And speaking of James Corden, here from his show tonight he "comes clean" on the subject of whether he drives the car in his "Carpool Karoke" segments. We discussed this issue back here and back here and came to the conclusion that he does drive it all or most of the time. Since then, I have seen him with some star cruising my neighborhood and at least at that moment, Mr. Corden was driving…

Here's a long profile of James Corden. I really like James Corden everywhere except on his show where he fawns too much over too many people unworthy of such fawning. At the time he got the CBS late night job, he was prepping to star in a new revival of my favorite musical, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and I wish he'd done that for a year or two and then taken over The Late Late Show. I think he was an excellent (though wholly unpredictable) choice for the latter job but I would have loved to see him in the former.

The other day, President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shared what they called a "peace plan" for an enduring peace between Israel and Palestine. But it wasn't really a peace plan. It was more like surrender terms. A real peace plan might have had Palestine participating in its formulation.

Here we have another case where Fred Kaplan of the Liberal site Slate had almost the exact same reaction to a hunk of news as Daniel Larison from the American Conservative. At a time when so many partisan sites argue the exact opposite of one another, it's worth considering a little bit of agreement.

When I was working on the TV show That's Incredible! in the eighties, we did a lot of stories about people who did daring things, leaping off this or over that or otherwise risking their lives. At one point, someone at ABC became concerned — as some of us on the staff were — that the show was glorifying that kind of risk-taking.

Then along came a story — all filmed and edited and ready-to-air — that seemed a bit excessive in that direction. I was not involved in putting together the segment but I was the guy who would have to write the lines by which John Davidson would introduce it. Someone on our staff we'll call Mike was supervising and editing the piece and he told me, "The network's asking us to shoot and include a brief interview with a psychologist or someone like that to explain why people take such risks."

I asked Mike how he went about finding such a person and he reached for a little box of file cards on his desk, a box that others in his department often accessed.

"Easy," he said. "I just consult the master list of Quote Whores." And sure enough, a label on the front of the box actually said that. It said, "Quote Whores."

Quote Whores, he explained, were people who would say anything to get on television. A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g. There were about thirty 3-by-5 cards in the box and he riffled through them until he found the name of a well-known, seen-often-on-your-TV psychologist.

I will not tell you who it was but some of you would recognize the name. This person did a lot of TV and in so doing, promoted a lot of high-selling books and was hired for consulting jobs and media appearances. I have no idea how good a psychologist this person was but they never, Mike told me, said no to any chance to be on TV or radio even for free. They knew the value of being famous and being on television.

He placed a call to the well-known, seen-often-on-your-TV psychologist and explained what was needed. The well-known, seen-often-on-your-TV psychologist apparently said, "Send your crew over" and Mike and a two-person camera crew hopped in a car. Upon their return, the footage was edited into the segment and before the day was out, Mike showed me the finished (he thought) piece as it would air.

It now included about thirty seconds of the well-known, seen-often-on-your-TV psychologist explaining why certain people need to risk their lives occasionally and how it demonstrated a certain deep, personal need to prove one's courage to one's self and to reinforce a sense of identity and blah blah blah. It sounded like psychobabble to me, probably because it was.

The finished (Mike thought) piece was dispatched to the network to see if they liked it. They didn't like it.

The next morning, an ABC Standards and Practices person (or someone there) told Mike, "No, no…you misunderstood. We want the expert to say that people who risk their lives like this have some sort of clinical disregard for their own lives and feeling of worthlessness." Or at least they wanted something like that. Whatever it was, it was the opposite of what the well-known, seen-often-on-your-TV psychologist had said.

Mike apologized and promised to get what was requested. Then he went to the Quote Whores box…and did he now find a different "expert" who would say what was now needed? No, he called the same one.

The same well-known, seen-often-on-your-TV psychologist said, "Come on back here" and three hours later, the segment was finished with the same expert spewing psychobabble that precisely contradicted the previous day's psychobabble.

I was surprised that someone with a reputation to protect would do something like that…and then after I thought it over a little longer, I was surprised that I was surprised. My cynicism should have kicked in way earlier.

What separated the well-known, seen-often-on-your-TV psychologist from any other psychologist was that the well-known, seen-often-on-your-TV psychologist was a well-known, seen-often-on-your-TV psychologist. That person knew, as did all who inhabit Quote Whores boxes everywhere, the value of being well-known and seen-often-on-TV.

So that's the story I have for you today. You might be interested to know what reminded me of it. I was reading this article about Alan Dershowitz and also this article about Alan Dershowitz. Once upon a time, in a more innocent pre-O.J. time, I really respected the well-known, seen-often-on-your-TV legal authority, Alan Dershowitz.

Here's a strange article. David Letterman hosted the Academy Awards in 1995 to generally unfavorable reaction. Jason Bailey thinks Dave did a great job and interviewed him about it, apparently with the goal of convincing him it wasn't the disaster he [Dave] made it out to be.

Personally, I don't think a lot of people care very much about who hosts the Oscars and certainly not for very long after the ceremony. I don't really get why it's a discussion topic twenty-five years later. For what it's worth, I wrote about my feelings on this timely topic a few years ago here…

Within the Academy hierarchy though, they weren't fond of Letterman as host…The complaint was along the lines of, "Dave didn't understand or care that this wasn't supposed to be The David Letterman Show with occasional interruptions to present some silly awards. The man only knows one way to do a TV show and he kept expecting everything to be done that way." My feeling was that it was a slightly-unfair criticism. You ask Dave Letterman to host your show, you shouldn't moan when he comes in and acts like Dave Letterman. I thought he was the wrong guy for the job but he did just what they should have expected and he was more entertaining than some Oscar hosts…like, say, most of them.

This is a wild speculation but I'm thinking that Letterman's disappointment with the night was that proved, at least to him, that he wasn't Johnny Carson. I'm not saying his talk show was better or worse than Carson's…

No, come to think of it, I will. I think the first half of his late night talk show career was better than Johnny's and the last half wasn't. But the point is he wasn't the all-around entertainer Carson was, capable of letting most others shine.

Mr. Bailey's article says "Some of the most scathing reviews came from the West Coast, whose inhabitants may have resented this outsider, this New York wiseass, flying in to make light of their big night." I don't think it was that at all. West Coast inhabitants haven't changed that much in a quarter-of-a-century and the current crop doesn't seem to resent Ricky Gervais pissing all over the Golden Globe Awards and their recipients. I just think Letterman didn't seem to connect with the ceremony he was hosting just as in his later years on CBS, he didn't seem to be that interested in most of his guests or the show with his name in the title or even with his own monologues. But when he was good…

There's been a little back-and-forth on the Internet with reports of the passing of the fine comedy writer-performer Jack Burns. He had died, then maybe he had not died, then he'd died, then he was definitely still with us, then he'd died…this was all within about the last 18 hours. His manager has now confirmed that, sadly, the "he died" people were correct…but respect to those who were cautious and/or optimistic.

I knew Jack a little. He was a charming guy, even funnier off-stage than on…and he could be pretty darned funny on-stage. His career was pretty simple: He teamed with George Carlin for a two-man act that made a lot of noise. George later struck out on his own. Jack teamed with Avery Schreiber, who was probably a better contrast/complement. They were everywhere for a while but not exclusively. When Don Knotts left The Andy Griffith Show, Jack played Andy's new deputy for a while. It didn't work, mostly because Jack had committed the unforgivable sin of not being Don Knotts.

But he was still a fine comedy performer, prominent enough to host Saturday Night Live during its second season. And then he made the slow move to behind the camera as a producer and writer. On Fridays, ABC's knock-off of SNL, Jack was an off-camera producer-writer and an on-camera announcer. A lot of folks remembered his feigned on-camera fist fight with Andy Kaufman. He worked on Hee-Haw and The Muppet Show and even delved into voice work for cartoons now and then. He was on Wait Till Your Father Gets Home and on Animaniacs and I cast and directed him in the recurring role of Detective Fogarty on Mother Goose & Grimm…and that's only a partial list.

You can find out more about his career in this obit and I imagine there will be many more posted before the day is out.

I always liked the guy and from what I could see, everyone else did, as well. I remember one of his outstanding performances was as the M.C. at the memorial service for his late partner Avery Schreiber. He spoke with love and affection and also — and we all knew that Avery would have wanted it this way — got some enormous laughs. I hope someone does that for Jack.

As Jonathan Chait notes, "Many Republicans started the process believing 1) President Trump did not demand investigation in return for aid but that 2) doing so would be unacceptable. They now believe the opposite on both points." And that's what happened. When they thought he hadn't done it — or at least that that couldn't be proven — they said it would be a very bad, even criminal thing for Trump to do. But now that it's pretty obvious he did it, it's no big deal, just politics as usual and certainly not an impeachable offense.

Mr. Chait has also written this article about why he thinks Bernie Sanders is not the guy to defeat Donald Trump and Willam Saletan wrote this article arguing the same thing. My opinion doesn't mean a whole lot and it is very much subject to change…but right this minute, I think they're probably right. And neither article even mentions another problem, apart from the Socialist label that Sanders has as a candidate: His age and his recent heart attack. There's a lot of grueling campaigning ahead and any medical problems could become a big election issue. Remember how much traction Trump claimed when Hillary had a cold.

But do read Eric Levitz on why the Democratic party needs to embrace or at least accept support from those who may not be as ideologically pure as some of us might like. I think this is a very wise, important observation. It will be of special interest to those who believe (and I don't think I do) that Trump will cry "Foul!' and refuse to accept defeat, and that if we want to get him to actually vacate the Oval Office, he has to be beaten by a landslide. That's all for now.

The Washington Post has been doing excellent reporting lately. Must be because they added Cookie Monster to their staff a year or two ago…

Charles P. Pierce reminds us how Ken Starr is one of those people who long ago lost the moral right to scold anyone about anything. One quote…

Speaking in the condescending tones of a Baptist preacher who you know has bondage gear stashed in a steamer trunk somewhere, Starr presumed to lecture the Senate on the parameters of its constitutional duties. It was altogether remarkable to hear the author of a soft-core-porn-novella of an impeachment report wax sententiously, and in cathedral tones, about being in "democracy's ultimate court." It was altogether remarkable to hear a guy who lost his job at Baylor University after he oversaw a period where the school's athletics department was plagued by sexual-assault allegations lecture a chamber full of lawyers about how precious due process is. If a more sanctimonious toad than Kenneth Starr ever has crawled through American politics, I'm hard-pressed to know who it was.

A few years ago, a producer I know slightly asked me if I had any ideas for Reality Shows because that's what he's producing these days…or at least trying to sell. I told him I didn't because my mind, to the extent it works at all, doesn't work in that direction. He said, "Well, if it ever does work that way, remember the fundamental rule of Reality Shows." I know when to be the straight man in a discussion so I asked what that rule was.

He said, "There is nothing you can think of that someone won't do to get on television."

He was thinking of feats involving physical danger, eating insects, getting naked, humiliating themselves and/or their families…things like that. But it strikes me that it also extends to folks who once advocated a position on allegedly moral or legal grounds now advocating the exact opposite because they think that at this precise moment, doing so will yield fame and/or fortune. And in so doing, making you wonder if they ever stood for anything, then or now.

• Ken Starr urges the Senate to "restore our constitutional and historical traditions" when impeachment was rare and only about truly important matters. You know, like lying about an affair.

Lin-Manuel Miranda gives us a lesson in the slang of Broadway…

Good morning. If you're wondering what all this talk is about John Bolton's book, Jonathan Chait summarizes it pretty well. The whole Trump defense hinges on there not being one witness who testified under oath that they heard Trump give the order that Ukraine was not to get the money (or a few other perks) until they announced an investigation into the corruption of the Bidens so Trump could cite that as evidence the Bidens were corrupt.

It's doubtful any of Trump's defenders thought he didn't give that order. They were just clinging to the legal point that no one testified under oath that they'd heard him give it. But it turns out that John Bolton is willing to testify under oath and in Bolton's as-yet-unpublished book, Bolton said, yes, he heard Trump give that order. So now it comes down to trying to prevent him from testifying.

Might work. Trump has a way of "winning" by technicalities, not actual victories…you know, like "winning" the presidency (and an alleged clean mandate) without actually getting the most votes. But if they do block Bolton or other witnesses who might be equally destructive to their case, they'll "win" on a technicality, not because there was an actual finding of the truth. No wonder one of O.J. Simpson's lawyers felt comfortable joining the team.

I know the main thing on your mind this weekend: What's going on with those feral cats in Evanier's backyard? Not a whole lot that I can see. Lydia is in her little house most of the time. Murphy (above) drops by for a few hours a day and spends most of them as far from Lydia as is possible be in that yard.

Here we see him (or her, the gender still being undetermined) way over on the other side of the pool, nowhere near her. But Murphy "talks" a lot and occasionally, he seems to be communicating somehow with Lydia, albeit from some distance. I remember when I was like that with girls.

When I put food out on the back porch, Lydia scampers over and eats her fill, then washes a bit and trots back into her abode. There seems to be an understanding that if she leaves food in the dish, Murphy can come over and partake of whatever she didn't eat. Since Lydia doesn't mind, I guess I don't mind. But Murphy scampers back to his/her side of the pool if Lydia comes back to eat some more. Murphy also flees if he/she sees me looking his/her way. The above photo was taken from some distance with a real good lens.

A third, larger cat also showed up the other night for a quick snack but by the time I could grab the camera, it had disappeared. It will have to be around more than that before I consider it part of my little mob out there, give it a name and refer to it with a more human pronoun than "it." It's only fair.

If you're the kind of person who goes to cabaret-type performances by people who sing showtunes, you've probably heard (many times!) "Everybody Wants To Be Sondheim," a song written by — and performed here by — Alan Chapman. In his intro to it, he talks about inspiration coming from a trip to the now-defunct Aron's Records store on Highland Avenue here in Los Angeles. I wrote about Aron's here during its last days of being funct.

It was quite a place and I'd be surprised if there were very many people in Los Angeles in those days who wrote songs but never passed through its doors. Here's what Mr. Chapman was moved to write. Thanks to Joe Brancatelli for telling me about this video…

I finally watched some clips and replays from the hearings, especially Adam Schiff's closing summation which displayed a decorum and reliance on facts that we don't often see these days in footage of the House or Senate or even the town council in some small burgs. If I knew more about his positions, I might find myself wishing Schiff was running for President…though I guess he wouldn't be as effective as a House impeachment Manager if he was.

I think he and the other House Managers did about as good a job as they could do playing a rigged game. Today, Republicans seem to be dismissing it all saying "they didn't have the information" while Trump brags that he managed to stonewall and not give them the information they wanted. Seems to me the Dems went through all this for two main reasons. One is that the rank-and-file members of their party were demanding they had to do something and this keeps those folks from getting frustrated that their party is not willing to fight.

And the second reason is to force all the Republicans who are up for re-election to tether themselves to Trump. A lot of Repubs are in districts and states where blind obedience and/or cowardice to D.J.T. is a liability and now they're blamable for every crooked thing Trump does in the future. Wouldn't you like to be the Democrat running against Martha McSally in Arizona after she votes to let Trump keep doing what he's doing?

Anyway, that's about all I want to say about this now. I'd like to remind you that I believe there will be dozens of new issues before we vote for President and that this race will get messier and angrier and that it will ultimately be about a number of things that haven't occurred or been exposed yet. Therefore…

If someone on the other side tells you that your side is definitely going to lose, they're probably trying to do one of both of two things. One is to convince themselves that it's going to go that way when they worry it won't. The other is to enjoy the expression on your face if that statement drives you into any visible amount of despair. Some people just like to say things to upset others…which reminds me: I will soon have another post up here on the topic of schadenfreude.

And if someone on your side tells you that your side is definitely going to lose, they're probably just the kind of people who go through life giving up before there's any reason to or expecting the worst to always happen.

Although I do think it's not too soon to presume Senate Republicans will vote unanimously to acquit and Trump will claim that this is incontrovertible proof that he's never done anything illegal or even unwise in his entire life and since all investigations and accusations against him are false, we need to punish those who make them.