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.

In 1959, while making movies for Paramount Studios, Jerry Lewis also ran a little comedy workshop on the lot via which he hoped to discover and nurture new talent. That was where a comic actor named Charlie Brill met a comic actress named Mitzi McCall. They became a comedy team and a married couple and today is the 60th anniversary of the latter union.

They appeared just about everywhere a comedy team could appear — talk shows, game shows, Sullivan, Vegas, Laugh-In…but are probably best-remembered for their agonizing appearance on Ed Sullivan's 2/9/64 TV show where they were on the bill with The Beatles and much of the audience wasn't interested in anyone else. A lot of you know them from the game shows, especially Tattletales where some of the interplay would leave you amazed that they didn't divorce right after some tapings.

But they didn't. Though they bicker offstage (I've been to their home) as much as they did on Tattletales, today is indeed The Big Six-Oh. They may have the most rock-solid marriage in all of show business.

They're lovely, funny people who've had good careers, both together and apart. I am so happy they have each other.

In 2017, the Mark Twain Award went to David Letterman. Here's his acceptance…

Daniel Klos wrote to pose an interesting question…

Regarding your recent post on It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (I think I have the correct number of "Mads" in there), I know it's your favorite film, but if you saw it today for the first time as a 67-year-old man in 2020, do you think you would like it? Meaning, how much of your affection for it is because of the film itself, and how much of it is because of the circumstances surrounding it when you first saw?

This is not meant to cast judgment on your taste in film. Just curious if, divorced from your history with the film, it would be something that would appeal to the current you if you had never seen it before.

It's hard to imagine me making it to age 67 without seeing a movie that starred Sid Caesar, Jonathan Winters, Phil Silvers, et cetera, et cetera. I loved that kind of comic performer before I saw Mad World and I loved them more after I saw it. It's definitely a product of its time but also an important part of my childhood…and if you're thinking I might not be able to completely separate those two things, you're right. But I love seeing those performers and I love seeing them interact.

For those reading this who don't know: I saw this movie for the first time on 11/23/63. It was one day after Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John F. Kennedy and one day before Jack Ruby murdered Lee Harvey Oswald. There was a lot of emotion in this country that Saturday. My parents were given tickets by some friends who'd purchased them in advance but were too depressed to leave the house. We took them because my parents were too depressed to stay home and watch the sad coverage on TV. So that underscored my first viewing of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

That was part of my experience that night but probably not a major part. It was a life-changing experience when I was eleven and I can draw a line between that evening and who I am now. I think I would like it very much if I saw it for the first time today but I'd sure ask, "How the hell did I miss this 'til now?" And I might not be the same 67-year-old person enjoying it.

Here's a rerun from May of 2014. A couple of readers of this blog have written to say it was of value to them so I thought I'd give it another airing. I'll be back later with something new but for now…

For a guy who's pretty healthy, I find that I have an amazing number of doctors. I have my Primary Care Physician, of course, but my phone book also contains the numbers of my dermatologist, my dentist, my ophthalmologist, my gastroenterologist, my proctologist, my urologist, my cardiologist, my podiatrist, my orthopedist and a vascular surgeon who helped me with a circulatory problem relating to my recent knee problems. (I am only listing doctors to whom I will probably return some day. There's also, for instance, the gent who performed my Gastric Bypass Surgery in 2006.)

Generally what happens is that my Primary Care Physician (or P.C.P. for short) refers me to a specialist and I go to see that specialist and I either like that specialist and continue to see him or her as needed…or I don't like that specialist and I go in search of someone else who does that same thing. I went to five dermatologists before I found one I liked enough to call my own. I also went through a couple of P.C.P.s before I found the one I have now.

What made me not like certain doctors? My main complaint has not been their competence as men and women of medicine. I've only left two because of that. Mainly what's driven me away has been not being able to get their attention. When I went to them, they either were in too much of a hurry to get on to their next patient or they passed me on to a Physician's Assistant in their offices.

The worst of the "too busy" guys was a world-famous nutritionist I went to long before 2006, before I had my weight generally under control. I asked my current P.C.P. to send me to the best nutritionist he knew of and he recommended a man I'll call Dr. Occupado. "He's a genius," my P.C.P. said…but he added, "You may have trouble getting an appointment." Sure enough, when I called up, they said the next opening they had was in the middle of May. I was calling the first week of March.

I made the appointment anyway and showed up on time, expecting to spend a half-hour or more discussing my various eating disorders and food allergies and what I should and shouldn't eat. Instead, I waited well over an hour for a whopping five minutes with Dr. Occupado. He gave me some good information before bolting for his next appointment…but how much good can a doctor do you in five minutes? I never even got to tell him about the allergies…and since he charged above 'n' beyond what my insurance would pay, I spent about $100 for those five minutes.

Still, I sensed this was a brilliant doctor who could help me so on my way out, I made another appointment…and I got lucky. He had an opening in June.

In June, I went back and after another considerable wait, got another five minutes from Dr. Occupado. He had, he explained as he walked in, an interview waiting for a very important magazine. I started wondering if any of the magazines I worked for would send me to interview him but at that moment, the only one was Groo the Wanderer and all I would have gotten was nutritional information on cheese dip.

Still, the five minutes I got were not without their benefit and I still thought the man knew his business so on the way out, I stopped at the desk. The woman there asked me, "Would you like to make an appointment for your next visit?" I said, "No, I'd like to make four appointments for my next visit. I would like to book four appointments, one right after another."

This was me trying to outgame the system…which once in a while in this world, it's possible to do. I figured this way, he couldn't leave me for his next appointment because I would be his next appointment. And I had this crazy idea that this "stunt" would make him realize I needed some special attention and maybe he'd see me for as long as I needed, if not that day then someday.

For about thirty seconds, I thought I was so, so clever. That was until the woman said as she paged through her calendar, "I'm sorry but if you want four appointments with him, they'll be in July, September, late October and then there's one open just before we close down for Christmas."

I asked, "Does he have four consecutive appointments open any day in July?" She said, "Yes but other patients have tried this and I've been told not to book them that way."

I left without making even one appointment.

The lasting value of my attempts to actually get doctored by Dr. Occupado was this: Since then, when I meet a new doctor, I try to find a way to work that tale into the conversation. It's my way of telling them up front what I consider lousy doctoring, just to see what they say. Many of them know of Dr. Occupado and nod in understanding…and then they make sure they spend enough time with me. Either that or they show their true colors early on and I can quickly write them off as a long-term relationship.

None of my current specialists ever rushes me but I couldn't have written those words two days ago. Yesterday, I made a change. Over the last year or two, one doctor began going the Physician's Assistant route. It wasn't that I could only see him for five minutes. I couldn't see him at all. I'd make an appointment with him, go into the examining room to await his usually-delayed entry…and instead. a P.A. would come into the examining room, introduce him or herself, and begin doing his job for him.

So, what exactly is a Physician's Assistant?

A physician assistant or associate is a healthcare professional who is licensed to practice medicine as part of a team with physicians. Physician assistants are concerned with preventing and treating human illness and injury by providing a broad range of health care services under the direction of a physician or surgeon. Physician assistants conduct physical exams, diagnose and treat illnesses, order and interpret tests, prescribe medications, counsel on preventive health care and may assist in surgery.

In other words, "I'm not a doctor but I play one in a doctor's office."

The bait-and-switch did not sit well with me and the Physician's Assistants — I went through three there — told me so little, I had the feeling they were researching my condition on Wikipedia. That, by the way, is where I found the above definition.

I have no idea how much the first P.A. knew about the particular area of medicine because English was not his first language. It did not seem to be his second, third or eighth, either. I am used to not being able to understand the nouns doctors use but with this guy, I couldn't parse the verbs, adjectives or adverbs, and only the occasional article. After three visits where I felt like I was being treated by Sid Caesar, I specified that my next appointment be with The Doctor himself.

I went to see him, waited in the examining room…and in came a different P.A. He was a nice guy and I could understand him. But my insurance and I were paying full price and I was getting about a third of a doctor.

On the way out of my second and what I'd decided would be my last appointment with P.A. #2, I ran into the real doctor in the hallway. He was all smiles until I told him I was not happy seeing people from a temp agency instead of him. "I supervise them all very carefully," he assured me. "They're giving you the exact same treatment you would get from me."

I said, "Are you telling me that these people who do not have the legal right to call themselves 'doctors' know as much as you do?" He said no, of course not, though someday they might. I said, "Well, it's my health here and I'd kinda like to entrust it to the most knowledgeable person in this office. Every time I come here, there are more and more names on your door. On my way in, I checked for mine because I thought it had to be a list of patients."

He laughed, apologized and promised that my next visit there would be with him…and it was. Unfortunately, there was also this woman there, observing and listening and taking notes. And after ten or so minutes, he turned me over to P.A. #3 and left. So now I've left him.

My P.C.P. gave me a new referral and I got all my records from the busy specialist's office and gave them to the new guy. The new guy isn't a new guy to medicine — he's been practicing for thirty years — but he's new to me. And he doesn't have any Physician's Assistants. When I go there, there'll be nobody there for me to see but him.

Matter of fact, he needed some blood from me and I figured he'd do what every single doctor of my lifetime has done, which is to call in a nurse and have her take it. Instead, he had me roll up my sleeve and he hauled out the equipment and took it himself. I'm 62 years old and I can't recall a person with the title of "doctor" ever taking blood from me before.

His nurse had taken my blood pressure and jotted down my height and weight before I saw him, and I asked him why she wasn't taking my blood. He leaned in very confidentially and told me, "It makes her squeamish." I think I'm going to like this guy.