I'm going to let you live vicariously through a dilemma with which I must deal in the next few days. As you may know, my backyard is a veritable zoo at times. I get raccoons. I get possums back there. I get a lot of cats. Given my location, the cats aren't surprising but the raccoons and possums are.

For close to a year, I've been feeding a feline who comes around every night — a cute little orange/white/grey creature who was so young when she put in her first appearance that she was referred to as The Kitten. I've never gotten around to giving her a better name so she's still The Kitten even though she is apparently on the verge of having some of her own.

This is the same animal who, last year, I accidentally locked in my garage for five days. You can read about that and see a photo of her in this posting. Despite repeated suggestions that I arrange to have her spayed, this was not done…and while I'm not 100% positive, she now looks like she's soon to be a mom.

I have a friend — a fine actor some of you may know of — who is a major saver and protector of cats and dogs. He's on the board of several organizations that deal with the problems, and folks there tell me he's donated staggering amounts of cash and time to saving animal lives. I won't mention his name because I don't want to be responsible for him being deluged with calls like the one I placed to him, asking what I should do about The Kitten. He said I had to get her spayed and that, depending on how far along she is, this may involve a kitty abortion. This made me uneasy. I'm pro-choice but it's not like she's going to be choosing.

My friend — who, let's remember, loves animals dearly — assured me it was the kindest possible gesture. "You wouldn't believe how many cats and dogs have to be destroyed every day because no one will adopt them," said he. No one will even adopt The Kitten. (I couldn't do right by her, especially since Carolyn is allergic to 'em.) Three or four more cats will just be three or four more scrounging through trash cans, begging at back doors, living under houses, etc. I trust my friend so I decided it had to be done.

He put me in touch with an organization called The Stray Cat Alliance and they, in turn, put me in touch with a veterinarian who is part of their program and who handles strays for a very modest fee. (I called the vet down the street from me. He wants about $390. With this volunteer vet, it'll be more like seventy bucks.) So the problem now is how to get The Kitten to him.

Yesterday, I bought a plastic pet transport at Petco for twenty bucks. It turns out though that the vet won't accept a feral cat in anything but a humane-style cat trap. I pointed out to his assistant that I've made friends with The Kitten. She lets me pet her and I could probably grab her up and cram her into the pet transport. No, the assistant said. It must be a trap of the approved variety. So I've just returned from a local pet food store where I rented a trap for ten bucks a day. (Total price, which they'll charge to my Visa card if I don't return the trap is eighty bucks. I'm already thinking that if this goes past four days, I may just buy the thing. There will be other strays.)

While I was there, I saw something that reassured me I was doing the right thing. It was Cat Adoption Day at the pet shop and there must have been fifty orphan cats there in cages, begging passers-by to take them home. It was very sad…and I especially felt bad for a woman there who was in charge of finding homes for these lovely animals. I talked with her a few moments and learned how she's always racing against time to get the cats adopted, and how it shatters her heart to think of how many she hasn't been able to save. When I told her what I was doing, she said, "Thank God…I wish more people would do this. They don't realize the problem they're creating by not getting their pets neutered."

So I'm home with the trap. The Kitten always comes around in the evening and lately — a tip-off that she's probably eating for more than one — in the morning, as well. I don't want to trap her tonight and make her suffer in the cage all night so I'm going to try it in the A.M. I'll report back here and let you know how things go.

Stephen Colbert speaks of "The Colbert Bump" — a boost in a candidate's popularity after an appearance on The Colbert Report. Is there such a thing? Amazingly, for some who go on his show, yes.

I have here a mess o' e-mails asking me what the hell is going on with the two actors' guilds in Hollywood…and by the way, why are there two actors' guilds? Taking the second question first, the reasons are largely immaterial but they flow from how the various fields — radio, TV, film — evolved. One of the caprices of labor law is that it likes stability. If a particular employer/union structure is established, it's usually maintained forever, even though the industry may have evolved and a new structure might have become more appopriate. (This is why Animation Writers have had such trouble getting out of The Animation Guild and into the Writers Guild.)

So we now have SAG (The Screen Actors Guild) and AFTRA (The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) representing thespians in front of cameras and microphones. In theory, once upon a time, there was a bright line dividing their jurisdictions. SAG represented actors in movies, AFTRA represented performers on radio. Now, this next part is a drastic oversimplifaction but it'll do: As the television industry developed, some TV shows were done live, much like radio programs…so AFTRA claimed jurisdiction. And some TV shows were done in film, much like movies…so SAG stepped in there. After a while, the lines blurred, what with some shows done on tape, others done alternately live and on film (Jack Benny did his series both ways during some seasons), shows that combined live and film, etc. It pretty much came down to two unions carving up one industry, sometimes working together and at other times, butting heads.

Merging is discussed every few years and a lot of folks think it would be a good idea. Generally speaking though, it isn't the leadership or staff of a union that will talk about this but if it's going to be a true merger and not some sort of takeover with their union absorbing the other, they shy from it. The leadership in a union likes its power, the staff likes its salaries and security, and neither group is certain that they wouldn't lose what they like in a merger. This has often been the reason that the Writers Guild of America West and the Writers Guild of America East do not combine. I suspect that if it were truly up to the respective memberships, SAG and AFTRA would merge, as would the two WGAs. But it isn't up to them.

Perhaps what is happening now with SAG and AFTRA will make a marriage seem imperative…or perhaps one union will just go after the other with flame-throwers. Both actors' unions have contracts that expire on June 30. For 27 years, they've bargained in tandem but this time out, they're going their separate ways, with SAG negotiating first (commencing April 15) and AFTRA scheduled to follow on April 28. Just how this rift happened is one of those stories that varies depending on the source but it seems to have been the culmination of a great many fights over jurisdiction, and also over what business model for the future will best serve actors.

Many of the issues on the table for both unions will be ones already hammered out by the WGA and the DGA, and the ability of the actors to improve on the writers' and directors' terms will be limited. SAG is said to be much more militant than either WGA or DGA on upping the residuals from DVDs but no one seems to think they will be much more successful. They will have to work out some sort of rules as to when the actors' union(s) will cover "new media" (mainly, programming made for the Internet) but that shouldn't be a strike issue. SAG also has some proposals regarding implied endorsements for product placements, and also some possible reclassification of people in "reality" shows who are not paid/treated as actors. Those should not be strike issues, either.

What might be is if the studios try to lowball the actors on the same points that triggered the WGA walkout, primarily the fees for shows streamed over the Internet or downloaded from there. Also, SAG is looking to improve the lot of what they call the "middle level" actors — the ones who don't get the huge deals and who are being hurt a lot by productions moving to Canada or otherwise out of the L.A. area. So will there be a strike? If so, it'll be because the AMPTP member companies try the aforesaid lowball. A number of actors seem to be worried that the divorce is practically an invitation for a rotten offer; that the studios will figure they can now divide and conquer, playing one union against the other.

An informal poll of my friends who are both SAG and AFTRA yields a 100% preference for the SAG leadership in this matter and a wish that AFTRA would just fall in line and adopt a "me too" posture. I do not claim this is a representative sampling of actors and I'm sure AFTRA must have its partisans. But everyone has to be at least a little scared about venturing into these uncharted waters. What if one union strikes and the other doesn't? The networks could just suspend all the shows covered by the striking union and ramp up production on shows handled by the union not on strike. It might turn into a contest of the two unions trying to "out-tough" each other or they might wind up undercutting each other.

So what'll happen? No one has a clue. That's what's so scary.

My feeling is that but for this split, SAG was in a great position to negotiate a mature, meaningful contract without a labor stoppage. There's a strong consensus in this town that the folks at the AMPTP screwed up royally by allowing the WGA strike to happen; that someone got greedy, thought they could bluff the writers into taking a bad deal…and wound up costing the industry billions and billions of dollars, to say nothing of audience loyalty. The thinking was that they wouldn't make the same mistake with the actors…but somewhere in the ranks of the studios, there has to be someone thinking they can use the rift to get back from the actors the gains they didn't want to have to give the writers or directors.

If that's the case, we could have labor unrest in Hollywood that will make the WGA action seem like a potato race. I don't think that's going to happen. But the other day, I was talking with a producer who was going to shoot his new movie beginning in June. He's just postponed it, just in case. He doesn't think there will be an actors' strike (or even two actors' strikes) but he's not willing to take that risk.

In comic book shops now! Many Happy Returns is a new comic anthology which resurrects comic book features of the past. I'm not saying "great comic book features of the past" because one of the ones in its first issue is a new Crossfire tale, written by Yours Truly and drawn by Dan Spiegle. Dan and I did Crossfire for many years in the eighties and we both get a lot of "Hey, any chance of you bringing that one back?" Well, that one's back for one eight-page story in this book, which also features William Messner-Loebs' Journey and Nat Gertler's Licensable Bear™ and more.

Many Happy Returns was made possible by Happy Harbor Comics, a chain of shops in and around Alberta, Canada. I thank them for giving Dan and me the chance to revisit our boy. I hope you enjoy it and I hope we have more opportunities to bring him back. Because we missed him.

So this A.M., I get up at an ungodly hour to take someone to the airport. On the way back, I stop off for a bite o' breakfast at Pann's, a "Googie" style coffee shop located not far south of LAX. It's one of those places that you might frequent for the homey atmosphere or even for the architecture, but the food's pretty good, too.

Now, you may need to picture this. I'm sitting at the counter eating Something and Eggs, and two stools to my left, there's a man wearing blue sweats and he's talking. At first, I think he's talking to me but then I realize he has a Bluetooth® headset in the ear I can't see and he's talking to someone else.

And then a minute or three later, I notice that in a booth to my right, about ten feet away, a guy in a security guard uniform is sitting and eating and he also is talking on a Bluetooth® headset. It's an interesting contrast to the fifties' decor of Pann's: All these people sitting around, communicating via space-age contraptions.

And then a couple of minutes later, I realize the following: That the other party with whom the fellow in the blue sweats is conversing is the security guard in my right. They're talking to each other. In fact, just as I'm figuring this out and I'm still not completely certain, the gent to my left says, "Oh, you should have seen this cake…it was this big!" And he holds his hands up so that the security guard can see them and get some idea how big that cake was. Later, when the security guard has to leave, he comes over and shakes hands with Mr. Blue Sweats and then he walks out of the restaurant…and all this time, the conversation is continuing.

I'm not sure how I feel about this or even if it's necessary for me to have any reaction at all. I'm just hoping neither of them said, "Well, it's been nice having breakfast with you."

I got a lot of replies to my query about the smell at Subway sandwich shops. This message, from a person who asked to remain anonymous, touches on a lot of points that were in other messages…

The problem is that despite what the ads might lead you to believe, Subway shops do not bake their own bread from scratch. They thaw and then bake frozen dough. I'm not sure if it's in the thawing or the baking or both but the smell comes mostly from that. I realized that from working there and noticing when the smell was at its worst. It clings to the pans and racks that are used in the baking process and it also clings to the people who work there, as any of their family members with attest. I think it has something to do with the yeast in the dough.

I think it also comes partly from the marinara sauce with the meatballs in it, especially if we haven't been selling a lot of meatball sandwiches that day. The longer the meatballs sit in that sauce, the more you can smell them throughout the shop. The smell you notice is a combination of those two fragrances.

And I will note that every Subway employee who wrote to me (and two Blimpy staffers) mentioned taking the smell home with them in their clothes and hair.

By the way: I know this will horrify some of you but I kinda like Subway sandwiches. In the last year or two, I've lost my taste for most fast food. Burger King, McDonald's, KFC…all those used to be okay in a pinch. Now, I have to be really pinched to eat them because they don't even offer the cheap taste thrills they used to impart. Even the beloved In-and-Out Burgers aren't as yummy as they once were to me. However, Subway's tuna sandwiches or even their odd-smelling meatball subs are still okay when I'm trapped in Food Court Hell at an airport or somewhere.

What is that weird aroma that all enclosed Subway sandwich shops seem to have? They claim to bake their own bread in those places but they never smell to me like a bakery. They smell like…well, I don't know what they smell like but no other kind of business, and certainly no restaurant, has that odd Subway smell. The subways in New York don't even smell like that and they can smell pretty odd.

Jim Mooney's hometown newspaper runs a nice obit on him. (One quibble: Jim did not create Supergirl, nor did he ever so claim.)

From the Corrections page of The New York Times…

A picture caption with an article on Saturday about a legal victory for the heirs of Jerry Siegel, a creator of the Superman action character, misstated the given name of his co-creator. He was Joe Shuster, not Max. The article also misspelled Mr. Siegel's family name as Seigel in one reference.