I've seen a dozen online videos about the Colbert/Kimmel/Free Speech Suppression matter but you can find them yourself if you like. I'll post a video later that will be something silly to take your mind off this stuff. You can't have a sense of proper perspective on anything if you don't get your mind off it now and then.

My new book — The Essential Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz: The Greatest Comic Strip of All Time — theoretically ships from Amazon in a little over two weeks. I have no information as to whether it will or will not but I notice that they've dropped the price on it. If you're thinking of ordering, this is probably the best time. If you already ordered it at the previous price, I think they may owe you a few dollars.

I'll be busy the next few weeks doing press and promotions and a lot of podcasts, podcasts and more podcasts in support of this book. I'll try to link you to all of them in case (a) you want to hear them and (b) I say anything worth hearing. I can't guarantee either of those things happening. I will be appearing at the Charles M. Schulz Museum — a dandy place to visit whether I'm there or not — on November 15. Details are here. Before I depart the Bay Area, I'll be signing said book at at least one other place, details to follow. I rarely go anywhere to sign books I write but I rarely am as pleased with a book I wrote as I am with this one.

Be back later.

Here it is. Fucking brilliant…

We haven't had any Lewis Black on this blog for a long time.  Here he is on last night's Daily Show — and I may be embedding another Daily Show clip soon…

So Brent McKee wants to know — and he wasn't the only person to ask this…

Related to the video of Ricky Jay discussing poker with several of his friends, you mentioned that you had played a little poker in your younger days, but that "it never grabbed me the way it grabbed some people I know." Since you worked as a writer on Welcome Back, Kotter and therefore worked with/for Gabe Kaplan, and I know that Gabe is or maybe has been a high level Poker player who has finished in the money in a number of major tournaments including the World Series of Poker, I have to ask: have you ever played Poker with Gabe Kaplan, and what were the results?

I never played poker with Gabe. In fact, I don't recall him ever mentioning the game, not even in those long nights at his home when a bunch of us were there into the wee hours rewriting the rewrite of the rewrite of the rewrite of that week's script. It was long after I was outta there that I heard about him winning all that dough in high-stakes poker tourneys.

If he'd asked…well, no. Poker is not my game and even when I was playing it occasionally, I had trouble remembering what beats what. I've really never had any interest in any game where I'm playing against someone and my goal is to take money away from someone and their goal is to take money away from me. Not unless they're a big casino and the game is Blackjack…but I've even given that up.

…that Jon Stewart will be hosting The Daily Show tonight.  Gosh, I wonder what he wants to talk about.

On May 30, 2024 in the matter of the National Rifle Association of America (Petitioner) v. Maria T. Vullo, it was Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Sonia Sotamayor who wrote to enforce a 9-0 vote of the Supreme Court. What she wrote included, in part…

Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity's "threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion" against a third party "to achieve the suppression" of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67 (1963). Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.

On 5/30/24, we had the same Supreme Court we have now. Call me foolish if you like but I'm optimistic that that same Supreme Court will not now decide to reverse that unanimous decision. They will not conclude that, come to think of it, government officials can coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. If they do, then we might as well just burn down the United States of America, collect the insurance money and spend it all on pizza.

Now, granted, human beings can change their views. For instance, I used to think Jimmy Kimmel was a fratboy asshole who hosted a late night talk show I only occasionally wanted to watch. In the last few years, I've come to see him as a real mensch who hosts a late night talk show I only occasionally want to watch. And I put that in the present tense though he may simply not want to come back on the air.

It has been no secret for some time that he was ready to move on from that gig. He's been shunning long-term commitments, doing other shows, taking longer leaves of absence and outright saying he'll leave the late night arena soon. I'm curious as to whether this will make him more likely to stay on. There's a very good chance that it won't. He probably has much better offers.

So does Stephen Colbert, especially after last weekend's Emmy telecast. Unless he opts for one of them — if he decides he'd rather stay where he is — I have the feeling he'll get the opportunity and could wind up hosting The Late Show longer than Donald Trump will be in the White House.

And of course, I'm curious and apprehensive about what will become of other late night hosts and others who express views that the current administration disfavors. As Trump's polls sink lower, his economic policies tank and Esptein Files dribble out, he's amped up his usual "Don't fuck with me" strategy. I'll be interested to hear what John Oliver has to say this Sunday and what Jon Stewart will say the evening after. That's assuming they aren't both fired by then.

At the same time though, I'm dealing with another aspect of all this: How do I continue to try and be a good, informed citizen making the microscopic contribution I can make while not neglecting things like my life, my loved ones, my career, my health…things like that? That would be a big mistake and I made a smaller version of it when I became obsessed with Watergate and certain other American Crises.

It's not exactly the same. What Trump has done is worse than all of them put together…and when I wallowed too much in Watergate, I was twenty years old. Back then, I had less of a life, fewer loved ones, less of a career…and I was twenty.

I am now fifty-three years older than I was then. And, I hope, at least four or five years wiser. Maybe. I hope.

Among my loved ones, I see many who are making what I keep deciding is a mistake when I make it: Devoting too much attention to this kind of thing, spending too much time on it, getting angry and frustrated about things I am powerless to do much about other than to stay guardedly optimistic, donate funds in the right places and to comfort others who feel as I do. Lately, I feel like I'm even doing too much of that comforting.

I need to find the proper balance for myself: Aware but not obsessed…and definitely not neglecting those things I mentioned: My life, my loved ones, my career, my health, etc. It will not help any cause if I give myself an ulcer or shortchange necessities of life and those areas where my efforts can make a real difference. This will include urging the aforementioned loved ones to not expend so much time and stomach lining fretting about You-Know-Who.

You may or may not see this balance-seeking on this blog. Some days, I feel like writing about politics to get something off this chest of mine. Some days, I can find plenty of things to put ahead of that. This is an equilibrium only I can set for myself. You may see a lot more politics on this blog and, then again, you may not.

If not, it's not because I'm afraid of what He Who Is Not To Be Criticized can do to a largely-insignificant blogger. It's because at times, I'm really sick of thinking about this stuff. If you are too, don't feel it's your responsibility as an American…or that it's more important than other things you need to do.

So what's next? The Trump White House pulling strings to get Charlie Chaplin movies banned because they show poor people in a sympathetic light and Chaplin never mentions how Donald Trump is the greatest president ever and he won the 2020 election in a landslide?

This has been all over the Internet for years so you may have seen it. If you did, you might want to see it again…

It's a half-hour of the late/great card wizard Ricky Jay discussing poker with five friends — Willie Garson, J.J. Johnston, John C. Reilly, Jeff Jones and Eddie Gorodetsky — and cheating the hell out of them. I knew Ricky casually. Eddie G. introduced us and then I kept running into him in different places — and he was a fascinating guy interested in just about everything. Someone could have done a weekly two-hour podcast with the guy for years and never run out of things to talk about…and not just magic or card hustles.

I played a little poker in my younger days and it never grabbed me the way it grabs some people I know. I was uncomfy playing it for money with friends and even more uncomfy with strangers so that kind of brought an end to my poker-playing days. Even before that, I learned the main lesson of this video which is to NEVER PLAY POKER WITH RICKY JAY OR ANYONE LIKE HIM. Actually, there's been no one quite like Ricky Jay but you know what I mean…

I mentioned here the other day that when I went to see Dick Van Dyke in The Music Man at the Pantages Theater, the sound was kind of wonky. Some years later but still before they'd done a full upgrade, I took a lady to the Pantages to see Herschel Bernardi star in a touring company of Fiddler on the Roof. We sat in the first row of the balcony where you could hear, as we Jews say, bupkiss.

My friend kept whispering to me and asking, "What did he say?" and since I knew the show pretty well — not because I could hear what they were saying that night — I could whisper back and tell her. As the show progressed though, the people on either side of us and behind us were leaning in to hear my whispers and I started speaking louder as I "translated" the unintelligible muttering from the stage into audible dialogue for all of my date and those around us. That was how the Pantages was then.

This has happened to me often in my theatergoing. I remember seeing Tony Randall and Jack Klugman doing The Odd Couple (the original play) at the old Shubert Theater in Century City. Couldn't understand half of what they said. I ended up whispering line after line to my date. The same thing happened when I took my friend Carolyn to see Patti LuPone doing Gypsy at the St. James Theater in New York. In that case, half the problem seemed to be Ms. LuPone mumbling many of her lines but we also couldn't understand some of the other actors.

I don't know why this is allowed to happen, especially as ticket prices climb and climb.

Obviously, it was not true for everyone in the theater at the performances where we couldn't hear. But it was true for the folks in our section and for Gypsy, we were on the center aisle of the fifth row. From there, we should have been able to make out every word if they'd turned off the sound system.

I do not blame the actors. I may not even be blaming the construction of the theaters, some of which were built back in the days when the performers went unamplified. I just think the managements of theaters need to do a better job of checking for "pockets" in their buildings where the sound just plain is not as good as it should be.

If like me, you didn't watch The Emmy Awards last night, you might enjoy this eleven-minute summary of wha' happened…

I wish cell phones had a setting you could turn on and off — and when it's on and you touch a button that places a call, it stops and asks "Are you sure?" and you have to hit a "Y" or some other key before it actually places the call. I always feel bad when I accidentally dial someone because I dropped the phone or rolled over it in bed and touched it somehow inappropriately. Once in a while, it's called someone I never wanted to speak to again but I somehow still had their number.

Seems to me this would be easy to program and if you didn't want it, you could just turn it off. I wish this was an option.

On this blog, I often recommend that you go see my buddy Frank Ferrante doing his uncanny Groucho Marx tribute/impersonation. And I still recommend that when he performs it within attending distance of you. (November 19th, he'll be doing it in Minneapolis.) But Frank has other identities and other gigs.

From now until at least November 1, he's up in Alameda, California starring as his alter-alter-ego Caesar in the immersive dinner show, The Soiled Dove. An "immersive dinner show" is where they feed you and someone tries to dance on your table or swing on a trapeze over your head while you eat your salad. I have not seen this show but I saw another similar one with Frank and my date and I could not have had a better time. In this one, his co-star is Joan Baez and I'd sure like to see her and Frank and all the rest of the performers who are getting great reviews like this one.

I will be in the Bay Area up north soon for some appearances connected to my forthcoming book…though sadly, just after Frank's show is scheduled to close. To find out just where it is and to get tickets, go over to this page. I'm sorry I'll miss it.

As usual, I didn't watch the Emmy Awards but I did peek in on a few YouTube clips.  John Oliver won?  What a surprise…almost as big as Stephen Colbert winning for Best Talk Show.

And somewhere on the Internet right now, there are forums full of folks outraged because So-and-So was left out of the "In Memoriam" reel.  That's a complaint that will go on as long as they show those montages.  The Academy made a good step towards calming a few people down by posting on their web page, as they now do, a list of everyone who might have been in such a presentation because their lives or careers somehow touched The World of Television.  It's a very long list and it makes clear how impossible it is to do a segment short enough that people would sit through it that would cover everyone who could be in it.  This year's list can be viewed in a video on this page and it runs seven minutes with names just scrolling by.

I look at it every year because it always tells me that someone I knew passed away in the previous twelve months and I just plain didn't hear about it. This year, I see the names of Sandy Krinski, Lane Sarasohn and Michael Swanigan. Sad to see them there but at least I know.

Here's one I can't answer and it comes from Ira Matetsky…

Here's an "Ask Me" question that I can welcome your answering if you think it would be of interest to the readers (and if you happen to know the answer).

Beginning in the Golden Age (if not before), most if not all comic books contained a one- or two-page text story. It was formatted as text with minimal if any illustrations. These appeared uniformly enough that there was clearly some external reason for them. Although many of the text stories were uninteresting in themselves, some of them had historical significance (for example, Stan Lee's first published writing). By the Silver Age, most companies transformed the text pages into letter columns, where you in so many others broke into print, as well as "Bullpen Bulletins" or other such things.

I have frequently read that these text pages existed because there was a U.S. Post Office regulation or requirement that a publication must contain some textual (non-comics) content in order to qualify for second-class mailing privileges, without which mailing copies to subscribers would be much more expensive. On its face, this seems plausible enough. We know that post office regulations or practices affected comics in other ways, such as when various E.C. titles were changed as minimally as possible, even when a book was changing contents completely, in an effort to benefit from the same mailing deposit. And outside the realm of comic books, there are plenty of other instances in which the postal regulations affected the format of newspapers and magazines (for example, in the early 1900s, there was a period when newspapers got much lower postal rates than magazines, so there was constant skirmishing over how each category was defined).

However, I've done some poking around and have never been able to locate anywhere the postal officials ever put such a text-page requirement in writing. Do you know whether this requirement ever existed and was documented, or where the first references to it can be found? Is there any record of a comic book being rejected for mailing because it didn’t contain a text page? Or was this just something that publishers assumed might be required, or came from the mind of one postal person and then spread by word of mouth?

Any information would be welcome. And if you don’t happen to know the answer, can you suggest someplace I might ask where someone might?

I'm not an expert on postal regulations but I think it all came down to however the post office defined a "magazine." The rules also seem to have varied from place to place and maybe from time to time. For example, I was told that to qualify for second-class mailing rates, a comic book had to have "other" material in it. An issue of Superman couldn't contain nothing but Superman in it.

DC met this requirement by including little one-page gags, mostly drawn by Henry Boltinoff and those Public Service pages. But Dell at one point had to do things like putting a four-page Gyro Gearloose story in each issue of Uncle Scrooge or a four-page Oswald the Rabbit story in each issue of Woody Woodpecker. I suspect this was a matter of the postal officials with whom DC dealt and the postal officials with whom Dell or Western dealt having different interpretations of the rules.

But I don't know this stuff for sure. So this is a public appeal for anyone with hard info to come forward.

The great Stan Laurel passed away on February 23, 1965. A friend of his named Gene Lester felt that there ought to be a big hour-long TV special saluting and remembering the great comedian — and by obvious extension, his late partner Oliver Hardy. As I always heard the story, Lester had something serious and historical in mind — lots of clips of Stan and Ollie along with interviews with surviving co-workers and current comics who discuss the impact of The Boys on modern comedy.

But then, others got involved and the network started demanding an all-star variety special and…well, Mr. Lester was said to have been very unhappy with what resulted as was the show's host, Dick Van Dyke. The show aired but once — on on November 23, 1965 — in Red Skelton's Tuesday night time slot. It also used Red's stage and a lot of his crew. I certainly recalled being disappointed in how so much of it had so little to do with Stan Laurel.

Clips of the show have circulated for years on YouTube but this is the first time I've been able to link you to the whole thing. There are some good moments but a lot of the bits (and the folks who did them) are just wrong for A Salute to Stan Laurel…