Of the presidential debate. "Moment of Truth," "Las Vegas," a field trip and other topics. …

Good times this morning. I went down to North Canton Hoover High School to chat with student Joey Manuselis for a film project he was working with, and the dialogue with Joey and a couple of other students continued long after the cameras stopped. Always fun to talk to people who are excited and informed about something — in this case, movies. So thanks for the invitation. And, in case you're checking here, the book I alluded to is Simon Winder's "The Man Who Saved Britain: A Personal Journey into the Disturbing World of James Bond."

I haven't said anything so far about Tuesday's presidential debate, mostly because I know whom I am voting for next week and my thoughts are tied up with whom I'm backing.

Well, most of my thoughts. I did want to say something about Clinton's reference to "Saturday Night Live," and not only because it was not the smoothest introduction of a pop-culture reference into a discussion. (Nowhere close, for instance, to Ronald Reagan's use of "Go ahead, make my day.") It was also a reference that was lost on a lot of people in the viewing audience who had not watched the "Saturday Night Live" sketch about reporters fawning over Obama in a televised debate. If you did miss it, here is a piece of it:

You can also use that to judge Fred Armisen's Obama. Beyond that, though, there's a point that was made by my colleague Julia Keller of the Chicago Tribune when we were chatting today. That is, when a notion (such as the media being unfair to Clinton), has become grist for "SNL," then it's accepted by the culture at large. And if that's the case, then Clinton didn't need to bring it up. People have already accepted it. So, I would argue, she miscalculated in bringing it up — she was stating what was to many people obvious, and so seemed like a complainer when she did.

I've been behind on writing about Monday's "Moment of Truth" telecast, where a woman admitted to being unfaithful to her husband, as one step toward a big payday. Unfortunately for her, she later lost the money she had won, while still leaving her marriage in tatters. (Here's a New York Post story, which I found thanks to TV Tattle.)

I watched it late, because I was at a movie screening on Monday night. But I still watched, in part because I was convinced that Fox's ads for the show had done a Frankenbite, putting together a question and her answer to a different one. I was right about the promos. I also watched because I could not believe that someone would air that much dirty laundry in prime time.

In fact, the woman showed off even more dirty laundry than the promos implied, and I felt more than a little ashamed for watching. But the promo indicated a train wreck, and I couldn't help but tune in. And no amount of self-righteousness by the show — with its warnings during the telecast that this was a serious relationship issue — took away from the tawdriness of it. And still I watched.

I've already gotten e-mail from bereft "Las Vegas" fans organizing to either save the show or at least complete the two-part episode of which only the first part was made and aired. So there's a hunger for the show, although it's not my hunger, and here's a link to a TV Guide online story indicating where things now stand. Which isn't anywhere good right now.

And, via Romenesko, I saw this piece on the legendary Pittsburgh broadcaster Myron Cope. I knew him only as an extraordinarily irritating voice during Steelers games; to my bride's annoyance, I would occasionally lapse into a Cope impression that was even more bothersome than the real thing.

But the piece I linked to makes clear that he was far more than that voice. It's a variation on what happened with, oh, Phil Rizzuto or Herb Score, guys who had considerable accomplishments before they sat behind a microphone, only to — however inadvertently — create new images for themselves by what they did on the air.

And that brings to mind a story about the now-deceased William F. Buckley, but I'll save that for another post.

The Parents Television Council is screaming about a moment it considers indecent in the Nov. 30 episode of "Las Vegas." According to PTC, the episode "included a side camera shot of a stripper exposing her breasts." I haven't seen the episode, "The High Price of Gas, but it is available at NBC.com. See for yourself, and I'll try to give it a look later.)

I have posted PTC's complete announcement after the jump. But I had to snort at the way PTC is making a big deal about this because the episode was "viewed by hundreds of thousands of children."

Please. This is "Las Vegas." If children are watching, I would want to talk to their parents before I complained to the FCC.

The Parents Television Council™ is calling on its members to file complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about an indecent episode of NBC’s Las Vegas that aired on November 30 at 9:00 p.m. in the Central and Mountain Time zones and at 10:00p.m. in the Eastern and Pacific Time zones. The episode that was viewed by hundreds of thousands of children included a side camera shot of a stripper exposing her breasts. As if that were not offensive enough, the men watching her wagered money about the color of her nipples.

“The executives and writers at NBC continually barrel past the line of common sense decency in creating storylines for Las Vegas and yet this episode managed to reach a new low. As long as the broadcast industry refuses to monitor itself, the PTC will continue to call on the American public and their public servants to speak out against the abuse of the public airwaves and request swift action from the FCC,” concluded Winter.

In the posting before this, I ranted about the live telecast of "The West Wing," a November sweeps stunt that went awry. Now let me tell you about a couple of others, airing tonight.

"Two and a Half Men" is a pretty sturdy comedy for CBS, and often makes me laugh out loud. Not only are Charlie Sheen (doing some of his best work) and Jon Cryer good leads, they get strong support from the likes of Melanie Lynskey (Rose) and Conchatta Ferrell (Berta). So, when you have a solid team of people and you know how to write for them, what do you do? Of course, you add someone to the mix who doesn't know how the game is played.

The person in this case is Charlie's father Martin, although the show has him playing Rose's dad in a game of who's-stalking-whom. There is some funny stuff at the beginning, but it starts to drag soon enough. While Martin is a good actor, that doesn't mean he's a good sitcom actor — different muscles and all that. So don't count this among the show's great moments; I saw a promo that was funnier than the episode.

"Las Vegas," meanwhile, is using a flashback for its stunt, with Danny (Josh Duhamel) imagining the characters in Vegas in 1962, at work in the casino that preceded the Montecito. There are tired references to the Twist (Chubby Checker makes a brief appearance), lots of smoking and clothes and hair that may prompt giggles. Well, one, anyway — James Lesure's Sammy Davis-like 'do. And you may find it mildly interesting to see the roles assigned to the characters in the past: Sam (Vanessa Marcil) is a pricey call girl, Mary (Nikki Cox) is a waitress, Ed (James Caan) has mob connections and a very ruthless streak.

I still had the same problem I usually have with "Las Vegas," that the show looks a lot more entertaining than it turns out to be. This show is a promo-designer's dream, but too often it feels as if all the good stuff is in the promo and the rest is just filler. But the cast works awfully hard to keep us involved. More than once, I have thought that Lesure, Marcil and Cox each deserve something much better than this — not merely shows of their own, but good shows of their own.

Fans of "Las Vegas" may also be more than a little troubled by Ed and Danny's actions in the '60s. Is the show suggesting they are much badder guys than we have been led to believe? Or does Danny have a nasty streak hiding behind those pretty-boy looks?