Terry Jones of Monty Python fame has authored a piece about Mr. Bin Laden, and it seems to be riling some of the Conservative websites who perceive it as anti-American.  I don't think it is but I'll let you judge for yourself.  Here's that link…know what I mean?  Nudge, nudge…

A term is awaiting invention.  Just as "McCarthyism" and "Willie Horton" entered the political vocabulary to denote long-standing tactics, someone is going to coin a term to identify something that now can be described by phrases like, "Moralizing based not on morals but on political advantage."  It is exemplified by Republicans who felt that Whitewater was a scandal of epic proportions that demanded full investigation and prosecution, especially of those in the Oval Office, whereas Enron can be explained away as an acceptable aberration of the Free Market.  It can also be typified by Democrats who thought the affront of the decade was when Republican congressional leaders would not allow bills that might pass to be voted upon, whereas Tom Daschle is a hero for blocking a vote on the so-called "stimulus package."  We could all name another dozen examples on both sides of the aisles.

(Another term we need is for when they give a bill a name like "The Economic Stimulus Package" or "The Patriot Act" so they can argue that anyone who opposes it for any reason is against economic stimulation or patriotism.  I forget his name but, years ago, some Congressguy was suggesting that he might name every bill he proposed, regardless of contents, "The Act To Stop Puppy Slaughter."  The premise was that no one would dare oppose it, thereby giving their opponents the chance to run ads that said, "He voted against The Act to Stop Puppy Slaughter.")

Getting back to the first one: Is there a person in this country who doubts that Democrats look the other way, or come up with tortured rationales when Democrats misbehave?  That Republicans adjust their indignation according to whether theirs political capital to be made?  Of course not.  (When I asked that question once on a panel discussion, someone in the audience proclaimed that his party didn't do that but the other guys did, all the time…thereby proving my point.)

So how come we don't have an easy, one or two word term for this?  I'm nominating "Bennetting," in honor of lawyer Bob Bennett, who did it constantly for his client, Bill Clinton, and also for his brother, public scold Bill Bennett, who never met a Democratic lapse that wasn't an outrage or a Republican mountain of immorality that couldn't be made a molehill.  I think it's a good name because it reminds us that no party has an exclusive on the practice, but I'm open to other suggestions.

A few months ago, a magazine called Brill's Content ceased publication without much fanfare — understandable, since it was never as wonderful as it should have been.  The premise was, I believe, sound: An independent forum that would watchdog and critique the press.  That has always been a void that needs filling in this country but only moreso in an era where so many sources of info are subsidiaries of Time-Warner, Rupert Murdoch or the Reverend Moon.  I subscribed, hoping that Mr. Brill and his staff would catalog and skewer shoddy reporting in every corner.  God knows no one seems to deny there's plenty of it.  And in a few issues, they did this…but I have a feeling that if they'd done more of it, they'd still be operational.

On this page, I've noted several examples of sloppy journalism…and none of these even seem to encroach on the areas of bias and deliberate misrepresentation.  Wouldn't it be a valuable service if some entity — a magazine, a website run with some funding and credibility, something — would take up this task?  In the era of the Internet, Nexis and online databases, one would think it would be easy to, at the very least, notate the batting average of some publications.  Last May, The New York Post ran a gigantic headline that proclaimed, "TORCH IS TOAST" and quoted a source within the Justice Department source as saying, of New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli, "We're going to indict him soon."  A few minor voices faulted this story for being based on a single, unattributed quote and being surprisingly bald on supporting details.  And, sure enough, it has recently been announced that the Senator will not be indicted.  (Makes you wonder if even the source believed it at the time or if the Post was planted to ratchet up the pressure on the target.)

Shouldn't more attention be called to the Post giving so much importance to what was apparently a pretty bad source?  Some jumped on The New York Times for its off-base reportage on Wen Ho Lee, but most of that was a case of publications that were eager to slam the almighty Times seizing a chance to rub it in.  (Significantly — and this ties in with the thought I posted earlier today — few have held the Times accountable for its equally-flawed Whitewater reporting.  This is because — gross generalization alert! — liberals think of the Times as their house organ, and conservatives don't like to admit that anything negative that has been published about the Clintons might not be true.)

But there hasn't been much of this and you'd think that — in this era when you can read outta-town newspapers with two clicks and access many of their libraries from your own home — the press would become more accountable.  Instead, the opposite seems to have happened.  The Internet and the rise of 24-hour news networks have changed reporting: It's no longer about getting the news ready to go to press at 1 AM for the morning edition.  Now, for competitive reasons, it has to get to the public a.s.a.p..  And it doesn't have to be accurate…just more accurate than Matt Drudge.  That is not a high standard.

Someplace, somewhere, an institution will emerge that will be what Brill's wasn't: An authoritative, non-academic, non-partisan voice that holds newsfolks accountable for their failings.  We have a lot of little ones but no one whose condemnation would make a bad reporter the least bit uncomfy.  Before I buy a new microwave oven, I can go to Consumer Reports and get a pretty good feel for the integrity of that product and the track record of its maker.  I'd love to see something truly comparable for reading the newspaper.

More on comics and cartoons tomorrow.  I seem to be in a political mood today.

I really enjoyed the first two episodes of The It Factor, which is a new, badly-named series airing on Bravo.  It's a "reality" show about the acting profession — at least to the extent that there's any reality in that world.  Basically, it's a matter of cameras following a dozen real, aspiring stars around New York as they go to auditions, take classes and work other jobs to pay the rent while they go to auditions and take classes.  This is a process I've observed throughout my career in open-mouthed amazement — amazed that anyone could subject themselves to it — for 25 years, and The It Factor captures it very, very well…perhaps, in some ways, too well.

If the twelve careers progress as any random twelve careers progress, we can expect to see a high quotient of denial, frustration and coming painfully close to the brass ring, only to see it sail past and well out of reach.  It's kinda like Fame, only they don't dance on cars in the street…or, at least, they haven't yet.  It's kinda like Survivor, only the contestants don't have to eat quite as many dead rats, they can't vote anyone off, and no one is guaranteed any prize at the end.  It's kinda like Marat/Sade, only no one in that had to wait tables.

If I understand correctly, thirteen episodes have been made.  The first two aired this evening on Bravo and will repeat on Friday, January 11.  Then the next two air next Sunday ( the 13th) and repeat the following Friday…and so on.  More info and a sneak preview can be found over on the Bravo website, on this page — though the website seems to be keeping the Friday replays a secret.  I think I'm in for the duration on this one.

Interesting article over in Shecky Magazine: Comedian Tom Ryan relates what he went through in making his first appearance on the Letterman show.  Here's that link.

For years I've been a member of the Magic Castle…a place so cool, I'll even put on a tie to go there.  I put on a tie last Thursday evening, taking friends to see one of the best acts that plays there or anywhere — The Pendragons, who are just wrapping a two-week stint.  Jonathan and Charlotte are impressive not just because they levitate, disappear, reappear, etc., but because the essence of their act is showmanship and skill, as opposed to cleverly-made props — though they have some of them, a couple of which are their own, patented inventions.  Still, the hardware is less important than what a master magician does with it…or can do without it.  There are tricks in Siegfried and Roy's show that you or I could do without much practice.  It's really the box or the tech crew that creates the magic.

But we could rehearse for years and not be able to do most of what the Pendragons do — especially their traditional closer, which is their unique version of a classic trick, "Metamophosis."  That's the one where (in this case) Jonathan is stuffed in a bag and locked in a trunk…then Charlotte hops up onto the trunk, pulls up a sheet of plastic and — ZAP! — she and her hubby change places so fast, you'd swear you're watching a TV show and someone did an edit.  Only it really happened right before your eyes.

I have seen other, experienced magicians sneak into the back of a Pendragons' performance just to see that one because it's truly amazing.  (In fact, it's so amazing that many in the audience don't even notice a little "extra" that the Pendragons provide:  Charlotte changes outfits in the process, going from one revealing outfit to another that couldn't possibly have been worn under it.  The trick doesn't need that to be stunning but they do it, anyway.  That's one of the reasons they're so good.)

Jonathan and Charlotte play all over the country.  If they're performing near you, run (do not walk) and get a seat as close to the front as you can.  You can also catch them on most TV magic specials and they're terrific on those, too…but it ain't the same.  You've gotta be there.

The management of this website directs your attention to Michael Kinsley's excellent article — "Listening to Our Inner Ashcroft" — over on Slate.  Click right here to read it, please.

• The Second Death of Religious Politics by Cal Thomas, Tribune Media Services
• Enron's Existential Problems by Jeremy Rice, The Spleen
• Let's Roll by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times
• Enron is a Cancer on the Presidency by Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times
• Media Blame Game Requires a Mirror by Joe Conason, New York Observer

The above links are to articles that the operator of this website believes contribute to the national debate. He does not necessarily agree with all or any of what they say…and you won't, either.

When I got my satellite dish, I got something like a hundred different channels, all of them — that first week — running Hello, Dolly and/or Guide for the Married Man.  While I can always find something on I want to watch, I am amazed at how limited the selection is; how so many channels run the same shows.  I wish someone would start The Old Sitcom Network and run some old situation comedies that are not I Love Lucy, Andy Griffith, Leave It to Beaver, M*A*S*H, Taxi or The Jeffersons.  Where the hell is Sgt. Bilko?  Why is no one running He and She?  Car 54, Where Are You?  Or any of two dozen other great shows we could all mention?  For a time, the Game Show Network disappointed me, rerunning The Dating Game, The Newlywed Game and a few other awful ones,
ad nauseam.

They still do that but lately, they've made up for it by offering great delights via their Late Night Black-and-White series.  Each night between 1 AM and 3 AM — 4 and 6 in the East — they run three episodes of vintage game shows.  (Putting them in 40-minute time slots mean that they get run relatively uncut, instead of being trimmed to allow more commercials.)  After a brief period wherein they recycled all the episodes they'd run recently in a similar Sunday night slot, they're now running shows that probably haven't been seen anywhere since they originally aired in the fifties and early sixties.

The episodes of Beat the Clock, hosted by Bud Collyer, are as dreadful as I recalled…but the original What's My Line? is enormous fun, especially when it reflects TV history — like guest panelist Johnny Carson being wished well on his new job hosting The Tonight Show, or Julie Andrews popping over from playing in My Fair Lady to be Mystery Guest.  My father always hated the show because, to him, it had a palpable air of snobbery and the arrogance of the New York literati.  I see very little of that.  Mostly, I see people having fun and the occasional wonderful outbreak of utter spontaneity.

Even better are rebroadcasts of old episodes of I've Got A Secret.  Garry Moore took game show hosting to a high art form, and it's amazing how witty Bill Cullen and Henry Morgan managed to be.  There are moments on all these shows — and especially on a forgotten show that GSN occasionally airs called The Name's The Same — where it's obvious that some briefing of the panelists has obviously occurred.  It's not that they were given the right answers but that they were given the wrong questions.  That is, the producers obviously told certain panelists to ask certain questions that would get huge laughs…like Arlene Francis, quizzing a man she didn't know sold mattresses, "Could Bennett Cerf and I use your product together?"  But both Cullen and Morgan got some amazing quips off, seemingly without benefit of such preparation.  There are also installments of I've Got A Secret that show obvious traces of the humor of Allan "Hello, Muddah" Sherman, who was then its producer.

Yeah, they're on late.  But that's why God invented TiVo, right?

I haven't seen it yet but several friends have previewed and praised Conspiracy Zone With Kevin Nealon — a new series which debuts this Sunday on The National Network.  (The National Network used to be The Nashville Network and, like you, I didn't know about the change until long after it occurred.)  I've never met Kevin but, ever since seeing him at the Improv in his pre-SNL days, I've always thought he was funny and bright.  And, sure enough, he became one of the Saturday Night Live cast members with the longest tenure.

A pal of mine who wrote on the show while he was there used to describe him as "our Maury Wills," meaning that he rarely hit homers but you could always rely on the guy to get a single, steal second and somehow score a run.

After hearing that, I watched the SNL reruns on Comedy Central with a different attitude and, yes, that was an apt comparison.  Mr. Nealon rarely bowled you over with his comedy stardom but he was terrific in everything he did and made a lot of splashier performers look good.  No wonder they kept him around so long.

His new enterprise is basically Politically Incorrect but about things like U.F.O. sightings, folks who claim Elvis lives, E.S.P. and the like.  I'm told there will usually be one passionate believer, one outright skeptic, and then a couple of comedians plus Kevin, working the topic for laughs but also for truth.  Sounds like good reason for me — for the first time since I got my satellite dish — to figure out what channel TNN is on.  Perhaps you'll want to find out if you get that network and, if so, where it's located on your dial.

Happy year, happy year.  And wouldn't it be neat if we could wake up New Year's Morn and things really were different in undeniable ways?  You know: Like, the sky is yellow or toilet water flows in the opposite direction?  Then we wouldn't just have to tell ourselves it's a new time with new possibilities.  It really would be a different world.  Not that I think there's anything wrong with just declaring a Fresh Start and trying to make things better…

I was going to make a couple of predictions here but lately, I haven't seen anyone in any venue make a prediction that was worth the time it took to read it so I figured, why add to the clutter?

Just in case I don't get back here tomorrow, I'd like to wish all my visitors a happy '02.  Hell, I'll even go for a happy year for those who don't click onto this site.  I happen to think that economy I just mentioned is — and for a long time, has been — much worse than the traditional indicators would seem to indicate.  This is anecdotal, I know, but I certainly feel like folks are more uneasy and depressed than what is measured by the Dow Jones or various "misery indices."  In fact, I think a lot of the emotion surrounding the big news items of the last few years — O.J., 9/11, the Florida recount, Mr. Condit, various Clinton scandals and pseudo-scandals, etc. — flows from a general, excessive uneasiness that people have about their lives and futures.  At the moment, a lot of folks seem to think that all will be right with the world in every way if only Osama could be properly tortured and killed and maybe tortured some more after that.  This is not to suggest he probably doesn't deserve all that, but it ain't healthy for us to invest so much of ourselves in the elimination of one particular demon.  There will be plenty after he's toast.

I don't believe in New Year's Resolutions.  I think that if you really and truly want to stop smoking or drinking or eating Crisco, you can quit on August 9 or March 22.  But there's also nothing wrong with everyone picking 1/1/02 as the date they began trying to keep our problems in enough perspective to eliminate them.  Cheers!

Just realized that, when I posted the piece below about the new DVD of The Princess Bride, I should have posted one of these little links where you can go over to Amazon and buy a copy, with this site getting a teensy cut.  Past experience suggests that enough of you will do this for me to make a whopping ten bucks and — the economy being what it's been lately — that's not to be sneered upon.  Anyway, it's a terrific DVD and a terrific bargain and if you click here, you can get your very own copy of the thing. Or just click there, then buy something else.  I don't really care what you buy just as long as I get the commission.

I've been a little busy with deadlines lately and what time I've been able to spend on this site has gone to tech stuff, fixing HTML errors and such.  In gratitude though for the tips you folks are sending in (thank you, thank you), I'm going to try updating things more often.

In the meantime, if you feel like surfing, here are some more websites for funny men…

• www.howiemandel.com – Website of funnyman Howie Mandel
• www.charliecallas.com – Website of funnyman Charlie Callas
• www.bobhope.com – Website of funnyman Bob Hope
• colin.mochrie.com – Website of funnyman Colin Mochrie
• www.waynebrady.com – Website of funnyman Wayne Brady
• www.richardjeni.com – Website of funnyman Richard Jeni
• www.kevinmeaney.com – Website of funnyman Kevin Meaney
• www.lewisblack.net – Website of funnyman Lewis Black

In the last week, I have thrice watched the new "Special Edition" DVD of the 1987 movie, The Princess Bride — once, as one would normally watch, and once each listening to the audio commentaries of director Rob Reiner and screenwriter William Goldman.  These extra, narrative tracks do not convey a lot of extra insight.  Reiner says, of about 90% of what transpires, "Here's one of my favorite scenes," and almost all the performances are "one of the best performances in the film."  This is not to say we expect the director to say, "Boy, this part was rotten" or "Boy, did this actor stink up my film."  It's simple pride and etiquette at work and, anyway, I don't think there are any poor scenes or performances in this, one of my favorite movies of the period.

Goldman's narration mostly seems to consist of talking of how much he hates to be on the set and hates most of what he's written.  I happen to like most of what he's written but I really like The Princess Bride — in book form, even more than the film.  If you've yet to experience both, I recommend them…though, for reasons I cannot quite articulate, I think I preferred the book when it was one of those joyous, undiscovered treasures that no one had heard of until I told them.  I also liked it better in the original hardback where its dual narratives were printed in different colors — one in red, one in black — and where it felt more like a real book.  In umpteen paperback editions since, they put one narrative in standard Times Roman or whatever and the other in italics.  My first copy — a well-thumbed first edition, given to me long ago by a friend and still occasionally browsed — really felt like one of the old children's novel that Goldman managed so well to ape.  The paperbacks, being paperbacks, do not.

The audio tracks of the director and writer are in general agreement about darn near everything and, between the two of them and several "Making of…" featurettes included on the DVD, we get to hear several anecdotes two and three times.  Reiner and Goldman are in greatest accord when they speak of how the studio, though it tried hard, never really knew how to market this film, and how it never became a true "hit" until its home video release.  The uncertainty is easy to understand as it is equal parts heroic and silly, especially with its hero — played to perfection by Cary Elwes — flopping around like a corpse throughout most of the crucial, climactic scenes.  Some aspects of the script and art direction bend over backwards to avoid anachronism while others embrace it.  The moment when Mandy Patinkin finally faces Christopher Guest to avenge a death is still one of the most satisfying, cheer-the-moment scenes in any movie, even though its emotion seems oddly out of kilter with, for example, Billy Crystal's Borscht Belt performance as Miracle Max.  (If forced to point up a flaw, I would select him — Mr. Crystal — as the one element that pulled me completely out of the picture.  In their commentaries or other interviews, both Reiner and Goldman spoke of wanting to cast unknowns in the leads because stars might have been too distracting.  I don't think anything's as distracting as sitting there throughout a pivotal scene thinking, "That's Billy Crystal and Carol Kane under all that make-up."  But maybe that's just me…)

And speaking of what I was just speaking of: Here's something that's kinda odd.  Both Reiner and Goldman talk of Billy Crystal as having beefed up his role as Max with ad-libs like the following…

MIRACLE MAX

Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world. Except for a nice MLT, a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They're so perky, I love that.

Funny stuff…but here's the thing.  I just copied that dialogue from the 1995 volume, William Goldman: Four Screenplays from Applause Books.  It and all the dialogue that was added by the actors or improvised on the set have been put down in the published screenplay.

In his intro to the book, Goldman writes of the difficulty of deciding which draft of a screenplay to put into a collection of this sort and says that while other scripts therein contain scenes that were cut or changed, "The Princess Bride is pretty close to the finished film."  This is apparently because someone — probably not Goldman, himself — typed all the new dialogue into the script, perhaps after filming was complete, and Goldman chose to print one of those drafts.  I wish he hadn't.  We buy or rent or go see the movie to experience the collaborative work.  When I read a William Goldman screenplay, I'd prefer to just read the writings of William Goldman.