More Economics from a Dummy

The following has existed as an unpublished draft for more than a year with the second half added a few months ago.  Most of it is probably not relevant anymore.  Enjoy!

As I explained previously, I know just about nothing about economics and my interest in it is nearly non-existent as well, to the extent that I would rather learn about the cell biology of how grass grows or the quantum physics of how paint dries than about economics. However, I have been thinking a little bit about some of the things I put forth in my economic theory, and I think I need to add to it. Like most sequels, this is not as good as the first one.

Fun with Flat Taxes

One of the disjointed parts of my theory involved a flat tax for all. Recently, flat taxes have been the topic of ridicule via the ridicule of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. I learned about that plant from a chart someone posted on Facebook, and some googling I did later (though I apparently didn't save the links I learned from). It seems that Herman Cain would charge a 9% income tax for people and corporations, and a 9% national sales tax to either replace or add to state taxes. I’m not clear on the latter because I’m not clear on the difference between the apples and oranges he keeps talking about in the clips of debates I’ve seen on The Daily Show and/or Colbert Report (like this one). Herman Cain would also remove all tax deductions. Based on other clips of things I’ve seen on The Daily Colbert (here's one), it seems that Rick Perry also has a flat tax plan where he would charge 20% taxes for all while keeping tax deductions in place.  (Herman Cain and Rick Perry were Republican candidates who lost the primaries for the 2012 presidential election.  These now-obscure references are partially what render this blog posting no longer relevant.)

Obviously, Herman Cain and Rick Perry got these ideas from my blog, because there is simply no other possible explanation of how one could think of a flat tax or simplifying the overly complicated tax code. I spoke of a flat tax, as part of my three-disjointed-pronged economic plan that could easily make me president, and they took that idea and added some stuff that I do not approve of and never intended for. Please note: I am not crazy (at least in this respect), nor am I serious about having any part in Herman Cain’s or Rick Perry’s plan making.

Lots of people (well, at least one person) feel that Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is a terrible idea, and I agree for the reasons those people state. Someone at the Huffington Post explained that it would end up taxing lower income people a bit more than they are currently taxed, and it would drastically reduce taxes for corporations and the very wealthy by a lot. I haven’t googled Rick Perry’s plan, but it seems like it might be an improvement on Cain’s plan.  Clearly, that’s quite an endorsement, since it is coming from my uneconomical brain via my blog-typing fingers, I mean digits (because digits are economically related!).

While Herman Cain’s flat tax plan is clearly not fair and good, I still believe that my flat tax plan could be fair and good. My plan is extremely vague, which leaves it open to suggestions from people who know about the economics. If you don’t feel like going back and reading about my plan, I will re-state it and de-Cain it here: We should pick some percentage, and charge that percentage of tax to all people. I don’t know what that percentage would be, but I would want it to be a fair one for all. Furthermore, this would only apply to taxable people, and says nothing about how to tax corporations. Despite what the Supreme Court says, I cannot include corporations in the semantics of “People”; my brain simply won’t allow it. Thus, how to tax corporations is another thing that is left vague in my tax plan for people smarter and more knowledgeable than I to handle when I become president. I’m kidding of course -- I still won’t run for president. Anyhoo, my tax plan would not have anything to do with sales tax, since I would never have thought of changing the way sales tax is, and after reading the Huff-Po article, it’s clear that it would be wrong to give the power of sales tax to the Federal Government. Regarding Herman Cain’s removal of all tax deductions, I think I would leave that vague also, because I think some deductions are good, so long as they don’t allow people to screw over the government via loopholes and abuses and such. Yes, I think that is sufficiently vague to ensure success.

Speculators are Evil! Eeeeeeviiiiiil!

One of the other disjointed portions of my theory states that commodities trading is wrong and should be eradicated. Later, it occurred to me that there is a precedent for my proposed illegalization of commodities trading: insider trading! Like insider trading, commodities trading hurts the whole economy while benefiting a few traders. I assume that is why insider trading is illegal, and so, commodities trading should be too.

Political Predictions

This does not in any way bring me to another disjointed, unrelated point.  This point is so unrelated, in fact, that it has very little to do with economics.  Jon Stewart delineated the bizarre doomsday-like predictions Republican presidential candidates make and have made in the past regarding the horrors that would befall this great land if Obama was/is (re)-elected.  He highlighted the bizarreness of these predictions by emphasizing that the previous predictions have not come to fruition.  This brought to my mind the predictions I made about what could happen if George W. Bush were elected president.  The difference, however, is that my predictions came true, except that W. was not actually elected (the first time anyway).

At the time of my correct predictions, this blog did not exist.  Instead, I had a verbal blog, i.e. I occasionally told people what my thoughts were.  Thus, I verbally pre-blogged (or “told”) at least one family member or friend (but probably more than one) that if George W. Bush became president, we would undoubtedly go to war, and the economy would suffer.  Obviously both things happened.

The economy thing could have happened anyway.  From what I barely understand, it seems that it is possible that the economy simply goes through cycles, and whoever is president at the time either gets credit for a strong economy, or is blamed for a bad economy.  However, I’m pretty sure President W. Bush caused all these economic problems we have now that I am trying to fix via this blog.  I know this because I heard during Mr. W. Bush’s campaign that he ran every business he had ever owned into the ground, so I naturally deduced that he would therefore run this country into the ground, since its economy is but a giant business (or so I assume).

I knew that Present W. Bush would bring us to war because he stated during his campaign that if anyone, in any way, attacked us or harmed us or whatever, we would go to war.  He said this in such a way that sounded to me as if he were looking to go to war, and would react to any trigger with war.  Clearly, that made me nervous.

So, to conclude, I was right, but I wasn’t making crazy predictions based on nothing; I was making accurate predictions based on things I heard during a presidential campaign.  Furthermore, I am a predicting genius!  But I sill won’t run for president!

Poor Weiner

Well, it seems another politician has another sex scandal. Often funny and friend of Jon Stewart Congressman Anthony Weiner admitted that he sent a picture of his weiner in his undies to a woman on the Twitter. He says he meant it as a part of a joke, and that he has done other inappropriate things on the interwebs and the phone, both before and after marrying his wife. He also says he has never met any of these women in person, clearly implying that the hyper-flirtation only happened from very long distances.

I think that as far as political sex scandals go, this is really quite ethical, assuming that Congressman Weiner is not still lying. It’s really nothing compared to Eliot Spitzer and his adulterous use of hookers, or Bill Clinton and the jobs he had his interns doing while he was married. As Congressman Winkie, I mean Weiner (sorry, I had to) said, he didn’t break any laws, and he will cooperate fully with an ethics investigation insuring he didn’t break any House rules. He also didn’t make his wife stand there with him while he confessed as some Eliot Spitzers did. He mentioned that his wife understandably thinks he’s an idiot, but is not divorcing his dumb a**.

I’m comfortable making these statements about Congressman Weiner’s relative morality, assuming that he is not still lying, because, like David Letterman, he took full responsibility for his immoral actions; he made a point to state that the woman who was the recipient of his bulging photo is not responsible for this at all, and should never have been dragged into this mini-scandal. His apologies, his remorse, his shame, and his tears seemed sincere to me. Of course, he could be a good actor, or I could be an idiot who feels bad when boys (or anyone) cry and take responsibility for their actions. Conversely, as much as I love Bill Clinton for his politics, his intelligence, and the nice things he does for the world, he is a good example of a disgusting immoral sex-crazed adulterer who tried desperately not to take responsibility for his actions.

Anthony Weiner didn’t admit to his tweet until, I assume, he realized his past inappropriateness was going to be disinterred. According to the NY Times blog, he made his announcement after another bout of inappropriate internet behavior from a month ago was revealed. Nonetheless, less than two weeks of lies followed by a full confession is really rather impressive for a politician.

If you’re sensing that I hold politicians to much, much lower moral standards than I hold normal humans to, you're absolutely right. Thanks to people like Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, and probably millions more, I have learned to assume that all politicians are either evil in some power-hungry way, or are whores. Perhaps the hunger for power facilitates the slutty behavior, since the slutty behavior might simply be another way to gain or use their power. I don’t know if this hunger for power is a pre-existing condition for politicians, or if it’s something that happens after a person has been in politics and the power they are inherently given morally corrupts him…or her I suppose, but we never seem to hear about female politicians being adulterous sluts. Perhaps the direction of the power-politics causality depends on the individual.

Anyway, the point of all this is that while Anthony Weiner’s wife is absolutely correct in saying her husband is dumb, and while he clearly does have some moral issues, if he is not lying, it’s really nothing compared to the real sex scandals out there, and in my mind, it does not and should not affect his ability to do his job well, and to do good things for the world. If the far-more-sexually-immoral Bill Clinton could do it, then the much-more-moral-because-he-accepts-responsibility Anthony Weiner can definitely do it. I’m glad he is not resigning.

(Note: I added the link to Jon Stewart's coverage of this scandal after I published this blog posting.)

UPDATE June 14, 2011
Here's someone else who doesn't want Anthony Weiner to resign, and who also feels bad for the remorseful virtual adulterer.

UPDATE July 14, 2011


On June 16, Anthony Weiner unfortunately resigned.

Jew for Jesus in a Dream

DISCLAIMER: NONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS INTENDED TO BE OFFENSIVE TOWARD ANYONE OF ANY RELIGION.

I had the strangest dream a few months ago. I have strange dreams at times, amidst the boring and mundane ones, but this one could win a strange award, as far as my dreams go anyway.

As this bizarre dream began, I was walking across a very busy street. I think I was jaywalking actually. I couldn’t get safely across alone; I needed someone to help me. Someone (a regular person) was trying to help me cross this insanely trafficky street, with far-off shouts of “stop!” and “go!” With each step, the traffic became continually worse, and when I got halfway across, I felt like I couldn’t possibly make it the rest of the way, even with the far-off human guidance.

Just then, Jesus picked me up and carried me the rest of the way. I felt completely and utterly safe. Yes, Jesus, and please bear in mind, I am Jewish, or more precisely, I’m an agnostic Jew. Yet Jesus literally saved me in my dream.

In my dream, I knew it was Jesus, but he only partially looked like the traditional Christian, probably false view of what Jesus looked like. His head wasn’t very clear in the dream; actually, none of him was, but he had short hair (blonde I think), and he wore all white. SPOILER ALERT: LOST PLOT WILL BE MENTIONED NOW! While you might want to exclaim, “OMG! Maybe it wasn’t Jesus, but rather Jacob from Lost!” but that isn’t likely, as the rest of my description will illustrate. My dream Jesus was somewhat deformed in that his right arm and maybe his right leg weren’t really there and there was something that looked kind of like a drum instead (perhaps representing the little drummer boy?).

After he saved me in my dream, Jesus went on to help some other people. I don’t remember the details of who he helped or how. I said something where I referred to him aloud to other people as Jesus, and he said quietly to me, “No, don’t tell them I’m Jesus. Say G-d, or Orange.” I understood that he didn’t want his identity as Jesus revealed. I don’t remember anything else, and the dream might have ended there.

At first when I awoke, I couldn’t figure out why on earth I would have such a strange dream. I can’t emphasize enough that I’m a Jew, and an agnostic Jew at that. I don’t believe that Jesus was divine, and I don’t’ believe it’s possible to truly know if there is or isn’t a G-d at all (though I do tend towards faith). Nevertheless, in my dream, Jesus saved me, and made me feel completely safe and comforted, and I think at peace.

Later that day, I remembered some things that happened the day before that could explain the bizarre dream. I had eaten a truly delicious red orange (a Cara Cara navel orange) the night of the dream, and that is likely why Jesus told me to tell others that he is G-d or Orange. I suppose I felt the orange I had eaten was deliciously divine (it really was).


My orange consumption only explained one tiny aspect of my dream. Sometime after the Orange revelation, I determined that the divine nature of my dream came from Stephen Colbert. The night of the dream, I had watched an episode of The Colbert Report in which Colbert spoke of Bill O’Reilly’s certainty of G-d’s existence based on his lack of understanding of how the tides work. Neil deGrasse Tyson then came to Colbert's studio (via his wormhole of course) to explain that the tides are controlled by the moon, prompting Colbert to praise the Moon as G-d. When Tyson explained that the Moon is not G-d, Colbert praised Neil deGrasse Tyson as G-d, proclaiming “Neal before Neil!”

I think it’s clear then, that my Jesus dream was induced by Stephen Colbert and all his talk of who or what G-d is, and by a divinely delicious fruit. If I were a different person, I imagine my dream could have converted me to a Jew for Jesus, or even a full-blown Christian – not that there’s anything wrong with that. (Hey, look, by quoting Seinfeld, I inadvertently juxtaposed Christianity with homosexuality, and there’s nothing wrong with either.) But alas, I am just too practical (in terms of finding real-world explanations for my strange dreams) to put all my beliefs in one dream-woven basket.

Where are the 2012-ers?

DISCLAIMER: I absolutely do not intend to be insensitive or offensive to anyone or anything. Any statement that appears insensitive or offensive is intended as sarcasm and/or hyperbole (an exaggeration to make a point; I am providing that explanation so you don’t have to Google the definition as I once did). If anything offends anyone, I apologize sincerely in advance.

With all that’s going on with the 9.0 magnitude earthquake, tsunami, and radioactivity in Japan, where are all the people who have been insisting that an apocalypse is coming, particularly the ones who say it’s coming on December 21, 2012, or as my sister called them just now after I brought this up with her, the 2012-ers (patent pending…in my dreams!).

After other major disasters, such as Katrina and the Haitian earthquake, the 2012-ers and other Armageddon-ers were so quick to say those were signs of the upcoming apocalypse. However, the current Japanese disasters that are of much more Biblical proportions don’t seem to be generating the same apocalyptical warnings. Where are you, fear-mongering 2012-ers?

The current disasters seem so much more extreme than the previous ones, particularly since this time, nuclear radiation is involved, which could mean the beginning of some crazy genetic mutations, assuming humans survive at all. These disasters are far more doom-ridden than a mere ginormous hurricane and a mere 7.0 magnitude earthquake that happened in different locations.

I wonder if the difference is the perceived blasphemy happening in the location of the disasters. Maybe it’s only a sign of the apocalypse if the people are not strict Christians, like the blasphemous New Orleans people with their Mardi Gras and their New Orleans Voodoo, and the Vodou wielding Haitians. I’m pretty sure Christianity has infiltrated Japan, but then again, there must be lots of blasphemous Buddhists there too, so I really don’t understand where the Armageddon-ers are.

I found some 2012-ers when I googled for them (here is one example). It’s nice to see they are out there, mongering their fear, but they are not doing it loud enough, because I had to seek them out. Previously, they made themselves known, and I heard about them on the TV. Some religious extremists such as Glenn Beck are doing their traditional Pat Robertson-like blaming of the blasphemous, but there doesn’t seem to be enough Pat Robertson-like talk of the end of the world as we know it.

Come on, 2012-ers, you’re here, you fear, get loud about it!

UPDATE April 10, 2011
Finally, someone (that I’ve seen) made the connection between the 2012 apocalypse that the Mayans predicted and all the bad things happening now. And of course, it was that fear-monger (satirist) Jon Stewart! He also alluded to it during his beautiful farewell to Glenn Beck. Thank you, Jon Stewart!

Update May 7, 2011
OMG, I just discovered some relatives of the 2012-ers, and they are crazy – I mean they are May 21, 2011-ers. If you click on the “listen” thing here, you will hear that some of the May 21-ers sound like they are on drugs – seriously, their voices sound drugged to me, though I obviously make no claim regarding whether they actually are drugged. These people have left their families and quit their jobs because they are awaiting the rapture that will come on May 21, 2011. They explain that if you’re still here on May 22, then you are in Hell. I bet they will be in Hell, since they will have left their families and jobs for nothing and will then be left to either mend their burned bridges or find some way to move on from them, at least for the next 153 days, since that is when the universe will cease to exist. Maybe they can all join together and form a cult, or maybe they already have. Am I being too judgmental about the impending Judgment Day believers? Then I guess I’ll see you in Hell! Hahahahahahaha! Just kidding.

UPDATE May 20, 2011
When I wrote the previous update, I felt bad for the extent of my harshness, particularly the part about seeing ya’ll in Hell. However, I now feel better about that, since Stephen Colbert said the same thing, after providing a moving recap of Earth’s history. Thanks, Stephen Colbert!

UPDATE May 22, 2011

So, here we are in Hell. Hell seems an awful lot like Earth in the pre-Rapture days. The only apocalyptic sign that I witnessed was that in the part of Hell where I live, it was a beautiful sunny day until it suddenly became cloudy and rainy within an hour of the time of the Rapture, and the sun came back about an hour after. I guess G-d was being subtly apocalyptic. I didn’t see anyone floating up to the Heavens, but if you witnessed any floating virtuous people, feel free to comment below, Fellow Hell-dwellers.

UPDATE August 23, 2011


The 5.9 earthquake in Virginia that I felt in NY and that others felt throughout the Eastern part of the country (according to my Myface newsfeed and the CNN part of the TV) is clear and undeniable evidence of the apocalypse! This is particularly obvious since we are rapidly approaching December 21, 2012 and even more rapidly approaching October 21, 2011, Harold Camping’s new judgmentally apocalyptic prediction! Run!

The 2010 Emmys: The Good and the Evil

The title of this posting is clearly an exaggeration, in that what I will describe as the things that were not pleasing to me on last night’s Emmy Awards really does not qualify as evil. However, I feel this title is appropriate, since among the evil things is the lack of Lost recognition, and as you might know, I have written somewhat frequently regarding Good v. Evil on Lost. Isn’t it nice when I over-explain my writings? No? Oh, then you would hate when I over-explain jokes in real life (as opposed to bloggy life). Onto my Emmy induced thoughts!
The (Mostly) Good

Jimmy Fallon did a reasonably fantastic job as Emmy host. I was skeptical before the show, because there have been times where he has been lacking in the funny, presumably when he’s been overwhelmed with nervousness. However, he was quite funny for the most part, and he really did a great job. The opening Glee musical thing and the tribute to deceased shows (including Lost) were funny, entertaining, and very well executed. I also very much enjoyed the musical introductions to each section of awards. Jimmy’s non-musical words were also funny throughout the program, particularly the pro-Conan and anti-NBC remark. I would say that Jimmy did an excellent and flawless job, but there is one small portion of his hosting that renders such a statement impossible; the tweeted introductions for presenters were simply not amusing or well written. This is not surprising, since they were tweeted by regular, non-comedy-writer people. That is not to say there aren’t funny and talented regular people out there, but that is to say that believing that those funny and talented people could be found in time for a big awards show was probably not very wise. I had a feeling this wouldn’t go well, but I had hoped that the funny people out there on the Twitter would show themselves, but unfortunately, that was not the case. Jimmy Fallon, there is a reason that professional writers write things, and you demonstrated that nicely. It’s fun to find silver linings. Jimmy’s presenter intros that were written by professional comedy writers (presumably Jimmy himself) were well written, and some were definitely funny, particularly the intros involving Law & Order SVU saving the 10 P.M. time slot that Leno left for dead, and Jimmy hugging his long lost father, Tom Selleck.

The (Mostly) Evil

Lost didn’t win things. Lost should have won things. Specifically, Michael Emerson (or at least Terry O’Quinn) should have won for Best Supporting Actor in a Drama, Matthew Fox (or at least Hugh Laurie of House M.D.) should have won for Best Actor in a Drama and Matthew Fox should have won for Hottest Drama Man Ever (and Seth MacFarlane would win Hottest Comedy Man Ever in this award show in my brain). Lost should have won Best Drama TV Show (or whatever that category is called), and I think the Emmy audience agrees with me since they seemed to cheer the loudest when Lost was mentioned. I don’t remember who won for Best Writing and Best Directing, but probably Lost should have won those too (yes, I could google it, but I am too lazy).

Glee should have won more things than it did. However, I’m very happy that they won Best Directing and that Jane Lynch won for Best Supporting Actress. It would have been nice for Glee to win Best Comedy Show on the TV, but since they lost, I’m glad they lost to Modern Family, another great show (though Glee is better). Speaking of Modern Family, I enjoyed the cute thing they did with George Clooney and Stewie. I would put that part in the “Good” section, however, I don’t have anything else to say about it, and it fits more nicely here.

Conan didn’t win. Conan should have won, not only because he deserved to win, and not only because it was Conan’s only chance to win for his work on The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, but also because it would have been a nice, clear Conan-is-better-than-Jay statement to Jay Leno and NBC. Despite this loss, however, I do believe that the statement was made nonetheless; after all, Conan was nominated, but Jay was not.

Since Conan didn’t win, The Colbert Report really should have. As much as I love The Daily Show, and as great as it’s been this year, The Colbert Report is generally a better show, and the week in Iraq this year was certainly of Emmy-winning caliber. Since The Colbert Report also didn’t win for Best Funny Variety Show, I am glad The Daily Show won. I’m also glad that the guy accepting the award mentioned Colbert and Conan, and I’m glad that he reminded us that the people at The Daily Show are worthy of their numerous Emmys.

SPOILER ALERT – Lost Season 6 “Across the Sea” Follow-up

After all that I’ve already written about last week’s episode of Lost, “Across the Sea,” I still have more to say.


Deepak Chopra appeared on The Colbert Report last week, and I finally watched it. He unknowingly provided further insight into the black and white imagery of Lost, in that he spoke of the ambiguity of good and evil within each person as well as within divine entities. Of course, I related this to Lost; it’s hard not to relate Lost to greater and broader things in the world.

Chopra (who should marry Oprah so she could become Oprah Chopra (I think I stole that joke from Jay Leno (funnily enough) and from Chopra himself was he was on one of those late night shows, possibly Conan O’Brien’s Tonight Show)) explained that the Christian belief is that our souls only contain the Light; however, Chopra believes there is a duality within each of us of light and shadow. Furthermore, the Devil, as a fallen angel, is divine as G-d is divine.

I think these are some of the points Lost is trying to make – that everyone, including the Divine, inherently has Light and Shadow within their souls, and nothing and no one is purely light or shadow, good or evil. That is the point I made in the first in what has become this series of blog postings about “Across the Sea.” Furthermore, perhaps this acceptance of the duality of our souls is the reason Jacob told Ricardo/Richard in “Ab Aeterno” that he could not absolve him of his murdering sin. That is, perhaps Jacob could not absolve him, not because of a lack of divine power, but because we cannot be freed from the evil things we do, and we must accept those dark things as well as the Light of our souls.

I think Chopra’s point was that we should harness our shadows for Good, and that with our shadows come gifts. I assume he means that we should find a way to utilize our dark sides to create some good. I would probably get a better understanding of all this if I read the book he was promoting on The Colbert Report, The Shadow Effect: Illuminating the Hidden Power of Your True Self. I just read the description of the book at Amazon, and I was close. Chopra’s point is actually that we should embrace both the light and shadowy aspects of our whole, true selves so that we can attain our full potential, happiness, and our gifts.

I’m Still with Coco

UPDATE May 4, 2010: Conan O'Brien had a nice interview on 60 Minutes.

As everyone except me has known for more than a week now, Conan O’Brien will be on TBS this November at 11 P.M. I only found out the other day when the TV mentioned it; I guess that’s what happens when I don’t keep up with the Twitter or Facebook fan pages or the news in general.


As the title of this blog posting clearly states, I am still with Coco, and I think I always will be Team Conan. I heart Conan; he is talented, funny, and smart.

However, I’m not a big fan of this whole TBS thing. That is not to say that I wouldn’t watch Conan on TBS; I will definitely watch Conan wherever he goes. No one seems to know whether Conan chose not to go to Fox or if Fox chose not to reap the long-term benefits of having Conan, but I do think whoever it was who passed on a Conan-Fox relationship made a huge mistake. I’ve read that Fox might have chosen against having Conan in their late-night time slots because of contracts with lucrative syndicated reruns, and I understand why it would probably be better for Fox in the short term to say “no” to Coco. However, as a broadcasting layperson, I would imagine that Conan O’Brien could do for late-night Fox what David Letterman did for late-night CBS. As far as I knew, there was no reason to watch CBS after primetime (during the times when CBS has had good TV happening during primetime) before Letterman got there, but now, CBS is a prime destination during the late-night hours (for my DVR anyway). I firmly believe that Conan would have the same effect for Fox, though the situation is slightly different in that I do occasionally watch those reruns (such as The Simpsons) that I mentioned.

Speaking of those reruns, that is precisely what Conan will be following when he is on TBS. Obviously, that will be a better lead-in than Jay Leno was when Conan was hosting The Tonight Show, but Fox primetime programming (such as House MD) would be vastly better.

Speaking of lead-ins, it’s funny that Team Leno people, such as the author of this thing from Baltimore, recognize that Jay Leno was a horrible lead-in for the late local news, but at the same time, they don’t seem to get that Leno’s horrible lead-in abilities were the obvious and direct cause of Conan’s poor ratings while he was hosting The Tonight Show. That rather dim article praises Leno for leading in the late-night ratings now that he is back not being funny on The Tonight Show (rather than not being funny in primetime), not appearing to realize that The Tonight Show now has the ratings-causing lead-ins that Leno had always enjoyed but Conan’s Tonight Show never did. That article is filled with bizarre oblivion regarding Leno’s detrimental effects on The Tonight Show’s ratings when he was in primetime. Leno is not the ratings leader because of talent, likeability, humor, guests, or any other quality-related characteristics; it is purely because of the primetime programming that serves as the lead-in for the late local news, The Tonight Show, and Late Night. If Leno’s ratings truly did result from any kind of Leno-ness, then his ratings would have would not have sunken so low when he was in primetime, but obviously, The Jay Leno Show’s ratings were painfully low.

Getting back to funny and talented people, Conan O’Brien will do well no matter where he goes. Some have suggested that he can’t compete with The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report (or Colbert Nation, what the article I just linked to incorrectly called it), but that really doesn’t make sense. The latter shows re-air several times the next day and can be viewed in their entirety online. Additionally, most people have DVRs or other ways to record the TV for later viewing, so people will watch all three shows, as well as Letterman. They will also watch Leno, but only because they will not have changed the channel after Law and Order.

Some people seem to be suggesting that Conan is pulling a Leno (my words, not theirs). The NY Post claims that George Lopez, whose show (Lopez Tonight) Conan will be bumping from 11 P.M. where it currently lives to 12 A.M., was forced to be on Team Conan. This claim has been denied by representatives of George Lopez and TBS. As far as I know, Conan has not responded, however, if this claim is true, I would imagine that it was not Conan who would force George Lopez to support him. If someone really did that, it would presumably be TBS executives. Regarding the Leno-Conan brouhaha, I have argued several times that NBC executives are more to blame than Leno, though a portion of the responsibility does lie on Leno. In this case, regarding the allegedly fake Conan support, there is a good chance that Conan is free from blame. However, regarding the actual moving of George Lopez’s show to a later time, obviously Conan had to be aware of that when he made his deal, and in that sense, one could (and has) argued that he is being Leno-esque. However, there is a vast difference between George Lopez’s show being moved and Conan O’Brien’s Tonight Show being forced to either move or be taken away. The Tonight Show is a television institution, George Lopez’s show is not; the former has been on before midnight for several decades, the latter has not. No offense to George Lopez, but I, and presumably many others, were only vaguely aware that he had a late night show, but everyone knows that The Tonight Show is on, and everyone knew that Conan was the host. Conan is only causing the time-shifting of what I imagine might be a rather unpopular show to a later time; Conan is not causing a firmly established, well-known program to be jolted out of its home, nor is he forcing its host to leave. The situations are very different; Conan is not pushing a popular program into a time slot where it will become less viewed, rather, he is increasing the chances that an unpopular show will likely gain popularity by being on after Conan, that is, by providing a healthy lead-in.

New Scrubs RIP

'Twas a sad day on March 22, 2010, when I gazed upon the Myface (Facebook) status of the great Zach Braff.

"Many of you have asked, so here it is: it appears that "New Scrubs", "Scrubs 2.0", "Scrubs with new kids", "Scrubbier", "Scrubs without JD" is no more. It was worth a try, but alas... it didn't work. Zb"

The end of New Scrubs wasn’t terribly troubling, simply because we had already been through what we believed was the end of Scrubs. We had been through it twice in fact: first, when NBC attempted to prematurely murder it, then again after ABC kindly resuscitated it for what was supposed to be a year to allow them to end the series properly, only to breathe more life into it for this, its real final year. Therefore, I was certainly prepared in that I had already grieved the end of the fabulous show; I knew we were on borrowed time. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed New Scrubs, and it was sad to see that it will not return.

I really liked New Scrubs, although when I first heard there was going to be a ninth season of Scrubs after what I thought was the real series finale, I was concerned. I was sure Scrubs was going to jump the shark the way Happy Days did when Richie Cunningham left and was replaced by his cousin or something (you thought I was going to say when Fonzie literally jumped the shark, didn’t you? Well you were wrong). However, Scrubs definitely did not jump any sharks at all, and there were indications that it wouldn’t before it premiered. Zach Braff seemed to have confidence in it, and I trust comedians, though I remained skeptical since all the entertaining people promote things they are a part of. Zach Braff also defended Scrubs’ continuation, explaining that New Scrubs would provide employment for numerous people. Furthermore, the Scrubs Myface (Facebook) fan page posted this article on Myface before New Scrubs began, where the author seemed to have concerns similar to mine, but was pleasantly surprised with what New Scrubs would bring.

When New Scrubs finally began, I discovered first hand that it definitely did not suck. It wasn’t just Scrubs without JD – it had changed enough, in the setting and with some new characters, that it was almost a different, almost-as-great show. Despite the slight changes, it still had a lot of the original Scrubsiness of the show, via some permanently returning beloved characters, some occasionally returning beloved characters, and the same amazing writing and humor that graced the first eight seasons. They transitioned beautifully into this New Scrubs; they allowed me to fall in love with the new characters as I had fallen in love with the original characters before. It was so perfectly done that they could have – and part of me feels they should have – made New Scrubs a spin-off rather than a ninth season. The new characters weren’t replacements or clones of other characters; there were some similarities, but the new characters were unique. For example, Lucy was not a clone of JD or Elliot, but she clearly exhibited some of their traits while maintaining her own unique and lovable characteristics. I love Lucy (hehehe, I think that’s why they named her Lucy), and I love New Scrubs. I would watch more New Scrubs if it were on. I will watch New Scrubs reruns where I find them on the TV and on the DVDs that I will buy.

However, I need a new show to replace New Scrubs – a new New Scrubs if you will. I was informed recently of a relatively new programme called Modern Family, and I was told I would love it, and that it is worth the addiction that would surely ensue. My informant was right; I watched one episode on abc.com, entitled “Fifteen Percent” (it was the oldest episode still there at that time), and I loved it. It was hilarious, with a bit of an Arrested Development-ness about it, and I already love many if not all of the characters. The reflective introspection that comes from the mockumentary style of it, as well as the lovability of all the characters give it a nice sense of Scrubsiness. I believe Modern Family shall be my new New Scrubs.

I encountered several fun surprises while watching Modern Family. First, Kristen Schaal showed up at the door of the show (I don't believe she is a recurring character), causing me to exclaim to myself (but aloud of course), “Hey, that’s the girl from The Daily Show!” Towards the end of the episode, I suddenly realized, and once again exclaimed aloud to myself, “Omg! That’s Al Bundy!” Indeed, the main character of Modern Family is Ed O’Neill. My excitement grew. As a side note, it’s nice that ABC is taking care of most of the Bundys; Al Bundy (Ed O'Neill) is on Modern Family, Kelly Bundy (Christina Applegate) is on Samantha Who, Peggy Bundy (Katey Sagal) has a recurring role on Lost; where is Bud Bundy (David Faustino)? Perhaps ABC should turn his web series Star-ving into a TV show, or give him some other show, to complete the Bundy fun. Getting back to the fun surprises on that Modern Family episode, at the end of the episode, I was shocked to see the 20th Century Fox thingie – this show is on ABC, but apparently is produced by Fox! That’s crazy! Finally, when I went to write this blog posting, as I searched through Zach Braff’s Myface page looking for the article above that I ended up finding on the Scrubs Myface page, I noticed that Zach Braff also enjoys and recommended Modern Family. Everything came together beautifully.

UPDATE May 26, 2011
At some point since writing this posting, I have discovered that the more accurate new New Scrubs is the funny and Scrubs-like Cougar Town, because Cougar Town is a Bill Lawrence creation, as were Scrubs and New Scrubs.

SPOILER ALERT – Lost Season 6 “Happily Ever After”

SPOILER ALERT The preview of an upcoming Lost episode will be discussed briefly, and content from that episode will be mentioned.

Holy crap! I was right again!!! I am awesome! You are awesome for reading my blog! We see in the previews of the next episode of Lost (“Everybody Loves Hugo”) that SPOILER ALERT Hurley is indeed taking over the position of Jacob! I totally called it! I am so smart! (See “My Brilliant Prediction” towards the end of the blog posting I linked to in this paragraph.)

UPDATE April 15, 2010

It seems that “Everybody Loves Hugo” did not in fact confirm my prediction that Hurley is the new Jacob, as the preview suggested it might. I apologize for my premature excitement. I stand by my prediction, and I believe it will be shown to be accurate.

Before I get to this week’s episode of Lost, there was something I completely neglected to discuss from a previous episode; I believe it was from "Sundown," which happens to be where my first correct prediction happened. Strangely, a segment from The Daily Show where they mention things the Christians did to non-believers during the Spanish Inquisition made me think of this, and in fact shed some more light on it as well. I’m referring of course to Dogen’s poking and prodding and torturing of Sayid to test that the latter was infected. Thus, Dogen was doing as the Christians did. This can be viewed as both evidence for Dogen representing an Evil or a Good Jacob; Evil in that it is evil to do such painful things, and Good in that it might be necessary to hurt an individual to ensure that individual is not evil, like a good ol’ fashioned witch hunt. Obviously, then, if Jacob is Good, then Dogen was doing evil things in the name of Jacob, just as Ben, Widmore, and Eloise did.

In this week’s fantastic episode, “Happily Ever After,” we learned a lot. The perspicacious Daniel Widmore/Daniel Faraday figures out in the New Reality/Flash-Sideways that they had a previous life in which they changed everything with a nuclear bomb. Daniel Widmore/Faraday is smart, kind of like how smart I am for my correct predictions. Anyhoo, when faced with impending potential death or giant magnets, a few of our characters (Charlie, Desmond, and Daniel) were seeing things from their previous life, something that I sort of suggested in a previous blog posting when New Reality Jack seemed to not remember things from his New Reality childhood, and so I suggested that perhaps memories from his previous life were mixing with his New Reality/Flash-Sideways memories. There I go again, being all smart with predicting stuff – or in this case, quasi-predicting stuff.

Speaking of perspicacity (I mean Daniel’s, not my own), Desmond also possesses special abilities to see what could or will be in the reality we are familiar with. Of course, he’s experienced such things before, where his consciousness shifted to a different place and time, and when Daniel Faraday gave him a new memory in the past that he retained in the future. He seems to be the only character in the reality we are familiar with who, I’m assuming, witnessed the new reality/flesh-sideways while he was unconscious via something involving magnetism and some crazy death-tempting experiment Charles Widmore was conducting on him.

This week’s Happy episode also showed us more characters’ lives that have improved. Desmond of course felt empty without Penny, but Destiny and probably Hurley would ensure that he would find her. Charlie might be suicidal, but more likely, he is a risk-taker who is chasing his Destiny. One could argue that he is chasing the Island, but we know he isn’t, based on the other characters’ presumably improved lives.  In this episode, we also see the helping hand of G-d...I mean Jacob...I mean Hurley, when He helps Desmond find his luggage. I heart Hurley. Next week’s episode is so true – everybody really does love Hurley.

It seems that the Widmores are a lot less evil in the new reality than they are in the reality we are familiar with. It looks like Charles Widmore and his New Reality still wife Eloise Hawking (Eloise Widmore in the new reality) both seem to still have some evilness lurking within their souls, but for the most part, they seem to be happy – or happier than they were in the reality we are familiar with. Their son Daniel is alive, which is good, and he is a musician, which is also good. Some might say the life of a genius is being wasted in music, but that genius’s life was literally wasted when he was a scientist in the reality we are familiar with. Furthermore, creativity is certainly not a waste. Penny is still Daniel’s half-sister, and probably resulted from an extra-marital affair Charles Widmore probably had in the New Reality, or so I assume based on Eloise’s angry reaction to Desmond’s inquiries regarding Penny.

In a previous blog posting, I discussed whether Charles Widmore is good or evil, and I concluded that he most likely is similar to Ben was before the latter’s emotional breakthrough in that he is working for a Good cause in ways that often become Evil, and he is consumed by the desire for power, which is also evil. This episode didn’t change these views at all regarding the reality we are familiar with. In the new reality/flash-sideways, however, Charles Widmore is just a regular guy, not needing to fight for Good, The Island, or Jacob, and therefore not having to commit Evil acts in the name of Good. He does have power, though he doesn’t seem consumed by it in an evil way. Desmond recognizes this lack of evilness when he sees the new reality, and thus recognizes that despite Charles Widmore’s apparent evilness in the reality we are familiar with, he is working for a greater Good, for a world where hopefully everyone will be happier – or at least a world without Evil roaming free throughout it.

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.

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.

The Deadly Effects on Humans of Sarah Palin’s Book

While watching this segment from last night’s Daily Show, I realized that the adorable young children to whom John Oliver read excerpts from Sarah Palin’s book (Going Rogue) have clearly been watching David Letterman’s series, “Things More Fun than Reading the Sarah Palin Memoir.”

The children’s examples of things that would be more fun than hearing a reading of Going Rogue closely parallel those of The Late Show with David Letterman. I believe my jocularity regarding the young children’s viewing of The Late Show is obvious. However, the analogous reactions formed by the young children and David Letterman and his writing staff indicates a potentially universal human reaction to Sarah Palin’s memoir – a reaction involving a preference for violent destruction, physical torture, and even suicide over being exposed to the intensely boring torture of Going Rogue.

This clearly elucidates the very obvious fact that Sarah Palin is evil and perhaps even dangerous to all humans, but particularly to young children. Won’t someone please think of the children?! Sarah Palin’s perilous evil is even recognized by the Mayans, who, according to David Letterman, states that their calendar does predict that "the world will end in 2012, but not from floods, earthquakes, or fires,” but rather from the threat of a Sarah Palin presidency.

This brings me to another segment from last night’s Daily Show. Simply put, I agree almost whole-heartedly with Jon Stewart. He presents the belief of the conservative media that we non-conservatives hate Sarah Palin because she is pretty, she hunts, and she’s Alaskan. That is clearly not the case at all. I actually want to like her because she is pretty. I know, that’s wrong, it’s anti-feminist, etc, but it’s just how I feel. Also, she looks a bit like my mother, whom I love like my own mother (probably because she is my own mother), so that’s actually another reason I want to like Sarah Palin. I don’t particularly like her hunting, it seems wrong, especially when she hunts from a helicopter. But I can’t really hate someone who eats what they hunt, for as a non-vegetarian, I’m one step away from doing that as well, though I could never kill anything directly…I mean, except for spiders and some other insects. Regarding her Alaskan origins, I certainly don’t hate her because she lives in Alaska – that’s ridiculous. The only reason I might hate Alaskans is that they elected Sarah Palin governor. Other than that, I don’t have any problem with Alaskans. I mean, it’s not like they’re New Jerseyans. Anyway, I can forgive the Alaskans for electing her since she resigned as their governor so she could write her memoirs.

So, no, I don’t hate her for those superficial reasons as conservative news people from the land of Fox News might like to believe. Rather, I hate her for, as Jon Stewart says, her emptiness, her non-substantiveness, “the nothing…a conservative boiler plate mad-lib…delivered as though it were the hard-earned wisdom of a life well lived…It’s…the boasting about [her] straight-shootin’, when [she’s] not straight shootin’, [she’s] just a talking point machine.”

But I also hate her on those occasions where she does have some degree of substance. I hate her for her overly conservative political beliefs. I have no problem at all with people believing things that differ from what I believe, of course, but I do have a problem with people who feel they should impose those beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, on the rest of the world. That is precisely what Sarah Palin wants to do. Things like forcing her pro-life perspective on women who should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies and abstinence-only sex education – these are some of the reasons I hate Sarah Palin.

Another reason I hate Sarah Palin is discussed in this segment from last night’s Colbert Report. In Going Rogue, Sarah Palin does not take responsibility for anything; she blames others for anything that goes wrong. Additionally, Going Rogue is factually flawed, and she can’t even accept responsibility for that; it’s not her fault, it’s the fault of the fact-checkers who dare to bring her false facts to light.

I hope that reading this blog has been more fun than reading Sarah Palin’s book.

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.