Monthly Archives: January 2002

• Enron As Whitewater by Jacob Weisberg, Slate
• It's All Bill Clinton's Fault by Gene Lyons, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Real pundits – the kind folks listen to, whether they should or not – all seem to be predicting that our President's new "over my dead body" tax pledge will bite him in the behind as "read my lips" harmed his father.  Perhaps.  My own suspicion is that the idea here is not to not raise taxes but to make sure that, if and when taxes are raised, Bush can blame it on the Democrats.  I seem to recall that when Ronald Reagan was governor of California, one of his aides — presumably, a disgruntled, former one — told reporters that Reagan's fondest wish was for a huge tax increase (which he got) to be passed with his hands clean (which he didn't quite manage).

In any case, here's a thought: The two times that the older George Bush ran for the White House, he somehow got away with a very fuzzy definition of "tax increases."  It didn't seem to matter how much a tax increase was or even how many folks it applied to; it was the number of tax increases.  If the Dukakis or Clinton administrations had instituted five one-dollar fees on a few denizens of their states, that was FIVE TAX INCREASES, whereas if a Republican administration presided over one huge one that affected everyone, that was only ONE TAX INCREASE.  For some reason, a certain amount of Americans never got past the concept that five tax increases are always worse than one.

What's more — and this is the thing that could give our present Chief Exec some woes if anyone ever makes a big issue of it — his father defined any government-mandated collection of money as a tax increase.  Somewhere, there's videotape of him arguing that a new "booking fee" that was being charged to folks who were arrested was a TAX INCREASE; that a two-dollar license fee for greyhound racing was a TAX INCREASE, etc.  There were many of those and, if one buys his definition, then the current Bush Administration is already planning several.  The new "security fee" — or whatever they wind up calling it — that one will pay when one boards an airplane is certainly a TAX INCREASE by the definition that the last Bush campaigns sold to the country.  I thought that definition was hooey then.  I suspect that if anyone tries to apply it today, both George Bushes will feel likewise.  (Not that I expect anyone to mention it.  We always seem to let politicians skate on this kind of thing…)

This morning, I attended the unveiling ceremony/press conference for the new poster with which the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is promoting this year's Oscars.  The poster was painted by Alex Ross, who has been dazzling folks in the comic book industry with his paintings…particularly with his ability to take characters designed in simple line and to render them in fully-painted, three-dimensional splendor, as he did in Marvels, Kingdom Come and some recent special albums of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.  I couldn't help but marvel, not just at a "comic book" promoting an artist to this status (especially at a time when comics sell worse than they ever have) but at all the media turning out to cover him.

Once upon a time, Jack Kirby said that comic books would someday be recognized as the greatest source of American popular art.  And even as aware as I was of Jack's incredible track record for describing the future, I don't think I was prepared to accept it until I saw it for myself.  The poster's tag line — "The Gold Knight Returns" — even testifies to the impact of comic books on popular culture.  So how come so few comics are selling…and the ones that are selling aren't selling more?  Beats me.

Anyway, you can order your own copy of Alex's splendid poster at www.oscars.org if you are so inclined.  I like the design but I think I'm even more amused that, in the world of Oscar as a super-hero, his "bat-signal" is promoting a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company.  There's a call of distress if ever there was one.

Brief but nice obit in The Los Angeles Times for veteran animator Ray Patterson, who I knew, though not well, when I worked at Hanna-Barbera.  Here's the link…and this thought: The last time I spoke to Ray was at Bill Hanna's memorial.  The last time I spoke to Avery Schreiber was at Lorenzo Music's memorial.  A good purpose for funerals is to remind us to stay in touch with people while we still can.

The following thought is probably not worth the amount of time I'm about to devote to it…but that never stops me.  The common Internet term for junk e-mail is spam.  It's a noun ("I keep getting spam in my mailbox") and a verb ("Someone's been spamming me") and I've even seen it used as an adjective ("He's been operating a spam campaign").

Just where, I've wondered for some time, did this slang come from?  Presumably, someone started using it on some computer bulletin board, even before the Internet made those quaint, dial-up entities obsolete, and it caught on and spread.

But why spam?  Of all the silly things in this world that could have been picked, why spam?  What is there about the concept of electronic junk mail, I wondered, that led someone to associate the name with a certain brand of canned luncheon meat and inspired others to seize upon it?  Someone I asked said it was because Spam (the stuff in cans) is awful and so is unwanted e-mail.  This, I cannot accept. I've never tried the product but it's been around for two-thirds of a century.  It can't be that terrible…and, even if it is, there are a lot of awful things around.  Why don't we refer to e-mail ads as "Cole Slaw?"  Or "Ingrown Toenails?"  Or "Rob Schneider's last movie?"

Why, I wondered, did spam come to denote someone sending you an unwanted e-mail ad for money-making schemes or penis enlargement?  (Almost all the spam I receive presumes I am short on either funds or something else.)  True, its silly name and lack of connection to "real" food may well make it the butt of jokes.  It's actually a cut of ham that's been spiked with preservatives and spices.  The name is short for Spiced Ham but I don't think most people know that.  Seemed to me, it's widely considered to be some kind of artificial, canned mystery meat…but, again, I didn't see the link to e-mail.

It only began to make sense when I thought of the Monty Python routine in which a greasy-spoon diner serves "Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans and Spam."  Perhaps, one day, someone found their computer inbox filled primarily with unwanted e-mail solicitations.  Instead of muttering, "Ad, ad, ad, ad, ad, ad, ad, ad, message from Phil, ad," etc., they started imitating the Pythons, likening the pattern of junk mail to the constancy of Spam in that cafe.  Add to that the concept that the Hormel product is innocuous or perhaps that it's a meat that seems to come from no known animal — just like Internet ads seem to do — and the nickname kinda, sorta applies.  Maybe.

I have since stumbled upon The Official Spam Website…which I guess means that there is now nothing on the planet that does not have its own Official Website.  Anyway, the Hormel company has its own explanation which you can read at www.spam.com or you can go by my summary, which is as follows…

They claim that it's because, in the Python sketch, a chorus of Vikings start singing, "Spam, spam, spam," etc., and it drowns out the dialogue, the way spam messages stifle dialogue on discussion forums.  I'm not sure I buy this.  It sounds to me like the Spam™ People (wasn't that a Roger Corman movie?) are reaching for a spin that casts no negatives on the dignity of their product.  In any case, the point of the sketch is that Spam (the meat) is constant, that it turns up ad nauseam, that it's something you'd be stupid to welcome but, in this eatery, it's forced on you.  Surely, whoever first applied the name to electronic advertising regarded it as an insult.

Perhaps I'm overthinking this matter.  No, I take that back.  I know I'm overthinking this matter.  But if anyone reading this has any better explanation, I'd love to hear it.

• Ex-Newsman's Case Full of Holes by Tom Shales, Electronic Media
• Liar's Poker by William Saletan, Slate
• Who's Home, Who's Not by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times
• Let Down His Rich Pals?  Over His Dead Body by Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times
• The Long Arm of the Single Actor by William F. Buckley, Jr.
• The Critics Are Wrong by John W. Dean
• Bush Donors Prepare Another Wish List by Jim Vandehei and Tom Hamburger, Wall Street Journal

The above links are to articles that the operator of this website believes contribute to the national debate.  He does not necessarily agree with all or any of what they say…and you won't, either.

The Shubert Theater in Century City is, as mentioned here a few months ago, closing…and, alas, it's closing without doing a great idea that several folks all had at the same time: Wrapping up with an all-star production of the James Goldman-Stephen Sondheim musical, Follies.  The place first opened in 1972 with a production of Follies, so it would have been a neat bit of bookending plus, of course, that show is all about the closing of a theatre.  But no.

The last tenant (a touring company production of Tommy) has vacated and the next booking — way off in November — is of the wrecking ball.  In the meantime, there's a nice article in The Los Angeles Times about its closing party, mentioning my friends Brad Ellis, Eydie Alison and Jason Graae who participated in what will probably serve as the last performance ever on that stage.  Here's the link and you'll have to hurry because the Times charges to read articles on-line after they're 14 days old.

As some of you may know, I have a strange, difficult-to-explain interest in weather forecasting.  It predated my brief experience, auditioning to announce predictions on the local news (described here) and had something to do with my leaky roof…but that's not the whole story.  Anyway, the Internet affords me — and you — an interesting means of getting perhaps the most accurate weather forecast that is humanly possible…moreso than listening to any one TV weatherperson or dialing the forecast on the phone or reading any newspaper.

There are several outfits that predict the weather, starting with the National Weather Service and continuing through private companies like AccuWeather and The Weather Channel.  Consulting all of them is like getting opinions from a number of doctors instead of just one.  If they all agree, you can have great (though not absolute) trust in the verdict.  If they don't, you can get some idea of the parameters. That is to say that if one says there's a 20% chance of showers and another says 40% and another says 60%, you can figure on 40% but with a lower level of confidence than if all said 40%.

More useful though are the sites where the forecasters explain to other forecasters, how they arrived at their forecasts, how much confidence they have in them, when they think they may have to modify them, etc.  As far as I know, only the NWS forecasters supply this and perhaps not all of them.  The one for Los Angeles can be read at this link and since it changes several times a day, it may have changed by the time you click over there.  Right at this moment though, it reads, in part…

BY WEDNESDAY, ALL BETS ARE OFF AS THE ETA AND CANADIAN MODELS HAVE MOVED TO A MORE PROGRESSIVE PATTERN WITH THE TROF WHILE THE AVN, MRF, AND ECMWF CONTINUING TO INDICATE MORE OF REX BLOCK PATTERN WITH THE LOW CUTTING OFF WELL OFFSHORE AND EVENTUALLY MOVING WELL SOUTH INTO BAJA. SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE HANDLING OF THIS PATTERN IS RESULTING IN A VERY WISHY WASHY FORECAST AT THIS TIME. MY GUT FEELING IS THAT THE LOW WILL BEHAVE MUCH LIKE THE AVN SUGGESTS AND LEAVE US HIGH, DRY, AND MILD. BUT I FEEL LIKE I CAN'T COMPLETELY IGNORE THE ETA/CANADIAN SOLUTION. EVEN THE 18Z MESO ETA CONTINUES THIS MORE PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION. SO HAVE DECIDED TO ADD A 20 PERCENT POP FOR WEDNESDAY IN ALL ZONES WITH THE CAVEAT THAT CONFIDENCE IN ANY ONE MODEL SOLUTION IS EXTREMELY LOW. CONCEIVABLY SPOTTY SHOWERS COULD ARRIVE ALONG THE CENTRAL COAST IN THE PRE-DAWN HOURS WEDNESDAY BUT WILL JUST INDICATE POPS FOR THE DAYTIME PERIOD THERE. IN ALL LIKELIHOOD REALITY WILL BE SOME COMBINATION OF THE CURRENT SOLUTIONS, BUT THE RESULTING WEATHER COULD BE JUST ABOUT ANYTHING. IN FACT, IF THE ETA WAS RIGHT ON TARGET THUNDERSTORMS WOULD NOT BE OUT OF THE QUESTION WEDNESDAY.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT ALL SOLUTIONS AGREE ON A DRY AND WARMER PATTERN FOR THURSDAY THROUGH SUNDAY SO THE ONLY REAL QUESTION MARK IS WEDNESDAY.

Some of that may seem unduly technical but all you really have to know is that they use various computer models, and that the gent who wrote this is trying to decide which one is giving the more accurate projection.  There's a low approaching the coast and it may dip down and move inland over Baja, or it may come straight on in through Southern California.  He's using the different computer projections the way I suggest you use the different services' forecasts — going by the majority opinion but allowing for any dissenting voices.  (You usually find, as a given weather-maker nears, diverging forecasts slowly merging.  That is, NWS will say a storm is coming on Thursday evening; AccuWeather will say Saturday morning and, as the front grows nearer, both will amend and inch over to mid-day Friday.)

I don't know about you but I find this kind of thing enormously helpful.  The forecast I can read in the paper or on any public site right this minute will tell me that Thursday and Sunday will be dry and warmer but they won't tell me that there seems to be great confidence of that.  (And not only do all the NWS models point that way but so do the AccuWeather and Weather Channel projections.)

The NWS public forecast tells me there's a 20% chance of showers on Wednesday but it doesn't tell me they're saying that because, essentially, they're hedging their bets.  Most of their computer models think the storm will come nowhere near us but one says it will hit L.A.  It would be quite a different thing if all indicators were saying that the storm would definitely come our way but there would only be a 20% chance of it yielding precipitation.

If you'd like to "triangulate" this way and read the various weather services' opinions, you can get your local NWS forecast at http://www.nws.noaa.gov and with that as a starting point, you may be able to find a "discussion" page for your local forecast.  The AccuWeather forecast may be obtained at www.accuweather.com and the Weather Channel forecast is over at www.weather.com.  There are several other services on the 'net that offer predictions — some, arrived at via still other computer models; others, disguised versions of one of these — but I tend to think that the three I recommend should do it for anyone.  My experience has been that, on occasion, all are wrong…but that by consulting them all, you get a much more accurate forecast than by consulting any one.

A prediction: Enron may be the news story du jour but it will never become a scandal of Teapot Dome, Watergate or even Whitewater proportions and will not directly harm George W. Bush.  A few Enron execs — though not those who had a lot of direct contact with our president — will be sacrificed, pleading Guilty or No Contest to some plea bargain.  They'll pay fines they can easily afford, and perhaps one will do some token prison time, and some token amounts of cash will be ostensibly returned.

Then it will all be over and forgotten.  (Note that I am not writing here what I think should happen but rather, what I think will.)

Why do I think this?  Because too much money has been spread around.  A Democrat with clean hands — assuming there is such a thing — is going to wound a lot of fellow Democrats to pursue the matter too far.  Yes, Teapot Dome — which this scandal most resembles — tarred all parties, but that was then, when partisanship was not as rabid and control of the House and Senate did not hang so precariously on a handful of elections.  Watergate and Whitewater were only about folks from one party doing wrong; the other could pursue them with grand outrage and talk of higher roads and morals.  The American public does not buy the distinction of, "Yes, we took money we shouldn't have but they took a lot more."

It'll all go on for a few months…or until some terrorist-related victory or disaster pushes it off the CNN website.  Bush, Cheney and several of their buddies will squirm a lot and make excuses that would have been called blatant, character-defining lies if uttered by someone named Clinton.  There will be much talk of campaign reform and no effective action.  And then it'll all be forgotten.  I think.

Terry Jones of Monty Python fame has authored a piece about Mr. Bin Laden, and it seems to be riling some of the Conservative websites who perceive it as anti-American.  I don't think it is but I'll let you judge for yourself.  Here's that link…know what I mean?  Nudge, nudge…

A term is awaiting invention.  Just as "McCarthyism" and "Willie Horton" entered the political vocabulary to denote long-standing tactics, someone is going to coin a term to identify something that now can be described by phrases like, "Moralizing based not on morals but on political advantage."  It is exemplified by Republicans who felt that Whitewater was a scandal of epic proportions that demanded full investigation and prosecution, especially of those in the Oval Office, whereas Enron can be explained away as an acceptable aberration of the Free Market.  It can also be typified by Democrats who thought the affront of the decade was when Republican congressional leaders would not allow bills that might pass to be voted upon, whereas Tom Daschle is a hero for blocking a vote on the so-called "stimulus package."  We could all name another dozen examples on both sides of the aisles.

(Another term we need is for when they give a bill a name like "The Economic Stimulus Package" or "The Patriot Act" so they can argue that anyone who opposes it for any reason is against economic stimulation or patriotism.  I forget his name but, years ago, some Congressguy was suggesting that he might name every bill he proposed, regardless of contents, "The Act To Stop Puppy Slaughter."  The premise was that no one would dare oppose it, thereby giving their opponents the chance to run ads that said, "He voted against The Act to Stop Puppy Slaughter.")

Getting back to the first one: Is there a person in this country who doubts that Democrats look the other way, or come up with tortured rationales when Democrats misbehave?  That Republicans adjust their indignation according to whether theirs political capital to be made?  Of course not.  (When I asked that question once on a panel discussion, someone in the audience proclaimed that his party didn't do that but the other guys did, all the time…thereby proving my point.)

So how come we don't have an easy, one or two word term for this?  I'm nominating "Bennetting," in honor of lawyer Bob Bennett, who did it constantly for his client, Bill Clinton, and also for his brother, public scold Bill Bennett, who never met a Democratic lapse that wasn't an outrage or a Republican mountain of immorality that couldn't be made a molehill.  I think it's a good name because it reminds us that no party has an exclusive on the practice, but I'm open to other suggestions.

A few months ago, a magazine called Brill's Content ceased publication without much fanfare — understandable, since it was never as wonderful as it should have been.  The premise was, I believe, sound: An independent forum that would watchdog and critique the press.  That has always been a void that needs filling in this country but only moreso in an era where so many sources of info are subsidiaries of Time-Warner, Rupert Murdoch or the Reverend Moon.  I subscribed, hoping that Mr. Brill and his staff would catalog and skewer shoddy reporting in every corner.  God knows no one seems to deny there's plenty of it.  And in a few issues, they did this…but I have a feeling that if they'd done more of it, they'd still be operational.

On this page, I've noted several examples of sloppy journalism…and none of these even seem to encroach on the areas of bias and deliberate misrepresentation.  Wouldn't it be a valuable service if some entity — a magazine, a website run with some funding and credibility, something — would take up this task?  In the era of the Internet, Nexis and online databases, one would think it would be easy to, at the very least, notate the batting average of some publications.  Last May, The New York Post ran a gigantic headline that proclaimed, "TORCH IS TOAST" and quoted a source within the Justice Department source as saying, of New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli, "We're going to indict him soon."  A few minor voices faulted this story for being based on a single, unattributed quote and being surprisingly bald on supporting details.  And, sure enough, it has recently been announced that the Senator will not be indicted.  (Makes you wonder if even the source believed it at the time or if the Post was planted to ratchet up the pressure on the target.)

Shouldn't more attention be called to the Post giving so much importance to what was apparently a pretty bad source?  Some jumped on The New York Times for its off-base reportage on Wen Ho Lee, but most of that was a case of publications that were eager to slam the almighty Times seizing a chance to rub it in.  (Significantly — and this ties in with the thought I posted earlier today — few have held the Times accountable for its equally-flawed Whitewater reporting.  This is because — gross generalization alert! — liberals think of the Times as their house organ, and conservatives don't like to admit that anything negative that has been published about the Clintons might not be true.)

But there hasn't been much of this and you'd think that — in this era when you can read outta-town newspapers with two clicks and access many of their libraries from your own home — the press would become more accountable.  Instead, the opposite seems to have happened.  The Internet and the rise of 24-hour news networks have changed reporting: It's no longer about getting the news ready to go to press at 1 AM for the morning edition.  Now, for competitive reasons, it has to get to the public a.s.a.p..  And it doesn't have to be accurate…just more accurate than Matt Drudge.  That is not a high standard.

Someplace, somewhere, an institution will emerge that will be what Brill's wasn't: An authoritative, non-academic, non-partisan voice that holds newsfolks accountable for their failings.  We have a lot of little ones but no one whose condemnation would make a bad reporter the least bit uncomfy.  Before I buy a new microwave oven, I can go to Consumer Reports and get a pretty good feel for the integrity of that product and the track record of its maker.  I'd love to see something truly comparable for reading the newspaper.

More on comics and cartoons tomorrow.  I seem to be in a political mood today.

I really enjoyed the first two episodes of The It Factor, which is a new, badly-named series airing on Bravo.  It's a "reality" show about the acting profession — at least to the extent that there's any reality in that world.  Basically, it's a matter of cameras following a dozen real, aspiring stars around New York as they go to auditions, take classes and work other jobs to pay the rent while they go to auditions and take classes.  This is a process I've observed throughout my career in open-mouthed amazement — amazed that anyone could subject themselves to it — for 25 years, and The It Factor captures it very, very well…perhaps, in some ways, too well.

If the twelve careers progress as any random twelve careers progress, we can expect to see a high quotient of denial, frustration and coming painfully close to the brass ring, only to see it sail past and well out of reach.  It's kinda like Fame, only they don't dance on cars in the street…or, at least, they haven't yet.  It's kinda like Survivor, only the contestants don't have to eat quite as many dead rats, they can't vote anyone off, and no one is guaranteed any prize at the end.  It's kinda like Marat/Sade, only no one in that had to wait tables.

If I understand correctly, thirteen episodes have been made.  The first two aired this evening on Bravo and will repeat on Friday, January 11.  Then the next two air next Sunday ( the 13th) and repeat the following Friday…and so on.  More info and a sneak preview can be found over on the Bravo website, on this page — though the website seems to be keeping the Friday replays a secret.  I think I'm in for the duration on this one.

Interesting article over in Shecky Magazine: Comedian Tom Ryan relates what he went through in making his first appearance on the Letterman show.  Here's that link.

For years I've been a member of the Magic Castle…a place so cool, I'll even put on a tie to go there.  I put on a tie last Thursday evening, taking friends to see one of the best acts that plays there or anywhere — The Pendragons, who are just wrapping a two-week stint.  Jonathan and Charlotte are impressive not just because they levitate, disappear, reappear, etc., but because the essence of their act is showmanship and skill, as opposed to cleverly-made props — though they have some of them, a couple of which are their own, patented inventions.  Still, the hardware is less important than what a master magician does with it…or can do without it.  There are tricks in Siegfried and Roy's show that you or I could do without much practice.  It's really the box or the tech crew that creates the magic.

But we could rehearse for years and not be able to do most of what the Pendragons do — especially their traditional closer, which is their unique version of a classic trick, "Metamophosis."  That's the one where (in this case) Jonathan is stuffed in a bag and locked in a trunk…then Charlotte hops up onto the trunk, pulls up a sheet of plastic and — ZAP! — she and her hubby change places so fast, you'd swear you're watching a TV show and someone did an edit.  Only it really happened right before your eyes.

I have seen other, experienced magicians sneak into the back of a Pendragons' performance just to see that one because it's truly amazing.  (In fact, it's so amazing that many in the audience don't even notice a little "extra" that the Pendragons provide:  Charlotte changes outfits in the process, going from one revealing outfit to another that couldn't possibly have been worn under it.  The trick doesn't need that to be stunning but they do it, anyway.  That's one of the reasons they're so good.)

Jonathan and Charlotte play all over the country.  If they're performing near you, run (do not walk) and get a seat as close to the front as you can.  You can also catch them on most TV magic specials and they're terrific on those, too…but it ain't the same.  You've gotta be there.