Another one of these. For those of you who are new to this blog, the mushroom soup can signifies that Mark is busy with something that is likely to keep him from blogging and maybe even responding to e-mails for a brief period. It should not in any way be considered product placement for the Campbell's company which has never sent me so much as a noodle, those rat bastards.

One nice thing about being this busy is that I don't have time to think much over whether it's going to be Trump vs. Hillary or Cruz vs. Bernie or what's the inevitable surprise twist that's going to happen here? There's going to be one of them…something no one saw coming except that after it happens, they'll all say they did. I'm thinking Donald may pick a wombat at his running mate in a desperate attempt to lock up that all-important marsupial vote.

Some folks on the 'net are making a big deal about news that a new showrunner is coming in to preside over Stephen Colbert's show. That might be a significant development if he's going to truly supplant in any way the real showrunner, who of course is Stephen Colbert. I think Colbert's doing the best late night program that's currently airing and given its ratings, it's doubtful his job is in any jeopardy. But his numbers could be higher and one assumes that's what the new guy is there to work on.

Personally, I think the show needs to make more use of Colbert's ability to ad-lib. First thing I'd do is make a rule: We tape in real time, no edits and less rehearsal. A late night show does not need prime-time polish. There ought to be moments which not only surprise the audience but the host as well. Second thing: At his old gig, Colbert often seemed to be bigger than his own series, turning up on other shows and in Washington and in the news, surprising us every which way. His new show's a good one but they fit him into standard talk show format instead of reinventing talk show format to fit him. I'd love to see him break out more. Hope that's what the new guy will help him do.

I'll be back later. I'm just not sure how later.

We always liked this song by British Music Hall star Des O'Connor…

If you are an aspiring actor, make sure you read my buddy Ken Levine's piece about a scam that's taking mucho dinero from aspiring actors. It's all about casting directors and others of like profession charging people to audition. Oh — and read the Hollywood Reporter piece Ken links to, as well. This has been going on in various forms, some of them quite subtle for a long time but lately, it's gotten quite blatant and more costly. A casting director is paid to be up on the current talent pool and to know who's out there and what they can do and to find new talent. There's no justification for them taking money from that new talent.

Here's yet another of those articles where I share what little I know about the writing business just in case there's anyone out there who knows less. Part 1 can be read here, Part 2 can be read here, Part 3 can be read here, Part 4 can be read here, Part 5 can be read here, Part 6 can be read here and Part 7 can be read here. Part 8 begins now…

---

If you want to stop being an amateur writer, it helps to stop acting like one. This will probably not, in and of itself, get you work but it may remove an important obstacle that is making that less likely.

There are lots of amateurs around and there's a reason that some of them remain amateurs: Their work isn't that good. If you have never been in a position to hire writers and been deluged with submissions and applications, you may not realize how many people there are out there who want to be writers who aren't that good. It's probably more than you imagine.

Anyone who's in a position to hire writers or buy their work for any length of time has seen plenty of them. And if you in some way resemble them…well, you don't want to do that. It causes your submissions or samples to not be taken seriously and not given even the shortest of shrifts.

Every editor or producer has some indicators in this category. One of the most prevalent is a kind of mindless sense of oversell and bragging. Put simply, the top writers do not have to tell you how good their work is. If anyone will, it's their agents but they themselves don't feel a need to try and convince you. If anything, their work and their credits will convince you. Amateurs, however, usually think they have to. And then the potential buyer of your writing thinks, "He's pretty desperate so he's probably not very good."

I don't particularly enjoy being in a position to buy work from or hire other writers. Given the choice of one, I would much, much, much, much (add at least three more muches in there) be the writer than the editor. But occasionally, I have been in an editorial position and I was amazed, as stated above, how poor or inappropriate some of the submissions were. I was also amazed how many people tried to sell their writing with a sales pitch as opposed to letting their writing speak for them. The merits of the writing were all that interested me.

A very common mistake — I thought — was to quote what others had said. One applicant said in a cover letter, "Three different writing teachers told me my work was excellent. One said I had the potential to be the next Kurt Vonegutt." I of course wrote back to him that he couldn't be the next Kurt Vonnegut until he'd learned how to spell the first Kurt Vonnegut's name…and while I was at it, I also told him I wasn't looking for the next Kurt Vonnegut. The gig he was applying for, as he well knew, was writing for the Richie Rich cartoon show. Mr. Vonnegut was among my all-time favorite writers but I was not sitting there thinking, "Gee, I wish I could find the next Kurt Vonnegut because he'd be so ideally suited for Richie Rich."

Beyond all that, there's this: Why should I care in the slightest what three writing teachers I never heard of allegedly thought? There are writing teachers in this world who can't tell good writing from bad, and they certainly have no idea what I'm looking for. There are also writing teachers who will tell you your work is good because you're paying them…just as you have friends who'll tell you it's brilliant to make you feel good and/or to get you to go away.

You know what a lot of editors and producers think when you tell them how simply brilliant your work is? A lot of them feel insulted; like you think they're so dumb that that will mean something to them. They think to themselves, "Hey, pal…I'll decide if it's brilliant." They also worry that you may have a bit of an ego problem.

Remember that the person who's considering buying your writing or hiring you to write is asking him- or herself two questions. One is whether you're capable of producing work that fits their needs both in terms of style and quality. For the most part, they will make that decision based on reading your work, not on how you hype it. Then there's the other question, which pretty much comes down to "Can I work with this person?"

Will you be reliable? Will you give me grief if I tell you something needs a rewrite? Will we have the kind of rapport I need to have with someone? This is where what's on the paper isn't as important as how you come across. This is where being pushy or frighteningly in love with your own work may make someone think you might be trouble. Not long ago, a movie producer told me that she has found some good, new filmmakers for high-level projects by looking at low-budget student films. Of course though, that means sitting through a lot of bad ones.

We got to joking about how in such productions, the lower the budget is, the more times the people in charge will put their names in the credits. I don't remember the name of the guy about whom she told me the following but let's say it was Harvey Lipsitz. She said, "The film he made wasn't bad but the credits…oy! It said, 'Produced by Harvey Lipsitz, Directed by Harvey Lipsitz, Written by Harvey Lipsitz and Someone Else, Based on an Idea by Harvey Lipsitz, Cinematography by Harvey Lipsitz, Costume Design by Harvey Lipstiz, Music by Harvey Lipsitz…' He probably ordered lunch delivered himself just so he could put down 'Catering by Harvey Lipsitz.' And then at the beginning of the film, he gave himself a possessive credit. It said 'Harvey Lipsitz's' before the title and at the end, it said 'A Harvey Lipsitz Film.' And this wasn't a joke."

She said it made her decide not to get into business with Harvey Lipsitz.

None of this is to suggest one should not promote and sell one's work and one's self. But just as a car salesman can sell you so aggressively that you think, "Gee, there must be something wrong with that Hyundai," a writer can sell his or her work in a way that makes you wonder if just maybe there's something wrong there. If you're going to sell, sell with a little class and wit and please, please don't sell so hard you appear desperate. Desperate is not a quality that makes people think, "Hey, this person must be a good writer." It makes them think you're an amateur.

• The rapper Ice Cube says "Donald Trump is what Americans aspire to be." Yes, I've always wanted to be disliked by 67.2% of the population.

That's longtime MAD Art Director Leonard Brenner in the photo at above left. It's another one of the many times he also functioned as a photo model.

Lenny was laid to rest Tuesday morning. Many of the magazine's staffers and contributors were present but not Nick Meglin, the longtime Assistant Editor and later Editor of MAD. No one alive worked longer and more closely with Lenny than Nick but Nick was in another state and unable to be there. Instead, he sent the following letter, which was read by Charles Kochman, executive editor at Harry N. Abrams Publishing and a member of the extended MAD family…

Beyond being a great friend to everyone in the MAD family, Lenny (known affectionately as "The Beard") held a unique place in the magazine's formative years. Along with the talented artists and writers who helped shape the look and voice of MAD, Lenny, together with the brilliant, free-spirited art director John Putnam, anchored the art department with solid execution, allowing the creative juices of the staff to flow freely, confident that whatever we came up with, they would make it work.

Lenny also contributed what can best be described as the voice of unreason. His comments were, for the most part, blunt, and at times uniquely decorated with detailed suggestions of what certain individuals should do with their anatomy.

While not an editorial idea man per se, Lenny maintained a throw-all-caution-to-the-wind attitude about what he thought we should be doing more of on the front covers of MAD. His brazen approach led to discussions from which several successful MAD covers emerged — along with one total disaster. During one long, boring cover conference going nowhere, Lenny finally stood up and with a colorful display of profanity stated that he had had it and was going to lunch. Seizing a similar escape route, I followed, flashing a middle-finger salutation saying, "Here's our next cover idea, guys — MAD, The Number One Magazine of Good Taste," and exited.

When everyone cracked up, Lenny did an about face and declared, "Now, that's a great cover idea!" He was dead serious and so insistent that several of creative team started to lean in his direction. I pleaded, "Hey guys, it's just a joke, let it go," but despite my protestation, the group voted to show the mock layout to our publisher, Bill Gaines, the final arbiter of covers (his one editorial involvement in the magazine's content).

Bill asked incredulously, "Do you really want to do this?" I said, "Not me, Bill!", prompting Lenny to describe me in a volley of adjectives of which "chicken-hearted bastard" was the most complimentary and mentionable in mixed audiences. He ended his tirade with, "…and people will be talking about this cover for years to come."

Bill shrugged and said, "Okay, I hope you're right about this, Beard." When magazine outlets, especially super markets and drug stores, saw that cover, they returned the bundles unopened. It proved to be our worst-selling issue of the seventies.

Afterward, Bill sometimes needled Lenny about this cover at one of the countless food orgies we enjoyed together. "Should we have a Burgundy or a Bordeaux tonight, Beard?" If Lenny answered "Burgundy," Bill would ask me, "What do you think, Meglin?" "Bordeaux, Bill." "Sorry, Beard," he would say as he ordered the Bordeaux. "I should have listened to Meglin on that finger cover!"

Lenny was known for being the Garlic King of MAD and would order an extra side dish of lightly sautéed garlic wherever we were, including Italy where garlic was already the prime ingredient. His reputation as such was especially beneficial when we were doubles partners through thirty-plus years of pitiful MAD tennis parties and trips. Lenny believed his prowess at the net kept our opponents at bay, while I claimed it was his breath that kept them anchored at the baseline.

Lenny was always appreciative of art and some of my fondest memories include the museums and galleries that he, Angelo Torres, and I visited, whether on MAD trips or on our own to D.C. and Philadelphia. Needless to say, great food was at least as important as the great art we traveled to experience.

Several weeks ago, Lenny's son Marc contacted Ange and me about his father's weakened condition. Both Ange and I called Lenny immediately. My call lasted longer than I expected. After a few laughs we talked about our plan to visit him in June. Lenny's energy level heightened considerably.

After a few days, Marc e-mailed a photograph of his father's response to my pep talk. It would be the last visual contact I would have of my beloved friend Lenny — giving me the finger. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Jonathan Chait comments on a pro-Trump newspaper endorsement from a newspaper run by a Trump relative. Hey, how could that possibly be biased? Anyway, its message is that Trump must be the perfect person to be president because he has all those supporters he has. And he'd be a much better president than Barack Obama because…wait. Didn't Barack Obama have even more supporters in the last two elections?

Nate Silver crunches the numbers on the remaining Republican primaries and comes to the conclusion that it all comes down to California on June 7. Trump could come up with the necessary 1,237 delegates to lock up the nomination, he could fall slightly short but be able to make it up by persuading uncommitted delegates or he could fall short enough to make that real difficult. At the moment, the third option is looking likely. This brings us to some scrambling that Jonathan Chait (him again) writes about here.

I still don't believe the Republicans are going to nominate — or even come close to nominating — anyone other than Donald or Ted. I especially don't believe this alleged strategy of getting people to vote for Cruz in order to stop Trump, and then bait-and-switch them to some other guy — unnamed now since Ryan took himself out of it. Sounds like a plan to make sure every single member of the party is pissed-off that his pick won fair and square and then got cheated out of the nomination. The only way it would work is if the "some other guy" is Dick Van Dyke since everybody loves Dick Van Dyke.

Much to do today, not enough time to do it in. So, election-wise, what do we think it's going to be? All the Donald Trump supporters screaming that their guy won it fair and square and had it stolen by Ted Cruz? All the Bernie Sanders supporters yelling that their guy won it but it was stolen by Hillary Clinton? Both? I get the feeling someone's going to insist someone cheated.

Last night, I had a conversation with a Sanders supporter who thinks there's something terribly wrong with a system where Bernie can win the last seven caucuses and primaries and not be way ahead of Hillary. Sanders is probably the guy I most want to see win but I do recognize that he's trailing by a wide margin in delegates — and not that it's the determining factor — total votes as well.

There are a lot of folks out there talking about how the system is unfair and should be changed once their party's convention convenes. These people, of course, are all backing someone who's behind. No one in the lead ever thinks the system is flawed…or if they do, they keep it to themselves. So the question becomes which of the two is less fair: The system as it stands or changing it in mid-game because someone doesn't like the way it's going? I have no answer for this. I'm tempted to wish they'd just do whatever's going to get this election over with sooner.

Whoops! Look at the time! Gotta get ready to go somewhere. Hey, before I skedaddle: How come I can order something from Amazon and they have it here in what seems like twenty minutes…and if I don't like it, I can make like two clicks on their website and send it back for a refund in two minutes…but if they accidentally shorted me an item (I ordered three of something and they delivered two), that takes forever to rectify? And then they don't want to send me the missing item. They want to refund my money and let me order the missing item anew? Strange system. Gotta run. Another installment of "Rejected" tomorrow in this space.

From 1971, one of the most popular commercials ever produced…

My favorite stand-up comedian working today is probably Lewis Black and I really enjoy his TV series. What? You didn't know Lewis Black has a TV show? Well, he sort of does. It appears every time he does a stand-up date. He and his opening act John Bowman go to some city and they each do their acts. Then a video camera is turned on and Black does a 15-25 minute webcast that's broadcast live on the Internet. It's usually just him answering questions submitted from the audience in the theater and at home. Some nights, it's better than others but it's different every time he does it and I always find it worth watching.

If you want to watch live, you first of all have to find out when he's doing a stand-up appearance, which you can do on this page of his website…or better still, subscribe to his Twitter feed. On it, he or someone posts the approximate time each webcast will start. Then you can watch on this page.

But you don't have to watch live. On that page when he isn't webcasting, you can watch the last few shows. This is all free. If you pay to join his fan club, you can view all the past webcasts and also get better seats for his live appearances, plus other perks.

I've mentioned this before but I don't think I stressed how wonderful some of these videos are. Also, the web address has changed so I wanted to give you all the new one. When he's good, he's really good.

Back in the sixties, the makers of Contadina Tomato Paste claimed — in commercials created by the great Stan Freberg — that they "put eight great tomatoes in each little bitty can." This prompted MAD magazine to do a parody ad showing the hapless chef who had to do that.

But right now, we don't care about tomato paste or the ad. We care about the guy in the above photo. His goateed face should be familiar to everyone who read MAD back then because it was always turning up in photo features for the publication. As a kid reading MAD back then, I wondered who he was. Answer: He was Leonard Brenner, the Production Manager and later Art Director for MAD and someone who made an enormous contribution to it.

"The Beard" (that was his nickname) didn't write or draw articles in the same way as most MAD contributors you could name but he touched almost every page between 1958 when he joined the magazine and 1995 when he retired. Aside from publisher William M. Gaines, Lenny's name appeared on MAD's masthead more than anyone else's.

His sense of humor and painstaking attention to design and detail were often evident, especially when the staff had to replicate a piece of someone else's advertising or mimic the look and feel of another publication. He and his longtime colleague John Putnam made sure MAD always looked good and always got to press on time. He was also a delightful, funny gentleman, dearly loved by everyone else at MAD. He passed away last Saturday and those who knew him are really, really sad about that. If you ever met the man, you understand why.

Donald Trump might lock up the Republican nomination before the convention in Cleveland but it's looking a bit more likely that he won't. Harry Enten crunches some numbers to show us that Trump Is The Weakest GOP Front-Runner In The Modern Era and also notes that Trump Made A Mistake By Overlooking Colorado.

I have the feeling that this whole thing is going to come down to a fight over the interpretation and modification of party rules; that Trump will be arguing he's got it won and that Cruz and other opponents will be arguing that he hasn't. And both sides will be pushing to clarify and change rules that will make their position so.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Chait notes that Paul Ryan is positioning himself to represent a saner, more traditional Republican party as its spokesperson if not its nominee. But Ryan's platform is still pretty much to take from the poor, give to the rich and "We'll unveil a great Obamacare alternative any day." Ryan is among the many Republicans who've been promising that great Obamacare alternative "any day now" for six or seven years. They'll probably still be promising it "any day now" six or seven years from today.

Lastly for now: Last week, Paul Krugman penned a column arguing that Bernie Sanders is wrong when he says "Break up the big banks." Matt Taibbi has since written a piece that says Krugman is wrong and Sanders is right. I hope you know which of them is right because I sure don't.

Here's an article about Gary Johnson, who will probably wind up being the nominee of the Libertarian Party. I feel a kinship to Mr. Johnson because of one thing we share: I'm not going to be the next President of the United States either.

I am glad we have a Libertarian Party because I side with them on many issues. Four years ago though, I listened to a very long speech on CSPAN by Mr. Johnson outlining his entire platform. I liked much of what he said but felt there was a great disconnect with the reality of America's then-current problems. He even sounded like a guy who knew he was never going to have to put any of his positions into practice. I sometimes feel the party is like a dog chasing a car. If he ever caught it, he wouldn't know what to do with it.

In the article, Johnson suggests people take this online political test to see where their true values and opinions lie. He says most people will discover that though they may not know it, they're Libertarians. I only got 73% with him whereas I had 98% with Bernie Sanders and 96% with Hillary Clinton…so you can see why I don't care that much which Democrat wins. In case you care, I got 41% concurrence with Donald Trump…though for the life of me, I can't imagine how anyone could pretend to know where Trump stands on most issues. I got 57% with John Kasich and 19% with Ted Cruz. The 19% number surprised me by having two digits and no decimal point between them.

Hey, here's another Martin and Lewis film and it also has Eddie Mayehoff in it. This is The Stooge, a film Dean and Jerry made in early 1951 though it wasn't released until December 31, 1952. In-between, they made two other movies — Sailor Beware and Jumping Jacks — which were released ahead of The Stooge.

Why the delay? Reportedly, it had to do with the plot which cast Dean as an egomaniacal entertainer who splits up with his partner, who was played by Richard Erdman. (Richard Erdman, by the way, made his first movie in 1944 and he's still a working actor. How's that for a long career?) Dino's character doesn't do so well as a solo partner so he takes on a stooge in his act — a kid played by Jerry who is a lovable screw-up and comic foil and his participation in the act catapults it to great success. Dean's character doesn't appreciate what Jerry's character is contributing and treats him like dirt…but Jerry's character is so good-natured and sweet that he puts up with it.

Finally — SPOILER ALERT! — Dean's character — still determined to be thought of as a solo performer — dump's Jerry's character and, of course, the act bombs and Jerry's character comes to his rescue.

Jerry Lewis later said on many occasions that this was his favorite Martin-Lewis movie. Gee, I wonder why.

Anyway, when the film was completed, Paramount execs got worried that having Dean treat Jerry like that on the screen would harm the team's popularity so they shelved the film. There is some dispute among historians as to whether there was a real chance it would never be released or if they always decided to just hold it until the team got better established. (It would have been their third starring vehicle instead of their fifth. This is not counting the two My Friend Irma films in which they had supporting roles.)

It was pretty successful and a lot of folks agreed with Jerry. Here it is if you want to see how you feel about it…

Josh Marshall takes us back to the days of the Clinton Impeachment and reminds us that many of the Republicans expressing moral outrage at Bill's behavior were secretly doing the same thing…or worse.

This is one of the things about politics that makes me most cynical; that for so many politicians, moral outrage is not something you feel. It's something you express because you think it will help you politically. This applies to practitioners on both sides of the aisle…and it seems at times like the more sanctimonious a public figure is, the more likely it is that he or she is practicing the opposite of what is preached.