And here, for those of you who've read David Frum's piece linked in the preceding item, is a response by Glenn Greenwald, who thinks Frum is being disingenuous and revisionist. Thanks to James J. Troutman for sending me this link.

David Frum, an important writer of speeches that got us into the Iraq War, reckons with a history that shows a lot of those speeches were bad at predicting and worse at accuracy. But Dick Cheney, at least, has no regrets…

The great master of parody Allan Sherman had a number of songs that never made it onto his records. Some were never recorded for legal reasons and there were others he withheld because when he performed live, a lot of the audience knew the material too well from his albums and would begin singing along with him. I'm not sure which was the case with this song, heard here from a concert appearance…

Andy Borowitz has a funny piece here about Senator Portman's decision to change his stance on Gay Marriage. I'll quote just the first part here…

The decision of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to support same-sex marriage after learning that his son was gay has inspired hundreds of other Republican lawmakers to stop speaking to their children immediately, G.O.P. leaders confirmed today.

"I have gathered my caucus and told them, if your kids are going to tell you something that's going to cost you the next election, it's better to nip that situation in the bud," said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). "Just stop talking to them altogether, for heaven's sakes."

As I've said, I suspect Portman's change-o'-heart is self-serving and predicated on the assumption, "Hey, if it didn't hurt Cheney with the extreme right, it won't hurt me." But they're attacking him anyway, sometimes with inanities like, "If his son revealed he was in favor of drunk driving, would he now support drunk driving?" Even leaving out the fact that drunk driving is more of a choice (and a lot more possible to stop) than being gay, the folks making that counter-argument are willfuly missing the point.

Taken at face value, Portman's position is simple. Once he learned his kid was gay, he came to have a deeper understanding of gay people and to appreciate the awkward, inhuman position that those who oppose Gay Rights, such as himself, were putting them in. That understanding led him to rethink and change his position. A deeper understanding of drunk drivers might also be nice for someone who makes laws about them but it might not lead to the same conclusion since they're not the same thing.

One of the reasons some folks oppose Gay Rights is that they really don't know many or even any gay people. The ones who think you can "pray the gay away" or that we can legislate them into (a) heterosexuality and happy, child-bearing relationships or (b) simply disappearing are folks who really don't know gay people.

I didn't know Malachi Throne, the prolific character actor who passed away Wednesday at the age of 84 but I have a certain fondness for that kind of performer: The guy who works constantly — year in, year out — never quite attaining wide recognition with the public but so well-respected within the industry that he never quite attains unemployment, either. The Internet Movie Database could save a lotta bandwidth if they just listed the shows he wasn't in. I'm sorry to see obits that peg him as a "Batman actor" or a "Star Trek actor" because those credits were only a few days of work for an actor who played hundreds of roles.

Still, some of us will remember him for his two-episode appearance as False Face on the Batman TV show — the series with Adam West. The show then aired twice a week, Wednesday and Thursday, with the Wednesday show ending in a cliff-hanger. False Face was a villain who wore masks and as a gimmick, the TV Guide didn't tell who was playing him and neither did the end-credits on Part One. Some of the press hyped it as a genuine interest for the audience to solve…and I don't remember if it was said or if we just assumed that the man under the mask was someone really famous and we'd all be shocked to find out who it was…and proud if we guessed.

Thursday at school, that's all some of us talked about: Who was playing False Face? I recall all sorts of theories ranging from Frank Sinatra to Clint Eastwood. One friend of mine was sure it would turn out to be Peter Sellers and while I can't recall what they were, he based his deduction on some clues he detected within the script. None of us guessed Malachi Throne but there was a good reason for that. None of us had ever heard of Malachi Throne. He could have done the episodes without the mask and we wouldn't have known who he was. We expected that at the end, the Dynamic Duo would rip the mask off the villain's puss and we'd see the countenance of John Wayne or John F. Kennedy or somone really famous and unexpected. But they never even showed us what Malachi Throne looked like.

When the end-credits of the Thursday show identified him, we were all stunned and you could hear a collective "Who?" and maybe a few other words, one starting with "f" shouted around the Southland and probably all across the United States and Canada. We felt like someone who reads a murder mystery, mulls over all the clues…and then finds out that the killer is some character who'd never been mentioned in the story. None of this cheat was Mr. Throne's fault, of course and I still wonder if the producers did that intentionally as a joke on the audience. More likely is that they did have a biggie lined up for the part and that person cancelled at the last minute. (What I would have done is have it turn out to be Adam West playing a dual role.)

Rumor has it Mr. Throne was annoyed that he received so little billing and no unmasking scene. He had every right to be steamed but it sure didn't seem to keep him from getting lots and lots of other work. Guys like that are really the backbone of the acting profession. Not stars. Folks like Malachi Throne.

It's Stooges Sunday here at newsfromme.com, continuing for one time only, the long-standing tradition that I've never done before of posting a link to a Three Stooges short every Sunday. And what a film we have for you today, knuckleheads. It's A Plumbing We Will Go, which was released to theaters in April of 1940. This means it was done back when Columbia used to spend some time and money on these things instead of, as the years rolled on, doing them faster and cheaper and faster and cheaper.

If you've never been a fan of Moe, Larry and Curly, you might want to watch because they didn't get much better than this. So if you don't like it, there's not a whole lot of point in you seeking out other Stooge films. This one was so good, in fact, that they remade it a couple of times reusing footage from this version.

Well, what are you waiting for? My apologies if ads intrude…

Matthew Yglesias does a better job of saying some of what I was trying to say about Rob Portman's "evolved" acceptance of Gay Marriage.

So let's check in on what's up with the late night shows, shall we? NBC continues to deny reports (actually, one anonymously-sourced report repeated in many venues) that it will soon announce it's replacing Jay Leno with Jimmy Fallon. The newer story is that the Chairman of NBC Entertainment complained to Leno about monologue jokes on the dismal ratings performance of the network lately.

Several of you called my attention to this story that says Jimmy Kimmel's ratings are below what Nightline was previously doing in that time slot. I'm not sure that report accurately reflects what's going on. Are they comparing Kimmel's ratings for a full hour to Nightline's for a half hour? Every hour-long late night show loses viewers as it goes along and they lose a big chunk around the halfway mark. A large amount of Leno's success in overtaking Letterman was not a matter of getting more people to tune in but in getting them to stick around longer.

At times, reporters have not noted the distinction as they've covered the ratings. Nightline usually finished third in the 11:35-12:05 period but its ratings looked better when laid alongside Jay's and Dave's for their full hours. I haven't crunched numbers but it appears to me that's why Kimmel seems like he's not doing as well. Even if he is doing worse than Nightline though, ABC has to be happy with his demographics and with the fact that he was even this competitive from the get-go.

A lot of what all this is about is that there's a feeling at all three networks that Late Night TV as we know it will soon be over; that before long, something new will have to be done in that day part. Leno continues to win by narrow margins but all three 11:35 shows are pulling digits that would have denoted failure just a few years ago. The main argument for Kimmel displacing Nightline was never that he would put Jay and Dave outta work right away. It was that he might represent the future of that time slot; that eventually, all three networks would only be chasing the 18-49 demographic there and that Kimmel would have established himself well by the time NBC and CBS replaced their old guys. That premise has yet to be disproven.

I don't think NBC is ready to dump Jay since Jay is winning at a time when very little else at the network is. I don't think CBS is ready to dump Dave because Dave is Dave. But I don't think anyone at any of the three networks would bet serious bucks that they'll have the same show at 11:35 three years from now that they have there now. Or that the replacements will be the men who seem now to be in the on-deck circles.

The programming schedule for this year's WonderCon is now online for your perusal. Here's the link.

I'm running five panels at the con. I'll post a more detailed list in a few days but on Friday, we're doing Quick Draw! and later in the day, I'm interviewing Astro City artist Brent Anderson. On Saturday, I'm moderating a panel on comic books from the seventies and I'm running one of my Cartoon Voices panels. And then on Sunday, I'm lecturing on Writing for Animation. Details to follow.

A nice piece of card wizardry by magician Justin Flom…

Speaking of Eric Idle: Read Tom Doran's little essay about Monty Python. I'm afraid to a lot of people, the best thing about Python is all the catch phrases that can be repeated in lieu of actual humor.

Eric Idle on stuff he's written and what did — or didn't — happen to it. I suspect that by virtue of being Eric Idle, some of his unrealized projects had more chances for birth than if the same material had been written by someone less famous. But that's true of any successful writer and much of what he discusses is true of anyone with persistence and Microsoft Word.

Peter Meyerson, who wrote and/or launched some of the most popular TV shows of the sixties and seventies, has died at the age of 82. Peter had many credits on shows like That Girl, Accidental Family, Captain Nice, The Partridge Family and The Bob Newhart Show but his two biggies were The Monkees and Welcome Back, Kotter. He co-wrote the first episode aired of The Monkees and on his own, wrote many others after that. He wrote the pilot for Welcome Back, Kotter and so received a "Developed for television by…" credit as well as a piece of the hit series.

Peter initially chose not to stay with Kotter and went off to pursue playwrighting, an area in which he hoped to make some mark. During the show's second season, there was a crisis of sorts on Kotter. The Executive Producer and the network felt the show had strayed from its roots and mandate and needed to get back to its original premise. Producers and writers were gently (some, not so gently) let go and new producers and writers were brought in to course-correct the program. My then-partner Dennis Palumbo and I were among the new writers and a few weeks after we got there, Peter Meyerson came aboard as Supervising Producer. He told us he didn't relish going back to a staff position but the money was too good to turn down, plus he wanted to prolong a series in which he held a share of the profits. He didn't stick around that long but he did much to get Mr. Kotter and the Sweathogs back on track.

He and I had our differences but I liked him and learned a few things.

Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) — long an opponent of Gay Marriage, has done a one-eighty and now supports it. Why? Because he found out his son is gay and as he says, "he [the son] was still the same person he'd always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love."

Folks who believe Gay Marriage is no big deal and that opposing it is wrong seem to be having two reactions today to Senator Portman's turnabout. One is that whatever his reasons, it's good to have him on the right side. Same-Sex Wedlock is becoming increasingly inevitable across the country and maybe the conversion of a guy like Portman will ease the trauma for its opponents and speed up the process a little. I honestly believe we will see the day when those who now campaign against it will not only accept it as harmless but, like many who once opposed racial integration, will try to pretend they were never really against it in the first place.

So that's one view from the side of those who favor allowing Gay Marriage. Another is that someone like Senator Portman ought to have enough selflessness and empathy to get to that kind of awareness without it coming into their own homes like that. It's like, "Are you not going to favor medical research to cure certain diseases until someone in your family contracts one of those diseases?" Moral and political positions aren't supposed to be something you only take when they'll benefit you.

In the case of the Senator, I think I have both these views plus this one: It's really, really awkward and it makes you look like kind of a prick to deny equality to your own kid. It can sure make for some uncomfortable press conferences and interviews…and while there are those who might applaud it as a matter of principle, even some who pray to stop Gay Marriage would think less of you as a human being. At least, they'd be willing to give you a pass on this issue. There are folks out there who think Dick Cheney is the best thing that ever happened to Washington. Virtually all of them oppose Gay Rights and I never heard one of 'em lose respect for Cheney because, due to his gay daughter, he didn't.

Reviews and articles say the HBO Phil Spector movie begins with the following disclaimer…

This is a work of fiction. It's not "based on a true story." It is a drama inspired by actual persons in a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor comment upon the trial or its outcome.

The film by David Mamet — who is fast becoming one of my least-favorite writers — then proceeds to make the case that Phil Spector didn't kill Lana Clarkson and that her death was somewhere between a suicide and an accident, emphasis on the first. Mamet has stated his belief that if Spector wasn't so famous, he never would have been charged with a crime.

I don't buy any of that. Phil Spector had a history of waving guns at people — especially women who wanted to leave his Alhambra mansion before he was ready for them to leave — and being generally irrational. I knew Lana Clarkson casually, know a lot of people who knew her well, and the notion that she killed herself because she was depressed about turning 40, as Mamet's film posits, has zero basis in reality. It's just something a lawyer made up because he didn't have any sort of viable defense and he had to say something.

I understand and in some cases have no problem with the intermingling of fiction and fact; of a writer devising dialogue and twisting known truths in telling a tale of real people. If someone hired me to write a boffo box-office screenplay about Martin Van Buren, I'd probably invent all sorts of things that didn't happen…maybe argue that ol' Marty was an alien from another world with the ability to do martial arts and make women's tops disappear. But I wouldn't do that with a story people cared about or as a propaganda effort to hope I could get the world to believe it. That was my objection to Oliver Stone's JFK, a dishonest effort (I thought) to blur fact and fantasy because sticking to facts would not "sell" people on what Stone wanted to believe but could not prove without fibbing.

It's one thing to say "Here's a version I believe of what really happened." It's another to cobble up a meld of truth, lies and spin, make it look as much like reality as you can and then try to escape responsibility for the fiction you inject by saying, as Mamet does, this is "…neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor comment upon the trial or its outcome." Clearly, Al Pacino is trying to replicate the actual person. Clearly, a filmmaker who believes Spector was convicted because of his fame — in a state where fame is usually a "Get Out of Jail Free" card — is trying to comment on the trial and its outcome.

That's as much as I want to say before I see the film…which I may not be able to do. It might be a wonderful viewing experience, as most of Pacino's performances usually are. I just think it's kinda disingenuous to base a movie on a true story, warp that true story into something that isn't true, then hide behind the excuse which will go largely unnoticed that it was never meant to be a true story. It's also cowardly to trash a lovely lady as you try to rehabilitate the image of the psycho who murdered her.