Disliked Worlds Collide

Two links have been sitting in a Word document for almost a month, waiting patiently to be turned into a blog posting. Sadly, those two links were forgotten until now, and now they have lost much if not all of their relevance. However, since I’ve been known to post out-dated things, perhaps it is not too late for these links to shine in one of my joyous blog postings. If you read to the end (before and including the update), you might get a relevant and timely surprise!

If this article is not lying, and I don’t believe it is, then The Tonight Show with Jay Leno falsely portrayed the audience response to Sarah Palin when she was a guest on the show. They replaced the audience's silence and sounds of dismay with canned laughter.

It is rather unfortunate that I’m not terribly surprised that Jay Leno and his people would commit such a vile act of falsely representing an audience’s reaction to create the illusion of comedy, love, and admiration in a vacuum of such things to aid a politician. I expect two types of people above most others to be ethical: comedians and scientists. Did you think I was going to say “politicians”? Really? Why would you think such a bizarre thing? I’ve learned not to expect politicians to have ethics or souls; that way, I avoid a lot of disappointment. Anyhoo, Leno’s (or whoever’s decision it was to edit the audience – since Leno’s name is on The Tonight Show, I will hold him responsible) ethical indiscretion is, in my admittedly strange view, on par with those scientists who screwed with the climate change data a few months ago. Scientists and comedians are people we should be able to trust; when either lies, it truly is a sad day.

Fortunately, in a world of lying Lenos, there are also truth-keepers in the form of satirists. Here, Jon Stewart talks about Palin’s Leno appearance, particularly about her crazy claims that Fox News is "fair and balanced."

As if the evil editing to make Sarah Palin appear more loved or less disliked weren’t enough, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno continues to commit evil acts of duplicitous editing today. The "I’m with Coco/Conan O’Brien" Myface (Facebook) fan page posted this article a few days ago, that tells of a brave and heroic Slash wearing an "I’m with Coco" pin that made a forcibly brief appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. It’s not surprising at all that Leno and his people cannot handle dissent. Somehow, if something like that were to happen on pretty much any other talk show, the host would go ahead and make jokes about it, because that’s what funny hosts do. Unfortunately, Jay Leno continues to not be the funny talk show host that I know he could be. Of course, the other talk show hosts I allude to would probably not find themselves in such situations, for most if not all of them would not have done what Leno did.

UPDATE April 11, 2010

These disliked worlds collided s’more on SNL; The Tonight Show with Jay Leno will be featured on The Sarah Palin Network.

SPOILER ALERT – Lost Season 6 “The Substitute”

As is so often the case with Lost, “The Substitute” provoked some thinkings.

The Reality We are Familiar with

As I watched Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster attempting to tempt Richard and successfully tempting Sawyer, I exclaimed (out loud of course) at the TV, “You’re the devil!” and then I laughed. I sounded just like Mike Myers as Philip the Hyper-Hypo on SNL, when Nicole Kidman’s character (Grace?) tempted him with a Hershey bar.

The point is I think “The Substitute” provides more evidence that Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster is Satan (or Lucifer, or the Devil, assuming those aren’t all the same guy), and therefore, so is The Man in Black (Guy-in-Black, whatever), since I am still convinced that The Smoke Monster and Man in Black are somehow related.

Fake John Locke’s successful tempting of Sawyer into going with him to the cave and (presumably) leaving the island to “go home” brought to light a couple of alternatives or variations on the Jacob v. Guy-in-Black Dichotomies I spoke of in a previous blog posting, as well as some more evidence for a couple of the dichotomies I discussed there. It also brought to light evidence against one of my posited dichotomies, where I suggest that Jacob is the Protector of the People and Guy-in-Black is the Protector of the Island; I don’t believe that is likely anymore, since Fake John Locke claims that Jacob was the Protector of the Island, though anything is still possible.

There are two pieces of evidence for what I said before. First, Fake John Locke throws a white stone into the ocean that had been on a scale with a black stone, explaining it was an inside joke. Clearly, that inside joke referred to Jacob v. Guy-in-Black, regardless of what they represent, and Guy-in-Black’s indirect murdering and eliminating of Jacob. Obviously, that is the classic Black is Evil and White is Good…But then again, is that really so black and white? The other piece of evidence for things I’ve said came in the form of Guy-in-Black's statements suggesting that Jacob falsely makes people think they have a choice when the “reality” is they don’t. Thus, he emphasized the dichotomy I posited, Free Will (Jacob) v. Destiny (Guy-in-Black).

The first alteration or variation on dichotomies I suggested previously is:

Master, Evil, or possibly but doubtfully Good (Jacob) v. Some kind of enslaved being, therefore, either Good, Misunderstood, or Evil (Guy-in-Black via The Smoke Monster). If this is the case, Guy-in-Black and The Smoke Monster are trapped on the island, enslaved, or somehow held captive by Jacob or whomever the Master, or “Protector of the Island,” is (assuming Fake John Locke was being truthful in his explanation of our special characters being candidates to take over the Jacob job). To accept this possibility, we would have to take Fake John Locke’s statements at face value; we would have to trust Fake John Locke. Given my exclamations of “You’re the Devil!” regarding Fake John Locke, I have trouble doing that. However, the possibility remains, and if it is the case, then the poor Smoke Monster and Guy-in-Black just want to escape from that crazy island.

The other variation on the dichotomies I spoke of is:

Protector of the Island, or maybe still G-d, Good (Jacob) v. Dude who wants to usurp Jacob’s position by indirectly killing Jacob and driving away the candidates, Evil (Guy-in-Black via The Smoke Monster). Personally, I think this makes the most sense and while I’m no expert in Satany things, I imagine Satan probably wants to rule the world too, so Fake John Locke’s devilishness fits well with this. That is, assuming he really is being deceitful and devilishly tempting, as opposed to simply looking at things in different ways, being misunderstood, and having good intentions.

Speaking of evil people, how much did you want to hug Ben at Real John Locke’s funeral? Poor Creepy Ben, (possibly) feeling remorse for Real John Locke’s murder, maybe also for Jacob’s murder, and more importantly, for finally being able to verbalize his jealousy of John Locke in a more mature way, as we see when Ben eulogizes Real John Locke (“John Locke was a believer, he was a man of faith, a much better man than I will ever be. And I'm very sorry that I murdered him.”). Even though I wanted to hug him, he masterfully maintained his magnificent creepiness even there, which is not surprising, since Ben’s creepiness is only rivaled by (SPOILER ALERT – HOUSE M.D. SEASON 5) Creepy-Hallucination Amber in House M.D. Yeah, Ben is fabulously creeptastic; I love it.

New Reality

In a previous blog posting, I wondered whether the lives of our special characters are better, worse, or the same in the new reality compared to the reality we’re familiar with. “The Substitute” shows us (or begins to show us) how Locke and Ben’s lives have changed.

John Locke’s life is very different in the new reality. He is still disabled, in a wheelchair, and he still has the love of his life, Peggy Bundy…I mean Katey Sagal…I mean Helen Norwood in his life. In the new reality, Rose helps John Locke accept his disability and move on with his life. In the reality we are familiar with, his disability is gone, and so he never has to accept it. However, in that reality, he is trapped on an island, where arguably he is happy. However, in the new reality, perhaps it is a greater happiness to accept what can’t be changed, and freely move on with his life with the one he loves. In the new reality, he is still trapped in his wheelchair and by his disability, but in the reality we’re familiar with, he is trapped on an island, never to see his beloved Peggy Bundy – I mean Helen Norwood – again. We don’t know if Helen Norwood dies in the new reality as she does in the one we are familiar with, but even if she does, she and John Locke can now have up to three years together that they didn’t have in the reality we’re familiar with.

Ben Linus, shockingly, is a history teacher in the new reality! At the same school where John Locke gets a job (with Rose and Hurley’s help) as a substitute teacher (cute, how Locke is a substitute, and in the reality we’re familiar with, The Smoke Monster substituted for Real John Locke, and the name of the episode is “The Substitute”). I was very conflicted seeing Ben that way; I expected creepiness to ooze out of him as it usually does, but instead, he was understandably irritated in a way that most people would be, and he was polite, friendly, and not creepy.

Speaking of Ben, the man who plays him (Michael Emerson) was on Jimmy Kimmel Live (Part 1, Part 2). I’ve seen him not being Ben before, but it’s always fun to see how brilliant an actor he really is, since he is not creepy at all in real life.

How to Resolve NBC’s Late-Night Woes

(See updates at the end of this posting.)

Apparently the rumors were true – Jay Leno’s 10 p.m. show will be cancelled, and Jay will move back to 11:35 PM in the form of a half hour show, pushing back Conan O’Brien’s Tonight Show and Jimmy Fallon’s Late Night to 12:05 a.m. and 1:05 a.m. respectively, and canceling Last Call with Carson Daly. It’s a shame that Jay should be quasi-cancelled, but I can’t say that I’m surprised. They seem to be blaming the time slot for Jay’s rating loss and Jay’s bringing down of the network (forgive my exaggeration), but maybe it’s not the time slot, maybe it’s Leno.

While I have almost always preferred David Letterman to Leno (I only say “almost” because there was a time when I had no preference), I have always found Leno to be funny and talented. However, since he moved to 10 p.m. – or maybe it started while he was still at the Tonight Show – he’s become less funny, in my opinion. His monologues, based on the few I’ve seen in recent times, contain a large proportion of predictable and unfunny jokes. He’s lost something, perhaps a slight edginess, perhaps in an attempt to cater to larger and earlier audience. Alternatively, perhaps it is my comedic tastes that have changed. After all, I have become obsessed with the refined and highly intelligent hilarity of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. But then again, I still find David Letterman and Conan hilarious, as well as Chelsea Handler and Jimmy Kimmel (whom I unfortunately don’t watch as often as I would like to). So perhaps it isn’t me, after all.

While on the subject of late night comedians who don’t seem funny to me, I don’t understand the appeal of Jimmy Fallon. Sure, he’s cute, he was funny in his SNL days, and he’s likeable. However, I just don’t find him funny on Late Night. In his defense, I’ve only seen about two episodes, but I found both painfully unfunny, with only brief moments of mild laughter, as opposed to my excessive outbursts of laughter while watching the funny shows I mentioned. Jimmy Fallon’s monologues should really be better – a monologue in that format is essentially just SNL’s Weekend Update standing up, and as I mentioned, Jimmy Fallon was funny when he hosted Weekend Update. His monologues are…just…boring.

Getting back to Leno, while I don’t like that NBC and Leno are trying to screw over Conan and Jimmy Fallon by pushing them “deeper into the night” as David Carr said in The NY Times, it would really be a shame to see Leno leave the TV. As I said, he was funny, and I think he still has it in him to be funny again. In fact, I know he still has it in him because traces of his comedic talents are evident in Headlines, and in the interview segments of his show.

It seems that Leno is continuing his tradition of screwing over former Late Night hosts who seek to host The Tonight Show. First, he sneakily stole The Tonight Show from Letterman, its rightful heir, and now he and NBC are seeking to push The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien to 12:05 a.m., which, (according to this NY Post article) as Seth Meyers said on Weekend Update, is “no longer ‘tonight.’”

According to the NY Post article mentioned above, Conan has not yet made a decision regarding what he will do, though he is considering these comical concepts. Letterman also had a fun idea that I saw after thinking of this rather brilliant idea: Perhaps Leno could co-host Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Perhaps two formerly funny people turned unfunny could together become funny once again. And what better place for Leno to re-gain his hilarity than on the set of Late Night, where David Letterman gave him a platform to showcase his funnies so many years ago. Clearly, the irony and the poetic justice would also be fun, in that Leno would be effectively demoted to Letterman’s old stomping grounds after Leno (from what I recall from The Late Shift by Bill Carter) sneakily and back-stabbingly pilfered The Tonight Show that was rightfully Dave’s.

In all seriousness, the best solution would probably be to leave Conan O’Brien, Jimmy Fallon, and Carson Daly alone, and to leave Jay Leno in his 10 p.m. time slot. The poor ratings could probably be fixed if Jay stopped kissing up to people, stopped catering to what he thinks the earlier audience wants, and just return to his formerly funny self. Instead of fixing the problem with Leno’s 10 p.m. show, NBC is creating more problems and drama that really is unnecessary. As NBC executive Jeff Gaspin stated (according to the same NY Post article mentioned above), a change such as a 10 p.m. comedy talk show will likely take time to obtain the degree of success the network and its affiliates hope for. I learned that from Howard Stern’s rants in years past, when he would point out the idiocy of radio and probably TV executives who have no patience and don’t seem to understand that changes take time to reach success – that success doesn’t happen over night.

UPDATE January 13, 2010: Conan has admirably decided not to accept NBC's demotion to 12:05 a.m., explaining that it would destroy both The Tonight Show and Late Night.

UPDATE January 19-20, 2010: It looks like this is Conan's final week on The Tonight Show, since all that's left are the minor details of Conan's exit from the evil claws of NBC, who will reportedly be paying Conan and his staff a nice severance of $40 million and allowing him to find work elsewhere. Jay Leno will likely get to steal back The Tonight Show (which is nice since Jay likes to steal things). Leno discussed his thoughts on the subject, of course acting as if he is a blameless saint, as he always does, going so far as to encourage people not to blame Conan, which, as David Letterman correctly and hilariously pointed out, no one has been doing. Leno acted similarly in 2004 as well, when he clearly stated that he would gracefully pass on The Tonight Show to Conan in 2009. But at the time, he neglected to mention that he would ungracefully take it back in 2010.

I feel bad contributing to the Leno hatred, even if he is deserving of it due to his continued back-stabbing and sneaky behavior. The fact is, the real problem is NBC and the idiot executives who work there (it seems Jeff Zucker would be the biggest idiot of them all, based on what everyone is saying). If they had just listened to me and 1) asked Leno to be funny again and 2) kept things the way they were, in time, the ratings might have improved, or at least they could then say they tried. If they had given The Jay Leno Show at 10 p.m. and The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien an appropriate amount of time to settle in, then at least they could say they honored Conan O'Brien's and Jay Leno's contracts...in an honorable way.

UPDATE January 22, 2010: Conan’s severance deal with NBC has been finalized. He will receive $33 million and his staff will receive $12 million. Conan’s final Tonight Show will be tonight, and Leno will return to The Tonight Show on March 1, 2010. Conan will not be permitted to have a competing show until September 2010, and he is forbidden from speaking ill of NBC after he leaves, but Letterman kindly assured us last night that he can and will continue to make fun of NBC.

UPDATE April 15, 2010:  I watched Jimmy Fallon on Late Night a couple of times more recently than when he premiered as well as on The Marriage Ref, and I'm happy to say, he has become funny again.  Also, I like The Marriage Ref, despite people's criticisms of it; I enjoy watching funny celebrities talking and arguing with each other.  Finally, Jay Leno is still not funny.

Evolving Perceptions of Lady Gaga

My hatred of Lady Gaga (whose real name is Stefani Germanotta) was immediate, from the moment she entered my consciousness. She is just a wannabe Christina Aguilera (whom I love, and whose talent is unquestionable; if there was ever any doubt regarding Christina’s talent, her impromptu a cappella performance of “Beautiful” on Saturday Night Live very clearly elucidates her talent), I thought, as I’m sure many people did. So, as I mention in my previous blog posting, I hated Lady Gaga for what I thought was: an obvious lack of originality. I thought she was a derivative and therefore fake pop singer who, beyond her lack, of originality, appeared to lack talent. Another Paris Hilton-like pop quasi-singer, manufactured to sound decent.

I was informed at some point that according to Perez Hilton, Lady Gaga is, in fact, original. Apparently, he provides evidence that Lady Gaga’s fashion precedes Christina’s, so, assuming he is correct (which I do), Lady Gaga is original and therefore is not fake. Yet I continued to hate her, despite the elimination of my perception of her as a wannabe Christina.

Her music itself didn’t anger me quite so much; I kind of like “Just Dance,” though I couldn’t listen to the whole song since it just got annoying. I did (and continue to) like “Poker Face,” but I hated (and continue to hate) “LoveGame.” I also continued to hate her.

My hatred began to change when I saw the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, where Lady Gaga performed “Paparazzi.” Until then, I hadn’t heard the song at all; I occasionally reside under a rock where I somehow manage to (usually inadvertently) avoid any exposure to new music or celebrity and newsly goings on. As I watched the very dramatic performance, I found myself…enjoying it…a lot. This came as quite a shock to me. The song was fantastic. More notably, it became clear that she actually does sing, and her voice is kind of good and unique in that its distinctiveness makes the Lady-Gaga-ness unmistakably recognizable. In addition to her singing talent, I noticed she plays the piano as well. I had seen her perform “Poker Face” on American Idol where it was evident that she actually sings and also plays the piano, but somehow her talent didn’t strike me then; my hatred at the time was too strong because I hadn’t yet learned of her originality and so I still thought she was a wannabe Christina at the time. But at the VMAs, the song and her talent struck me, and I began to realize that she is not only original in her fashions, but she seems to have some real talent too. My hatred was dissolving, and I was beginning to like her.

My hatred further dissolved as I watched her further demonstrate her talent on SNL, where in her second performance of a medley of her songs, she appeared to improvise on the piano and with the singing. I was impressed. I didn’t see the whole episode at the time, so I had missed her talent-displaying performance of "Paparazzi" as well as her rather funny appearance in this funny sketch. Apparently she has comedic talent as well as musical talent.

Then, a few weeks ago, I heard somewhere (probably on MTV or VH1) that Lady Gaga had spoken and performed at a Human Rights Campaign dinner, and then participated in the National Equality March on the mall in Washington DC, and that she had stated that it was the most important thing she has ever done in her career. Upon hearing this, very much to my surprise, I thought to myself “I love Lady Gaga, she is awesome.” I am a huge fan of equality and of not discriminating, and also of GLBT people and their rights, so it truly warmed my heart to hear that Lady Gaga shares my love for the gays. My perception of Lady Gaga was fully transformed. My initial hate-filled perceptions were based on misconceptions. She is a talented performer, and a kind-hearted person.

Since antipathy had turned to admiration and fanliness (if it hasn’t become obvious, I like to make up words), I became interested in how far her talent goes. Apparently, before releasing her own album (for which she wrote most of the music and lyrics), she had been writing songs for other singers. More interestingly, her talent seems to be quite a natural one; she learned to play the piano by ear when she was four years old, and has been writing music since she was 13. She is vastly more talented than I had thought, and is the antithesis of the Paris-Hilton-esque quasi-singer that I thought she was.

Since I now love her, I find that I like her music more than I had. However, I still hate “LoveGame,” both the song and the video, but that could just be because I’m not much of a fan of pornography.

UPDATE December 24, 2009
Since writing this blog posting, my love for Lady Gaga has grown. Since then, I've seen her in a few interviews on the TV, where she appears to be a genuinely kind and sweet human being who loves her fans and always remains true to herself. Additionally, "Bad Romance" in particular and The Fame Monster as a whole are fantastically good. Shockingly, "LoveGame" has grown on me, and now I kind of like the song, though I continue to not like the video.

I heart Lady Gaga.

UPDATE February 1, 2010
As if I didn’t already love Lady Gaga enough, she just keeps making me love her more. She kindly donated proceeds from a concert and from merchandise to Haiti earthquake relief efforts. I know a lot of celebrities do things like that, and I love every one of them.

Lady Gaga’s sweet, genuine kindness pours from her in interviews, including Oprah’s interview, where Gaga said about her fans, “I want them to free themselves, and I want them to be proud of who they are. I want them to celebrate all the things they don't like about themselves the way that I did, and to be truly happy from the inside.” She said something similar to that (somewhere, possibly also on Oprah) about the meaning behind “Bad Romance.” She explained that the song is about loving someone for everything he or she is, for all the good, all the bad, and all the things the person doesn’t like about him or herself. She spoke as though these are the things she wants, and, therefore, she read my mind…I think that might just be what every human wants, and she captures that perfectly.

If you missed her amazing performance with Elton John at the 52nd Grammy Awards last night, you should watch it right now – it’s fantastic. I was very happy to learn that she won two Grammys last night (during the un-televised portion) for “Poker Face” and The Fame. I love her so much.

I think a big part of what makes me love Lady Gaga is that she seems to have always felt like a freak and an outsider, and she makes such an effort to keep other people from feeling that way, or from feeling bad about being a freak or an outsider. I imagine most people (myself definitely included) have felt like freaks and like outsiders in some way, and Lady Gaga makes us realize we’re not alone. She is a wonderful human being.

UPDATE: May 23, 2011
The TV, or more specifically, the Fuse, has explained that what I called pornographic in the LoveGame video was an homage to Michael Jackson's "Bad" video.  I guess that makes it less gross, but still...ew.  In Gaga's defense, I think it's gross in the "Bad" video too.  I suppose I'm just too prudish.

Comedians' Reactions to Letterman Scandal

After October 1, when David Letterman told the story of the alleged attempted extortion involving his affairs with women who worked for him, I wondered how his fellow comedians would react.

This blog from The Huffington Post and this article from the AP tell of what other comedians have been saying about Dave as of the weekend after his confession. It seems most are being easy on him or not talking about it at all. Jay Leno (The Jay Leno Show), Jimmy Fallon (Late Night), Seth Meyers (Saturday Night Live), and Craig Ferguson (The Late Late Show) have made jokes and comments about Dave’s scandal, but none of them were mean about it (towards Dave, that is; some were rightfully mean toward Robert "Joe" Halderman, the alleged blackmailer), which makes me happy.

In the week since Dave’s confession, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert didn’t say a word about Letterman on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, so they're with Conan O’Brien (The Tonight Show) and Jimmy Kimmel (Jimmy Kimmel Live!) in not talking about it, which also makes me happy.

I was very interested to know what Howard Stern thinks about Dave’s scandal.

If you read this article from The Examiner, you would think Howard Stern was hateful, and it almost sounds like Howard was screaming about how horrible Dave is. The article doesn’t misquote Howard, but it takes his statements out of context. If I hadn’t heard Howard myself and if I had only read that article, I would seriously hate Howard, and I’m a fan of Howard.

Since I did hear Howard talking about Dave, I can continue to love Howard (and Dave). As I expected and hoped for from Howard, he was completely honest about his thoughts about the situation. He made it clear that he likes Dave, and credits Letterman for always being supportive of him. He also said that Dave came out with this stuff in a brilliant way, and noted that he's a great communicator. But Howard felt that Dave screwing interns creates a really bad work environment where women feel they have to screw the boss to get ahead and men feel like they can't get ahead because they lack the necessary equipment. He also said if his daughters were taken advantage of as interns like that, he would cut off Dave's winkie. All these things are completely understandable, assuming that his affairs were, in fact with interns (I know Holly Hester came forward as having an affair with Dave while she was an intern), and if other interns and staff members were aware of those affairs at the time, and also assuming that Dave was abusing his position of power in the affairs, which we can't be sure of. I don't feel that Howard was mean-spirited towards Dave at all, as the Examiner article above might imply.

And finally, Dave’s reaction to himself was probably the funniest reaction of all the comedians. On the Monday after the confession, Dave spent almost the whole monologue cracking jokes about himself. He followed this hilarious monologue with another heartfelt statement apologizing to his staff and his wife for hurting them, as well as affirming that he did the right thing in confessing. Of course he ended the string of apologies with another apology to Sarah Palin, because it couldn’t hurt.

Dave has really been handling his scandal well. As both Howard Stern and Steve Martin have said, this scandal really does show us that Dave is human, and as Steve Martin noted, we really weren’t sure of that before.

I think the keep-quiet attitude and the lack of mean-spirited jokes from his fellow comedians show the reigning king of late night the respect that he still deserves, particularly since David Letterman is a victim of a felony.