One of the things that bugs a lot of people about Trumpism — and I'll bet it bugs a lot of people who still back the guy — is the idea that "the facts" can be whatever you want them to be if it helps you win an argument.

It serves Trump's purposes for the murder rate in this country ("the carnage") to never have been higher…so it's never been higher, no matter what the actual statistics say. In a year or so, he can point to the actual stats (even if they go up) and claim credit for bringing them down to that. It also serves his purposes for millions of illegal votes to have been cast for Hillary and for terrorism attacks to be so numerous that the press doesn't even report them.

My closest friend who is glad Trump won cringes at this kind of stuff because he thinks it, more so than anything Democrats are doing, de-legitimizes a presidency that he wants to see succeed, at least for certain of its goals.

It's also just really, really uncomfy for him to support Trump when people like me are saying to him, "Hey, you said Al Gore was a congenital liar when he said [summary of inconsequential Gore distortion of facts]. How do you feel about your boy Trump saying [summary of consequential Trump lie]?" It's bad enough that he has to defend/overlook the "pussy" talk or his candidate's marital and business track records.

I guess I should have been better prepared for this because I've spent a lot of time on Internet message boards and forums where, encouraged by distance and often anonymity and/or alcohol, people say some real stupid, untrue things. When such forums work — when people remain civil and relatively factual — some wonderful, enlightening discussions can occur. I've enjoyed many and learned from many.

But then every so often, along comes someone who's really mad at about something and/or committed to some personal agenda…and they just make things so unpleasant that the sane people prove their sanity by going elsewhere. These disruptors usually proclaim success but when I look at them, what I think is: "This person is really, really committed to winning arguments here because he or she is not winning anything very often in real life."

That may be unfair but in at least a few cases, I'm sure it's true. I know it's true.

Often, they remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who may be the all-time greatest literary analogy ever for someone who loses and loses and loses and still thinks that he's winning if he doesn't admit defeat — to himself or anyone. King Arthur lops off the Knight's arms and legs off and the Knight's still clinging to some fairy tale bromide about how a man who won't be beaten can't be beaten. (When people quote that to me as if it's oh so true, I usually ask them what happens when one man who won't be beaten battles another man who won't be beaten…)

It's so bizarre to me at times to find people defending beliefs of microscopic importance to the death. I'm sure it happens on discussion forums of all topics but it never seems so petty as the comic book chat venues, where people — many of them alleged grown-ups — are arguing over who's stronger, The Thing or The Hulk, or who drew the best Batman. And hey, do you think Archie should marry Betty or Veronica?

I care about many, many aspects of the comic book world, especially those that impact the lives and appreciation of its great creative talents…but when you find yourself jousting online with a Black Knight about which writer's version of The Joker was definitive, all you can do is click your mouse and go find a better place to be. This is something you need to do before you get stuck playing their game for very long.

No one can win their game. You can't and they can't, though that won't stop them from deciding they did and taking victory laps. All they can really do is waste your time, energy and attention.

I argue occasionally with those who spread misinformation but try to not to get into debates over opinions because, well, they're opinions. We're not supposed to all like all the same stuff for all the same reasons. It's sometimes hard to find the dividing line though when you're dealing with people who think their opinions are facts; that the answer to "Who was Jack Kirby's best inker" is just as evident and inarguable as the answer to "What's 2+2?"

Over the years, I've learned to avoid certain individuals on the 'net because they're like that. Last year at Comic-Con in San Diego, one of them sought me out to talk…and I'll say this for the guy: He was a much nicer, saner human being than I would ever have imagined based on his online posts. I think we forget this sometimes. Some people, and I think I'm one of them, write pretty much as they are. If you don't like me from what I write here, don't bother trying to meet me. I don't get any better in person.

But some people aren't the same guy, possibly because they aren't all that facile with words and don't express themselves well. When all you have to go on about a person is how and what they write, it's hard not to formulate an overall view of them based on that. When I was in my early teens and reading mimeographed and ditto "fanzines," I kind of assumed that if someone's writings had a lot of typos in them, if you'd met that individual in person, they'd have a corresponding speech impediment. Or if they typed in elite type instead of pica, which is larger, they'd have a very soft voice.

Anyway, this guy at San Diego seemed intelligent and decent in person, which had not always been the case with his Internet postings. He had sensed over the years that I was avoiding him and wanted to know why. I told him as nicely as I could that online, I thought he was a maniac who was sloppy with his facts…and since there was no reasoning with him, why bother? He said he understood that, he apologized for being too strident and unwilling to concede error…

…and then he said, by way of explanation and not as an excuse, "I was having a rough time in my life back then." I think I always sensed that. I didn't know anything about the fellow but his arguments didn't always seem to be about what they were about. He was stressing over things in his world that weren't working out the way he wanted them to so he became a little more crazed to see them work out his way on this forum where we discussed comic books.

That's not just my "take" on the situation. It was his, as well. I think a lot of arguments on the 'net are in the same category.

It helps to remember that some people don't always manage to write that they mean by way of tone and often, substance. It also helps to remember that those who post under handles may feel no responsibility for what they post under that phony name and also that the Internet is a place of immediate reaction.

In the old days, something might get you furious and you'd sit down and dash off an angry, outraged letter — what a friend of mine used to a call a "Dear Mr. Asshole" letter — and then the mere act of writing it would take half the fury out of your soul. Then a half-hour later, the other half would evaporate and instead of sending the letter, you'd decide to save a stamp and your reputation so you'd tear it up.

Today, you finish it, you hit "send" and there it is for all the world to see, possibly forever.

When you read the Internet in this era of Trump, you see a lot of stuff that makes you think people are insane, which of course some are. You and I may disagree as to who the insane people are but I'll bet we agree that they're there on the Internet, just like porn, spam, clickbait, overhyped headlines, piano-playing cats, Nigerian scams, Kardashian photos and more porn. Being aware of the crazy people is important because you can't avoid them if you don't remember that they're there.

It's probably also important because we all have our bubbles and we need to remember that those bubbles are never as large as we like to think they are. Sadly though, the more you browse the web, the more you may become convinced we live in a world where we're outnumbered by crazies.

And maybe we are. But maybe some of those crazies aren't as crazy as they seem. Maybe they're stressing over something else, something largely unrelated to whatever they're being crazy about on some forum or comment section.

Or maybe they're coming across crazier than they really are because they're not very good writers. Remember that…and while you're at it, have a little sympathy for those who've lost and are so out of touch with reality that they just don't know it. You can usually spot them lying there with their arms and legs cut off, and they're offering magnanimously to declare the battle a draw.

A couple of the folks behind the very successful musical Mamma Mia are trying to replicate its box office with Georgy Girl (The Seekers Musical), which I don't think has played America yet but will probably get here eventually. Mamma Mia was built around the songs of ABBA. This one is about The Seekers, and its title is the title of their biggest record. Here's a performance of that number…

This is where I try to post all my links 'n' thots about the guy in the Oval Office so I don't have to think as much about him the rest of the day.

• Trump is supposed to be this superstar negotiator in the business world…though I'm not sure he's considered that by very many people who are actually in the business world. It looks more to me like he's a great negotiator the same way Doctors Phil and Oz are great doctors. Anyway, Trump was bragging about how he'd make a great deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping in exchange for reaffirming the One China policy. Well, he just reaffirmed it and according to Fred Kaplan, what Trump got in exchange was…absolutely nothing. Hey, I could have made that deal.
• Out on the campaign trail, Trump promised whatever would make the folks at his rallies cheer…and it seemed obvious to most of us that he had no idea if those things were possible or even desirable.  But in his world, you say whatever you have to to make the sale.  Now, he's stuck with having to keep at least some of those promises just because he made them.  As Kevin Drum notes, the ones concerning Israel are already proving to be kinda difficult to keep.
• Most Americans' idea of how to balance the federal budget is pretty simple. They don't phrase it this way but it basically comes down to "Just get rid of all the expenditures that don't directly benefit me." It ain't that easy as James Surowiecki explains.
• It will not surprise you that Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services takes a lot of money from tobacco companies, has investments in some and is all for rolling back laws that make it more difficult for such companies to prosper and reel in new customers.  If there's any coherent motto of this administration it's that government must never get in the way of large companies making larger amounts.  Patrick Caldwell has more on this.
• Just about everyone I think is funny is vehemently anti-Trump. As Jeet Heer notes, attacks on Donald by comedians won't destroy him but they might make him really, really angry. And now that I think of it, the madder Trump gets, the more likely he is to destroy himself.

And speaking of comedians, I wrote somewhere here not long ago that I was disappointed with Stephen Colbert's show. Well, not lately and especially not the first 15 minutes or so of all the episodes this week.  His ratings are notably up, too.  Hope he sends D.J.T. a nice thank-you note.

A few days ago, I stopped into a market to pick up about a dozen items. I was in the Canned Meats aisle when it occurred to me that I oughta hit the Men's Room before I left. I didn't have to go right that second but I sensed that I would before I got home.

The men's room had a combination lock on the door. You had to ask someone who worked there for the code. So I asked someone there for the code and they didn't know. So I asked someone else there for the code and they didn't know. So I asked someone else there for the code and they didn't know. So I asked someone else there for the code and they didn't know but they said, "You'd better ask the manager" and they told me where to find him.

I found the manager and he said he was sorry but he didn't know the code to the men's room either. I said, "Well, someone must know it." The manager kind of half-chuckled and said, "Louie knows it but he doesn't work here anymore."

Then he explained to me. They had an assistant manager named Louie. Louie was a problem and they told him he was fired. Louie was pissed about this. He left but before he left, he reprogrammed the doors to the public men's room and ladies' room, just to cause trouble. I said, "There must be some sort of master back-up code for them."

The manager said, "There is…but he changed that, too." I asked how long ago this was done and he said it was going on ten days. "I've phoned him a couple of times and demanded he give us the new codes but he said if we want them, we have to hire him back."

By now, I was way deeper into this story than I cared to be but I was also needing the men's room more and more. I asked, "What about the key? There's a key lock on those doors, too." The manager said, "Yeah, well, nobody here seems to know where the key is. We didn't use it much…once or twice a year when some homeless person would lock themselves in there for an hour or two. I've searched and I'm not sure Louie didn't take all the keys, too."

I asked if I could use whatever men's room the employees there used and he said sure and walked me back into the "authorized personnel only" section to show me where it was. On the way, he told me, "I've called the company that installed the locks and they're going to send someone out with a master key. They say once they get the doors open, they can reprogram the locks.

"I think they're coming tomorrow. I hope so because I have to do the final January accounting and I can't finish without one ledger that I don't have. It disappeared the same time Louie left and I called him and asked here the hell it was. He said it was in the ladies' room along with a couple crates of FatBoy ice cream sandwiches."

Oscar Levant (1906-1972) was an actor and pianist who is probably best remembered as a witty guest on talk shows, Jack Paar's especially.  He was in some good movies — An American in Paris and The Band Wagon, to name two — and on a whole lot of radio shows but America couldn't get enough of him on with Paar, bashing celebrities and celebrating his own illnesses. He was also a friend and confidante of George Gershwin and a protector of the man's legacy.

And for a year or so, he was a freeloader in the home of Harpo Marx…a notion that intrigued my pal Dan Castellaneta when he read of it in a book on Harpo. The whole notion — dour, sarcastic Levant rooming with zany, lovable Marx caught Dan's fancy and he starting thinking of a different Odd Couple: Oscar and Harpo instead of Oscar and Felix. This led to the play For Piano and Harpo written by Dan and starring him as Levant.

It's now playing through March 5 at Garry Marshall's Falcon Theater out in Burbank. It was directed by Stefan Novinski and it also stars J.D. Cullum, Deb Lacusta, Gail Matthius, Phil Proctor, and Jonathan Stark. You can order tickets here.

If you do, you'll note that at the performances on three Thursdays — 2/16, 2/23 and 3/2 — the play will be followed by a half-hour "talkback" on stage, discussing the work and the men. On February 23, which is the night I'm going to see it, I'll be moderating the talkback.

No, I haven't see it yet so this can't be much of a recommendation. On the other hand, I know Dan and I know that as wonderful as he is as Homer Simpson and other yellow people, that represents about 30% of what he can do. He's a fine actor and a very smart man…and I was just about to spend my own money for tickets when they asked me to host the talkback…so I'm sure looking forward to it.

P.S. The following Thursday, March 2, I'm the moderator for another event out in Burbank that will be of great interest to folks interested in animation and especially in animation voices. As soon as the folks running it make the formal announcement, I'll tell you about it here.

Okay, I'm back doing this again: Get all my Trump posting for the day over in one big dump. In fact, I just decided that starting tomorrow, I'm going to call this The Trump Dump. It has a nice ring to it…

1. Fred Kaplan points out one reason that things are such a mess in the Trump Administration: He's not appointing all the deputy, under, and assistant secretaries who actually do most of the work.
2. Andrew Sullivan is back and sorta-blogging. This one is about how the media should deal with the lies told by Trump and those around him. That sounds a lot easier to demand than it does to enforce, especially when Trump himself won't sit for interviews with anyone interested in doing that. Bill O'Reilly was interested in coming across as tough without actually being tough. And frankly, most people are falling into one of two categories: Those who know Trump lies and those who don't care as long as they get what they think they want out of his presidency.
3. Okay, so let's get this straight: Trump kept saying he wouldn't honor the "One China" policy unless President Xi Jinping conceded to him on some points involving trade and international commerce. They had a phone conversation. President Xi said no. Trump quietly announced he would honor the "One China" policy. I had an agent like that one time.
4. I'm not a big fan of doing psychological evaluations of public figures from afar and all these discussions of what's mentally wrong with Trump automatically trigger my skepticism. But I will admit most public figures don't give us anywhere near as much to work with as Trump does. John Cassidy engages in a little of that but makes the point that acting the way he does sometimes works well for Trump. I think that's important to remember. All the thing we may think he shouldn't do did get him the presidency.

Okay, that's four. And now I don't have to think about Trump for the rest of the day…or so I'll tell myself.

Our clip today combines two things that intrigue me, the first being the song "The Rhythm of Life" from the Broadway show, Sweet Charity.  As I noted here, the original song was a parody of the bogus religious cults of the sixties, not to be confused with the religious cults of every other decade in the history of mankind.  I'm fascinated by how some people have transformed it into a serious choir number about the rhythm of life while others offer it in odd contexts.

The other thing here that I find fascinating is — or rather was — a TV show that aired on ABC for a brief time in 1969 and it was called What's It All About, World? At the time, CBS had some success with The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and NBC had Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In. So you had two variety shows that played to younger audiences and they were also political and anti-establishment at times.

Today, the politics of either show seem about as controversial as the new KFC pizza that substitutes a piece of fried chicken for the pizza crust. But in '69, a couple of gents who owned ABC affiliates were outraged at that Commie Trash on CBS and NBC and they demanded that their network whip up a similar show designed to offend no one, especially right-wing folks like them. That was What's It All About, World?, hosted by Dean Jones and featuring some of the oddest musical numbers ever done on television. They all seemed to be about taking something hip and taking all the hip out of it.

Here's a version of "The Rhythm of Life" they did, introduced by Minnie Pearl and performed by Dean Jones and Ricardo Montalban with the Kevin Carlisle Dancers. Just try and figure out what was on the minds of the people who devised this. I dare you.

We could make this a daily feature since there are so many things I Don't Get. But the one I'm going to write about now is this…

Every day now, there seems to be some story from deep inside the Trump Administration — anonymously sourced — that makes Donald Trump appear to be one or more of the following…

• Shockingly unaware of what he's signing and what policies he's changing. I mean, it's bad if he's doing bad things because he's studied the situation and honestly believes they're good. But even those who think he's a brilliant, great leader have to be appalled if he's signing executive orders without knowing what's in them.
• Insanely obsessed with convincing people — including other world leaders — that he had the biggest victory in the history of elections, trouncing Hillary in the popular vote, getting the biggest turnout ever for his inauguration, etc.
• Childishly vowing that he will get his way 100% of the time and that anyone who opposes him on anything — even if they're with him on most matters — will be destroyed and/or made to apologize.
• Irresponsibly ordering major actions — including military ones — on a near-whim, without bothering to sufficiently plan or to consult with those around him who may be more informed and equipped to plan better or raise questions about the decision.
• And then there's all that stuff about how the Trump brand must not be allowed to suffer. He seems unaware that as his popularity goes down, people become less likely to buy anything associated with him.

Are all these leaked stories true? Naturally, since they fit in with my perception of the man, I'm likely to assume they are. But I don't want to be like some people I've encountered the last few years who'll believe absolutely anything negative, no matter how unsourced or stupid, about Obama, Bill or Hillary, etc.

What I don't get it who's leaking these stories? And why isn't Trump waterboarding members of his staff to find out? Here's one that came out the other day…

In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.

Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.

Who leaks this kind of thing to the press? And why isn't shutting down such leaks the most important thing in the life of Donald J. Trump at the moment? Even if the story is an out-and-out lie, you'd think he'd be firing back at it a lot more than he has. As it stands, it's another thing that I don't get.  Collect 'em all!

Here's a movie musical number that's always worth another viewing. I was never bothered by Dick Van Dyke's alleged British accent in Mary Poppins. I mean, it's not like it was the only unrealistic thing in that film. And it probably didn't bother any of the many Brits who worked on the movie, either, at least at the time.

One of them — though you never see him on screen — was the veteran character actor, J. Pat O'Malley. He was engaged to coach Van Dyke…and what you basically have in that film is Dick Van Dyke imitating J. Pat O'Malley, a genuine British performer of great renown. O'Malley was also one of three different actors who at various times played Dick Van Dyke's father on The Dick Van Dyke Show.

Mr. O'Malley did a fair amount of cartoon voice work for Disney, starting with Ichabod and Mr. Toad in 1949. That's him voicing the little cockney man in this sequence.

The very first cartoon I ever wrote was an ABC Weekend Special called The Incredible Detectives and one of the main characters was an English bulldog. For some reason, though I was new to the profession, the producer let me sit in on a casting discussion with the voice director, who I suspect resented my having any input at all. I suggested for the role Mr. O'Malley, who was then very much still with us and would probably have loved getting the job. The director wrote down my suggestion, then went to his office and booked whoever the hell he wanted to…an actor who was a friend of his.

That actor was fine but later in front of me, the producer asked the director why he hadn't hired my nominee and he said, "I don't like to work with on-camera voices who haven't had any experience doing voices." I, of course, then said, "J. Pat O'Malley's done dozens of cartoons. He was in Mary Poppins."

The voice director immediately added, "And those guys who work for Disney…they're always too expensive and they don't take direction well."

Okay, let's roll the clip…

Rolling Stone has a good interview with John Oliver, who returns to the air this Sunday.

And while you're over there, read Matt Taibbi about how a lot of Trump supporters know how much he lies and it doesn't bother them a bit because he seems to be winning for their side.

I think I've reached the stage in the script I'm writing when everything is funny, not because it really is but because it's 5-friggin'-thirty in the morning. Gonna go to bed and try not to lie there for the next three hours "writing" the rest of this script in my mind.

Wanna help? Please spare me e-mails for the next few days unless they're really essential. I'm actually writing two scripts at the moment — a few pages on this one, then a few pages on that one, then back to the first one. I'll tell you about them whenever there's time.

Good night, Internet!

Today on Stu's Show, your host Stu Shostak chats with actor-producer Tom Williams, a fine gent who produced, among other shows, Dragnet and Adam-12. Tom's also had a pretty impressive acting career, as well with appearances on, among other other shows, Quincy, The Rockford Files, The Jeffersons, Too Close for Comfort, Life With Lucy and many more. Stu and Tom will be chatting for two hours and then they'll go live to streaming internet video and you'll be able to see not only them but some samples of Tom's work on your home computer or your Roku-enabled TV.

Stu's Show can be heard live (almost) every Wednesday at the Stu's Show website and you can listen for free there and then. Webcasts start at 4 PM Pacific Time, 7 PM Eastern and other times in other climes. They run a minimum of two hours and sometimes go to three or beyond. Then shortly after a show concludes, it's available for downloading from the Archives on that site. Downloads are a bargain 99 cents each and you can get four for the price of three. And hey, the ones were I'm the guest are the same price as the ones with Dick Van Dyke and Carl Reiner and Jonathan Winters! Pretty awesome.

CNN has a new series called The History of Comedy and it's loaded with clips and great insights…or so I'm told by friends who have previewed it. I haven't but I've set my TiVo to capture the first episode, Thursday evening at 7 PM with several repeat airings (and new episodes) to follow. You might want to grab at least this first one, just in case it's as good as I'm told it is.

Jake Gyllenhaal will be starring soon in a Broadway revival of Sunday in the Park With George. Apparently when this was announced, a number of people were openly skeptical that he was up to the vocal demands of the role. So they've released a video of him from rehearsals singing "Finishing the Hat" and I wonder if anyone is skeptical now…

For those of you interested in the late night ratings battle, here's a good overview of where things stand. Fallon has been in the lead all along, though occasionally Colbert has been close or even a bit ahead…in overall homes, though not in the key demographic. Kimmel has a solid following too.