Last year, Netflix began running all of the movies made by Albert Brooks. When they did, he made this promo video for them…

Someone who for some reason didn't want me to use his name here did want me to answer this question…

As you surely know, there are a number of sites on the web where one can find credits for the creative personnel on comic books. Ideally, any credit on such a site that is not the product of confirming research would be tagged with a note like "attribution by Artemis Femur, Jan. 6, 2017," but regrettably, such notes are not often seen. This calls into question potentially every credit that is published on such a site (except those that a site user can confirm from the actual publication or other source; in which case, the website might be somewhat superfluous).

I have wondered about the precision of credits on such sites regarding your friend, Sergio Aragonés. Sergio is routinely credited on Groo and other comics with pencils and inks. And while I have no reason to doubt that the art on such comics is, in fact, Sergio's, I have somewhere gotten the idea that he generally approaches the blank page with pen (not pencil) in hand. For accuracy, would it be appropriate on such sites to leave blank the "Pencils" field, and to credit Sergio only in the "Inks" field? Or is it my own impression of his work habits that is inaccurate?

Your impression of his work is inaccurate. He does not pencil every single thing before he starts drawing in ink but neither do most artists who ink their own pencils. Sergio probably does less pencil work than any of them but he definitely does a lot more than you think. He kind of has to because it isn't just about drawing the people and things but designing the individual panels and the page as a whole, and making sure that Panel 1 leads properly to Panel 2 and that Panel 2 properly follows Panel 1. There's a lot of thinking on those pages and Sergio does a lot of his thinking with a pencil.

Now, if did work only in ink…well, the designations of "penciler" and "inker" on a comic book do not just refer to the art supplies in use. The penciler is the person who designs the panels, figures out what goes where and what each character will look like in each panel. So if someone does that but does all or most of it in ink, you should probably still refer to him or her as the penciler.

And before someone writes in to ask about the titles of "plotter" and "writer" on a comic book, you should know that I'm already on the job. Coming up shortly here, I have a series of articles that attempt to break down the writing process a bit. I think it's necessary because an awful lot of folks who write about comics use those terms with very different definitions. The first of these pieces will be along in the next week or so.

Going to be either away from the computer or obsessively pounding on it all day. Blogging will be light.

Hey, how about that Meryl Streep? Two of the many things Donald Trump doesn't get are (a) nobody really believes he wasn't mocking a disabled person that time. Even the people who defend him and kiss up to him or just plain want him to be President because he isn't Hillary and say he wasn't mocking a disabled person know he was mocking a disabled person. And then there's (b) even if Meryl Streep is "overrated"…well, that's the fault of the rating, not of her. And it's just hurling insults to change the subject. It's like if I catch you in an undeniable lie and since you can't deny it, you say, "Oh, yeah? Well, you're ugly!"

This is not a big deal but it's always a nice change when there's genuine news out of the Golden Globe Awards. I mean, is anyone surprised that Jimmy Fallon can't talk without a TelePrompter?

I'll be back when I'm back.

Here's Charlie Rosen's Big Band with a jazzy — perhaps too jazzy — rendition of a song from Guys and Dolls. The vocalist is Alysha Umphress…

The last few days, there were rumors around the 'net that top Democrats were urging Hillary Clinton to run for mayor of New York and that she was seriously considering it. Based on this article and a few others, I would say that that rumor was true except that no top Democrats were urging that and she was not considering it for a second.

We seem to be getting more and more of these "news stories out of nowhere" lately…you know: Nobody we can name says that someone is thinking of something that might possibly be true except it isn't.

The incoming White House chief of staff Reince Priebus says Donald Trump accepts that that Russia was behind the cyber attacks/hacks. Okay, that may be true today. How long before Trump is saying, "We don't know for sure"?

I wonder what would happen if the situation was reversed; if Hillary had prevailed and a good case could be made that, whether or not she would won without it, Russian forces had tried to swing the vote her way. I think Republican leaders would be out there now declaring she was a mole, a Russian plant, a puppet of Putin's, a totally illegitimate president and that investigations would start immediately to find the precise charges via which she and her running mate will be impeached and removed from office. But Democrats just don't do outrage as well as Republicans.

A writer I know — a man of some prominence in the comic book field — was recently arrested and charged with some heinous crimes involving child pornography and perhaps sexual contact with minors…pretty creepy, serious accusations. Those who know him are shocked because, at least running into him at conventions, he seemed like a pretty smart, decent fellow and we saw nothing to suggest this kind of thing. He is pleading Not Guilty and perhaps that is exactly what he is. I would certainly be pleased to hear that…about him or about anyone. One does not like the idea that any human beings commit such deeds.

On the 'net, a lot of folks who know him or know of him are expressing shock, which is a natural reaction. A lot are reminding each other about "innocent until proven guilty" which is fine, but I'd take it one notch farther. I would remind you that we do not have to decide whether we think he's innocent or guilty at all. We're not a jury and we haven't heard the details or seen any evidence. We will probably never see or hear all of whatever there may be.

More and more these days, I find myself telling people, "You don't have to have an opinion about everything." Sometimes, I tell myself that and don't listen to me. I was unable to not have an opinion about Bill Cosby or O.J. Simpson or Phil Spector. Then again, all three of those men had some history that made the criminal charges seem very possible and a lot of evidence was out in public for all to see.

Still, when I can manage it, I find it valuable to not form some opinions. It can free up a lot of my mind for more useful purposes to not form opinions of matters when nobody's asked me. And even when I am asked, "I don't know" is often a very good, accurate answer. Often, the "I don't know" is accompanied by an "I don't care." The other day, someone asked me if I thought the passing of Carrie Fisher would affect the Star Wars franchise. In this case, "I don't know and I don't care" was the best, most accurate answer I could give.

The "I don't know" part is perfectly valid here and it's worth noting that my hunches or suspicions if I had any would be based on just about nothing and would therefore be pretty worthless. They'd also be irrelevant to a legal process that has already begun. It will come to its conclusions regardless of whatever you or I may think about the matter…so why even think about it?

So my answer is "I don't know" and I might append a couple of "I hopes" like "I hope he has a fair hearing" and "I hope it turns out not to be true." But basically, my answer is "I don't know." If you don't know, you might like to try it.

This is silly but it's also an example of something you rarely see on television these days: spontaneity. It's from a 1959 episode of I've Got a Secret and it's important to remember that this show was done live then…with no edits, no chance to bleep anything, no way to dump a segment if it didn't work right.

The host is Garry Moore and the panelists are Bill Cullen, Bess Myerson, Henry Morgan and guest panelist Eva Marie Saint, who seems a bit lost in the proceedings. I especially like the reactions of Mr. Cullen, who was a great game show host and an even better game show panelist. I always thought it was a shame that no one ever set that man up with a real talk show. I think he would have been great at it…

Not all that long ago, Mr. Trump was accusing his opponent Ted Cruz of being a "puppet" of Goldman Sachs. Now, Trump is filling his cabinet with folks who either came from Goldman Sachs or are married to people who work for Goldman Sachs. Matt Taibbi has more on the constantly-changing scale of what's unethical.

Donald Trump expected voters to believe every nasty rumor about Hillary Clinton and enough of them gleefully complied to get him 306 electoral votes and therefore the presidency. (He also expects them to believe this is a "massive landslide victory" when in fact, it was less than most electoral victories. Has any person ever elected to office believed his supporters were so stupid?)

At the same time, he doesn't think anyone should believe the unanimous conclusions of the three main intelligence agencies that Russia, at the direction of his dear friend Vladimir Putin, hacked computers to try and help Trump beat Clinton. That, he insists, is unproven bull.

This is why it's a waste of time to debate Trump's surrogates and supporters. All the negative rumors about his enemies are unquestionably true. All the investigations (and stuff like that silly scientific consensus about Climate Change) that he doesn't want people to believe are lies, biased reporting, unproven allegations by those losers he crushed, etc. Must be kinda nice to live in a world where reality is whatever you say it is.

Anyway, Fred Kaplan tells us about those intelligence agency conclusions and what they mean now and might mean in the future. Read it but don't bother arguing with anyone who doesn't want it to be so.

My pal Ken Levine has this mad, misguided goal of doing every possible job in show business. He writes TV shows, he directs TV shows, he produces TV shows, he writes plays, he teaches comedy, he's a sports broadcaster…I'm leaving a number of things out…he's in an improv class, he stunt doubles for Christian Slater, he does make-up and hair for the Victoria's Secret fashion shows, he feeds the duck in the Aflac commercials…

The man is an overachiever. Recently, he decided to ditch all those low-paying professions and shoot for the Big Bucks with an Internet Podcast. The debut episode of "Hollywood and Levine" — a title which still won't teach anyone how his last name is pronounced — is up and available for your listening pleasure. I actually enjoyed it a lot, especially the bit about Mr. Special Effects, which is way too true to be funny but still manages to be funny. Go here to hear the first installment. There will be more especially if Ken is unable to land that job he's seeking as the person who's going to dub in the missing articles ("a," "an," "the," etc.) for Arnold Schwarzenegger on Celebrity Apprentice.

The esteemed Anne Elk (Miss) has a new theory…

Yesterday, some news sites were reporting that Conan O'Brien's show on TBS was being cut from five-nights-a-week to one.  The Chief Creative Officer (that's the man's title) for the TBS Network hurriedly gave some big interviews to say that's not so…or at least not yet.  Changes, he said, are coming to Conan but they might be that, they might be to go to a nightly half-hour, they might be almost anything.  He stressed that the network will continue to be in business with Mr. O'Brien, not just on a talk show but on other programming from Conan's operation.  Here — you can read about it right here.

I think that's all true, though I blinked twice at one line. After listing many of Conan's successes on-air and on the net, the exec said, "In addition, he's also been the face of Comic-Con."

Really? Does anyone who isn't in business with Conan O'Brien think that? I'll give them this: Each year since Conan began doing his show from a theater near Comic-Con the week of the event, they've spent a ridiculous amount of dough plastering his face on trains, cabs, buildings, everywhere. When I attend, I'm afraid to stand in one place outside the hall for more than two minutes for fear someone will rush up and paste a Conan billboard on me.

But inside the hall, I see no evidence of his existence and it all seems to me like a matter of him cleverly using the event to boost his ratings for a week. I don't think when anyone thinks of Conan, they think of Comic-Con or vice-versa.

I don't have much to say about what may be happening with his TBS show. It seems to me the marriage was good for both sides for a while but maybe, with so many other talk shows courting the younger demographic, Conan has lost some of his value to the channel. I'm sure they will keep him around in some format…but now that he's the guy on late night TV who's been doing a talk show the longest, he's starting to look like old news. ("The longest", that is, if you don't count Carson Daly — and I can't believe anyone does.)

I loved Conan's 12:35 show on NBC for about the first half of its run but I lost interest and couldn't get involved in his Tonight Show or his show on TBS. On The Tonight Show, every third sentence out of his mouth seemed to be about how Conan O'Brien was now the host of The Tonight Show. When I watch him on TBS, it always seems like he's trying to make faces, dance and top his guests.

On Late Night, he was delightful interacting with others and the writing on the show was very, very sharp. At some point though, it felt like he'd lost a certain humility and deference to his guests and it wasn't as much fun for me. It was the same evolution I felt with Letterman, who began foregoing prepared material for just screwing around with the audience and at the desk. He loved it. The studio audience who came to see Dave loved it. I don't think the love though usually reached all the way to most folks at home.

There's a story about Jerry Lewis that one day, he summoned one of his writers to his dressing room. He picked up the script the writer had written, threw it on the floor and told the writer, "I don't need this crap! I can be great with just a table and some chairs."

The writer picked up his script and said, "Fine. From now on, you can be a Jewish waiter." Then he walked out and arranged his resignation.

I'm not suggesting it's come to that yet…and to be fair, I haven't watched Conan much in quite a while. Maybe he's calmed down. I just no longer feel the interest I once felt to tune in and see what he has for us tonight. It felt to me like along the way, he went from being the cleverest guy at the party to the one who was trying way too hard to be the center of attention.

I'm tempting fate by posting this year's first mushroom soup can and hoping it doesn't lead to this year's first obit. For those of you new to the party, the mushroom soup can is the symbol that the operator of this here blog is kinda busy and may not be posting much (if anything) today.

In the past, I have often posted one and thought, "Okay, I've given my readers fair warning not to expect much for a while. I hope some of them discover there are other things to read on the Internet apart from me." I then feel less guilt as I turn my attention to a script on deadline…

…only to suddenly learn that someone I care about has passed and I have to write about it. This has happened so often that I suspect whoever decides such things had seen the can and given the okay to off some great actor or creative talent or friend of mine or whatever. I have been known to momentarily think, "Oh, if only you hadn't posted that damned soup can!"

It's 11 AM where I am. Let's see if I can go 24 hours without having to write about someone dying…