if you really and truly want to stop smoking or drinking or eating Crisco, you can quit on August 9 or March 22.  But there's also nothing wrong with everyone picking 1/1/02 as the date they began trying to keep our problems in enough perspective to eliminate them.  Cheers!