If you shop at Costco — as I did yesterday — this video will tell you something about their stores that you may not know. At least, I didn't know it…

In e-mails and forum posts, I've gotten a lot of response to my negative thoughts about Stan & Ollie, the new film that purports to tell us the story of the latter days of Laurel and Hardy. A number of folks have agreed with me, though some of them said something like, "Everything you said about the film is true but I enjoyed it anyway." That's fine. I'm not out to change anyone's mind about it. In a way, I envy those who liked it because a couple of hours of their lives were happier than the corresponding hours in my life.

And a couple of folks didn't get the fact that my displeasure was not all about how the film departed from the truth. I understand that movies do that, especially biopics. I love Yankee Doodle Dandy despite the fact that its storyline resembles George M. Cohan's actual life about as much as it resembles mine. I just didn't like the story that Stan & Ollie presented and thought it did not make The Boys look as good as anyone who knew them said they were.

I acknowledge my views seem to be that of a teensy minority. They occasionally are.

Unlike what feels like a lot of people on the Internet, I am fine with you liking a movie that I don't like or vice-versa. I do not understand why anyone thinks that opinions of books, TV shows, movies, pizza or anything need to be unanimous.

As you may know, my favorite movie is probably It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Note that I always say "my favorite," not "the best." I love the film in part because of what it is and in part because of what it meant to my life and in part out of love for the cast list. About four times a year though, I seem to run into someone on some forum who wants to argue that it isn't funny the same way they'd argue that the square root of 25 is not 11. If we've all learned nothing from the World Wide Web, we should at least have learned that whatever your opinion of something is, there are plenty of people out there who disagree. Why, there are even people who profess to like cole slaw.

I mentioned the other day how Shelly Goldstein and I and two friends had lunch one afternoon with Lewis J. Stadlen, who was then in town to star in Hello, Dolly at the Pantages Theater. The two friends were Mike Schlesinger and Steve Stoliar, and we lunched at the Musso and Frank Grill on Hollywood Boulevard if you must know. Lewis was a delightful presence and here's a video of him telling a couple of theater stories he didn't tell us that afternoon. This is from a celebration of the venerable Broadhurst Theater, which is on W. 44th Street in New York…

This is another one of my posts that suggest we don't know as much about what's happening as we think. Multiple sources are reporting that Robert Mueller's long-awaited report will be turned in next week to Attorney General William Barr. As far as I can tell, Mr. Mueller hasn't said this and even if that's his plan at the moment, he could probably delay it further if he suddenly came upon some new bit of evidence. So let's just say it seems likely but maybe it won't be turned in next week.

Whenever it's submitted, we don't know how long the Attorney General will take to read it, digest it and what exactly he will do with it. We can say with some certainty that there will be fights by the press, Congress and perhaps other parts of government to get their mitts on it. This is such volatile, uncharted territory that no one has a clue what will happen.

I do think it's safe to say that someone will be pretty unhappy with it. You might have those who've been waiting for it to drive a stake through the heart of the Trump administration feeling it doesn't pound a big enough stake. You might have those who back Trump condemning it as a fact-free partisan hit job. If I absolutely had to bet, I'd say we'll get a certain amount of both but we really don't know.

Some people are suggesting that Trump's increasing attacks on the press (i.e., "The Enemy of the People," which in this case means "The Enemy of Trump") mean that he knows it'll be really bad for him. But Trump strikes me as a guy who explodes at any criticism…or even anything that doesn't say he's wonderful and perfect and couldn't be any better. He might well damn it if all it says is that his ties are too long. So I don't think Trump's "Don't believe anything except what I tell you" posture tells us that he knows the report will be bad.

People have so many unwarranted expectations about this report. You have people saying Mueller has proven Trump is guilty of some kind and others saying he hasn't. We haven't seen a word of this report yet but, well, if you love or hate Trump enough, you already know what you want it to say so why wait?

That's a statue of John "Duke" Wayne that I see often. It's in front of an office building at the corner of La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire, just on the outskirts of Beverly Hills. I see it often because my dentist's office is nearby, as is the Saban Theater which I occasionally visit.

The statue was erected in 1984 to celebrate Wayne's career in films but probably more to note his years doing TV commercials for Great Western Savings and Loan, aka Great Western Bank. That was their building at the time, back when Great Western was one of the largest savings and loan operations in the nation. It has since changed owners and undergone serious restructuring and downsizing.

In 1994, that building and the statue outside were acquired by the noted pornographer Larry Flynt. His name now adorns the building outside of which John Wayne stands guard. We can only imagine what Duke would have thought of that.

As if everyone these days didn't have plenty of things to be outraged about, a lot of folks are presently mad at Mr. Wayne. Some comments he made in 1971, which were no secret all these years, are suddenly getting attention for being way outta sync with some current sensibilities. I wish I could say he was outta sync with all current sensibilities but if you read about this controversy on any website that allows comments, you'll find plenty insisting that his remarks about believing in "white supremacy" are still right on target.

I for one have not lost any real respect for John Wayne. Didn't have much then, don't have much now. I love the great actors of his era but not him to any serious degree. Certain films in which he starred are still beloved but most of them were directed by John Ford and I think I was way more impressed by Ford than by anyone in those pictures. And I say that knowing it will lead to an argumentative phone call from at least one film buff friend.

Okay…but even if he's right, it would only move me to think Wayne was a competent actor who expounded that shallow "I got mine" kind of patriotism. You know the type: "I got rich in America so there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with America." That's galling when it comes from people who seem to have lucked into their wealth…like being born with it or striking some kind of freakish luck. But that doesn't mean I see any point in condemning Mr. Wayne now.

The interview was 1971. He passed away in 1979 and it seemed to me like in his last years, he realized the world was changing and that he was alienating a younger generation who'd control the way he'd be viewed posthumously. He tried to back off some of what he'd said and he did a few talk shows, speaking of the essential dignity of the American Natives and their struggles.

One of those times was a Dick Cavett special that aired in '76. Cavett wrote about his encounter with Wayne in this article which he prefaces by saying "Good friends have refused to believe a word of what I'm about to relate. Your credulity is about to be strained." I'm not one of his good friends so I believe it but it doesn't change my opinion of the man. I already knew Wayne was an actor, not a cowboy. I just didn't think he was a good enough actor to make me believe he wasn't reciting a script by a good public relations consultant.

But I'm also willing to give him the benefit of a large doubt. There were stupid things I said in 1971 that I wouldn't try to defend today. Few among us are incapable of pulling an Ebenezer Scrooge and regretting the way we acted long ago or even before those three ghosts dropped by for a chat. Late in life, Bob Hope stopped defending Nixon and the Vietnam War. I know less famous people who, either because they were genuinely enlightened or just saw the wisdom of switching to the right side of history, underwent serious conversions. Or at least learned to drop certain words from their vocabulary.

Who's to say John Wayne wouldn't have? Heck, just the realization that he would wind up as Larry Flynt's welcoming committee could have made him change his act.

The Internet is flooded with articles about Bernie Sanders' chances of winning the Democratic nomination and going on to defeat Donald Trump. I wouldn't bet a dime right now on anyone's chances of being on the ballot next year and that includes Trump's. There are surely indictments, convictions and other revelations to come and many of them will make it a Brand New Ball Game. What I would bet on is that between now and that Election Day, we're going to have a lot of Brand New Ball Games.

I say that to friends and they say, "You're absolutely right." But then that's followed by "But that aside, what do you think Bernie's chances are of beating Trump?"

Randy Rainbow…

There are only about 92,566 articles on the Internet about why Donald Trump's "State of National Emergency" is an unconstitutional sham. This one by Bruce Fein is as good as any and it has the advantage of coming from a solid conservative legal authority. The problem with it of course is that none of this law mumbo-jumbo matters to Trump. It never has; not in business, not in government, not in life. If it gets him what he wants, he does it, end of argument. You might as well explain to a lovesick cocker spaniel why he shouldn't hump your leg.

The thing is: I don't think what Trump wants is to build his fakakta wall. I think he just doesn't want to be blamed by his base for not building it and also doesn't want to be seen as inept at delivering on his promises. In his little speech about how it would be challenged in court, he was assuring his supporters that while the wall will probably lose in lower courts, he'd win in the end once it got to the Supreme Court. That's another way of saying, "Don't fault me if it takes a while. It's because of those evil Socialist Democrats."

In the meantime, here's William Saletan shredding the various arguments Trump backers are using to defend his actions.

A parrot smarter than you were at his age…

On the campaign trail and at post-election rallies, Donald Trump promised over and over to revive the dying coal industry in this country. Later, he bragged that he had fulfilled that promise, saved the coal industry and it was here to stay. And it now looks like he has flopped about as badly as he could. Read Jonathan Chait. Trump has never quite grasped the concept that claiming you accomplished something is not the same thing as actually accomplishing it.

One more thing about the touring company of Hello, Dolly. The ads, as you can see below, proclaim it was the winner of four Tony Awards…and it was. Bette Midler won for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Musical, Gavin Creel won for Best Performance by a Featured Actor in a Musical, Santo Loquasto won for Best Costume Design of a Musical and the entire production won for Best Revival of a Musical.

If and when you go see this touring production, you're seeing some but not all of those winning achievements. You're seeing most of the Costume Design. You're seeing 0% of Bette Midler and Gavin Creel 'cause they ain't in it. And since the Best Revival prize was for the overall presentation at the Shubert Theater in New York and it's been modified a bit for the road, you're seeing some unmeasurable percentage of what won for Best Revival.

Everyone does this kind of thing and I understand why. It's just not the most honest advertising claim in the world.

Every ten seconds in this world, someone dies because of alcohol, a baby is born and a new production opens of Hello, Dolly. Or at least it seems that way. The 1964 musical with songs by Jerry Herman and a book by Michael Stewart was based on Thornton Wilder's The Matchmaker and if there's a stage anywhere near you, Hello, Dolly will eventually be on it.

The most prominent production of it in recent years was on Broadway in 2017. It starred Bette Midler as Dolly Levi and David Hyde-Pierce as Horace Vandergelder. I didn't see it but my friend Shelly Goldstein did.

Bette and David did it for eleven months, after which they were replaced by Bernadette Peters as Dolly Levi and Victor Garber as Horace Vandergelder. My friend Shelly Goldstein didn't see this production but I did. I thought it was quite wonderful even though I'm not wild about the storyline of this play. But the sets, costumes and staging were wonderful, Bernadette was great and Mr. Garber was even better.

They did it for several months and then Bette and David came back for the final six weeks. The show then closed and soon after, its sets, costumes and some of the cast were sent out on a national tour which has been working its way around the country. This evening, it did its last show in Los Angeles and it opens Tuesday in San Francisco and plays there for a month before moving on to Las Vegas. After that, it moves on to Des Moines, Minneapolis, Nashville, Columbus and other towns. The schedule can be found here and the word is that additional stops will be added later.

In its closing days in L.A., Shelly Goldstein and I went to see it with its current cast — Betty Buckley as Dolly Levi and Lewis J. Stadlen as Horace Vandergelder. Shelly felt that the production wasn't quite as strong as the one with Bette Midler and I felt it wasn't as wonderful as what I saw with Bernadette Peters. In fairness though, I should report that the audience couldn't have cheered and applauded her any more than they did. We also thought the staging, costumes and sets were superb and we both thought that Lewis J. Stadlen was phenomenal.

Fairness also requires that I reveal that we know Lewis J. Stadlen. Shelly and I and a few other friends took him to lunch two weeks ago. We did not love his performance because we took him to lunch. We took him to lunch because we've always admired the guy and felt he was the best thing in any show that was lucky enough to have him. (He was Groucho in the original Minnie's Boys in 1970 which I never saw but wrote about here.)

Critics who never ate with the man have also raved about him in this production. He gets every single laugh it's possible to get in Hello, Dolly as well as a few that did not seem possible. His role is so focused and firmly defined that he helps hold together what I still think is a pretty weak, not-entirely-coherent book.

None of this should dissuade anyone from going to see it. It's an especially good show to get a young person interested in musical comedy because it has great dancing, great art direction and great songs. Here's a commercial for the company's stopover in Denver. And Lewis Stadlen alone is worth the price of admission…

As some of you know, I helped launch the Dungeons & Dragons animated series that debuted on CBS Saturday mornings in 1983. I didn't work long on it. I wrote the bible and pilot script based on a format and some characters created by others, and CBS bought the show on the strength of what I'd done. I had the option of story-editing and/or writing all further episodes but I passed on those jobs due to other commitments. A squad of very fine producers, writers and artists turned it into a successful three-season series that is still fondly-recalled by many.

Recently, a website called Toy Galaxy produced this video about the history of the show. They seem a lot more interested in discussing the toys based on the series (and why there were so few of them) than in the content of the program. I don't know much about the toys but I do know how my name is pronounced and it ain't the way the host says it here. I also know that contrary to what he says, I didn't leave the project to go work on Garfield and Friends. That show didn't come along until several years later.

And I'm pretty sure the outcry from parents' groups decrying the "violence" in the show was not as loud as this video makes it seem. At least, he doesn't claim as many do that the show was taken off the air because of those protests. The truth is that the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon was never a huge hit (as this video suggests it was) and the ratings declined mightily during Season 3. That's why there was no Season 4. I wish there had been. And a Season 5 and a Season 6 and so on…

I suppose someone might argue that the ratings decline was due to those protests but like I said, I don't think they were that loud or that plentiful..or the least bit effective. I also don't think there's any evidence that labeling a kids' show as "too violent" drove viewers away from Dungeons & Dragons — or any program ever in the history of mankind. Here's the video…

I don't know who Taylor Lorenz is but she's right: It's impossible to follow a [complex] conversation on Twitter.

Here's a rough summary of some of the things that have gone wrong with the Academy Awards. Most of these are true to some extent but I suspect the biggie is something that may be beyond the Academy's power to fix. It's that people just don't care that much about the nominees any more. It isn't the show that's the problem.