Yearly Archives: 2015

I've read a lot of criticisms of last Sunday night's Tony Awards that struck me as petty and unreasonable but Mark Harris has some valid complaints.

A man who sometimes fascinated me, Vincent Bugliosi, has died at the age of 80. The headlines all billed him as the attorney who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson…and you look at the Manson of today — out of his mind, Swastika etched into his forehead — and you think, "How difficult was it to convince a jury that that man was capable of murder?" But the thing people forget is that Manson was not present at the killings for which he was being prosecuted. He sent other mindless people to slay and the trick was to persuade the jury that Manson had committed crimes via remote control.

The victory made Bugliosi famous and he used that fame to become an author and lecturer. If you followed him, you came to see that he was very brilliant and also obsessed with telling you how brilliant he was. He always seemed to argue every matter in two ways. One was a solid presentation based on facts and logic, and this was usually pretty airtight. The other, parallel argument was that he was Vincent Bugliosi and if he said something was so, it was so because Vincent Bugliosi didn't say anything unless he had incontrovertible proof and since he was saying X, that meant there had to be incontrovertible proof of X so End of Argument, fella.

In 2007, he published Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a book that made a very strong case that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was committed by Lee Harvey Oswald alone, that Jack Ruby acted solo in killing Oswald, and that every book and movie since which claimed otherwise was seriously flawed and probably dishonest. Unfortunately, Bugliosi's book was over 1,600 pages long and I doubt it was ever read by anyone who was undecided or whose mind was changeable on the central question of Oswald's guilt. People read it, or at least some of it, to see their views confirmed or in order to write outraged rebuttals.

I was among the former. I wasn't always but after spending too much of my life amidst the muck 'n' mire of "Conspiracy Buffs," I came to the conclusion that Oswald did it and he did it all by his lonesome. I also decided that if there was a real case to be made in opposition, it was just too hard to locate amidst the hysteria of those seeking to make some irrelevant point — or just make good livings — legitimizing every possible theory except the most obvious one.

I also — and this is why I ask that you not write me and try to get me to read some article that absolutely proves J.F.K. was gunned down by an underground alliance of Cubans from the planet Jupiter and Lyndon Johnson's chiropodist — decided that spending time in that world was a foolish way to squander one's limited years on this planet. When I was thinking about Oswald, I wasn't doing anything that mattered. Nevertheless, when a writer I knew a bit named Fred Haines invited me to lunch with Bugliosi, I went. He wanted Vince to hear one or two of my observations on the Kennedy case…nothing major, just little things. Like, I'd noted that there was the theory Oswald acted alone and there were hundreds if not thousands of theories involving vast conspiracies — but absolutely none suggesting that two people had killed Kennedy. Or three or less than ten. It was always one or a cast of thousands.

That, of course, didn't prove much of anything but Fred, who was assisting Bugliosi with research, thought it was an interesting point, one of several I had which he thought Vince might like to expand upon. Thus, we lunched.

It lasted about 90 minutes, during which I spoke for two minutes and Vince spoke for 88 and looked annoyed whenever I monopolized the conversation. I thought the guy was brilliant except when he kept telling me — and he must have said this ten times — that some view he had was inarguable because he was Vincent Bugliosi and Vincent Bugliosi never reached a conclusion without solid, inarguable evidence. If he'd left all of that line of argument out of the book, he could have gotten the page count down to three figures.

When the waiter came by to ask if we wished to see the dessert menu, Vince told me the peach cobbler they served was excellent. I'm sure he didn't say this but in my mind, I heard him assuring me that if Vincent Bugliosi said the peach cobbler was excellent, that meant the peach cobbler was excellent because Vincent Bugliosi never recommended peach cobbler without thorough and complete investigation and solid proof.

The lunch was before Reclaiming History came out. Afterwards, I saw him one other time at a Book Festival where he was not autographing it or even discussing it. He'd since published a book called The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder, making the case that Guess Who should be behind bars. Folks were lining up to praise him for it and get it signed (I never read it, by the way) and when I ran into him in the Author's Lounge on a break, we talked about how his J.F.K. book had not made quite the splash for which he'd hoped. "Almost no one wanted me to go on their TV or radio programs and discuss it," he said, "whereas I'm fighting off offers to go on and talk about this new one."

I suggested it was because (a) the murder of Kennedy was a long-ago matter and everyone who cares about it has made up their minds and (b) interviewers don't like having an author on unless they've read their book and none of them wanted to read a 1600+ page book. He told me I was right and I felt a flush of pride that he'd said that because I didn't think he thought anyone was ever right except Vincent Bugliosi.

A lot of people dismissed him as an arrogant bore, especially when they wished to not address his conclusions. It's a shame he gave them that "out" because his conclusions were usually very wise and pretty sound. Because of its sheer length and digressions, I cannot recommend Reclaiming History to you. You won't read it…though if you want to try, I'll suggest it's easier on Kindle or some other tablet-based format than it is on paper. If I can't dissuade you and you're truly interested in what he said about the Kennedy Assassination, he did an abridged version called Four Days in November that's a little under 700 pages. That's right: The cut-down version is 700 pages.

But I didn't write this to sell books for him. I just wanted to note that the world has lost a very intelligent man who was really good at getting to the truth. And don't even try disagreeing with me about this because I'm Mark Evanier and Mark Evanier never says anything unless he has absolute proof of it…

I thought the Tony Awards were pretty good last night. I'm talking about the telecast itself, not who won. Having not seen any of the shows, I had no real feelings about any of that, though I sure wasn't the only person pleased that Kelli O'Hara finally snagged one. Kristen Chenoweth and Alan Cumming were fine hosts. The show had an awful lot of music and great performances and clever segues and really, there wasn't much to complain about. That won't stop a certain kind of person who claims to "love the theater" from finding much to bitch about. No one hates the theater like people who "love the theater."

The highlight for me was the opening number. The show Something Rotten didn't win much in the way of awards last night but I'll bet they sold lots of tickets because of this. It's the invention of musical comedy as re-created for us by Brian d'Arcy James, Brad Oscar and the company…

I was (and still am) a big fan of Allan Sherman, the great singer of song parodies. As I mentioned back here, he played the Hollywood Bowl twice — in 1963 and again in 1964 — and both times, my parents took me to see him.

Eric Yarber, a devout follower of this blog, e-mailed to tell me that someone has uploaded to the net this audio recording of Allan Sherman at the Bowl. It's 47 minutes of what he did there in '63 and I was in that audience. I am amazed to be able to hear it again, more than half a century later.

I've been saying I think Stephen Colbert will do great in the 11:30 time slot. Well, he already did great in that time slot but I think he'll do great as himself in that time slot on CBS. Sean Cannon explains why he thinks so. I think he overstates it a bit but I generally agree with him.

Here's a sketch from Your Show of Shows starring Sid Caesar, Imogene Coca, Carl Reiner and Howard Morris. The date is unknown and it would be interesting to know if this is from when Neil Simon was on the writing staff. The skit is about a poker game and there's at least one joke in there that was roughly duplicated in Mr. Simon's play, The Odd Couple…

I started watching the Tony Awards a half-hour ago, figuring to stay off social media until it's over so I don't find out who won what before I actually see the envelope opened on my screen. Unfortunately, (a) I'm on the West Coast where it's tape-delayed and (b) often, social media comes after me.

Little notifications from news sources began popping up on the screen of my iPhone telling me what won for Best Musical, Best Play, Best Revival, etc. I turned it off but I'm a very fast reader so I couldn't not get that information.

Then I turned my attention back to my desktop computer screen and a little window popped up showing me I had four new e-mails. It showed me who'd written, when they'd written and their subject lines…and three of the four subject lines told me who'd won for Best Actor, Best Actress, etc.

So much for suspense. I'm not sure if next year I'll just forget about not finding out in advance or if I'll turn everything off in my house except the TV. Because that's what it'll take.

Gonna watch the Tony Awards tonight. Since I haven't been to New York in many years, I watch these less to root for anything than to just see what's playing back there and what I'll go see if and when I get back. The years Neil Patrick Harris hosted, I also watched for his exquisite showmanship. He's not hosting this evening but is supposed to be making an appearance on the telecast.

Usually, there's not a whole lotta suspense about who's going to win but as this article notes, tonight there's some genuine suspense in some of the major categories. I guess I'm kinda rooting for Kelli O'Hara to win Best Actress in a Musical for revival of The King and I. I didn't see it but I've seen her in a lot of things and she's always been deserving. If when I do go back, it's still running and she's still in it, she could even make me go see The King and I, a show I never particularly liked.

But then I'd also like to see Kristen Chenoweth in On the Twentieth Century, a show I do like. I really need to get back to New York. Just as soon as the Carnegie Deli reopens because while it's closed, what's the point?

Neil Gaiman has some ideas about ideas. I have some ideas about Neil Gaiman's ideas. My main idea is to steal his.

• Scott Walker says he might re-invade Iraq. That's great because the first time worked so well but didn't cost quite enough lives or money.

In 1970, my then-partner Steve Sherman and I spent a few days up at the offices of Marvel Comics, which were then on Madison Avenue in New York City. A few minutes ago, I was browsing Ye Olde Internet and I came upon these photos that were taken in that office in 1970 and I thought, "Gee, the office looks just like it did when Steve and I were there. Even some of the same things are pinned up on the walls. Those must have been taken only a few months before or after we were there."

Then I noticed the photos were taken by Steve Sherman. No wonder everything looked just like it did when we were there.

Quick funny story. As you may be able to tell, most of those who worked in the office then were in little cubicles, surrounded by walls which did not reach all the way to the top. These photos were taken on a Tuesday or Thursday. Stan Lee was the guy in charge but Stan only came in on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays so "The Boss" was not there that day.

Some in the office were annoyed at a rule that Stan had just laid down. The offices were a fun place with a lot of joking about and inter-office pranks. Many of the artists working there were known to dash off and pin-up insulting cartoons about each other and sometimes, these cartoons could get a bit raunchy. John Romita, whose duties then included drawing covers for some romance comics, had drawn alternate versions of a couple of those covers in which the posing and dialogue was exactly the same but the women were nude. Some of the dialogue took on different meanings when that change was made.

Stan had ordered all this stuff off the walls since once in a while, children were brought in to tour the office. The folks who worked there seemed to feel that was an unfair decree on his part. Only a few drawings were naughty and those were easily hidden when kids came by. The staff felt that what Stan was really trying to get rid of were the cartoons kidding each other. Since he was the head guy, an awful lot of them were about him.

Anyway, since Stan was out that day, a new round of cartoons about him went up, depicting him as a bad sport. Marie Severin, who was appallingly good at caricatures, drew one of Stan ordering all the cartoons off the walls, especially the ones that made fun of his toupee, which was then about as big a secret in comics as the fact that Clark Kent was Superman. In the drawing Marie did, Stan was yelling, "No one knows about my hairpiece!" and the hairpiece had a huge price tag hanging off it and everyone else on the staff was laughing and yelling at him, "You've got it on backwards!"

Also, some naughty drawings were pinned up. The plan was that at the end of the day, all of this would be taken down to comply with Stan's order. None of it would be there when he came in to work the next day.

Suddenly though, they heard Stan's voice! It was coming over the top of the room dividers near the front. He'd just come in!

Everyone panicked, rushing to rip down drawings that were naughty or about Stan. They got them all down just as he came around the corner —

— and it wasn't Stan. It was his brother Larry. Larry Lieber, who wrote and drew for Marvel, sounded just like Stan when he spoke loud enough. There was a burst of relieved laughter and John Verpoorten, who was the production manager, suggested this was a sign from God; that they'd gotten a reprieve and shouldn't risk putting the drawings back up.

Marie Severin took about a dozen of her Stan-mocking cartoons and slipped them into a manila envelope to take home. Then she turned to me and said, "You just witnessed the end of an era. Cartoons on the walls were where most of us did our best work." Of course, the tradition resumed a few weeks or months later.

I'm really glad Steve took all those photos of the office but I wish he'd taken the inside ones about a half hour earlier…when the cartoons were still up.

Merrill Markoe explains "College Is Not the Best Four Years of Your Life." Her days in college could not have been less like my days in college, which were a little after hers and only lasted two years before I quit.

Amazing moments on the baseball field…

And since I'm in an Equal Time mood today, here's Piers Morgan giving his side of the incident that led to the tweet from John Cleese I quoted earlier. If there's ever a contest to see which of these two men — Cleese or Morgan — less deserves the label of "whining pub bore," I'm betting all I own on the Dead Parrot Guy.

In fairness to Justice Scalia — and despite the fact that I don't think he's usually fair to others — I should clarify/correct something. There's no record of him actually saying that it was inarguable that Henry Lee "Buddy" McCollum was guilty. He presumed McCollum was guilty when he brought him up but so did Justice Blackmun, who was arguing against the Death Penalty for McCollum in that case.

Blackmun actually had two arguments and neither one was that McCollum hadn't done what they said he'd done. One was, and I quote —

Buddy McCollum is mentally retarded. He has an IQ between 60 and 69 and the mental age of a 9-year old. He reads on a second grade level. This factor alone persuades me that the death penalty in his case is unconstitutional.

The other argument was that McCollum's three convicted cohorts in the rape/murder were not sentenced to death; just the guy with the mental age of a 9-year old. Scalia cited the brutal crime to say that death-by-lethal injection seemed "enviable" compared to the crime that had been committed. (Apparently in Scalia's world, the way in which we execute murderers doesn't have to be humane. It just has to not be as bad as what they did to their victims.)

Elsewhere though, Scalia has been a firm believer that innocent people are never put to death by our government. In 2006, he wrote, "If such an event [an innocent person's execution] had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby."

The flaw in that argument, I've always thought, is two-fold. One is that once someone is put to death, it is rare that their innocence is ever investigated. The state that executed them sure doesn't want to see that proven and often puts great obstacles in the way of those who try to exonerate the executed. And once the person's dead, there's a lot less reason for anyone to push for exoneration.

The second flaw is that it has been shouted — maybe not from rooftops but in the press. Here are ten instances, most of which were established before Scalia's "rooftops" statement in 2006.

The more than 150 people who were sentenced to Death Row but exonerated before execution is also a pretty strong argument that we do execute the innocent. If McCollum had been executed back when Scalia said his lethal injection would be "enviable," his innocence would probably have never been established. But no, Scalia did not say McCollum's guilt was inarguable. He said the guilt of everyone who'd been executed was inarguable.