This song is sung about as well as it can be sung and the orchestrations are perfect…but, gosh darn it, it somehow seems wrong to perform it when you're wearing a tux…

Ted Herrmann writes to me about the O.J. Simpson case…

The footprints point to his guilt…his past actions point to his guilt…the Bronco chase points to his guilt…the DNA evidence is too technical for me, but let's assume it points to his guilt…

… but, weren't you even the least bit suspicious when the glove was discovered by the biggest racist in the entire city? To me, that trumps guilt and sets him free, no matter how guilty he appears to be.

Well, I don't agree Mark Fuhrman was "the biggest racist in the entire city." That would probably be someone who'd beaten up or even killed minorities, denied them civil rights, donned Klan robes and lobbied for White Supremacy, etc. There's no evidence Fuhrman ever did any of that and I kinda suspect the O.J. legal team searched high and low for such examples and couldn't find any. They couldn't even find any complaints among the hundreds of suspects Fuhrman had arrested over the years…and often when minorities are arrested, they charge that, just in the hope it will put the arresting officer on the defensive.

What O.J.'s investigators did find were tapes of Fuhrman using the "n" word…and they came up with these after he swore he never had. That's despicable but it doesn't quite rise to the level of racial violence.

However, even if Fuhrman was all that, I wouldn't buy that it made O.J. not guilty. The glove was just one thing and I think the suggestion that Fuhrman planted it is ridiculous. The theory is that he arrived at the murder scene, found the second glove there and decided to hide it on his person and move it to O.J.'s home. Other officers had been searching the area for more than an hour before Fuhrman got there so he'd either have to be certain none of them had seen it or enlist all the other cops in his scheme.

Why would police officers do such a thing? I can imagine maybe framing a two-bit thug no one cares about…but it is a crime to falsify evidence like that. In the state of California, it could lead to life imprisonment or even the death penalty and if accused, they had to know that Simpson would mount (and could afford) the best lawyers in town, the kind who would scour every square inch of the case against their client.

And Fuhrman and any accomplices would have had to decide to frame O.J. almost at the start of the investigation before they knew what kind of evidence would turn up. Maybe there would be solid evidence implicating him, in which case there was no need to break the law and take that risk.

Or maybe there would be incontrovertible evidence that Simpson was innocent, in which case hard questions would be asked as to how that bloody glove got there. And who would have been Suspect Numero Uno? The guy who found it, Mark Fuhrman.

At that moment early in the morning after the bodies were found, the cops did not yet have a firm reading on the time of death and they had no idea where Simpson was at that moment. Suppose Fuhrman planted evidence and then it turned out O.J. was in New York at the time, surrounded by credible witnesses?

The police had not yet gone around knocking on doors in the neighborhood, asking if anyone had seen or heard anything. Suppose they found witnesses who identified fleeing suspects who were definitely not O.J.?

Suppose all the blood at the murder scene, which had not yet been typed, turned out to not be Simpson's but it led them to another suspect? Suppose other clues were found which exonerated O.J.? A lot of murders are solved because the killer walks into the police station the next day and confesses or a friend or relative turns them in. What if that had happened?

Fuhrman may have had racist views but no one ever thought he was stupid. He was way too smart to set up a frame and then hope that O.J. didn't have a good alibi, hope that O.J. showed up with cuts on his hands, hope that the killer's footprints found at the scene turned out to be the same size as Simpson's feet, hope that blood samples found at the scene didn't rule O.J. out, hope that no other evidence or witnesses turned up that proved Simpson didn't do it, etc. (Another point: Fuhrman went inside O.J.'s home at the time to look around. If he was out to frame Simpson by planting a bloody glove, why didn't he plant it inside the house, instead of outside where it wasn't tied as closely to the guy he was framing?)

There are other reasons to not believe the "planted glove" theory but I'm doing this from memory and I've blanked a lot of that stuff out of my cranium.

Oh, yeah: And Fuhrman would also have known that the bloody glove he found on Simpson's property would never have been sufficient to get a conviction if not for all the other evidence that pointed to Simpson. Why risk going to prison to try and frame a guy who might turn out to be inarguably innocent…or might be convicted without your fake evidence?

And finally, there are the two most important questions of all which is why, twenty years after the fact, I still remember most of this stuff? And why am I still debating this with someone?

Another Letterman clip. With special guest Casey Kasem…

The Walk of Fame Selection Committee of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce has selected thirty individuals to receive stars in the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2015. Here's the list…

MOTION PICTURES: Raymond Chandler (posthumous), Eugenio Derbez, Will Ferrell, Jennifer Garner, Peter Jackson, Bob Kane (posthumous), Daniel Radcliffe, Paul Rudd, Snoopy, Melissa McCarthy and Christoph Waltz.

TELEVISION: James L. Brooks, Ken Ehrlich, Bobby Flay, Seth MacFarlane, Julianna Margulies, Chris O'Donnell, Jim Parsons, Amy Poehler, Kelly Ripa and Sofia Vergara.

RECORDING: Lukasz "Dr. Luke" Gottwald, Kool & The Gang, Pitbull, Al Schmitt and Pharrell Williams.

RADIO: Larry Elder.

LIVE THEATRE/LIVE PERFORMANCE: Kristin Chenoweth, Dick Gregory and Ennio Morricone.

Well, that's not a bad list. I think Larry Elder's one of those guys who makes Libertarianism sound like a philosophical cover for not caring about anyone in the world but yourself, and it does bother me a bit when they honor fictional characters. How many human beings in the entertainment industry who deserve but will never get that kind of recognition will look down on the sidewalk, see the name of Snoopy and think, "They could give a star to a cartoon dog and not to me?" But it's not a bad list and —

Hey! I just noticed! They're giving one to Bob Kane? Bob Kane, the contractual sole creator of Batman?

We're talking about Bob Kane, the man who in his autobiography, regretted that he never put the name of his collaborator Bill Finger on the comics…but who never somehow got around to rectifying that and allowing it.

Hmm. Someone has to put up the $30,000 fee and do a lot of lobbying to get someone a star. Usually, it's done by a studio's public relations people…like maybe Time-Warner pressed to get Kane this star so they could stage a media event and promote some new Batman project. (The dedication ceremony will take place some time in 2015 but on a date of mutual agreement. This helps it to be timed in order to publicize some opening or release.)

Did Time-Warner get Kane this star? Or did Mr. Kane's family put up the money and crusade for it?

And will there be protesters at the dedication ceremony with big signs that say WHAT ABOUT BILL FINGER? It wouldn't surprise me.

My buddy Kim "Howard" Johnson knows the Monty Python guys about as well as anyone could, having worked for them and served as a historian of the enterprise. Here, he addresses some of my remarks here from the other day.

I believe him when he says the July shows in Great Britain will be the absolute last Python Reunion ever. I also believe him when he admits that anything can happen.

I also believe him when he tells me the Python Boys get along better than it may sometimes seem in print. I don't doubt that at all. I'm just kinda mystified why they allow the negative comments to get into the public record.

I have arguments and difficulties with people in my job…not many, as I've been fortunate to work with good people. Sergio Aragonés and I have been collaborating since around 1982 and I think we've had around three strong disagreements in that time, each of which was settled and forgotten in under five minutes. As mentioned a moment ago here, I've worked with Jim Davis since '87 and I don't recall any problems — disagreements, sure but nothing that would ever yield an angry remark, even in jest.

In other relationships, yeah, there have been spats. But the thing is that once you say something in public, especially in the Age of the Internet, it lives on forever, long after you've kissed and made up. So if you want to bury ill feelings, you keep them from strangers. Then the remarks don't get read and requoted long after the matter is history.

The men who are Monty Python are very, very smart people — all of them. I don't understand why they (and other smart people) let this stuff get into print and pixels. They're also guys who are really expert at being funny so when a nasty remark doesn't come off as humorous, I guess I assume it wasn't meant to be.

Today marks 36 years since a certain lasagna-loving cat first appeared on the funny pages in not-very-many newspapers. I didn't see it because the L.A. Times was not among them. I didn't become aware of Jim Davis's creation until the first paperback collection came out a year or two later, by which time a few hundred other newspapers had picked it up.

The L.A. Times was still not among them but I had that first collection and then another and another. I thought it was a cute strip and in 1987 when I was asked to get involved in writing the character for television, I said, "Sure." I've been involved ever since. In fact, I have to stop posting stuff here today and instead work on a script that we're recording next Monday.

This job has put me in a great position to understand how beloved Garfield is around the world. He really is. Here are 36 of the best things he's said. None of these came from me.

We have complained here about the picks for the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor given out each year at the Kennedy Center. It has often looked to me like the bestowers were more interested in selling tickets than in honoring the right person. Here is how they describe the award on their website…

The Mark Twain Prize recognizes people who have had an impact on American society in ways similar to the distinguished 19th century novelist and essayist best known as Mark Twain. As a social commentator, satirist and creator of characters, Samuel Clemens was a fearless observer of society, who startled many while delighting and informing many more with his uncompromising perspective of social injustice and personal folly. He revealed the great truth of humor when he said "against the assault of laughter nothing can stand."

But they have honored no novelists and essayists. The only real writer to pick one up has been Neil Simon, who did not write prose like Mr. Clemens. And a lot of their honorees seem like they haven't been in the field quite long enough to have a track record worthy of such an honor.

Well, this year they've picked Jay Leno for the trophy and I don't think that's a bad choice. Leno may just hold the current world's record for uttering the most jokes about current events and What's Going On In The World. I would think Jon Stewart would come closer in terms of having "an impact on American society in ways similar to the distinguished 19th century novelist…" but Jay comes closer than any number of recent recipients and Stewart ain't goin' anywhere. He'll still be having all that influence next year, whereas we do seem to be at the moment when Jay's career and influence have peaked.

I'd still rather see them honor some older folks while they're still around to accept…folks like Mort Sahl, Robert Klein, Dick Van Dyke, Stan Freberg, Shelley Berman and Woody Allen. One does wonder if Mr. Allen was considered but rejected because they figured he'd never show up for the ceremony or that protesters would. Still, Leno ain't a bad choice. And maybe someday, they'll give it to a person who does what Mark Twain actually did for a living.

Let's watch six minutes and 43 seconds of David Letterman on a Canadian talk show in 1978. The host is Carole Taylor and you can see that Dave does not think her questions are particularly inspiring. The other guest is film director Otto Preminger, the man who gave us Skidoo and also some movies that people actually liked.

This is from when Dave was starting out. He talks about hosting a game show pilot and working the Comedy Store. A little over two years after that, NBC gave him a morning talk show which failed but somehow led into his late night series and the rest is, as they say, history…

Douglas McEwan writes…

You might want to add an addendum to your post today on Monty Python's last show to the effect that their final performance is being broadcast live to theaters all over the world. (Which, basically, is their international tour). Tickets are available from Fathom Events. Because it is live, that means that here in California, it will be seen at 10:15 AM on July 20. I already have my ticket.

It's certainly not the same as seeing them in person, as I did when I was in the live audience at Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl back in 1979. One can't go backstage afterwards and meet them, as I did back then, but it's better than not seeing at all what may well be (or may not be) their final performance together ever.

Speaking of which, Barry Humphries will be bringing his final tour [as Dame Edna] to the Ahmanson for six weeks beginning the last week of January, 2015. I'm very, very sure that will be our last opportunity to see Barry perform live onstage in Los Angeles ever. He'll be onstage at the Ahmanson on his 81st birthday.

As big a fan as I am of Python, I really have no desire to go to a theater — especially on a Sunday morning — and see a live feed of their show. If anyone reading this does, here's a link to find out where it'll be and to purchase tix.

Like you, I was at the Hollywood Bowl and it was exciting to see them in person…but really, that's the whole point of this kind of performance. It's so you can say, "I saw John Cleese and Michael Palin do the parrot sketch in person." The excitement is not about seeing the material since we know it all and have seen them do it many times, usually much better and without audience participation. It's about Being There.

I assume whatever is broadcast in the theater that morn will be available soon for purchase on a disc. No disrespect to the Python guys but it doesn't look like they ever turn down anything that would wring another dollar out of the same material. A friend of mine who has purchased all the home video releases, starting on Beta and progressing through VHS, Laserdisc, DVD and Blu-ray, claims he has now paid for "Nudge, Nudge" more than one hundred times. "Are you selling something?"

I am, however, all for seeing Mr. Humphries in his final go-round as Dame Edna Everage. Here's the schedule so far which only includes Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palm Desert, Toronto and Washington, D.C. If you've never seen him/her, it's a great evening and unlike Python, it's not just about seeing it live…though there is that.

One last thought about the Python show. In the interviews I linked to, several of the fellows said that they'd be doing the Spanish Inquisition sketch on stage for the first time. I wish they hadn't revealed that. Now, everyone expects the Spanish Inquisition.

MeTV has lately been running episodes of Welcome Back, Kotter which I worked on in 1976 and 1977, several lifetimes ago. I have had a request to tell a story about one which I've told at conventions but never told here. The episode in question ran last week.

My then-partner Dennis Palumbo and I were on staff, which meant we did a lot of rewriting and adding jokes and rewriting the rewrites of the previous rewrites. At the same time, I was asked to take over the scripting of the Welcome Back, Kotter comic book which DC Comics was then publishing. I really didn't have time for it but (a) I had stopped writing comics while working on the TV show and I missed it and (b) I thought it might be fun to write Kotter without arguing over every line with the producers, the other writers, the network and the actors.

I sent in my first script and then I got a message that the editor had "a few problems" with it and wanted me to call him to discuss them. I decided to phone from the studio from their WATS line. I don't think they have them anymore but a WATS line was a special kind of phone service a business could purchase that gave them all their long-distance calling at a flat rate. Calling the other side of the country was costly then so I opted for the ABC WATS line and I called from the reception area at the studio, just outside our rehearsal hall.

The editor told me a few minor things in my script that he thought needed fixing. They were reasonable notes, easily rectified. Then we got to one line he really didn't like.

At the time, a man named Evel Knievel was in the news often for his daring motorcycle leaps. Every time you turned around, he was either vaulting his bike across some famous landmark or over a new world's record number of Buicks or something. He was also promising he would one day conquer the Grand Canyon that way. So in my script for the comic book, there was a scene where some loud individual says something outta-line to the character Arnold Horshack, whereupon Horshack turns to him and says, "Hey, Evel Knievel just called. He wants to know if he can jump your mouth!"

Not the funniest line I ever wrote — I would hope — but, hey, it's just one line in one panel of comic book, right? Well, the editor wanted it out because according to him, "Horshack wouldn't say that."

I said, "Of course, Horshack would say that," and I reminded him that I was a story editor of the TV show. Part of my job description was writing lines for Horshack. The editor said, "No, that's out of character for him. I've seen the show and Horshack is a sweet little guy who is never mean."

I thought but did not say, "No, no…you have your TV on CBS instead of ABC. The show you're watching is The Waltons!" We argued a bit and were soon trapped in one of those endless loops. I kept reminding him that I was writing the TV show. He kept saying, "Horshack would never say that."

Just then, Ron Palillo was walking through the reception area. Ron, of course, played Horshack. I asked the editor to wait a minute and I called out, "Hey, Ron! Would Horshack say this line?" and I told him the line. Ron said, "Oh, that's great! I love that! Could we use that in the scene we're rehearsing right now?"

I realized it would fit in fine so I said, "Sure," then I told the editor in New York, "Okay, I'll cut it out of the script." I did. It was on the show, it got a tremendous laugh and the network used it in the promos for that episode so it ran dozens of times on TV that week. But it wasn't in the comic book because, you know, Horshack would never say that.

I do not tell this tale to embarrass the editor in question, who was beloved by many who worked for and with him. I'm sure when I've been in an editorial position, I've made miscalls of far greater magnitude and density. But the incident stuck with me a long time and shaped my unique view of editors and producers, which is that they're human beings.

Yeah, I could tell you stories of a few where that seemed arguable. Every so often, you run into one who for reasons of rampant megalomania and/or paranoid insecurity — usually both — feel they have to be right all the time even when they aren't; the kind who corrects you on subjective issues the way a third grade teacher tells you that no, Johnny, three plus three does not equal nineteen. Such bosses are few, far between and usually don't remain bosses for very long.

The guy in charge is just the guy in charge. He's infallible the way baseball umpires are infallible: Because even when he's wrong, he can throw you out of the game for arguing too much with him.

I have this one friend who writes and draws comics and he follows a simple pattern: He does a job. He calls me to complain about the idiot editor. He does another job. He calls me to complain more about the idiot editor. He does a job for someone else. He calls me to complain about how that idiot editor is even worse than the other idiot editor. And so on and so on…

I keep telling him that, yes, the editors may be wrong in each and every instance. Maybe, maybe not. Even the most inept editor I've ever had would occasionally say something to me like, "Hey, how come this character is named Joe on page eight and Jason on page twelve?" and I'd go, "Uhhh…" And sometimes, what editors contribute can vary wildly from active particpation to benevolent neglect.

But whether you're the editor of your own work or someone else is, there has to be a person to make the call, just as there has to be that person, blind though he may be, to say what's a ball and what's a strike. Don't get too crazed about it when it's someone else and you think they're wrong. Eventually, if all goes well, your work will be judged by a higher authority — the buying public. And you know something? They aren't right all the time, either…and sometimes, they remind you that you're the same way.

See that guy? That's my good buddy Michael Schlesinger, one of the great authorities on motion pictures and, in his past life as an exec for what is now Sony Pictures, a guy who saved many great films from disappearing forever and got many released on home video. Film buffs in the know were always very happy to hear that some new DVD or VHS release was supervised by or approved by Mike Schlesinger. What's he been doing lately? Well, he was heard along with Yours Truly and a gent named Paul Scrabo on the commentary track of Criterion's release of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. He's also been hosting film festivals and making his own: He is responsible for the wonderful Biffle & Shooster comedies I've mentioned here before and I'm sure he'll be talking about them and many other fun things when he joins another good buddy of mine, Stu Shostak, for today's episode.

Stu's Show can be heard live (almost) every Wednesday at the Stu's Show website and you can listen for free there and then. Webcasts start at 4 PM Pacific Time, 7 PM Eastern and other times in other climes. They run a minimum of two hours and sometimes go to three or beyond. Then shortly after a show concludes, it's available for downloading from the Archives on that site. Downloads are a measly 99 cents each and you can get four for the price of three. Where else can you get a deal like that? Go to your nearby Lexus dealer. Buy three cars and see if they give you a fourth one free. Stu is much more generous.

The five surviving members of Monty Python are interviewed about their upcoming "farewell" performances in the U.K. next month…plus, you also get some real ugly photos of them.

Two points of interest. I follow these gentlemen a lot and am always a bit amazed at how they alternate between acting like bosom buddies and airing hostilities in public. I understand them not getting along at times. I don't quite understand what the point is of insulting your partners in the press. I mean, it's not like any of them could ever be certain they wouldn't want to work together again…and here they are, regrouping for ten performances that will pay them an awful lot of money — in some cases, maybe the money that they'll live off for the rest of their lives. Their legacies may also profit from this reassociation. Why say some of the things they say about each other?

Secondly: When they announced what was originally to be one "final" performance in England, everyone assumed it would be followed by a "final" performance in New York, a "final" performance in Los Angeles, other "final" performaces elsewhere. Then the one performance in England became ten and they got more serious about those being the last performances anywhere, anytime, forever. Do we think this is so? I mean, some of them may think it's so but do we think it's so? Barring ill health or another one of them ceasing to be, I don't. It's probably though the last one on this scale and there probably won't be an immediate tour.

I'm getting a wee bit annoyed at Avast, my main virus-checking program. It seems to do its job very well but it has suddenly developed this new feature. Every so often, it will tell me that one of my browser add-ons has a "bad reputation" and that Avast highly recommends I allow the program to uninstall it. Today, it went after the one from Adobe that lets me read PDFs online. Adobe has a "bad reputation?"

But that's not the annoying part. If I say, "Sure, go on, delete it," it won't do that unless I allow it to change my homepage to www.yahoo.com and select either Bing or Yahoo as my new primary search provider. That's just extortion because, of course, your homepage and primary search provider have nothing to do with uninstalling a browser add-on.

My primary search provider is Google and my homepage is that wonderful website, www.newsfromme.com. I can almost hear Avast saying, "You want us to keep you safe, fella? Well then, you'd better not use your own website as your homepage. You've got to use the one that pays us! Nyah hah hah!" Instead, of course, I can just uninstall the add-on myself if I so choose. Or take the five seconds to switch my homepage and search engine back.

I'm used to other programs trying to get me to install their toolbar or use their site as my homepage. I just wasn't prepared for my virus checker, which reminds me constantly how it's there to protect me, trying to control me like that.

My feeling is that Rick Perry will get the Republican nomination for President in 2016 only if the G.O.P. decides not to waste a real candidate in that election. The key thing is that they have to find someone who has at least a shot at attracting some of the Hispanic and African-American vote. I somehow don't think that's Rick Perry.

This profile is kinda funny. Perry lunched with a reporter at "Nate 'n Al, the Jewish Deli in Beverly Hills" and told his dining companion, "I'm more Jewish than you think I am." Nate 'n Al is a great place to eat but it's probably less Jewish than Rick Perry thinks it is. I am somehow reminded of a friend of mine from the midwest who seems to think the defining thing about Judaism is eating corned beef and bagels.

Hey, remember that problem I've been having with Time-Warner e-mail? Messages take hours — sometimes, days — to get to me and when I call up to complain, I wind up on hold for hours.

The problem hasn't gotten any better but somehow, it's comforting to know I'm not alone.