In June of 2009, I attended a performance of what was billed as the "first last tour" of the flamboyant Dame Edna Everage. In January of 2015, I attended a performance of what was billed — with apparent seriousness and an ending that made it pretty clear — of his/her actual final tour. I wrote here then, "If it turns out there's another [tour], I'm going to feel a little baited 'n' switched…but I'll probably go again then, anyway."

Looks like I'm going to get another chance to see comedian Barry Humphries in his greatest role. He (or she, if you prefer) is about to embark on a tour around Australia. And if he/she plays Australia, he/she will play America. I'll probably be attending final tours until I can't do it any longer…and Dame Edna will continue on without me.

Sergio Aragonés, Stan Sakai and I — three-fourths of the squad that makes Groo the Wanderer comics — will be guests at the Heroes Con in Charlotte, North Carolina from June 14 to June 16. This is a rare venturing outta the state for Sergio and me. Stan goes everywhere people know his great comic Usagi Yojimbo…which is, of course, everywhere. But Sergio and I rarely go to cons outside California so this is an outlier…and I think my first time in North Carolina.

Sergio and Stan will be selling sketches and books. I'll be selling nothing but I will be doing some panels, including one with Sergio and Stan. I'll tell you more about it when I know more about it. In the meantime, if you want to make it to Heroes Con, here's a link to their website.

I just set my DVR (which is no longer a TiVo and I'll explain why one of these days) to record Jordan Klepper's new show on Comedy Central. It's called Klepper — which must have taken them months to think of — and it debuts May 9.

I liked Mr. Klepper a lot on The Daily Show and a bit less on his own show, The Opposition. The trouble with the latter was that they had him playing a right-wing nutcase so he was working an area that had already been strip-mined by Stephen Colbert.  And since they ratcheted up the intensity, it made him pretty unpleasant. It's also difficult to parody Alex Jones when Alex Jones is doing such a fine job of that.

Klepper is devoted to field pieces, which Klepper did so well on The Daily Show. These are longer and a much deeper dive into the topics he covers. Advance publicity is stressing that in one, he actually got arrested. In another, he was on a boat that capsized. Say what you will about the guy, he may be the gutsiest person to ever do that kind of thing for television. And when he isn't trying to do Alex Jones, I find him pretty funny. I hope I like this show.  It looks so promising.

I see people who are acting like it's a done deal that the next presidential ballot will be Trump v. Biden. I don't accept either side of that as inevitable…but just in case Biden is the guy for the Dems, it might be nice to know a little more about his record on foreign policy. This may not matter since Trump won with no record whatsoever on foreign policy but in case you want to know about Biden's, Fred Kaplan has summarized it for us.

Here's a short video about Sid and Marty Krofft, two men I had the pleasure of working for for many years…and as I just typed that, I realize that "working" is the wrong word. First off, you didn't work for the Kroffts. You got adopted into the family. Secondly, I'm not sure I can describe what it felt like but it certainly didn't feel like work.

That's Marty doing the talking in this video. He's right when he says they're the only guys who were doing TV for kids in the seventies who've survived to this day. And he's right when he says they remained independent — fiercely so. There's never been anything else like them and there never will be again…

Part One was here.  It was about how some people get really upset if you don't love what they love.  Part Two was here.  It was about how some people (including probably most of the same ones) get really upset when you do love something they don't love.  In particular, one guy I know from afar gets upset every time I say I love the movie It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and almost demands that I listen to him, agree it's terrible and stop loving it.

Why I would want to do this, I cannot understand.  Why would I want one less thing in this world that makes me happy?  Shouldn't we all have as many of those as we can find?  I wish I loved coffee because there sure are a lot of Starbucks around.

In Part Two, I predicted I'd get the same reprimanding e-mail from the guy I always get when I say I love I.A.M.M.M.M.W. I was wrong.  He phoned, instead.  I didn't record the call but I think I remember his in-depth analysis well enough to summarize…

This thing in it just isn't funny.  That thing it isn't funny.  There isn't a laugh in this whole sequence.  This performer is especially unfunny.  This particular part is especially long and unfunny.  The people who were sitting there laughing were wrong because it's not funny. And there! I have just proved without a shadow of doubt that the movie is not funny and you have to stop saying you like it.

Well, it went something like that.  And in every other sentence, he kept saying things like, "I know comedy" and "There isn't anyone who knows more about comedy than I do."  And that's really what this is all about. When I don't agree with him, I'm denying the infallible expertise he's so proud of.

You know, I sometimes understand this win-the-argument-at-all-costs mentality with regards to politics and things that actually harm human beings and impact their lives. I don't get getting so worked up over someone liking a movie you don't like or preferring Pepsi to Coca-Cola. It didn't involve me but I once watched a friendship of many years break up over the Pepsi/Coke thing.

Then, as with all of these, I couldn't help but think there was some emotional subtext driving the argument; that someone had some latent need of the "win" and the argument wasn't really about the argument. We might actually be able to discuss the merits of a movie like Mad World if we both agree that in the grand scheme of life, it really doesn't matter a whole heap.

I've been getting off Facebook forums lately because of folks who take things way too seriously or feel they have to give their opinions about every-friggin'-thing that passes under their noses. Please, people. Dial it back. Or at least save it for issues that might occasionally deserve raising one's voice a bit. My second agent had a line he used to use when he found himself in debates that were way outta proportion. He'd say, "Hey, this ain't the moon shot. Nobody dies if someone is wrong." Lately on the 'net, I find that line popping into my head more and more.

• I'm confused. Is the Trump Administration obstructing justice in a case of obstructing justice or are they obstructing justice in a case of obstructing justice in a case of obstructing justice?

I always liked the Kander-Ebb song, "Maybe This Time." Here it is performed on the TV show Glee by Kristin Chenoweth and Lea Michele. The blonde guy at the piano is my buddy Brad Ellis, with whom I've occasionally written songs that were not quite as successful as this one. Just as the ladies are lip-syncing to pre-recorded voice tracks, Brad is miming the accompaniment, probably to his own playing.

Most folks associate the song with the musical, Cabaret but it was written by John Kander and Fred Ebb in the early sixties and recorded in 1964 by Liza Minnelli. When Cabaret was first produced in 1966, the song was not in it. Then in 1972 when the movie version was produced, the song was included and it was sung there by…Liza Minnelli. It has since turned up in many stage productions and become quite the show-stopper…

Here's a recent "behind the scenes" visit to Sesame Street done by 60 Minutes Australia. The featured Muppet/Puppet performer interviewed in this is Martin Robinson, who portrays (among others) Telly Monster, Mr. Snuffleupagus and Slimey the Worm. With the retirement of Caroll Spinney as Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch, I believe Mr. Robinson has seniority among those who play characters made of cloth…

I'm trying to restrict my thinking about Donald Trump to fifteen minutes a day. Even that's probably too much because nothing I think, say or do is going to change anything. I feel certain that voters, en masse, will change things and I suspect there are investigators and law enforcement officials and, yes, even Congresspeople who believe in oversight who will change things. I am not, however, in those last three job descriptions.

A friend of mine called yesterday and wanted to discuss Trump and I said, "I'm sorry. I've already used up the fifteen minutes I am willing to spare today for that topic. Everything else I have to do today, including rearranging my sock drawer, is more important. Especially rearranging my sock drawer."

And what I was thinking in yesterday's fifteen minutes — and I'll take today's fifteen minutes to write it out here — is that I believe we overthink Donald Trump. We try to understand a mind that is way simpler than we expect to find in someone who becomes that famous and that powerful. All Donald Trump cares about is Donald Trump: The wealth of Donald Trump, the fame of Donald Trump, the crowds cheering Donald Trump…

Oh, yeah — and Donald Trump staying out of legal trouble. He seems to be thinking more and more about that these days. He may have fifteen minutes a day when he's not thinking about that.

The other day, he said something really, really stupid and untrue about abortion. He said, as I'm sure you've read: "The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby."

I assume I don't have to tell you why that's false or, at best, grossly misleading. But people are spending a lot of time arguing why he said that, what his agenda is, what he proposes to do to stop this crime as it exists in his imagination, etc. They're debating what he was thinking and my take is that he was thinking one thing and one thing only: "Hey, that's going to bring cheers from the kind of people who show up at my rallies."

He read it somewhere or he heard it somewhere and he knew it would thrill his devout followers and that's as far as it goes. Maybe somewhere down the line, he could get pressured into taking some action based on that false premise but when he says things, they're just things he says for immediate gratification. At some moment, he thinks it'll help him to promise a great new health plan or to praise Robert Mueller or to damn Robert Mueller or he loves Wikileaks or he never heard of Wikileaks or Mexico will pay for the wall or whatever it is.

Trump's like a guy I worked for once who would promise you a raise because he liked how nicely you'd treat him right after he said it. Later when you didn't get it and asked about it, it would be like, "What raise?" or even, "Oh, come on. You didn't really think I was going to give you a raise, did you?" He'd act genuinely astonished that you didn't understand that his words were just words and only of the moment. The only way to deal with someone like this is —

Oops. Sorry. Just looked at the clock and I've gone ten minutes over today's fifteen-minute allotment. Tomorrow, I'm only going to spend five minutes thinking about that man. Tomorrow's going to be a good day.

This year's nomination list for the Antoinette Perry Awards for Excellence in Broadway Theatre has been released. Having only seen one of the shows in contention, I have no particular opinions on their merits. But I do see, of course, a lot of online chatter expressing outrage and/or amazement at who or what was "snubbed."  I wish we could find a better word than that to describe not being nominated for an award.

This kind of competition works like this: They pick an arbitrary number as the maximum number of nominations that will be in each category. In this case, it's five unless there's a tie for the fifth spot, in which case the list includes whoever or whatever tied for that place. One assumes that's what happened this year in the category of Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in a Play, where there are six names.

We never know how many votes any nominee received but two of them got the same number to tie for fifth so they both got nominations. If someone received one vote less, that lady did not get a nomination and we somehow don't say, "She didn't make the cut." We say she was "snubbed," like the judges all sat around a table and someone said, "Hey, how about a nomination for Betsy?" and a majority of them said, like stuck-up frat boys, "Naw…let's not give it to her!" And then they all laughed an evil laugh, savoring the hurt she would feel when told her performance was utterly worthless.

And some would say she was robbed because the committee didn't take a nomination away from someone else to give it to Betsy. Then they could say that other person was robbed.

Look: Once you decide you're going to have five nominees, someone has to be in sixth place…and probably seventh place, eighth place and so on. If there are ten outstanding performances that year in the eyes of the judges, five outstanding performances get "snubbed." And I suspect that if there are three outstanding performances, they get nominated as do two that even the judges think aren't nearly as good.

In the category of Best Revival of a Musical, there are but two nominees since this year, there were only two revivals of musicals — Kiss Me, Kate and Oklahoma! This is one of the more controversial categories since Kiss Me, Kate is a rather traditional revival and Oklahoma! is a complete deconstruction or rethinking of the show. It has been celebrated by some but it has a number of folks wondering how the hell the Rodgers and Hammerstein Estate could have approved it. (Again, having seen neither I have no opinion on this but I've never been that fond of Oklahoma! in any form. I mean the show, not the state.)

Anyway, it always strikes me that "snubbed" is the wrong word. If I order a meal in a restaurant and I have to pick two sides…and I pick beans and fries, did I "snub" the mac & cheese and the creamed corn, both of which I would have liked?

The dictionary defines that verb as "to rebuff, ignore, or spurn disdainfully." It's definitely a negative. If there are nine great actors on Broadway and I have to pick five, how do I not "rebuff, ignore or spurn disdainfully" four great actors? I'm not suggesting we expand the nominations to nine or ten or any number. I'm suggesting we not act like you got slapped in the face to not be one of the five. Someone decided there could only be five.

The awards are, by the way, the opinions of a rather small group. The nominating committee is made up of 50 or less theatrical professionals who meet in secret to decide who and what to nominate and, of course, who and what to "snub." Less than 850 theatrical professionals vote on the final ballot and they're asked not to vote in any category where they haven't seen all the nominees.

I guess that's enough to do a proper job but I'll bet most people think the Tonys are the consensus of the entire theatrical community. That community is way larger than 850 people so maybe the real answer is that we shouldn't take awards like this that seriously. But of course, we will.

This is for those of you who live in or near Los Angeles. I occasionally write here to rave about and recommend Puppet Up!, an outrageous and hilarious show done by the Henson folks on no visible schedule. They last did it last September and they've just announced three shows — two the evening of June 8, one the afternoon of June 9. Tickets just went on sale here (like, an hour ago) and since they haven't done this in a while, they will almost certainly sell out.

No one under 21 is admitted because they sell alcohol and because the puppets say and do naughty things…and you can read more about it here. I'll be at the late show Saturday night. If you'd like to be at the late show Saturday night — or either of the others — act soon.

Another Randy Rainbow extravaganza!

This is Part Two of I-don't-know-how-many of A Cranky, Rambling Rant about how some people can't cope with you not liking what they like. Part One was here. It was about how my non-love of Star Trek bothered some people. This part is about the opposite situation: "How dare you like something I don't?"

I love the movie, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and every so often, I get scolded by someone who has a real problem with that; who wants to argue with me like I've made a grievous factual error which demands immediate retraction. There's one guy in particular who writes me every time I express any fondness for the film and the fate of mankind hinges on him being able to convince me that it's a horrible movie without one laugh in it. I'm sure that before he even got as far as this sentence, he began composing a scathing e-mail to me.

Right after he read the first sentence of the preceding paragraph, he surely thought, "Why the hell doesn't Evanier listen to me?" Then he probably began writing me the same stupid message about how he is an infallible expert on comedy and he saw the film thirty-some-odd years ago and he walked out on it around the time Buddy Hackett and Mickey Rooney flew the plane through the billboard because he knows what's funny and that, by God, is that.

Apparently, he's a far greater authority on what I like than I am. And all those people in theaters I've seen howling at this movie over the years…well, they're just plain wrong and everyone ought to tell them that.

Oh, he says things like "Everyone's entitled to their opinion" but he gets pretty irate when yours isn't his. He sounds like me advocating the criminal prosecution of those who make cole slaw except that I'm kidding — parodying the folks who think not pleasing them oughta be illegal, in fact — and he's serious. (In case your ability to recognize humor is as bad as his: I don't like cole slaw. Due to food allergies, I can't eat cole slaw. I have no earthly reason to care if you do.)

We are not all the same people, people! We are not supposed to all like the same things. We are not supposed to all think the same way. And when we could be using the Internet for educational or entertaining purposes or even to discuss issues that matter, too many of us are cluttering it with outrage because someone loves or doesn't love some TV show or movie or play or CD or comic book or something.

In the next of these — or maybe the one after — I'd like to discuss people who are not quite on board with the premise that time moves in only one direction. Thank you.