Dale Herbest writes to ask…

Since you've been working as a professional writer in the entertainment arts for so long, I'm sure you've worked with plenty of people you grew up loving and tried to emulate in your own work. Has there ever been a time or project where you worked with someone you really loved and admired but the experience of working with them was so bad and so disappointing that you lost respect for that person and could never really enjoy their work ever again?

Hmm. I've worked with people I would never again want to be in the same room with, let alone on the same project. None that come immediately to mind were folks I'd admired and loved before our association. I've also worked with and gotten to know people I loved on television or in comic books — or somewhere — who fell into this category: I was glad I got to know them but wish I hadn't gotten as close as I did.

It's often the case that the more time you spend with someone, the more of their flaws or weaknesses you witness. You can wind up learning a lot about their professional lives and work (good) but along the way, you also learn about their dysfunctional personal lives (bad) and even find yourself involved in their problems.

Once in a while, you find out about something they did that in an ethical or moral sense, really disappoints you.  Because you loved them on TV or in the comics or wherever, you'd like to think nothing but good about them.  And then there's that thing they did that makes it difficult.  And no, I'm not going to name names.

Sometimes, I meet someone whose work I loved twenty years ago, thirty years ago, fifty years ago or more. I tell them what their work meant to me. And then I deal with the fact that they're now seventy years old, eighty years old, even ninety. And maybe they aren't working as much as they once did. Maybe they're having trouble figuring out how or if they fit into the different world and industry of today.

In some cases — probably most cases — they're fine. They're still working. They're still financially solvent.  They understand that you can't be the hottest thing in town forever.

But once in a while for reasons of money and/or ego, they're constantly wondering why they aren't working so much. If they're performers and they once had a time in their lives when they couldn't walk into a restaurant without signing twenty autographs, they may now be finding themselves in a world where so many young people don't know who the hell they are.

Usually, they're appreciative that I do. I'm 67 now but to them, I'm a younger person who not only knows who they are but I'm often a Human Wikipedia of their past credits.  I'm able to tick off what some would call "trivia" about their careers but to them, of course, every bit of it is very important. It's rare but once in a while, it goes like it did one time when I met a comedian I'd long admired…

We were introduced at a TV studio. I was writing a show being done elsewhere on the lot and the person who introduced us mentioned that to him. We shook hands and I told him how much I'd always loved his work; how I watched it avidly when I was a kid and how I'd seen darn near everything he'd done. This was all true.

I told him — and again, every bit of this was true — what an inspiration he'd been and how he was part of the reason that I was now a professional writer, usually of things allegedly comedic. It came in part from watching all that brilliant work he'd done.

Then he gave me a look that was ever-so-slightly mean and he said, "Then how come you haven't hired me for the show you're doing?"

Like I said, I've met lots of idols and folks I've admired and it rarely goes bad. Rarely. But when it does, that's usually the subtext.

I've written here before about Teatro ZinZanni, a wonderful way to spend an evening. If you don't know what Teatro ZinZanni is, here's an explanation that I've posted here before…

Imagine a grand tent inside of which you find a swanky restaurant that serves a gourmet meal as a bevy of wonderful food servers and performers put on a show all around you. There are singers, dancers, comedians, acrobats in the style of (the comparison is unavoidable) Cirque du Soleil and artists whose skills are awesome but utterly unidentifiable. This all transpires not on a faraway stage but up close and personal. The aerial acts are practically over your head in the intimate theater. The dancers are sometimes performing not just near your table but actually on it, skillfully not stepping in the fine soup you have just been served.

This is a fine description but I need to explain more. It is sometimes difficult to tell where the attractive wait staff leaves off and the equally attractive cast takes over. Some of each serve you. Some of each entertain you. The performers roam about in character, chatting you up and entertaining you while you dine. That's when they aren't dancing…or hustling you up out of your seat to dance with them. The show is quite interactive…and did I mention the sensational live five-piece band? The compleat ZinZanni experience runs about three hours. They serve you the first course. They perform for a while. Then they serve you the second course and perform while you eat it…and so on. You leave quite well-fed and, of course, utterly entertained.

There used to be two Teatro ZinZanni outlets in this country, then for a brief time there were none and now there is one. Soon, there will be three. Their "home base" outlet in Seattle had to relocate but now it's up and running at its new location. Click here for details. In July, a new Teatro ZinZanni will open in Chicago and later this year if all goes according to plan, their San Francisco operation will reopen in its new location.

Here's a video from a Seattle production some years ago. Teatro ZinZanni features great novelty/specialty acts and one of my favorites is Mat Plendl. What does he do? He hoops…

A few weeks ago, HBO ran a four-hour documentary in two parts called Leaving Neverland. It's about Michael Jackson and about two adult men — Wade Robson and James Safechuck — who have come forward to tell stories about being in sexual relationships with Jackson when they were way, way under the age of consent. I guess some people don't believe these men are telling the truth but given the way Michael lived and acted and the number of times he was accused of this and how he admitted to sleeping (but only sleeping) with children, it's not that great a shocker.

I DVR'ed the two parts when they debuted. I also recorded an Oprah Winfrey special in which she cross-examined and interviewed the two men before an audience of adults who were molested when they were kids. Only in the last few days have I gotten around to watching all of this.

The first part struck me as taking two hours to tell a story that could have been done in twenty minutes by omitting a lot of redundant details about who touched what body parts. It was very discomforting and given the stories being told, it should have been. I spent a lot of it like anyone else who saw it, getting quite pissed-off at the parents of the boys and at others who should have seen what was going on and stopped it.

I almost quit about 70% of the way through Part One and almost didn't watch Part Two or Oprah at all but I was ultimately glad I made it through all of this. The second part was much more interesting because it was about the cover-up of the molestations by both Michael and the boys. Michael was acquitted in a jury trial of abusing yet another male child, that acquittal coming in large part because one of the two boys, Wade Robson, testified that Jackson never violated him. He now says that was a lie and you'll squirm at that failure of our justice system. Both Robson and Safechuck have struggled to cope with the whole experience since their days with Michael, as have their friends and families now that the two men are telling their stories.

I worked with Michael Jackson in the eighties on a proposed cartoon show about him. I decided the show was not a good idea and am now very glad I moonwalked off the project. It was not because of the creepy (if not ghastly and illegal) way he treated children but that was not so evident at the time. I just thought it would not be a good show, mostly because Michael was placing so many conditions on how he could be depicted. Every second he was on screen as a character would have been discussed and he clearly could not deal with not getting his way.

In fact, one of several points in the documentary that gave me a personal chill was this one: Michael asks the mother of one of the boys if she will leave the kid with him for an entire year. This woman — who was apparently fine with leaving her son in Michael's bedroom for weeks at a time — for some reason says no to a year. She then quotes Michael as saying, "I always get what I want." He said that to me about elements of the proposed cartoon show.

It's strange to be around a person who inhabits a world where he always gets whatever he wants…or at least, expects it. Our meetings were in the house he had on Hayvenurst near Ventura Boulevard in Encino. After one, my agent asked me what he was like and I said, "I got the feeling that if Michael suddenly decided he wanted Ventura Boulevard flooded with hot chocolate, that would have happened."

It may take me a while to decide how I feel about various aspects of the documentary but I can answer a few for myself right now…

Do I believe the boys' stories? Yes, I do. Do I believe they should have come forth and told those stories? Yes, I do.

Can you listen to Michael Jackson music after this? Not without thinking about what a horrible human being he was, no. And yeah, I guess I knew for a long time he was doing things like that but it's easier to flush that stuff out of your mind when you haven't heard the details or seen videos of him with a seven year-old boy who's now grown up and explaining how Michael masturbated him.

And lastly, do you recommend this documentary? If the topic interests you, definitely. If it doesn't…well, maybe it should. While I recognize child abuse is a serious problem, it's not an issue that particularly touches my life. I've never had nor wanted children and I haven't been around all that many since I was one…so it's easy to think of it as someone else's concern. And maybe the reason it exists is that too many people think of it that way, including some whose life it does touch and they just haven't noticed it yet.

As I'm sure you know by now, Robert Mueller's office has completed and delivered its report into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

I'm watching the cable news networks in rotation and I'm reminded of my favorite quote about the news media. It was uttered by the late Jack Germond and he said, "The trouble with the news is that we're not paid to say 'I don't know' when we don't know."

I became a TV writer in large part because I happened to meet a bright fellow named Dennis Palumbo. At the time — this is mid-seventies — new situation comedy writers came in pairs. If one aspiring comedy writer went to an agent and asked, "How do I break in?," the first thing he was told was "Find a partner."

Dennis and I found each other and while we weren't a team for long, it was long enough to get us some credits that led to respectable solo careers. We parted friends, veered off in different directions and we still have lunch every year or so. I hope he thinks he was as fortunate to meet me as I was to meet him.

His career has actually been careers (plural) because he not only went on to write movies — and don't we all love My Favorite Year? — but also mystery novels like his latest, Head Wounds. Most of his time though is occupied by being a licensed psychotherapist who specializes in folks in show business, most of whom are writers. I have never felt the need to go to someone in that field but if I ever did, I wouldn't hesitate to call on him because, as he did when we were a team, he really understands the mind and the needs of a writer.

Dennis is the guest this week on Ken Levine's fine podcast. If you take the time to listen, you'll hear lot of expert advice on how to write, what to do when you can't write, how to cope with times when no one wants you to write, etc. You'll also understand why I think he really understands the mind and the needs of a writer.

Here's my pal Jim Meskimen doing some "warm-up" exercises for his profession, which is "impressionist."  As you can see/hear, he's really good at it.  If you'd like to hear him doing more than one word as some of the people, I intend to give him a thorough workout on the Cartoon Voices panel at WonderCon next week.  That panel is Saturday, 3/30 at 5:30 PM in Room North 200B and it will also feature Jon Bailey, Alicyn Packard, Phil LaMarr, Rachel Butera and a surprise guest or two.

It immediately follows the Quick Draw! panel in the same room at 4:30 so you can come for that and stay for Cartoon Voices, as many do. The full programming schedule is over on this page and you can find a list of the ones I'm doing over here.

A lot of folks are peeved at Nancy Pelosi for saying she's not interested in impeaching Donald Trump.  I don't think they should be.  It reminds me, as so many things these days do, of something that happened in the run-up to the impeachment hearings about Richard Nixon.  A man named Thomas "Tip" O'Neill was the House Majority Leader then.  There were a number of people who could have screwed up the removal of Nixon had they not done their jobs properly and O'Neill was one of the main ones.

There were Democrats aplenty who wanted to impeach Nixon A.S.A.P. but for a time, O'Neill was an obstacle.  His skill as House Majority Leader was that he could count votes better than anyone and he knew how and when to proceed when he didn't have them.  One by one, irate Democrat Congressfolks would try to get a vote on impeachment and O'Neill would block them.  The evidence was not all in, the case had not yet been built and the votes were just not there.

His logic was that if an impeachment vote was taken prematurely, it would fail and Nixon would be vindicated.  Later, when maybe the case was stronger and a vote might have passed, the Republicans would say, "This is old news.  We already voted on it and you lost!"  It could have killed the momentum of a better-timed effort.

I dunno if that's what Pelosi is thinking right now but she is real good at counting votes.

In a more speculative vein, I had a thought last night about George and Kellyanne Conway.  As you know, he's a big shot Republican lawyer and she's Trump's devoted adviser and spokesperson.  He tweets that Trump is mentally ill and must be removed from office.  She goes on every cable show that will have her and insists Trump is great and good and sane.  Trump has taken to calling him "a stone cold LOSER & husband from hell!" So you have to think it's got to be fun, fun, fun at the Conway house.

But maybe things aren't what they seem. I may be dead wrong about this but, hey, not knowing what's going on is no reason these days not to post on the 'net. Mr. Conway is a pretty sharp guy and I'm seeing a big "What If?" here. What If Kellyanne has become convinced that Trump is just as looney and dangerous as her hubby is saying? Maybe her special access to Trump has convinced her of this and it's why he's become outspoken about it.

What If they've jointly decided to play a sort of Good Cop/Bad Cop game to bring him down?

What If they jointly decided that the best thing they could do — for the country and her career so she doesn't go down with Trump — would be for her to stay in Trump's good graces? She can always turn on him later…and it might be more effective then. In the meantime, she can maybe nudge him away from some of his more awful ideas while she gathers info, acting like a kind of self-appointed mole.

We're getting a ridiculous number of leaks from inside the White House that Trump said this crazy thing or voiced that unhinged whine. Maybe she's a main source of this kind of info. Maybe she and her spouse are conspiring to keep the public informed about the dangerous guy in the Oval Office: She observes the insanity, he reports it out. And one day, she'll reveal that she has thought for some time Trump was a liar with serious instabilities and she just stayed in his circle to be a witness to what was going on there and to try to help her country.

Yeah, this is a wild speculation but I'm not sure it makes any less sense than the notion that the Conways could remain a couple when each thought the other was helping destroy America. Imagine if in 1992, the deputy campaign manager for George Bush's reelection campaign started sleeping with the chief strategist for the Bill Clinton campaign…

Oh, wait. They did. Forget I said anything.

Have you been watching Seth Meyers? I swear, his "A Closer Look" segments are some of the smartest, funniest political humor ever done for television. If you don't watch him, these spots are usually available on YouTube, often before they even air on the East Coast. Here's tonight's, which as I post this, won't air on the West Coast for more than two hours. It includes a wonderful take-down of Congressman Devin Nunes, who is suing Twitter and a couple of accounts that make fun of him because they make fun of him…

• Trump's really mad at John McCain. Just tweeted, "Plus, he was the guy who killed my good friend Hans Gruber at the end of Die Hard."

Can't let the day go by without wishing a happy 97th birthday to one of my heroes, Carl Reiner. Carl's kind of an amazing guy because he started working rather actively in show business around 1947 and he has never been unemployed since, except by choice. He is an actor, a writer, a director, a producer and even at times, a game show host. Since '47, he has never not been involved in some creative endeavor and they have usually been very good creative endeavors…the kind where even if it flopped, people said, "Hey, nice try." And many of them did not flop and were very successful.

He is a star but apparently one with very little ego as so much of his career has been devoted to making others look good. When he worked for Sid Caesar, he made Sid Caesar look good. Then he made Dick Van Dyke look good and Mel Brooks look good and Steve Martin look good and so many more. A performer who does not hog the spotlight is a rare and impressive thing. And I've never heard anyone say he was not the nicest guy around. I always thought his role as Alan Brady on The Dick Van Dyke Show was an example of an actor playing everything he himself was not.

It is great that he is not only still with us but still writing and even posting on Twitter. I salute him on his 97th birthday and hope this means he is only middle-aged.

• Has anyone told Donald Trump that John McCain is unlikely to be his opponent in 2020?

We're closing in on WonderCon Anaheim, which takes place March 29-31 at the Anaheim Convention Center not far from Disneyland. If you're thinking of attending, you should know that passes for Saturday are sold out and passes for Friday and Sunday will be sold out before long.  Everything else you need to know about this gala gathering is on the convention website.

And if you have your passes, go over there and download the WonderCon Quick Guide, which will tell you plenty about the event you'll be attending.  The more you know, the better a time you'll have there.

Red pandas enjoying winter weather…

Joe Biden is saying he might announce soon who'll be his running mate for his 2020 presidential campaign.  I'm not sure if he's formally announced yet that he will mount a 2020 presidential campaign but he's already talking about a running mate.  This doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me…not that most things about politics ever do.  Seems to me Biden's best choice might just be someone who's mounting their own 2020 presidential campaign at the moment and isn't ready yet to give up and join the Biden ticket.

I'm also baffled by those who are claiming it's all over and the Democratic nominee will surely be Biden plus Whoever.  I wouldn't mind if it was but it seems to me we're heading for The Most Unpredictable Election Ever.  Would anyone reading this post be shocked if some new scandal erupted tomorrow about Donald Trump?  Or anyone else in the running?  I'm talking about something that isn't even a blip on our national radar right now.

It's way too early to assume Biden has a lock on one nomination or that Trump has a lock on the other.   Read this article about all the investigations and lawsuits that may engulf Trump in the coming months.  You may think he's a great president, a superb president, the president of your dreams…but you don't think some of these inquiries won't present massive legal problems for the guy.  Heck, I like Biden and even I wouldn't bet money he won't go out next Tuesday and say something foolish that would damage his campaign.

Sit back.  Relax.  We have a long way to go before anyone has a lock on anything except maybe Paul Manafort's cell door.

Each and every year, the Library of Congress's National Recording Preservation Board selects twenty-five albums titles to be designated as important historical markers of their time. The list this year includes one of the favorite records of all time…Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America, Volume 1.  And it's about friggin' time.  Others have made this observation but it's either the best history lesson disguised as a comedy album or the best comedy album disguised as a history lesson.

Created by the great (and sadly, late) Stan Freberg, it was certainly a record that had a major impact on me and I sure wasn't the only one.

Today's announcement also bestows "national treasure" status on Minnie the Moocher by Cab Calloway, La Bamba by Ritchie Valens, Soul Man by Sam & Dave, the Broadway cast album of Hair, Sweet Caroline by Neil Diamond, a Cyndi Lauper album and many other eclectic selections.  But to me, Stan's record is the very big deal.