Monthly Archives: October 2002

The polls on the upcoming election seem to suggest a very close contest between Democrats and Republicans for control of our nation.  That is, if you go to any of the middle-of-the-road websites.  The Conservative sites are spinning the polls to show that Republicans are certain to win big, whereas the Liberal sites have it surely going the other way.  At times, reading these sites, I get the feeling that the folks doing the posting are just penning the fantasies that make them feel good, reality be damned.

The polls being quoted are usually John Zogby's polls.  Perhaps because Mr. Zogby does not remain faceless and occasionally adds little nuggets of analysis, he tends to polarize more than most pollsters.  On the partisan websites, the Zogby polls that show their guy with a big lead are unquestionably accurate, whereas the Zogby polls that show the other side's guy in the lead are flawed and perhaps deliberate, premeditated lies.

To cut through it all, it may be helpful to remember Zogby's predictions about the New York Senate race in the last election.  The Sunday before voting day, one article said…

The Colgate/Zogby International Poll also paid carefully attention to the equally close senatorial race between Lazio and Clinton.  "I think we're looking at a one point race," Zogby said. "I have no idea what's going to happen on Tuesday."  Zogby observed that even although Lazio leads in the polls, it is not the lead that he would like to have over Clinton.

Two days later, Ms. Clinton defeated Mr. Lazio 56%-44%…hardly a "one point race."

I have, as always, a theory.  I think you could go through the list of all the current elections and pick a winner in each race with no polling data whatsoever.  In races where there's an incumbent, you write that he or she is ahead of his or her opponent, 47% to 41%.  In races where there's no incumbent, you flip a coin between the Democrat and the Republican and put the winner of that coin-flip as ahead, 45% to 42%.  If someone has a real big scandal getting attention, subtract four points.  Then you say your poll has a margin of error of plus-or-minus three points…

…and, come Election Day, you'd be as accurate as any poll that actually goes out and talks to likely voters.

Here's a link to the Los Angeles Times obit for Al Lohman.  It gives the year of his teaming with Barkley as 1963, which is arguable.  Barkley's autobiography has it as 1962 and every other published source says '61.  This may be a matter of definitions.  Initially, Barkley was an exec (and occasional newsman) at radio station KLAC who hired Lohman, began joking around with him on the air, and then left the office job to be his partner.  The discrepancy over their start date may stem from one person counting from when they started working together and another noting when they first billed as a team.  Or something like that.  (Also, here's a link to a short obit from Associated Press.  It says they were a team from 1961 to 1985.)

The Times obit also gives the years of their KNBC show as 1967-1970, which I'm sure is way too long.  I believe it was two 13-week cycles.  And boy, was it a funny show.  I don't suppose anyone reading this has any tapes…

For decades, every city in the U.S. had at least one team of radio personalities who were basically doing Bob and Ray, often using those gents' material, sans permission.  In Los Angeles from around 1961 to 1986, it was the duo of Al Lohman and Roger Barkley, traipsing from KLAC to KFWB, then to KFI, etc., dispensing their manic brand of broadcast comedy.  Unlike others, they didn't rip off Bob and Ray except in form, doing silly interviews and presenting a band of recurring characters, most of whom (like famed chef Leonard Leonard) were Lohman, sounding almost exactly like Al Lohman.  No matter.  They were funny and silly and always worth a listen.  In the photo above, Al's on the right and Roger is on the leftt.

What they weren't able to do, much to their mutual frustration, was to parlay it into anything else.  They tried a few TV programs — game shows, mostly — but to no success.  Briefly in the seventies, they did a talk show for the KNBC in L.A. that was one of the funniest, cleverest things I've ever seen on television.  It won acclaim and awards and a fast, loyal following but when a syndication deal fell through, the show went away, and Lohman and Barkley shuffled back to drive time radio.

In 1985 or '86, they had a bitter break-up that actually occurred during a broadcast.  They went to commercial, Barkley told his longtime partner it was over and walked out.  When the commercial ended, Al Lohman was doing a single, and he and Barkley reportedly never spoke again.  Both tried it with other partners (Lohman with Bob Hudson, then Gary Owens; Barkley with Ken Minyard) but nothing clicked and both Al and Roger floated separately into smaller, outlying markets.  Barkley passed away in 1997 and Lohman died last Sunday evening after a bout with stomach cancer.  A lot of Angelenos who owned radios during the sixties and seventies will be very unhappy to hear this.  I know I am.

There's a reason Red Buttons has been around so long: The guy is funny.  Really, fall-down funny.  This is not the case with a number of comedians who've been performing for several decades.  And worse, a lot of them don't know when to stop.  A few months ago, I was at a party and Red got up to say "a few words."  The words got an awful lot of laughs and, with the unerring (but rare) skills of someone who knows when to stop, he closed out his speech at just the right moment and sat down to thunderous applause.  In admiration, I hereby plug his new website at www.redbuttons.net, where strange things are happening…

Mr. Buttons is especially well-known for his performance in the curious, almost-extinct show business ritual known as the "roast."  Proof that roasts are a dying art can be found by watching any of the Friars Roasts televised the last few years by Comedy Central.  According to this article, the recent one for Chevy Chase (which airs 12/1) pretty much drives the last nail into ye olde coffin.  Why am I not surprised?

TV Party calls POVonline "the best pop culture website on the planet!"  Funny…I was just about to say the same thing about TV Party!  I don't know the guy who runs it but he's certainly amassed a wonderful mess of great TV info, including some treasures about kids show hosts and Saturday morn.  Click on the link and go see for yourself!  You'll waste a lot of time there, just like you do watching TV!

Watching Brad Garrett playing Jackie Gleason in last night's TV-movie, I was struck by a rather basic thought: These things never work for me.  When someone famous is being portrayed — someone whose real face and voice are embedded in my mind — I can never shake the sense that I'm watching an imitation.  Moreover, it's always an imitation that's gone on way too long.  Most impressionists learn never not to do that because, invariably, they reach the stage where they really don't look or sound like the target.  An entire movie is always too long.

I remember that film where Rod Steiger played W.C. Fields.  Visually, he was like one of those flicker-rings that shows you a different image when you move it slightly.  Steiger would look like Fields, then he'd turn a bit and look like Rod Steiger, then he'd turn a little more and look like Fields again…and of course, throughout, he managed to sound like Rod Steiger doing a bad W.C. Fields impression.  It was a stunt, not a performance, and you watched it instead of the picture.  It was like watching a marionette show where the strings are just too blatant to allow you to pretend the puppets are alive.

Brad Garrett probably played Gleason about as well as anyone could, this side of Nathan Lane…but not for one moment did he stop being Brad Garrett for me.  (Actually, I take that back: In the scenes where they slapped appliances on his face to add weight, he stopped being Brad Garrett and started being Mr. Creosote from the Monty Python film.)  Mostly though, I'm sitting there thinking, "Hey, from this angle, Brad Garrett looks a little like Gleason…oh, Brad Garrett didn't deliver that line the way Gleason would have…hmm, Brad Garrett almost caught Gleason's body language there…"  Overall, he didn't convince me he was Gleason, nor did he convince me the guy he was playing was a performer talented enough to be called "The Great One."  I don't think he even convinced me he wasn't 6'8" tall.

But I'm not sure any of that was Garrett's fault.  Like I said, these things never work for me.  I wonder if they work for anyone.

Yep, you're looking at a picture of a new Blues Brothers slot machine currently being unveiled in Las Vegas.  It's one of several themed around Saturday Night Live and they feature, according to the press release, images of John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Mike Myers, Dana Carvey, Adam Sandler, Gilda Radner, Chris Farley, Jane Curtin, Phil Hartman, Norm McDonald, Jon Lovitz, David Spade, Kevin Nealon, Joe Piscopo and others.  I especially like the Belushi and Farley machines.  When I'm gambling, I always like to think about guys who died of drug overdoses and doing other self-destructive things to excess.  Also, the Joe Piscopo machine is fun because, if you need change, Joe Piscopo himself brings it to you.  And there's even a Church Lady slot where you can lose your money while being scolded about the evils of gambling.

For a few years now, Frank Ferrante has been touring in two different shows in which he plays Groucho Marx.  Groucho: A Life in Revue is more of a play, involving a cast of four.  An Evening With Groucho is a one-man performance (actually, one man plus a pianist) of Marxist songs and anecdotes.  Those of you in Southern California can catch the latter for two weeks at the Hermosa Beach Playhouse, beginning October 29.  Click here for more info.  Mr. Ferrante also has a one-man show wherein he plays George S. Kaufman and I'd love to see it, but it doesn't seem to be scheduled at the moment.

• Revolving Door Monsters by Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times
• The Ironic Implication of the New Jersey Imbroglio by Ted Rall, Universal Press Syndicate
• A Role Model for Ruined Politicians by Mark Lawson, The Guardian
• If Congress Said No by William F. Buckley, Jr.
• It's the War, Stupid by Frank Rich, New York Times

A half-dozen of you have written to ask or correct me about my use of the word "lede" in a recent item here. No, it's not a typo. Many journalism teachers tell you that the part of a story that contains the key info is the "lede," pronounced to rhyme with "bead" or "seed." Usually, it's the opening paragraph and when a reporter doesn't open with that info in some manner, he's said to be "burying the lede."

Now, obviously, the word should be spelled "lead." According to legend, it was…but there was some confusion in pressrooms with the word "lead" (denoting the metal). A lot of the type was fashioned out of the metal and both editors and pressmen often had to write memos about changing the "leading" (i.e., spacing) on a headline. At some point, it reportedly became simpler to change the spelling of the word when referring to the main section of a story.

At least, that's the way it was explained to me when I learned to spell the word in its journalistic context. Since "lead" (the metal) no longer figures into the life of most folks in the news business, the old spelling seems to be returning. So either is correct.

Just look at that face. Is there anyone funnier in the world than John Cleese?  I've been watching the DVD set of Fawlty Towers lately and occasionally catching an old Monty Python extravaganza, and Mr. Cleese never fails to make me laugh.  He doesn't even have to do anything.  I just look at the guy with that rubbery puss and its wide array of outraged expressions and I get to giggling.  Don't you?  Just look at him and see if —

Oh, wait.  That isn't a picture of John Cleese.  That's professional John Cleese impersonator John Parkin.  Sorry.

Exactly what did George W. Bush do on 9/11/01?  I'm not sure I endorse all the research involved, but this piece lays out his day in comic strip format.  And it sure is an effective way of summarizing the facts.

I think I've decided what bothers me about this whole "going to war" business…I mean, besides the fact that we may be going to war.  It's that the public debate has a certain air of Disconnect about it.  Those opposing Bush's plan are making some valid points which are not being refuted or addressed.  The modus operandi seems to be that when someone raises a fact that contradicts their worldview, they simply ignore it.  They figure they've got the votes so they don't have to refute it or even acknowledge it.  They can merely change the subject.  At most, they pause to impugn the patriotism or motives of the person who asks the questions they don't want to address.

An example?  Of course.  The Los Angeles Times is reporting (as are other papers) that much of the info we're being given by the White House contradicts what the Central Intelligence Agency believes.  Here's the lede…

Senior Bush administration officials are pressuring CIA analysts to tailor their assessments of the Iraqi threat to help build a case against Saddam Hussein, intelligence and congressional sources said.  In what sources described as an escalating "war," top officials at the Pentagon and elsewhere have bombarded CIA analysts with criticism and calls for revisions on such key questions as whether Iraq has ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network, sources said.  [Here's a link to the entire article.]

Now, since the CIA has not denied these reports, I presume it's true that such a rift exists.  That means that the only two other possibilities are that (a) our nation's chief intelligence system is wrong or (b) the White House is lying to us.  Those are both pretty frightening possibilities, and I don't know that America can truly get behind a war until these disparate views are reconciled, especially if the war doesn't turn out to be a slam-dunk or if it has some sort of ripple effect, destabilizing relations elsewhere.  Way too many intelligent people, including many of our nation's leaders in past military actions, don't seem to be on the same page as George W. on this one.  Some pretty experienced folks are saying Hussein isn't that big a threat, or that he'll be a bigger threat if we attack, or that there are ancillary consequences.  The response from the Oval Office is to snub or dismiss the criticisms, not to address them.  The Johnson Administration made that mistake with Vietnam and eventually lost the trust of the nation.

So that's why I'm uneasy about what the White House is doing.  But the Democrats, especially in the Senate, are also not connecting with the reality of a war.  The prevailing motive of those who voted "yea" seems to be to not to be on record against a war which just might prove successful.  The votes in favor of granting Bush carte blanche to drop bombs on our behalf seem uncertain and timid, and some are even hedged with the rationale that they're votes against killing; that giving G.W.B. this strong vote of confidence will stampede Hussein to concessions that will make bloodshed unnecessary.  Maybe.  The statement of one of my senators, Dianne Feinstein, pretty much boiled down to, "I'm voting to authorize a war in order to scare Hussein, but if he won't be scared, then I don't think we should go to war like I just voted to authorize."  At least, that's what it sounded like to me.  She seems to think that War With Iraq comes with a free, ten-day home trial and that, if it looks like it's actually going to happen, she can retract her vote.

I don't know which side is right or even if any side is right.  I just know this is a pretty sloppy way to go to war.

And while you're surfing, go read this article by Terry Jones.  (Yes, this is the same Terry Jones from Monty Python.)  The Cliff Notes version of this one is that Tony Blair is extremely unpopular in Great Britain and has turned himself into a puppet of George W., ramming through an unpopular position.

You know, I get the feeling that there's a decent, coherent argument for why we should attack Hussein, but we're not getting it.  I also feel like a certain segment of the population is dying for the U.S. to go beat up somebody, and would almost prefer that we don't waste time with logical explanations.

Another must-read by Michael Kinsley column has just been posted here.  For those of you without the time for another click, I'll summarize: George W. Bush's explanation of why we must go to war against Iraq is disingenuous, ambiguous and full of holes.  This may all be moot since Congress seems to be caving on the issue.  But you'd think if we'd learned nothing else from Vietnam, it would have been that when you go to war, the Chief Exec ought to be able to give you a solid explanation of why.

Forgive me for dwelling on this but I find this story amazing.  Here's the latest development (possibly, the final one) in the matter of Bill Simon's accusation against his opponent, California governor Gray Davis…

A group that accused Gov. Gray Davis of illegal fund-raising has retracted the allegation, which Republican opponent Bill Simon briefly made an issue in his campaign then conceded was incorrect.  "It now appears that our original belief was erroneous," the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs said in a statement late Wednesday.

Please note: This is the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs that accused the governor of a crime based on faulty evidence.  It would be bad enough if a bunch of Krispy Kreme donut makers did it but this is a law enforcement organization that was out peddling bogus "proof" of a crime.  And though they were about to accuse the most powerful elected official in the state, they didn't bother with the relatively-easy step of finding out where and when the alleged crime was committed.  (The governor's calendar is hardly classified information.)

So how much care do we think our lawmen are taking when they build a case against, say, an unemployed kid who lives in East L.A.?  Do we think the same sloppy standard prevails?  Or that maybe they're even less responsible there?  One of the reasons O.J. Simpson is out on the golf course today is that it's very, very easy to convince folks in California that the police are inept at handling evidence and are not above doctoring or inventing it.  Is anyone wondering why people think that?