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.

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.