Yearly Archives: 2015

Here's what John Oliver had to say last night about refugees…

Lately, my mind keeps going back to the Bush/Gore election and all the accusations by Bush supporters that Al Gore was a "congenital liar." That was the term — one most of the same people have flung at Hillary Clinton. A lot of them seemed to think the word "congenital" meant "extreme" while others used it to suggest that Al (or Hillary) had some mental illness that forced them to speak lies to no particular advantage.

My problem with calling politicians liars is that people only do it to those they wish they see lose. Everyone running for public office says things that aren't technically true. Sites like Politifact have examples for everyone and you can really find examples when you're trying hard to discredit someone. Gore didn't say "I invented the Internet" — he didn't use the word "invented" at all when he said what got misquoted into that — but a lot of folks thought the misquote was inarguable proof he was a serial fibber.

So I don't really know what to make of certain acquaintances who dismissed Gore as a liar but are quite enthusiastic about voting for Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and others who unabashedly say things happened that no one thinks happened. Trump says, "I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering" as the World Trade Center collapsed. Carson says he "didn't have an involvement with" the nutritional supplement company, Mannatech. Fiorina says, "92% of the jobs lost during Barack Obama's first term belonged to women" and that she saw an abortion in a video that no one else can locate. There are other examples from them and other candidates of both parties.

I can excuse some things as misunderstandings or garbled phrasing. When Carson talks about Thomas Jefferson writing the Constitution, that seems like a factual error and/or maybe a case of misspeaking. A factual error isn't a lie unless you double-down on it and insist it's so, no matter what anyone says. A misspeak isn't a lie any more than a typographical error is a lie.

I could almost respect someone who said, "Much of what Donald Trump says is lies and misrepresentation but I'm going to vote for him in spite of that." I think that's how a lot of us feel about the people for whom we wind up casting ballots. I sure can't defend that Obama line about keeping your doctor or some of his claims of government transparency.

Don't give your guy a pass when he makes up some bogus anecdote that cues applause in a political speech. Seems to me that if you only care about The Truth when you can use it as a weapon against an opponent, you really don't care about The Truth at all.

Vegans should skip this. It's a trip into the meat supply house where Peter Luger's Steakhouses in New York get some (not all) of the animal flesh they serve. I haven't been to Peter Luger's in over ten years but until it proves otherwise, I still consider it the best place to eat beef I've ever found. Wolfgang's Steakhouse in Beverly Hills is very similar and is a lot closer to me so I don't yearn for Peter Luger's as much as I might…

I just watched the last episode of the year of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. The opening segment, which was all about the refugee situation, was not only funny but it imparted more actual information than any news segment I've seen on the topic.

I don't know if they're going to put that part of the show up on YouTube. They usually only post their "top story," which in tonight's show was a good argument for getting rid of the penny. But the whole show reruns many times this week on HBO and you should catch it if you can.

This is the long-delayed fourth installment in a series of essays here about how professional or aspiring professional writers can and must cope with two various kinds of rejection — rejection of your work by the buyers and rejection by various folks in the audience. Part 1 can be read here, Part 2 can be read here and Part 3 can be read here.

---

I may have mistitled this series because, as I'm going to explain in this chapter, a lot of what we think are rejections really aren't rejections. They're more correctly viewed as non-acceptances. Those may seem like the same thing but they're not and understanding why they're not may be vital if you are to keep your career in perspective.

What's the difference? Let's say you and I are going out to dinner and there are three restaurants nearby — an Italian place, a Chinese place and a Deli. I say to you, "What do you feel like?" You say, "I'm kind of in the mood for corned beef…how about the Deli?" I say fine and we go to the Deli. The whole discussion takes ten seconds.

Imagine then that the managers of the Italian and Chinese restaurants are standing outside their respective businesses and they see us drive by, park down the street and go into the Deli. Imagine too that they get upset and start wondering, "Why did they reject my restaurant?"

But we didn't. The managers of the Chinese and Italian restaurants didn't do anything wrong. We just decided that at that particular moment, we didn't want what they offered. That's not exactly a rejection and to the extent it is, it's a rejection that has nothing to do with them.

Writers — and actors, as well — have a tendency to think of every potential hiring opportunity as something they should get. When (as usually happens), they don't get hired, they think of it as a competition they lost for one of two reasons. Either they didn't receive proper consideration or the person doing the selecting wasn't wise enough to see that they were the best choice. These two views are especially prevalent among writers or actors who've never themselves been in a hiring position.

Either view could be correct and in a future installment of this series, I'll have a lot more to say about your work not getting proper consideration. But there's a third reason which is often the case. The person making the decision just had a hunch or a whim. The decision was made quickly because it didn't seem to merit a long discussion…just as you and I don't have to spend an hour weighing all possibilities before we decide where to have dinner.

As you may know, I sometimes voice direct the cartoon shows I write…which means I do the casting.

Now, I happen to know a lot of voice actors and actresses. I know a lot of them personally and even more of them professionally. When it comes time to cast a major, ongoing role, I will spend a lot of time considering and auditioning different folks but most of the time, I'm casting non-recurring, small parts…and those, I cast quickly. On The Garfield Show, we have a regular cast — Frank Welker (who voices Garfield), Wally Wingert (who plays Jon), Gregg Berger (who plays Odie the Dog and Squeak the Mouse), Julie Payne (who plays Liz) and others. Sometimes, one of these folks will also voice a new character. Sometimes, I need to book another actor.

Booking another actor usually works like this: As I write the part or go over the script, I suddenly "hear" a voice in my head…and then I see if the actor who matches that voice is available. It might be Neil Ross or Joe Alaskey or Bob Bergen or Laraine Newman or someone else but if I can get them, I'll get them. If not, I'll think of someone similar. It's not hard since I have hundreds of actors to pick from…and frankly, almost anyone can do one of these smaller roles. It's just like in a live-action show. If you need someone to play a cop who has six lines and your first choice isn't available, your second or third choices are probably just as good. Occasionally, you even find out they're better.

There's a voice actor I've hired a few times who doesn't grasp this. He persists in seeing every possible booking opportunity as a contest between him and someone else. I really dread it when I get these calls and in what follows, I am not lying to him in the slightest…

HIM: I ran into Neil Ross the other day at an audition and he said he'd done a Garfield for you the day before.

ME: Yeah, Neil's very good.

HIM: I don't understand. What can he do that I can't?

ME: Probably nothing. You're very good, too.

HIM: Then why didn't you hire me for that part?

ME: Because I had my choice of dozens of guys who would have been fine in it. You two aren't the only ones. I went with Neil.

HIM: Because you thought he was better than me.

ME: No, because as I wrote the part, I kept hearing his voice in my head.

HIM: And you thought I couldn't do it.

ME: No, I'm sure you could have. So could Rob Paulsen. So could Maurice LaMarche. So could eighty other guys we could both name.

HIM: But you decided not to hire me.

ME: No, to be honest, your name didn't cross my mind in connection with this job. I thought of Neil. I hired Neil. If you're thinking I considered every possible person who could have done the part, you don't understand how this works. I don't stop and think, would you be better than Neil? And those times I hired you, I didn't stop to think, would Neil be better than you? I just book someone — and in a lot less time than this call is taking.

HIM: I just want to know what you have against me. Did I displease you somehow? The last time you hired me, did I not take direction? Wasn't I on time?

ME: You were fine. So was Neil. The only thing you ever do that displeases me is to make me have this same conversation with you every time you hear that I hired someone else for something. Some decisions are just whims or hunches, not contests. When I decided to wear a blue shirt this morning, that doesn't I mean I have anything against my green shirts.

HIM: I just wanted to get it straight. You knew I could do the job but you hired someone else for it.

Whether you're an actor or a writer — or even in some other job where people sometimes go eenie-meanie-minie-mo to make these decisions — you're going to drive yourself crazy if you think like the above-quoted actor. Don't do that to yourself. Don't view every employment opportunity as you dueling to the death with the Other Guy. That contest only exists in your mind. The person making the decision is not viewing it from that perspective.

I not only know lots of voice actors, I know lots of writers. Sometimes, one of those writers gets hired for something that I might have wanted to do. I've learned not to take it personally because I know it probably wasn't meant personally. My name just didn't come up…or if it did, someone had a hunch that the Other Guy might be better for this one than me. And who knows? Maybe they're right. I'm not dumb enough to think I can write anything…or that there aren't others who might not be a better fit on some assignments.

The Other Guy (could be a Gal) might have a better feel for certain projects…or might be more available or have a better rapport with others around. The Other Guy (Gal) might be cheaper than me or have done really good work in the past for some of those involved.

But more than likely, it didn't even come down to someone thinking, "Should we hire Evanier or hire The Other Guy?" They might not know me or my work…or maybe they did and my name just never came up. You have to understand how this works for the person making the decision. It's really a lot like you and me deciding to go to the Deli. And not only did we not decide to eat Italian or Chinese, we also didn't consider that new barbecue place over on Melrose or the seafood place up on Santa Monica Boulevard or the Japanese place or the burger joint or…

If you're a professional writer or you want to be one, you will at times lose out on things because of actual either/or decisions. Someone will decide to buy someone else's screenplay instead of yours. That kind of decision does happen. But it doesn't happen every time you don't get the job. Stop creating those bogus competitions in your head. You'll lose enough real ones without setting yourself up to lose imaginary ones.

Hello. I'm still dealing with knee issues and other matters in my life that are running behind due to knee issues. That's why I'm not posting as much as I sometimes do…a situation which may persist here for the next few weeks.

I have a favor to ask of my frequent correspondents. I try to answer any thoughtful or sincere e-mail I receive. Invariably, I don't get to all of them but until the worst of this knee thing is behind me, I'm going to get to almost none of 'em. Please don't write me long messages about writing or comics or Jack Kirby or politics or Syrian Refugees or the election or Stephen Colbert or anything where you expect a reply. I haven't the time to respond and I feel bad when those pile up. Even if you don't expect an equally-long reply, I'd rather not have that huge "To Be Answered" folder in my e-mail program because I know most of those probably won't be. (Some of you, I think, should start your own blogs and share those writings with everyone instead of just me.)

I have a couple of partially-written pieces I'll be posting here whenever I get the time to finish them. Right now, it's closing in on 2 PM and I still haven't gotten to my morning vitamins or exercises. So I'm going to post here and then tend to those matters. Back later…maybe.

The best commentary I've seen on the refugee issue was presented last night by Stephen Colbert.

The part that horrifies me is this new idea that we have a religious test for refugees to get into this country. We let in the Christian ones but not the Islamic ones. And of course, that would presume that Christians can prove they are Christians…an idea being advanced by people who without any evidence, just know in their hearts that Barack Obama is not one…

Poll Analyst Extraordinaire Nate Silver just tweeted the following…

About 25% of Americans identify as Republican. Donald Trump's getting about 25% of that 25% in the polls. Why is this impressive to people?

Well, maybe because it's getting harder and harder to imagine Ben Carson, Jeb Bush or any other G.O.P. candidate getting the nomination. But Silver's right: Trump ain't all that popular and he has some pretty high "unpopular" numbers.

Some right-wing websites are cackling over a story that makes Hillary Clinton look bad. They say someone from her camp called The Laugh Factory — which is a comedy club in Los Angeles — demanding that they take down a YouTube video of comedians there telling Hillary jokes. The caller also wanted the names and contact info for the comedians in the video so he could take some action against them. Jamie Masada, who owns the club, refused and then the caller hung up and that was the end of it.

Is there any proof the caller was actually affiliated with Hillary's campaign? No. Would this be a dumb thing for her campaign to complain about? Yes. Has she complained about hundreds, maybe thousands of other places you can hear Hillary jokes that reach a much wider audience? No. Do those who dislike Hillary wonder if maybe this was a prank or someone unattached to Hillary's team making the call? Of course not.

This is an entry to Mark Evanier's list of the twenty top voice actors in American animated cartoons between 1928 and 1968. For more on this list, read this. To see all the listings posted to date, click here.

Most Famous Role: Tigger.

Other Notable Roles: Dick Dastardly, Fleegle of the Banana Splits, Gargamel (on The Smurfs), Goober of Goober and the Ghost Chasers and many more.

What He Did Besides Cartoon Voices: Paul was one of the greatest ventriloquists ever and a true superstar of early television. He was also an accomplished inventor holding dozens of patents including one for a prototype artificial heart that he built in his home workshop. In the sixties, he was a frequent actor in live-action comedy shows including The Dick Van Dyke Show and The Lucy Show.

Why He's On This List: Paul brought to cartoon voicing the same skills for characterization that he brought to his famous ventriloquist figures, Jerry Mahoney and Knucklehead Smif. In recording sessions, he would sometimes forget himself and deliver his lines without moving his lips. This unnerved other actors in the session.

Fun Fact: Paul's daughter April has followed in one of the family businesses, becoming one of the most in-demand voice actresses these days. She got interested in the field accompanying her father to recording sessions at Hanna-Barbera and other studios.

Randy "Atlas" Santel is a bodybuilder who tours the world participating in food challenges — you know, the kind of deal some restaurants have where if you eat a 72 ounce steak and 24 ounces of side dishes in thirty minutes, you get the meal free plus a t-shirt and your name on a wall. I'm not sure I could eat 72 ounces of steak in thirty days so I would never attempt something like this. Also in too many of these things, the side dishes include cole slaw and that's an appetite-killer right there.

There are a few hundred videos of Randy on YouTube taking on and almost always succeeding in these challenges. He also has fitness videos in which he demonstrates how it is he can eat thirty hot dogs at one time and not be the size of a Home Depot.

Here's one time he was competing for more than a t-shirt, a free meal and bragging rights. A restaurant in Ridgeland, Mississippi offers a big cash prize for anyone who can down one of their Whammy Burgers — three pounds of meat, a pound of fries plus loads of toppings and a milkshake — in fifteen minutes. The jackpot was up to $1500 the night "Atlas" tried to scarf one down. Can he do it? You still have time to get down a small wager before you click on the video and find out…

Sorry I wasn't around more yesterday. I had to tend to Knee Stuff, including a few hours on the phone to straighten out various billing confusions. I have pretty good insurance but there's a lot of paperwork that has to be put right.

The knee is slowly getting better. Tuesday, my surgeon took off the dressing and removed the remaining staples. I have to be a little more careful about keeping the incision clean and unbumped but having the staples out seems to be aiding the healing process. I'm still living upstairs in my house, going down and back up sparingly. In a few days though, that may not be much of an issue. I've had a nice crop of friends dropping by to visit.

Not much else to write about. Like a lot of you, I'm appalled at the folks who think that all Muslims are terrorists…or at least should be presumed or treated as such. Has it dawned on these people that when you dream of wiping out all of "the enemy," it helps to not define that enemy as the largest group imaginable? There are 1.57 billion (that's billion with a "b") Muslims on this planet, making up around 24-26% of the world's population. Even if killing every last one of them was morally justifiable, it just might not be possible. Who knows? Maybe a few of them would even fight back.

I have no idea how any of this will impact our presidential election. But I'll bet that before next November, we have a couple more of these "game-changers." In the meantime, Ryan Lizza offers the lesson that "wars are always more complicated than they sound and often create new sanctuaries — which then also, somehow, must be destroyed."

The Hollywood Reporter has had a polling company determine a whole lotta stuff about who watches which late night hosts. Some of it doesn't feel very accurate to me, especially the part about where folks who used to watch Leno, Letterman, Stewart and the old Stephen Colbert have migrated. But give it a look if you're interested. Maybe I'll have more to say about it later.

Various fans of the Three Stooges have informed me — though the mainstream press has not — of the recent passing of Don Lamond, the gent who hosted the Stooges films for years in Los Angeles at KTTV, Channel 11. Actually, Mr. Lamond hosted lots of things at Channel 11 for decades and was often heard as an off-camera announcer, as well. He was one of those performers in local TV who did a little of everything, plus he also acted on TV shows and in films, including roles in many of the Stooges' later features. He was the narrator of Have Rocket, Will Travel for example, and was seen on-screen in that and in The Outlaws is Coming.

I'm afraid I don't know as much about Mr. Lamond as I would like — and I can't find a decent photo of the man, either. I met him ever-so-briefly during one of the periods when his Stooges show had a live kid audience on-camera and I was one of those kids. Alas, the day I was there was not one of the occasional times the Stooges themselves would appear on the program. Lamond had a special "in" to get them to show up once in a while. He was Larry's son-in-law.

That series ran for years at different lengths and in different time slots but it's where I first came to know the Three Stooges. The KTTV film editors were about as adept at trimming episodes for time as Larry, Moe and Curly were at performing liver transplants…but even with the first few minutes of a short hacked off and a chunk of the middle missing, they were still funny. And when they appeared with Lamond playing "straight man" to them, they were even funnier. Kids my age in L.A. have Don Lamond to thank for bringing them into our lives.

Monday night, Stephen Colbert had Bill Maher on his program for one of the funniest interviews I've seen in years on a talk show…and one that didn't come right off the cards and notes. It was two funny men in (mostly) spontaneous mode and it was the kind of thing I wish we saw more of on such shows — but we don't because most hosts aren't as fast as Colbert and most shows like to exercise more control.

Colbert's show exercised some control as they chopped it down for broadcast. When Mr. Carson had a conversation that was rolling that well, he let it roll, even if it meant shortchanging or bumping a guest. Fortunately, Colbert's show has now made the unedited (though heavily-bleeped) conversation available on the web.

At the end, Maher looks a tad pissed and I suspect it was because though he got plenty of laughs, he was ultimately topped by the host. I further suspect that if he compared the full version to the edited one, he was a bit more pissed as it was edited in Colbert's favor. It's still well worth watching in full. Here are the two segments which should play one after the other in the player I've embedded below…

Over at the American Conservative, Daniel Larison complains that Obama's foes — Ted Cruz, in particular — persist in taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting the president's positions so they can attack him for things he never said or did. Larison, who is not particularly a fan of Obama on foreign policy, closes with this interesting point…

While they could attack Obama for his real policy errors, hawks have always opted to criticize a fantasy record full of "apology tours" and "appeasement" that never happened because they can't admit that Obama's failures overseas have typically come from pursuing some version of the policies that they support.

I'm not sure how I feel about Obama's handling of international affairs but I think Larison is probably right on this count.