Baby quail. When a Mama Quail gives birth, she has a lot of them…

As I mentioned in the first part of this article some time ago, the film Fast Times at Ridgemont High came out in 1982 — August of '82 to be more precise. It was a pretty big hit and as some movie studios doubtlessly noticed, it was a pretty big hit on a rather modest budget.

There were no huge, costly movie stars in it. There were no exotic locations or costly special effects. So even before it came out, when the advance word within the industry was promising, there were imitations in every possible pipeline. One of those imitations was a screenplay I'd been commissioned to write. Its commissioner hoped it would have the same feel and appeal as Fast Times…and the same success.

I wrote a script and the outfit that hired me liked it but in the short time they gave me to whip up a First Draft, they changed their minds on one thing. They'd told me to put in nudity and naughty words and a few drug jokes because they were angling for an "R" rating like Fast Times. Once I handed it in, they were very happy with it but they had me do a quick rewrite to lose ten pages and to shoot for a "PG." Just a few weeks later, that suddenly seemed a more commercial way to go.

Among the things they liked: That the script, which I called Sky High, had no similar plot points and the characters were quite different. No one who'd seen Fast Times could say it was a direct copy.

An indirect copy? Yeah, probably. But not many people said that because not many people read my script. Once almost anyone realized it was that kind of movie, they said, "Thank you but we already have quite enough of that kind of movie in development."

I was paid in full for Sky High and then my agent began to use it as a sample of my writing to get me other work…and it did. It brought me a number of jobs from folks who said in effect, "We don't want to produce this but we would like to hire the guy who wrote it to write something else for us." One of the producers he sent it to was the lady who'd recommended me for the job in the first place. I will call this person The Producer Lady. The Producer Lady read it and had a very odd idea.

By now, it was early 1990. Not long before, NBC had begun shaking up its Saturday morning lineup. Once all cartoons, it suddenly contained a live-action situation comedy called Saved by the Bell that aimed at a slightly older audience. It did well in the ratings and brought a whole new flock of advertisers to Saturday morn. Indeed in the next few years, there would be less 'n' less animation on NBC Saturday AM and more shows like Saved by the Bell.

The Producer Lady's idea, inspired in a way by my script, was that her company would procure the TV rights to Fast Times at Ridgemont High and turn it into a series that could run on Saturday morning, maybe even on NBC, right after Saved by the Bell. At the time, Fast Times was still a big hit on cable channels and she had seen some sort of poll or survey that said it was very much beloved by the target audience for the sponsors that Saved by the Bell was now attracting. She said, That plus your Sky High script, which will show you can write funny material for that setting, is all we need!"

I was skeptical. Fast Times on Saturday morning? A lot of it was about teenagers getting laid, and while network TV was getting bolder about sex, that was only with sex between people over the age of 18 who were seen in the evening hours. In fact in prime time, they were getting more timid about minors — kids in high school — "going all the way." So the kind of somewhat-honest boy-girl relations in the movie wouldn't/couldn't be in a TV series. I didn't think they could even put on some of the PG-rated things I'd written in Sky High.

Also, the most interesting character in Fast Times, the one who hands down stole the movie, was Spicoli as played by Sean Penn. Spicoli was a well-fried pothead and if you took that away…well then, he wasn't Spicoli now, was he?

And of course, there'd be no naked people. Call me cynical but I did have the crazy thought that one of the reasons the film had done so well was the scene where Phoebe Cates takes off her bikini top. Just a hunch.

I asked The Producer Lady, "Do you think you can even get the rights?"

She said, "We'll pitch it to the network" — and I knew that basically meant that I would pitch it to the network. "It's a hot property," she continued. "It's too famous for the network to turn it down. They'll at last feel they have to develop it and if they're willing to put up development money, someone at Universal will sell us the rights."

So then I asked the Producer Lady, "Yeah, but don't you think they'll say, 'If we take out the sex, drugs and nudity, it won't be Fast Times at Ridgemont High.'"

She said, "No, the name is what they want." She added that the movie of M*A*S*H had had sex and nudity and a few drug references and that removing all those elements had not prevented it from being turned into a rather successful TV show." Off my reply of "Not on Saturday morning," she scrunched her nose and said, "Let's go in and pitch it. You'll see."

I went along with it, plotting out a pitch for Fast Times: The Kid Show, though I didn't call it that. One sunny afternoon, we went into the executive building at NBC in Burbank for an appointment with the Vice-President of Childrens Programming, who was surrounded by her aides. As is customary in such meeting, we first engaged in the customary pre-pitch banter, telling jokes and swapping gossip.

Then, suddenly, everyone in the room knew it was time. The Producer Lady made a brief speech about how she had this idea and we all thought it was the most super, spectacular, exciting idea ever to be heard within in the executive offices of a major television network." She then nodded to me and, feeling as awkward as I always do in these situations — and more awkward because I was selling something I didn't think had a prayer — I began…

"You're probably familiar with the movie, Fast Times at Ridgemont…"

And I don't think I even got to the High before the Vice-President person said, "We'd have to take out the sex, drugs and nudity and if we take out the sex, drugs and nudity, it won't be Fast Times at Ridgemont High."

I got up and said, "Thank you for your time" and I headed for the door. The Producer Lady scrambled right after me and that was the end of that, forever and ever.

Obviously, it was not the best idea ever for a Saturday morning TV program. I could make the case it was not the worst but that really doesn't matter. What matters is that if you started the clock the moment I began telling them about the project, it was the shortest pitch in the history of network programming. If you'd gone in and said, "How about a wacky sitcom with Paul Lynde as Charles Manson?," you couldn't have been out of that room in less time than I was. I'm kind of proud of that.

Years ago, there came a time when I got real tired of hearing the word "genius" applied to absolutely anyone who could do anything. Someone's paperboy was a genius because he could hurl the Sunday Times and hit the porch. It was a compliment that, like standing ovations these days, was used too frequently and thoughtlessly that it lost all meaning, at least for me.

I've begun to feel the same way about the word "legend." It's hard now to have achieved anything in your lifetime without someone calling you a legend or using "legendary" as an adjective to describe you. In fact with some people, you didn't even have to do anything except not die. Once you hit a certain age, you were automatically presumed to be legendary. And of course, the problem is that if everyone's a legend then no one is a legend.

I wince when I see myself hyped as "the legendary Mark Evanier," the exception being when it's said with sarcasm or with one's tongue lodged firmly in one's cheek. Alas, it sometimes is not, especially in the world of comics. Interviewers like to do that — inflating their guests to legendary stature — because (a) it butters up someone they may need to do something for them in the future and (b), it makes the interview (and therefore the interviewer) seem more important.

I recall not so long ago someone on a podcast making reference to an upcoming guest…the legendary Jamie Farr. And I thought, "Okay. If Jamie Farr is a legend, what word would you use to describe Charlie Chaplin?

I can't stop talking about the production of Sweeney Todd that Amber and I saw in New York — the one staged in a small theater that's been converted into a pie shop for the occasion. If you still can't grasp what this is like, the video below has cast members explaining it and it gives you a good look at the venue. Most of the cast members here left the show before we went but the lovely and wonderful Carolee Carmello is among those we saw. In fact, Ms. Carmello kindly arranged for our seats, which were at the table the actors are sitting at when they were interviewed for this video. If you go, see if you can get those seats, which were D-11 and D-12. Best seats in the place. C-11 and C-12 or E-11 and E-12 would also be fine.

We did not go early and eat meat pies there. We went instead that night to one of the greatest pizza places in New York, which was about a block-and-a-half away. I was thinking, "Well, we can't do better than that place" but maybe we should have gone for the Whole Sweeney Experience, pie and all. Nevertheless, I still had one of the best evenings I've ever spent having dinner and then seeing a play…

I shall be away on a Secret Mission through late Sunday…and no, I can't tell you what it is. It wouldn't be much of a Secret Mission if I could now, would it? I can tell you that it does not involve medicine, government, the banning of candy corn or Donald Trump — which come to think of it, are the same color — or a certain well-known lasagna-eating feline. Do not contact me to guess what it does involve for I will have to tell you I can't tell you. I can't even tell you why I can't tell you, nor can I tell you why I can't tell you why I can't tell you.

But I'll not neglect my few-but-fervent followers. If I've configured things properly (unlikely but not impossible), this blog has been programmed such that New Content will appear every six hours until I return to you. It won't be all that exciting and it won't be timely but it'll be here. I'm telling you this so that if something monumental happens during my Secret Mission, you'll understand why I might not be commenting on it until said mission is successfully completed and I have returned. That is, if I return…

James "JT" Troutman wrote me a while back to ask…

I'm puzzled by your insistence that the president is not a racist. It seems to me that if he talks like one, and acts like one, and hangs around with racists, and revels in their adulation, then what is one to conclude? And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you need to declare him a racist. I'm just wondering why you feel it necessary to keep suggesting that he isn't.

Well, certain recent utterings of Mr. Trump have me puzzled a bit by my insistence that he's not a racist…and it's not so much an insistence as a current opinion, subject to ongoing revision. I agree with you that there's a fine line between being a racist and talking like one. In many senses, it's the same thing…but I find it useful to take note of that fine line.

For example, I've testified a few times as an expert witness in lawsuits, which means I've been questioned, sometimes almost maniacally, by attorneys who are relentless about denying reality that does not favor their client. It helps me to remember that most of them do not really believe the position they advocate; that if the other side was paying them $300-an-hour or $800-an-hour — and I was once run through a wringer by a $1000-an-hour guy who kept mentioning his hourly rate — they'd be selling fiercely for the other side. One guy who spent an awful lot of the judge's time trying to argue that I was not an expert witness later, for another client on another case, tried to hire me as his expert witness.

Trump strikes me as a guy who just says whatever works for him at the moment. He's really good at denying he said what he said last February and pretty good at getting away with it, at least with his base. That base is the reason he has his current position and if it wants white resentment and hostility to immigrants, that's what he's going to give them. He doesn't strike me as a guy who gives a damn one way or another about anyone of any color except according to one criteria: Are they of immediate use to the glory and/or wealth of Donald Trump? He fans the fires of racism not because he feels them in his soul. The guy doesn't have a soul. He just knows what's of benefit to him at the moment.

If you want to call that racism, I wouldn't waste a lot of breath arguing with you. But isn't there a microscopic speck of difference between a politician who honestly believes abortion is murder and one who says that but says that only because he's courting the votes and support of those believe that? Trump reminds me of a man I once knew of whom a mutual acquaintance said, "He doesn't hate any race or religion. He just hates anyone who isn't him!"

• G.H.W. Bush has a big, loving family. Couldn't someone take better care of him so he wouldn't disgrace himself in his old age?

• Just thinking of all the old men who are going to get a wheelchair and go out grabbing butts for Halloween as George Herbert Walker Bush.

On my recent trip to New York, I didn't get to very many of my favorite restaurants back there. Didn't get to Peter Luger's Steak House or The Oyster Bar in Grand Central Station or a single delicatessen. The Carnegie and the Stage Deli are both extinct but Katz's is still flourishing, even without my business for over a decade.

It's really an impressive operation as Andrew Knowlton found out. He's an editor at Bon Appétit and he goes on these adventures where he attempts to work 24 hours straight in some restaurant or resort. He recently put in a tour of duty at Katz's where he did everything anyone ever does there except fake an orgasm. This is a little long but you may find it as interesting as I did…

The National Archives has released more than 2,800 previously classified or redacted records relating to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. A few decades ago, back when I was immersed in the story, I met people who were living for this moment, certain that something in there would validate some grand conspiracy theory they had. Now that the day is here, I wonder how many of them care. It all seems so distant now. Once upon a time, it was possible to believe some revelation would change the world. Now, that seems pretty unlikely.

I was one of those folks who read all the books, went to lectures and even (once) attended a convention of conspiracy buffs. Meeting some of those people in person did a lot to change my mind and not in the way they intended. Most of those folks were willing to consider absolutely any theory as to how J.F.K. was murdered except the one where one lone nut named Oswald acts alone. That was the one that was off-limits. If you'd gotten up at this gathering and said Kennedy was killed by clones of the Three Stooges from the planet Beta-Blue, you would have gotten more respect than someone who thought Lee Harvey dunnit.

Why? Because that was the story fed to the masses…to the stupid people, meaning people who were not you. To some, that alone proved it could not be true. It also did not get you anywhere. The conspiracy theorists I met had fiercely declared that was a lie and would never in a zillion years consider that they might have been wrong.

I eventually came to two decisions. One was that, yes, Oswald acted alone and the Warren Commission Report was at most, only wrong on a few inconsequential details. The other decision was that it was brain-dead foolish to try debating this with anyone…so this is not a debate. It's just me saying what I believe. If you want to believe Peruvian Albinos offed Kennedy, fine. Go right on believing it but don't expect pushback from me.

A lot of these newly-released documents actually have been released before, sometimes in redacted form. I'll be surprised it there are any serious game-changers in there. If there are, I'll be surprised if anyone cares, even those who were alive on 11/22/63. If there's proof what I believe is wrong, I'll just believe what then seems to be right…but it really won't change my life or anyone's.

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.