David Letterman's set is history but you can still visit it at this link. Click your way all around. You can even go backstage.

The Dustbowl Revival is a great, old-style musical group. Here's a music video of one of their recent recordings, shot at the home of their friends, Dick and Arlene Van Dyke. That's Dick and Arlene dancing as the stars of it. Arlene is a talented makeup artist who is now getting into performing and she's very good at it. Her husband has done some of that performing stuff, too…

Rebecca Leber points out to us that Jeb Bush Needs More Evidence for Climate Change Action Than He Does to Start a War. We had to invade Iraq because there was at least a tiny chance Saddam Hussein had those Weapons of Mass Destruction. But we shouldn't act on Climate Change because, you know, only 97% of scientists agree man is causing it.

Question: If a hundred doctors examined you and said your appendix has to come out or you're going to die, do you act on what they say? Or do you decide, "Well, opinion seems to be pretty evenly divided so I'm going to put surgery off for a while"?

Other Question: Jeb Bush and others admit that the climate…she is a'changing. They just aren't sure man is causing it or can do anything about it.

Okay, fine. But if there are going to be a lot more hurricanes and a lot more drought, aren't there things we could be doing to prepare for that? Like fixing bridges and building dams and levees and water pipelines and training and funding emergency services? If you were fairly certain that the ocean would be rising on your beachfront property, isn't there a little something you'd like to do now to minimize the damage when it happens? And while we're at it, is it ever a bad idea to reduce toxic emissions into our atmosphere?

By the by: If I ever said here that I thought Jeb Bush was going to be the nominee, I'd like to retract that. I don't have a clue who it'll be, only that at least 14 of the 18 don't have a chance. It wouldn't surprise me if the nominee was someone who hasn't even been mentioned yet.

A number of folks on the 'net are distressed or upset or even outraged that CBS has started the renovation of the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York and has already dismantled and discarded David Letterman's set.

What can I say? The remodeling job was going to start sooner or later…and the sooner they get it done, the better for Stephen Colbert and his staff. I don't see what anyone gains if they let an empty theater sit there for a few weeks before clearing it out.

Some portions of the set are reportedly being preserved. If some university or museum wanted the whole thing, they had more than a year to ask for it. Or if Letterman or his people wanted it kept intact somewhere, they had more than a year to find that "somewhere." I expect a similar sense of loss when the marquee comes down, probably any day now.

Steve Allen titled his autobiography, Mark It and Strike It, which was a term that is sometimes used in television. It basically means, "Mark where that set was and then get it the hell outta here." He chose that as his title because the phrase reminded him of the impermanence of his industry. Every great TV show that ever existed had its set torn down and replaced with the set for some other show. When I was doing sitcoms and variety shows, I used to marvel at how fast the crews could load in a set and how even faster they could make it disappear.

Frankly, I'm more interested in whether Letterman's shows are going to disappear. Back when Dave was at NBC, the network made a deal with one of the then-new cable networks — I think it was A&E — to rerun old Late Night episodes. Letterman was furious, claiming he had not been consulted. The folks at NBC said he and/or his reps had been consulted. They just hadn't been paying attention to what they'd signed-off on. In any case, the rerun deal was scaled back, cut down from many years to one or two, and Letterman demanded the right to select the episodes and, if he felt necessary, re-edit them.

He did not want his old shows seen so NBC dropped that idea and I don't believe it was ever raised at CBS. We're wondering if now that he's not doing new shows, he will object to the old ones being seen again. Apparently, there is some buzz that this will happen but I haven't heard where or when or how. (I also don't know why NBC, which I think owns all the shows he did for them, hasn't already slapped them on MSNBC or somewhere. I assume there's a reason.)

I think I've said here before that I wish someone would start The Talk Show Channel and run old talk shows 24/7. There are enough libraries around — Johnny's, Dick Cavett's, Merv Griffin's, Mike Douglas's, David Frost's, Leno's, Arsenio's, etc. There might be clearance problems with music and occasionally with clips from movies but I'd even watch them with the unclearable moments snipped out if that was all we could get. If they really wanted to do it right, each show would be preceded by a minute or two with someone coming on to give the original airdate and to mention now-obscure cultural references or news items mentioned during the show. ("There was this woman in the news then named Heidi Fleiss…")

Wherever they wind up, I hope Dave's old shows wind up somewhere…and not where most of his set is tonight: In dumpsters.

Depending on how you count, there are between 18 and 20 announced candidates for the Republican Presidential Nomination. In early August, Fox News will host the first debate among them and Fox has announced they'll limit the proceedings to the top ten candidates (according to polling) as of a certain date before that event. If two or more people are tied for tenth place, all of them will be included so there could be more than ten on the stage. This article discusses why so many who haven't a chance are running.

So here's what I'm thinking: Tenth place is going to be someone who's polling at 2% or 3%. They're saying Donald Trump, who's currently at 2.2% might get in. What if Stephen Colbert announced his candidacy again?

His new TV show doesn't start until September. CBS will be promoting it all through July and August. He'll be running around making speeches anyway.

Last election, he dropped out of the race before the numbers solidified a lot but there were polls that showed him getting more than 3% in some states. I don't think it's impossible that there are enough Republicans disgusted with their choices that might want to cast a protest vote — or just keep Trump off that stage — and Colbert could get enough support to be included. He could even run on this promise: "Like most of those seeking this nomination, I promise to drop out of the race once I get as much attention and personal promotion as I can get."

Imagine the night of the first debate. They'll probably all arrive together in one tiny clown car. Wouldn't you enjoy seeing Colbert get out of it along with Bush, Walker, Rubio, Ben Carson and the rest? He could even sit on Chris Christie's lap if he could find it. Just think of the embarrassment for Carly Fiorina, Lindsay Graham, Bobby Jindal and a few others when Stephen Colbert gets to be in the debate and they don't. Trump's reaction alone would be priceless.

Don't you want to see that? I sure do.

You'll have to watch this video three times to solve the one it presents.

The other day on his show which I don't watch and neither do you, MSNBC TV host Joe Scarborough screamed at a guest, "You compared me to a Nazi!" This is not an uncommon argument. If you do a Google search for "compare AND nazi," you'll find thousands of instances where people have been accused of comparing someone to a Nazi. Same goes for "compare AND hitler." Isn't this bad phraseology?

I mean, if I said to you, "Hey, you're better looking than Hitler was" or "You know, you are so much nicer than any Nazi could ever be"…well, I just compared you to Hitler and/or a Nazi but you're not offended, are you? I mean it's pretty faint praise but if I'm not trying to rub the sins of Hitler and his ilk all over you to put you in their category, it's not an insult.

Every single dictionary definition of "compare" says something about noting the similarity or dissimilarity between two different people or things. If I say you have nothing in common with Nazis, I'm comparing you to Nazis.

Really, this post is not about Hitler or Nazis. It's about misuse of the word "compare." I think what people mean is to equate someone to a Nazi or associate someone with a Nazi or maybe even liken someone to a Nazi.

People love to do that. It's like, "What's the worst thing I can say about this person I hate? I know! I'll say he's just like Hitler! That'll teach him to not invite me to his birthday party!"

I can never prove this but I think back before the Internet, back when we had our childish arguments on computer bulletin board systems, I may have been the first person to ever insist that you can't equate someone to Hitler or a Nazi unless they're actually (a) declaring themselves committed to the objectives of the Third Reich or (b) committing acts of murder and genocide. If someone tells you you can't post a message on a certain message board, they are not the equivalent of a Nazi. If they commit mass killings, especially of a specified race or religion, then fine. The people who ordered the slaughter in Darfur…them, you can liken to Hitler.

Joe Scarborough is not a Nazi. He's nothing like a Nazi. He's also nothing like a good TV host, either.

What is color? Well, according to a new book (reviewed here by Malcolm Harris), no one really knows.

This is a rerun from 9/9/04. Nothing to add today…

Recently on the weblog here, I mentioned my Uncle Henry, who was a Colonel (I think) in the Army. I also had an Uncle Aaron, and I was thinking about Uncle Aaron last night. No matter where you went with Uncle Aaron, he'd point to some huge building or shopping mall or real estate development and say, "When I came to California, I could have bought that whole property for two dollars an acre!" Even as a kid, I had the good sense not to reply, "Boy, you were dumb" or even, "Why didn't you? Then you could have left me a ton of money when you die."

But I think we all have such regrets. Anyone who's been a comic fan for any length of time recalls buying some #1 issue years ago and wondering why they didn't have the brains to buy fifty copies because that book is now worth a thousand times its cover price. We all remember things we could have purchased at a tiny fraction of their current worth. I have countless such memories.

The other day on the web, I saw someone selling the four plastic Revell models of The Beatles that came out in 1964. Unassembled and in good condition, the set goes for around $3500. Once upon a time and long ago, I had a huge supply of them for free and destroyed what would now be more than $10,000 worth of them.

Around 1965, my father had a friend who worked for Revell. One day, the friend told him, "Hey, you got a son, right? Well, I have a garage full of Revell models. Bring him by. He can help himself to as many as he wants." I was not particularly big on models. I had recently bought, assembled and badly painted the Aurora Superman figure and my father thought I was interested in hobby kits, whereas I was just interested in Superman. In any case, Dad didn't believe in ever turning down anything that was free so I soon found myself in his friend's garage staring at crates of new, unopened Revell models…from 20 to 50 (I'm guessing) of everything the company had put out in the preceding decade. "Help yourself," the friend said. "Take as many as you want. I'm going to throw them out one of these days. I need the space for my new band saw."

I had zero interest in all the battleships, airplanes and car models and only slightly more in the Beatles. But I selected two or three of each of the Fab Four, took them home and assembled them as a joke. I stuck parts of Paul on the Ringo model and glued George's feet on John's head. Near our house, there was a thrift shop that raised cash for a childrens' hospital, and I sometimes found old books and other treasures there.  One day, I spotted an unassembled Aurora Wolfman model there for a quarter, bought it and incorporated some of its pieces in my Beatles (de)constructions. And of course, I painted my genetically-altered Liverpool Quartet in garish alien colors. I'd had to purchase a whole kit of paints to make my Superman model and I had all the ugly non-Superman hues left over. Eventually, I got tired of my aberrant creations so some friends of mine and I had the pleasure of dropping an old bowling ball on them and watching the mutant Beatles shatter.

But the other model kits in that garage did not go to waste. That thrift shop gave me an idea and one day when I was in there, I asked the proprietor, "If someone had a garage full of new, unwanted toys, would you send a truck to pick them up?" He said, "In a second," so I called my father's Revell pal and told him. He was delighted at the prospect of getting rid of the models without having to haul them somewhere himself…and within a week, the thrift shop was well-stocked with them. For a year or two, you could have bought the Beatles and a wide array of cars and planes for a buck apiece there. Later, they added a "five for $4" option so if you purchased John, George, Paul and Ringo, you could take a U.S.S. Missouri battleship or an old Duesenberg for nothing. I always thought it would be interesting to take five models like that, mix all the pieces together, throw away the instructions and see what you could build.

Or maybe not. I recall having a lot of fun building and unbuilding my versions of the Beatles. Every time I see what those kits now sell for, a little more of that fun slips away from me.

One of the ten-or-so funniest human beings I've ever known was the late, great Carl Ballantine. It was very difficult to eat with him because…well, you can't swallow when you're laughing and when I was with Carl, I was usually laughing. He was even more delightful off-stage than he was on-stage and he was pretty damned good on-stage.

Here, a very youthful David Copperfield introduces an abbreviated version of the classic comedy act performed by the forever-youthful Amazing Ballantine…

I don't have a lot to say about the final Late Show with David Letterman. It was a fine, fitting broadcast that went an hour-twenty on my TiVo. I'd been told they were going to do a special "Stupid Pet Tricks" and I'm glad they dumped that idea and just let the show be about the show.

Comparison to Carson's last show is unavoidable, I guess. Maybe I'm reading too much into things but it struck me that Johnny's final words included this: "…I hope when I find something that I want to do, and I think you would like, and come back, that you'll be as gracious in inviting me into your home as you have been." He never did find that thing he wanted to do but when he left, he expected to reappear on television in some format.

Dave ended with: "The only thing I have left to do for the last time on a television program…thank you and good night." Was that Dave saying he doesn't expect to ever host anything ever again on TV? Is it to be taken literally? I'd like to think that even if he believes it now, it's not so.

And now some 'net sources are saying Dave's last show will run ninety minutes! Better set the DVR to record all night, just in case!

Sources are claiming tonight's final Late Night with David Letterman runs long. Some say 12 minutes. Some say 17. My TiVo automatically updated and is allowing for the show to run one hour and 12 minutes but it still has the following program, The Late Late Show with James Corden, starting at its usual time of 12:37 and running one hour.

So if you want to catch Dave, I'd suggest padding his running time to an hour and twenty minutes, just in case. And if you want to catch Corden — well, I have no idea what time his show starts.

From a couple years ago: Steve Martin and Conan O'Brien with a funny bit about David Letterman's Top Ten lists…

Jonathan Chait on why some Republicans are praying the Supreme Court will wound Obamacare and some are praying it won't.