Slowly but certainly, I have been working my way through Porky Pig 101, a great collection from The WB Archive Collection. Simply put, it gives you the first 101 cartoons featuring the lovable, orally-challenged porker known as Porky. These are cartoons most of you have not seen. I remember many of them from my childhood, back when the better/later Warner Brothers cartoons were rarely on television and these were all we had. I do not remember all of them — and of course, even the two that are in color (two-strip Technicolor, not the full-color version) were seen in black-and-white then on my family's black-and-white TV.

So much of this is new to me and even that which is not is more than welcome…and some of these are pretty darned good, even if their makers later did better cartoons. It's also a bargain — 101 cartoons (some with audio commentary) for, if you click the link below right now, $36.42. That's like 36¢ per Porky, a darn good value even if these are DVD-R discs, pressed on demand.

As is the case with a lot of classic animation that's released on home video these days, this set is about 98% perfect and there are a few loud complainers around the 'net wailing about the 2%. They're utterly unappreciative of the 98% and totally clueless about the technical, financial or source problems that brought about the 2%. Don't listen to these people. They just seem to want to be a problem for those who do their best to get this material released.

I'm real glad to have this set…which, by the way, runs fine on my PC. DVD-R discs are usually only guaranteed (to the extent anything like this can be guaranteed) to play on "play only" devices like DVD players. I'm watching these on my computer. If you're nervous they won't run on whatever device you have, don't worry. They probably will…and if they don't, well, Amazon is really good about exchanges. Which reminds me: Here's that link to order one on Amazon. I'd suggest not trying to watch them all in one or a few sittings. These were made to be seen one at a time. I'm enjoying them a lot in groups of 3-4 so it'll be a gift that keeps on giving for a while.

The Donald did another one of those interviews with someone whose sole motive was to make him look good. They remind me of the old Sammy and Company talk show where celebrities would come on and take turns describing each others' greatness. In this case, it was Lou Dobbs who was asking Trump in effect, "How did you get to be the greatest president ever?" Matt Yglesias summarizes how even with Dobbs feeding him the answers, Trump got most of it wrong.

Trump promised a new health plan under which everyone would be covered and everyone would get better care and it would cost us all less. Needless to say, we have seen nothing even vaguely proposed which comes close to that and many things seriously pushed that would cover fewer people, provide poorer care and give any savings to the very, very rich in the form of tax cuts. If Lou Dobbs weren't only interested in making Trump out to be a god among chief execs, he might have asked him how his initial promise could come true if Congress cuts $1.8 trillion from health care spending.

So it looks like the pushback to whatever wrongdoing Robert Mueller may uncover in the Trump administration is to claim that Hillary Clinton did what Trump is accused of…and Trump didn't. As Jonathan Chait notes, that's quite a stretch of reality.

Fred Kaplan dives deeper into the posturing of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly…and the problem of a military man moving outside the structure of that world and into a democracy where you get criticized by folks other than your superior officers.

And lastly for now: Ryan Lizza on how while a number of Republicans may rise to criticize Donald Trump and even call him a liar, he's like the weather. Everyone talks about it but nobody does anything about it.

I will be showing my silly face at the Miami Book Fair, which is being held November 12-19 on the campus of Miami Dade College. Among other things I'll be doing while I'm there is participating in this panel on Sunday, November 19 at 2 PM…

Kirby's Moral Universe
Jack Kirby's personal and public beliefs drove the creation of an unforgettable range of iconic heroes – and helped shape a propaganda tide. Former assistant to Kirby himself, Mark Evanier (Kirby: King of Comics) joins Editorial Director at Abrams ComicArts Charlie Kochman for a conversation about the life, work and legend of the man who changed comics forever, Jack Kirby.

And I'll be other places around the Book Fair that day signing copies of the book. I've been to the Miami Book Fair once before and it's a wonderful place to meet your favorite authors. I'm not going because I think I'm one of anyone's favorite authors. I'm going because my publisher is willing to pay for me to be there and then I get to meet some of my favorite authors.

Hey, how do they make crayons?

Ann Lawrence writes…

You're absolutely right. If we refer to what George Herbert Walker Bush did with the same term as what an out-and-out rapist does, we're confusing the issue. We devalue the term "sexual assault" or we're like the boy who cried wolf, trying to apply it to cases like what Bush did.

I have constantly been the victim of the kind of thing Bush is described as doing. I think most women have especially if they're often in a workplace or societal setting with a lot of men. I have never been the victim of the kind of thing Harvey Weinstein has practiced and I would never trivialize what was done to his victims by equating my own unpleasant episodes to what was done to them. It all should be stopped and as you said, the punishment should fit the crime. It won't if we can't differentiate between the scope and magnitude of the crimes.

Yeah. That's a better statement of what I was trying to say. If we confuse the two, we're just making it possible for people to say — of the kind of assault that probably should be identified as rape — "What's the big deal about sexual assault? Just some lady getting her ass patted!" That's not what we mean when we talk about actual assault.

By the way: I see another lady has come forth with a similar story about George H.W. Bush. I would imagine we'll hear from a lot of them now that they don't have to think you don't report that kind of thing when the Leader of the Free World (or the former Leader of the Free World) does it. It oughta be called-out when anyone does it. Meanwhile, I got this from Jamie Coville…

Perhaps the term we call what the 90 year old Bush Sr. did is sexual misconduct?

Even with that, I'm not 100% comfortable reducing what Bush Sr did. If that occurred in a normal workplace environment (eg a meeting with a bunch of co-workers) and the perpetrator was a regular working non senior citizen adult, it would definitely be called sexual harassment at the very minimum. Said perpetrator would (or should) be heavily reprimanded, if not outright fired and I personally lean towards fired. There is no way a reasonably intelligent adult doesn't know that grabbing ass and making dirty jokes, repeatedly, is inappropriate workplace behavior*.

*Unless it's NFL players doing it to each other during game play.

Since I don't think society will use different terms for what Bush Sr. did based on age & well being of the perpetrator, I think it'll have to be sexual harassment.

And that's a pretty good term for it, as is sexual misconduct.

I just keep thinking of women I've known — actresses, mostly — who have these very real, very chilling tales of having some man expose himself and trying to force their heads where he wants them or lunging after them…and the feeling of helplessness they felt when they decided they couldn't report such incidents without doing greater, more traumatic damage to themselves. What Bush is alleged to have done (and I guess since he's apologizing instead of denying, we need not say "alleged") is not to be excused but it's not an equal crime. It needs to be dealt with in a different manner.

Someone in Bush's age bracket might recall a time when he did that kind of thing and women didn't object, at least out loud. That kind of man needs to be told that while it was never really acceptable, the days when it was accepted are long gone. I don't think most of them ever thought that what Bill Cosby did was acceptable.

I think I've said here before that I think "sexual harassment" is a bad name for what in many cases should be called "assault" or even "rape."

Oh, and let's be clear: Nothing in this post should be taken as excusing any unwanted sexual contact — even verbal — between two individuals, one of whom feels violated by it. A person who does that to another person is at the very least a creep and very possibly a criminal. To me, what Bill Cosby is said to have done is not, as some call it, harassment. It's rape and you don't deal properly with an unlawful act by describing it as something more innocent than it is.

But here, we may have the opposite problem. The headline says "George H.W. Bush Accused of Sexual Assault." See if you think what allegedly transpired warrants that term…

An actress has accused former President George H.W. Bush of sexually assaulting her in 2014 — and Bush has responded by claiming he was joking, according to Newsweek.

On Tuesday, actress Heather Lind wrote in a now-deleted Instagram post that the 93-year-old ex-president "touched me from behind" during a photo op three years ago before telling her "a dirty joke." Lind appeared with Bush as part of a promotion for Turn: Washington's Spies, a TV show about the American Revolution.

"He touched me from behind from his wheelchair with his wife Barbara Bush by his side. He told me a dirty joke," Lind wrote. "And then, all the while being photographed, touched me again. Barbara rolled her eyes as if to say 'not again'."

In a statement, a spokesperson for Bush apologized for the president's "attempt at humor." "President Bush would never — under any circumstance — intentionally cause anyone distress, and he most sincerely apologizes if his attempt at humor offended Ms. Lind," Jim McGrath, the spokesperson, told Newsweek.

What the former president did was rude and wrong in so many ways but I don't think it deserves to be described in the same terms one would use if he'd exposed himself to someone, forcibly kissed them or, to use a term coined by one of his successors in office, "grabbed 'em by the pussy."

Keep in mind, Mr. Bush did what he did while seated in a wheelchair, in front of his wife and a bevy of camerapersons. That is not usually where one decides to commit a sexual assault. It does suggest some kind of Senior Moment where perhaps one's elderly brain is momentarily not in total control of one's elderly mouth and hands, though obviously the spokesperson for Bush could not suggest this. (By the way, the article should have made something clear: Bush is a "93-year-old ex-president" now but this occurred in 2014 when he was 90.)

This allegation is not going to go anywhere. Bush will not be charged with a crime. The victim will not sue him. I doubt Bush's reputation will even be harmed in the slightest. Hell, he's now treated with a reverence that forgives all the pardons he dispensed to the Iran-Contra conspirators and what he did to the economy, as well as his appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. If none of that disgraced him, this won't.

But we shouldn't say he committed a Sexual Assault and got away with it. We need a term that differentiates the bad thing he did from what someone like Harvey Weinstein reportedly did. Punishments should fit the crime and so should the terminology.

This is kind of…odd. In 1961, a gent named Paul J. Smith directed a Woody Woodpecker cartoon called The Bird Who Came to Dinner. It was typical of the Woody cartoons of the day, which were far from exciting and low on budgets. Here's a video of it and you may have to watch a ten-second commercial to get to it…

Not long ago for God-knows-what-reason, Brazilian animator Ivanildo Soares decided this cartoon should be remade. The soundtrack remained exactly the same but he handed its scenes out to a bevy of South American animators They were encouraged to do their scenes — each no more than a few seconds long — in a different art and animation style and to feel free to redesign the characters at will. I don't think any of the artists saw what the others were doing.

Some of them seem to have responded to the neatness of the original by trying to make their moments as ugly as possible. Others tried to exaggerate moments to create a joke where there wasn't one before. All of it is interesting though I don't think I could sit through a six-minute cartoon done in some of these styles…

Next year on February 1, Lewis Black is doing one night performing at the Largo at the Coronet Theater on La Cienega Boulevard. This is a small, intimate theater quite unlike the large concert-type halls in which he usually plays.

If you're a member of Mr. Black's fan club, you can purchase tickets early. They went on sale eight minutes ago and I bought two in the section reserved for members. Tickets in the whole theater go on sale Friday to the general public. There aren't many seats there so do not delay.

Republicans love Democratic scandals, especially Democratic scandals that involve Hillary Clinton. Even though she's about as likely to run for president next time as I am, they're planning a new series of hearings. Why? My guess is that there are a number of very wealthy campaign donors who demand them and what very wealthy campaign donors want, very wealthy campaign donors get. In fact, I think we underestimate the influence of very wealthy campaign donors. When a politician says something that makes little sense and we wonder, "Why the hell did he [or she] say that?," I think we too often forget "To please some very wealthy campaign donor" as a reason.

Benghazi and the E-Mail thing apparently don't have the punch they used to…not that we won't hear more about them. But by now, even the very wealthy campaign donors can't believe there's anything in either of them that will send Ms. Clinton off to the slammer. They just keep those investigations going because to stop would be to unofficially clear her, and that they cannot have. But we're apparently going to hear more about this uranium deal thing so here's a quick overview of what it's all about. It's kind of complicated and if you want to keep her under investigation, that's good because the more nooks and crannies there are in a scenario, the easier it is to say "We haven't gotten to the bottom of this yet." And that's the whole idea these days with investigations: Keep the thing going. This one could run longer than Hamilton.

Robert Guillaume was a terrible actor — on one occasion. He was great in everything you ever saw, and he was great in everything I ever saw…with one exception.

In 1997, I was story editor and voice director on a cartoon series and we were casting voices. I had a list of actors we were calling in to read for certain parts and one of the Executive Producers insisted that I call in and read Robert Guillaume for a particular role.

I thought that Mr. Guillaume, as fine an actor as he could be, was all wrong for the part but the Exec Producer guy insisted. He was one of these "my idea is the best one because I thought of it" fellows and I had the feeling that no matter how right or wrong or good or bad Guillaume was in his audition, the E.P. was going to insist on him. The show's creators and I were already battling him on the casting for several other roles.

He had his secretary call Guillaume's agent and schedule him to come in. Mr. Guillaume arrived at the appointed hour wearing — and I remember it because he was the only auditioner we had who dressed this way — a suit and tie. Usually, one does not dress up for a voiceover audition. I had met him before. A few years earlier, I'd been a writer on a short-lived variety show for ABC called The Half-Hour Comedy Hour, which was the kind of show you'd get if you combined Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In with Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In. Same show, different cast members.

Various ABC stars were conscripted to do brief cameos and at the time, Guillaume was starring quite successfully in Benson. He was very funny in his cameo on our show and very cordial and easy to work with. At the cartoon audition though, he seemed sullen and unenthusiastic. He listened politely as I explained the character and he studied the dialogue without much energy. Then he went into the recording booth and gave a professional but uninspiring reading of the audition script. When he came out, I said to him, "You don't want to do this, do you?"

He smiled for the first time since he'd arrived and said, "No. Nothing against you or your show but I've got a lot of projects I'm doing now, mostly books and live theater. I really have no interest in being on a weekly cartoon series just now."

I asked him, "Then what are you doing here?" Which seemed like an obvious question but one well worth asking.

He said, "My agent insisted I come in. I tried to get out of it but he told me to just come in so he wouldn't look bad for not being able to deliver me. Apparently, whoever called up — was it you? — was really insistent that I had to read for this part."

I told him it wasn't me who'd called and I asked, "Would you be happier if I assured you we won't hire you?" He said he would be. I said, "Then you'd better go back in the booth and do a much poorer reading of the audition script."

He smiled and said, "It would be my pleasure." He went back in. I told the engineer to erase what he'd done before and we re-slated as if this was the first read. Guillaume did it very poorly and I then had him do it two more times, giving him direction on how to make it even less acceptable with each read. Finally, I said, "Perfect. If it was any worse, they'd probably kick you out of the Screen Actors Guild."

He thanked me and just before he left, he asked, "Listen, just in case they still want me for some insane reason, how much money do I ask for to ensure I don't get it but I don't embarrass my agent by asking for the moon?" I told him an amount, he thanked me again and that was it. The next day, the Executive Producer told me he was somewhat disappointed with what he'd heard from Robert Guillaume. He may have been the only person in show business who ever was.

Bill O'Reilly, formerly the big star on Fox News, never sexually harassed or behaved inappropriately with any woman and certainly not the six women with whom he settled lawsuits that claimed he groped them, badgered them for sex, subjected them to phone calls where he talked about sex to them and appeared to be masturbating and/or threatened to ruin them if they ever went public. He never did any of those things but still, he paid them a total of approximately $45 million over sixteen years, including $32 million to one woman alone.

He paid that money to protect his children from the embarrassment that would result if any of these cases went to trial, even though he had solid proof of his innocence (which he will never show anyone) and would easily win all these trials. His children, of course, could not be the least embarrassed about their father paying out all that money to women who said he was a horrible, lecherous person.

The New York Times, Media Matters and other organizations are reporting on these payouts as part of a conspiracy to bring down O'Reilly, who was fired from the best job he'll ever have because of the charges against him. Why else would these media outlets be writing about the charges? I mean, it's not like O'Reilly ever reported on shameful things about public figures. It's all so unfair. Do I have this right?

Ducklings climbing stairs. And when we were younger, weren't there times when we all felt like that last duckling?

Matt Yglesias has a good analysis of the recent Trump interview on the Fox Business Channel. Yglesias points out how Trump makes up facts — and even words you won't find in any dictionary — and how he doesn't seem to have a clue about the programs he supports or whether he supports them at all. I don't know what the people who support him think they're supporting any longer except that he's in favor of cutting taxes, banning a lot of immigrants, undoing anything Obama did (I keep waiting for him to unkill Bin Laden) and make remarks that upset Liberals. I suppose there are those who think that even just that last one is enough.

And speaking of cutting taxes: Kevin Drum notes that a lot of those who elected Trump are expecting a huge tax cut as their payback. The trouble is that every proposal to cut somewhere else to pay for those tax cuts has been ruled out. So I guess we're down to the premise that if we cut taxes for the rich, it will stimulate the economy so much that increased tax revenues will pay for the cuts. As the noted philosopher Rocket J. Squirrel has famously said, "That trick never works." But no matter how many times it doesn't work, someone still wants to try it.

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) used to be in charge of investigating Hillary Clinton (and investigating and investigating and investigating and investigating…) and back then, he insisted it was not about politics. Now, he's in charge of investigating Donald Trump and of course, when anyone tries to press this investigation forward, Gowdy tries to block it, saying it's just about politics. Gee, I wonder what's changed. Jonathan Chait has more.

Jill Abramson of the Columbia Journalism Review writes about what's good and bad with the New York Times and its intensified coverage of Donald Trump. Odd how Trump keeps referring to it as "the failing New York Times," clearly referring to its success as a business. It's doing better than it has in years and to a large degree because people want to read the truth about him. But Trump lives in a world where if your business is going down, you're a loser and nothing you say or do is to be valued. It's an odd viewpoint for the man who gave us Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka and many, many others, plus all those bankruptcies.

And lastly for now: Dylan Matthews has the latest on Trump's ongoing war with those who think he is not respectful to those who've lost loved ones in military service. This whole thing became a big story because Trump doesn't know how to say "I'm sorry if I was clumsy with my wording and was misunderstood." Instead, he has this kneejerk reaction to go nuclear on everyone who criticizes him, calling them liars and digging up any other stray insults he can hurl their way.

Old Bay Seasoning, which one often finds on seafood, was developed in 1939 by German immigrant Gustav Brunn…and no, I didn't know that until I Wikipediaed it. I assume they know of what they speak. What they can't tell me is exactly what's in it. They say, "According to the ingredients list, the seasoning mix includes celery salt, black pepper, crushed red pepper flakes, and paprika. Other spices are used, but are not specified." The official website for the product tells you that much and no more.

On the 'net, one finds a lot of guesses. One "copycat" recipe suggests a mixture of ground bay leaves, celery salt, dry mustard, ground black pepper, ground ginger, sweet paprika (or maybe smoked paprika), ground white pepper, ground nutmeg, ground cloves, ground allspice, crushed red pepper flakes, ground mace, and ground cardamom. Whatever's in it, it doesn't sit well with my food allergies. There's a little tummy tingle I get when I've eaten something that might trigger a big reaction were I to consume a lot of it.

I get that warning signal from Old Bay Seasoning. Something deep in my abdomen — or maybe it's an intestine, close to where they put the staple — sends up a message that says in essence, "Hey! Don't send any more of that stuff down here! You understand, fella?" I try to listen to these communications because I have paid a severe price when I haven't.

Last month, Amber and I spent a few days in Baltimore attending the Baltimore Comic-Con — a very good convention in a very friendly city. We both hope to go back there some day but I'll have to remember something: In Baltimore, everything edible seems to come doused in Old Bay Seasoning. Outside the convention center, there were food trucks selling ice cream and milk shakes. Amber asked me to buy her a strawberry milk shake and I told her, "Fine…but remember to tell them you don't want Old Bay Seasoning on it!"

Maybe we had this problem because on our three of our four nights there, we tried to dine at three seafood restaurants. We both like seafood and Baltimore's supposed to be one of the best places to eat it…and I guess it is. You just have to watch the hell out for the Old Bay Seasoning.

The first night, we went to a place and we both ordered fried shrimp and fries. What we each got was a platter of Old Bay Seasoning with some shrimp and fries sprinkled in like a garnish. I tried shaking and scraping but after two or three bites, it was apparent I couldn't get enough of it off to make the entree edible. Even Amber, who has no known food allergies and loves hot 'n' spicy chow, had trouble with hers.

I called over the server, suggested that the chef perhaps held stock in the Old Bay Seasoning company, and asked if he could possibly redo our dinners without the stuff. She cheerily said "Certainly" and whisked away our plates. Ten or fifteen minutes later, we had the remakes and I learned that in Baltimore, "No Old Bay Seasoning" apparently means "Less Old Bay Seasoning." The fries were happily devoid of the stuff but the shrimp still had a mild dusting.

It was late and we were tired so I scraped my prawns, which sounds painful I know, and ate enough of them to feel full. Later, my stomach voice scolded me a bit but it wasn't too bad. The next night, we went to Philadelphia and dined there, not on seafood.

The next night back in Baltimore, we dined at a different seafood place and I decided to give their shrimp + fries a whack but I explicitly told the server, "No Old Bay Seasoning whatsoever." He said he understood and so would the chef. When the dinners arrived, mine was fine from a french-fry standpoint. The shrimp, of course, had a batter around it and I took one bite and thought, "This tastes like Old Bay Seasoning." I flagged down our server, explained my suspicion and he said he'd go check with the cooks. His investigation took a long time and everyone else at our table had finished their meals by the time he returned to me.

"Our chefs didn't apply any Old Bay Seasoning," he reported, "but the coating mix on our shrimp is this." He showed me a large, empty brown paper wrapper which had previously held many pounds of — and I quote from its label — "Calamari Batter Blend." Its list of ingredients mentioned a few harmless things like flour and salt and then said, "Various herbs and spices." The restaurant — and this was a very famous seafood establishment, by the way — had no idea what spices were going into their fried shrimp and other menu items that used this mix made by an outside supplier.

I told him to take away the shrimp and to bring me a couple of crab cakes "with no Old Bay Seasoning." He did — and the crab cakes were edible but not as good as you'd expect a crab cake at a very famous seafood establishment in Baltimore to be.

On the way out, a cheery hostess said to us, "We hope you enjoyed your meals and that we'll be seeing you again soon." Imitating her cheery tone, I replied, "I did not enjoy my meal and you'll never see me here again."

She grinned back as if she hadn't heard me and said, "Great. Then we look forward to seeing you again soon." I suspect that kind of tone-deafness comes from ingesting too much Old Bay Seasoning.

The next night, we dined at the convention's awards banquet and then our last evening in Baltimore — late afternoon, actually — we found ourselves in urgent need of a quick meal before we got on a shuttle to the airport. We had about forty minutes so we went to the closest restaurant, which was not primarily a seafood establishment. Amber ordered a shrimp fried rice. I ordered a hamburger, medium-rare, with fries. Because I wasn't ordering fish, it did not occur to me to say, "No Old Bay Seasoning" and I should have because you'll never guess what was liberally sprinkled over the fries.

I couldn't eat them and I couldn't make it past two bites of a burger that was so overdone, the Detroit Red Wings could use it as a puck. The manager offered to have the meal re-prepared but by then, we had to run for the airport shuttle so instead, they graciously took my meal off the bill. At the airport, I opted for the safe haven of an Arby's Roast Beef Sandwich and an order of their Potato Cakes. They do not use Old Bay Seasoning and believe me, I checked and double-checked.

Getting back to the first place we dined in Baltimore: It's part of a large nationwide chain and I'm in their Bonus Points program. On their website, I answered one of those "How was your dining experience?" questionnaires and to my surprise, I soon received an e-mail from the manager of the restaurant asking me to phone him. I did and he apologized for what happened there, telling me, "We've had a problem with one of our chefs. He doesn't believe people don't want Old Bay Seasoning." Duh. The manager assured me they'd cured him of that and that he would make things up to us. I thought was very nice that he bothered since he knew we were visitors from Los Angeles and that even if we'd loved the food at his place, we weren't likely to give it a lot of repeat business.

He took my phone number and less than an hour later, I was called by a Vice-President at the parent company. Donald "I never apologize for anything" Trump could learn from this man. He apologized in a manner that sure sounded sincere and not scripted. Among other things, he said, "I see by your record in our loyalty program that you've been a very good customer for us and we don't want a very good customer to be unhappy with our establishments." Last Saturday, I received from him a very nice letter repeating what he'd said on the phone and enclosed was a $100 gift card for any of their restaurants. $100 is about double what our dinners cost at their eatery in Baltimore so I'm fine with them…and I've learned to ask everyone who tries to feed me about Old Bay Seasoning, right along with the other items that are not good for me.

As readers of this site know, the only thing in this world that I am a "hater" of is cole slaw…and even that's somewhat of a joke. I do find it disgusting but my bigger problem with it is that it invariably contains one or more ingredients which run up against the allergies. (My lesser problem with it is the annoyance of finding it on my plate, often oozing into the items I want to eat, even though I explicitly told the order-taker "No cole slaw.")

I also, as many of you remind me this time of year, can't stand candy corn. Actually, since I gave up all candy a few years ago, I can't stand any sweets, including varieties I used to love…but I never liked candy corn because, well, no one likes candy corn. But when you come right down to it, they're just two of the thousands of things I simply cannot eat without getting very ill. I really don't care that much about either of these in particular.

Still, one of these days, someone for a joke is going to try and feed me a mixture of cole slaw and candy corn, and they're going to, ho-ho, sprinkle Old Bay Seasoning over the whole thing. I hope they find this concoction attractive…because they're gonna be wearing it.

Here's a video about how Pringles Potato Crisps are made. It starts with how the containers are made out of cardboard, foil and metal and I was expecting the Narrator Lady to then say, "…and then the Pringles are made out of the same things!" But she doesn't…