Monthly Archives: November 2005

Slate has up a little essay (with plenty of examples) by Chris Suellentrop on Calvin and Hobbes. A nice bit of commentary.

As I think I've mentioned, I have some interest in the science of weather forecasting and in observing how the folks who do it do it. We have a fascinating (to me) situation looming for Southern California for Tuesday into Wednesday. Here, the main method of figuring out if it's gonna rain or shine is by use of two computer models that track satellite data in various ways and project what's going to happen. One is the NAM and one is the GFS. NAM stands for "North American Mesoscale Model" and GFS stands for "Global Forecast System." Others are used but 95% of the time, those two tell the story.

Ordinarily, they are in rough agreement and as they get closer to the time period in question, they converge on one another. If the NAM says it's going to be 70 and the GFS says it's going to be 74, the forecast will generally be for 72…though sometimes, human beings look at the projections and decide that one or the other is the more accurate and will give it more weight. Usually, they're pretty close when you're looking 24-36 hours ahead.

Not this time. In a rare lack of convergence, the NAM is currently projecting a huge rain storm beginning late Tuesday and lasting into Wednesday with rainfall totals in the 1-2 inch category. That's a lot for Southern California this time of year and it would probably cause mudslides and flooding, especially in the burn areas of the mountains and outlying areas. On the other hand, the GFS is saying that the storm in question will turn into a cut-off low and remain off-shore for a few days, dumping most of its energy out there, spinning off small impulses. That would lead to a small (20-30%) chance from late Tuesday through about Friday afternoon.

To make matters more confusing, the two models have swapped points of view in the last few days. On Saturday, the GFS was projecting what the NAM now projects and vice-versa. Lately, instead of coming together, each is stubbornly sticking to its guns.

As of this moment, the National Weather Service is going with the GFS projection but cautioning other folks in the weather business that confidence is low and that a sudden change could be necessary. Let's see if they made the correct call. Despite the way we all wail and curse their profession when they're wrong, they're usually right.

Here are some snippets from various news stories I've read this morning. See if you can find a logical connect…

• "President Bush declares 'We do not torture.'"
• "Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture."
• "With Vice President Dick Cheney as the point man, the administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA."
• "It was recently disclosed by the Washington Post that the CIA maintains a network of prisons in eastern Europe and Asia, where it holds terrorist suspects."
• "George W. Bush's administration ordered an internal inquiry into how classified data was leaked to The Washington Post and Human Rights Watch, a New York-based group."
• "The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the administration's handling of military tribunals for foreign terror suspects."
• "Bush has urged swift confirmation of his nominee Samuel Alito, an appeals court judge, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court."
• "In his lower court decisions, Alito has generally been deferential to government."

So let me see if I have this straight: We have to find out whoever it was who revealed that we do torture, but of course we don't torture but we still oppose legislation that says we can't torture…

Recently, I added a new section to this website entitled Great Los Angeles Restaurants That Ain't There No More.* It's all about great Los Angeles restaurants that ain't there no more…and I guess I should have made clear that I was talking about restaurants in which I'd dined. An awful lot of people have written me to suggest I include their favorite eateries and have named quite a few places I never went inside and in most cases, never heard of.

To the ones listed there, I may soon be adding Tail o' the Pup, the infamous hot dog stand in the shape of a big hot dog that's been seen in about two-thirds of the movies set in Los Angeles the last few decades. It used to be located near the corner of Beverly Boulevard and La Cienega and when the proprietor lost his lease, there was much wailing and protest…a lot of it, I suspect, from people who never cared about the Tail o' the Pup enough to stop by and buy a chili dog. But they somehow lamented its passing and the owner wasn't ready to give in, so he finally found new land a few blocks away, over on San Vicente Boulevard. A fancy hotel was erected on its former site and snippy critics haven't been able to resist comparing its restaurant unfavorably to the hot dog stand it displaced.

Rumor has it that the present location of Tail o' the Pup is now to be developed for some fancier building not shaped like a meat product, and that this may be it for the kitsch landmark. If I owned Universal City Walk or Hollywood and Highland or some other tourist mecca, I think I'd buy the thing and move it there, with or without the business inside it. But I own no such place to put it and I don't think it would fit in my yard.

I haven't eaten at Tail o' the Pup for about twenty years. If the rumors of its demise are true, I may try to get by there in the next month (which is how long my source says they'll remain open) and scarf down a frankfurter, just to say I was there. If you hear anything about it going or staying, let me know.

[*Update, years later: That section of my weblog was converted to a separate blog which is no longer online.]

Yours truly is quoted in this Associated Press article about why Jay Leno is increasing his lead over David Letterman in late night. I said what I said but I wish I'd said it a bit more eloquently.

I don't think Jay's show is "different every night." I think both shows have become more repetitive than I'd like. I just find Letterman has gotten a bit too predictable for me to watch it as often as I once did. I TiVo both programs, fast-forward through certain segments of both and enjoy Dave when he seems truly engaged in an interview, which lately is like one guest per week. I don't like at all that Jay so often delegates Act Two of his show — the comedy bit after the first commercial break — to others, and I can't stand the bits based on the utter stupidity of people on the street or in the audience. (I feel the same way about Letterman's use of stagehands and Rupert, the guy with the deli around the corner.)

But night after night, Leno comes out with a first-rate topical monologue and unlike Letterman, always seems happy to be there, happy to see his guests. I go back and forth but these days, I find myself watching more of Jay, less of Dave. What I should have told that reporter is that what I really wish is that those guys had more competition than each other.

Albert Brooks on his (and I guess, my) generation getting older. Thanks for the link, Bruce Reznick.

Every so often, I find myself listening to talk radio until at some point, I decide that I'd prefer music. Or the din of jackhammers. Or car alarms or the sound of orangutans mating or anything but talk radio. This week, whenever I've been in the car, it's somehow been talk radio. For the next few — at least until I forget why I'm giving it up forever — it'll be music, jackhammers or the orangutans. Heard some Limbaugh. Heard some Air America. Didn't much care for either and, oddly enough, not because of politics.

I liked Al Franken's show its first few months when (I have the feeling) it was all new and exciting to him. I think the filling of three hours per day is getting to the guy and the loss of his co-host has made it more evident that he lacks certain broadcasting skills. Say what you will about Rush but he's been at it for a long time and if he gets bored with his own program — and I'm sure he does — he's learned not to let it show. Franken's great as a guest on talk shows and he was especially good with Leno the other night. I've enjoyed his past books and based on this week's New York Times best seller list, I'm obviously not the only one. But there are certain skills one needs to sustain on the radio, especially when you have to fill 15 hours a week, and I don't think Al has them. Maybe he'll make a better senator.

One hears mixed things about how Air America is doing. When I wrote here last April that I was enjoying Franken, I began hearing from those who didn't…and I don't think they were even listening to him. They just didn't like the fact that he was on. One of those folks began bombarding me with links to articles on right-wing sites that proclaimed, not as predictions but as allegedly verified news items, that the network would be off within the week. Months later, those reports look about as accurate as Colin Powell at the U.N.

Still, unlike Powell's presentation, they may be not so much wrong as premature. I don't think "Liberal Radio" will ever catch on big; not unless they solve two problems, one being the limitations of the on-air talent. Never mind the issues. Conservative hosts are just, with some exceptions, more fun to listen to. They're fiery and colorful and generally angrier, which makes for more compelling chatter. And most significant is that if you agree with some or most of what they say, I suspect you come away with solid reinforcement of the rightness of your worldview and satisfaction that you are mainstream and will prevail. "Progressive Talk," as they call the local Air America offerings, is just depressing. If you're a conservative, it depresses you because they're trashing all that you hold sacred. If you're a liberal, it's even worse. I sampled an hour or three of Randi Rhodes on Air America this week and all I heard was how horrible everything is under Bush, how terrible Cheney is, how badly the war in Iraq is going, etc. And even though I agree to some extent with all of that, it was enough to depress Ed McMahon in the middle of a Carson monologue. Someone — please — tell this woman that when you preach to the converted, you ought to send them out with some nugget of hope.

During the Clinton years, Rush and his kind spent a lot of time bemoaning darn near every itch and scratch of Bill and Hillary…but it was always in the context of, "We have them on the run and we shall triumph." In particular, he has long had a flair for taking every bit of bad news for conservatives and assiduously explaining how it isn't really bad news. You'd think, with Bush's popularity rating nearing that of strep throat and polls showing an electorate more eager to elect Democrats than they've been in years, Ms. Rhodes could find some scintilla of optimism somewhere. Maybe when I wasn't listening, she did…but while my car radio was on, she was wailing like a bad road company of Hecuba.

So I guess my problem with Conservative Talk Radio is that it's all about telling conservatives what conservatives want to hear, regardless of the truth. And my problem with Liberal Talk Radio is that it's all about telling liberals what liberals don't want to hear, regardless of the truth. Every time I listen to either, I soon realize what it is that I want to hear. It's music. Or those jackhammers or the orangutans or —

Wait. Maybe jackhammers and orangutans mating sound too much like talk radio. I think I'll stick with music.

Jerry Lewis has written (with co-author James Kaplan) a book about his relationship with Dean Martin. I've only had the time to skim it but a lot of the details seem to be at odds with previous accounts by others…which is not to say Jerry's might not be the truth or at least closer to the truth. I'll write more about it after I have the time to give it a good read but in the meantime, you can order a copy from Amazon by clicking here.

I didn't get my copy that way. Last evening, I went to an event where Mr. Lewis appeared. Producer George Schlatter interviewed him, Jerry took questions from a loving audience, and pre-signed copies (signed almost illegibly, "Jerry") were available for the purchasing. Jerry was funny and generally self-effacing, and he also looked to be in very good health for a man who's close to eighty and whose body has been through all that his has endured. Once or twice, he launched into condemnations of today's comedians — his big problem with most of them is that they don't move enough on stage — and of shows like those of Jerry Springer and Maury Povich. But he also spoke well of Dean, referring to him often as "my partner" and making clear what a great performer he thought Martin was…and he didn't mean just as a singer. In particular, he emphasized how fast Dean could pick up on a new routine and go right out and perform it, letter-perfect every time.

Speaking of the breakup, Jerry said — I'm quoting from memory here — "There were outside forces working against us…people who'd tell Dean, 'You're a great singer. You could do a solo. You don't need the monkey.' And there were people telling me, 'You don't need him.' You try not to listen to people like that but late at night, when you're lying in bed, you hear them saying those things over and over. That contributed to it. It became like a cancer on our partnership and one way or another, you have to remove a cancer."

The conversation veered towards Jerry's career and he was asked about his infamous unreleased film, The Day the Clown Cried. He said — again, this is from memory — "I did my job as an actor. I did not do my job as a director. The film is not worthy of being seen and it will never be seen. I won't allow it." The questioner asked him if it had ever been completed or if it was still in a rough cut form and Jerry shrugged and said, "What difference does it make?"

He praised some of today's performers, singling out Robin Williams, Martin Short, Steve Martin, Billy Crystal and Paul Reiser. He said his TV viewing is confined to Bravo, A&E, The Discovery Channel, The History Channel and other similar stations and that he does not watch sitcoms. Asked about the white sweatsocks that he usually wears, sometimes even with formal garb, he said, "I wear them because I like them. They feel comfortable to me. I change socks about four times a day, always putting on a brand new, never-before-worn pair. Each year, I send hundreds of pairs of socks to –" and he gave the name of some charitable organization in Las Vegas. "There are people in Hollywood who spend just as much money each year on something else that's white but they put it up their noses."

There were two brief outpourings of the fabled Lewis anger. One was when he got on the subject of critics. The other occurred because in ticking off a list of great comedians of the past, he pointedly mentioned "The Marx Brothers without Groucho." Later, someone in the audience asked about that odd omission and he told a story that didn't quite make sense. He said it occurred in 1978 or 1979 at a comedy festival in Canada. Groucho, he said, appeared the day before him and said bad things about "my best friend in the world, Stan Laurel." As Jerry told the story, he got up there the next day and "took him apart," telling the world that Groucho was an untalented thief of old jokes. Lewis then pointed out that Groucho's son Arthur wrote a book about Martin and Lewis that…well, I'm not sure if he read it but he sure didn't like it, and that had something to do with his low opinion of Groucho.

As I said, the tale didn't quite compute for me or, I suspect, most of those present. For one thing, by 1978, Groucho was in no shape to make a public appearance, having died in 1977. I don't think he made any speeches anywhere after about '74 and in earlier times, had expressed naught but admiration for Laurel and Hardy. Even assuming Groucho appeared somewhere at some time and said something negative about Laurel, that of course has little to do with whether or not he was a great comedian…and the fact that his son wrote a book has even less. So I'm not sure what was happening there.

Apart from those odd digressions into acrimony, the evening was most enjoyable for the folks who turned out for it. On the way out, there was a younger person repeating over and over, like it did not seem humanly possible, "That's the guy who made The Nutty Professor." Yes, it was. There's an awful lot of history in that man and even if he was there to push a book, it was nice of him to share some of it with us.

We have an election in California next Tuesday. A small portion of the electorate, I'm guessing, will trudge to their polling places and punch chads on eight propositions.

Earlier this evening, I spent some time with my sample ballot and read some online articles, and I decided to vote for Propositions 79 and 80 and to vote against the others. I began composing a post to put up here explaining why when I suddenly received an e-mail from Dawna Kaufmann directing me to the L.A. Weekly ballot recommendations. Dawna, of course, suggests that I vote accordingly. I don't often agree with that newspaper but I went over to read their views to see if they changed my mind about anything…and they did. They changed my mind about writing my own post. Instead, I'm linking to theirs because their critiques of the propostions mirror my own.

The only one that was a close call for me was 77, which sets up a panel of retired judges to redraw districts in (theoretically) a non-partisan manner. If it just did that, I'd probably go for it as the gerrymandering is pretty stark and not conducive to democracy. But the proposition would open up the process with no guarantee that politics wouldn't enter into it a hundred different ways and it could easily make things worse instead of better. Right problem, wrong solution.

Governor Schwarzenegger, whose popularity is plunging towards that of the man he replaced, is behind four of the propositions — 74, 75, 76 and 77. The pollsters, who don't have the greatest track record in this state, are saying that of these, only 74 (which seeks to roll back teacher tenure) is close, while the other three are running between 11 and 22 points behind. I have the awful feeling that when they fail, and they could all fail, Arnold will give a speech, promise to try again and announce, "I'll be back." I don't know what kind of advisors the man has but surely there's someone in Sacramento who can tell him that Californians are really tired of hearing him recycle his old movie lines and work some conjugation of "to terminate" into every other sentence. It was cute when he first did it but the quotes are starting to sound like replacements for actual policies. Even Ronald Reagan knew enough to limit the Gipper dialogue.

If you have anything important to do for the next half-hour, do not go to this site and start playing the game you'll find there. You have been warned.

William F. Buckley on the real issue in the Valerie Plame/CIA mess. (Well, one of the real issues.)

You may have heard about the New Yorker article by Jeffrey Goldberg in which Brent Scowcroft explains why he thinks the Iraq War is a huge mistake. That article is now available for your online perusal.

I can't believe I just learned about Walt Grogan's terrific Marvel Family website devoted to the Fawcett Captain Marvel and friends. Walt's a bit more interested in the later versions of those characters than I am but it's a wonderful resource with fine graphics. There was a wonderful simplicity to the material published by Fawcett in the forties and midway into the fifties, and just enough self-parody to not be silly. When I was younger and read the books, I didn't quite get why Captain Marvel was more popular than Superman but in later years, after I'd read enough of both, I think I got it. Walt's site reminds me of a lot of what I like about those books.

From an editorial in tomorrow morning's New York Times…

Americans are long overdue for an answer to why they were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Well, maybe one reason was that they read The New York Times.