Why I Won't Explain Why I'm an Atheist

I’ve been an atheist for a long time, and I would prefer not to tell you why. I will say this about it: I don’t know when I first started to doubt, but I was about fifteen when I first acknowledged my doubt to myself. It took another ten years of struggling with my faith, or lack thereof, before I admitted it to my family. I cannot summarize my struggle with faith in two or three sentences, or even two or three paragraphs, so I will not attempt it.

I’ve had conversations with people (believers, all; Christians, all) who wanted to know why I became an atheist. I’ve had enough of these conversations to find them tiresome. I’ve had enough of them to know that no good will come of repeating the experience. There were slight variations, but the conversations usually went something like this:

Them: Why did you become an atheist?

Me: [One or two, or if I’m lucky, three sentences about my early struggle with faith and doubt]

Them: Oh, but you don’t really believe that, do you?

Me: Yes—

Them: Seriously, though, you believe in God.

Me: No, I’m an atheist—

Them: Well, you just need to read the Bible.

Me: I have read it, three times.

Them: Well, you didn’t understand it, then.

Because there’s nothing like telling me to my face that I’m stupid (and telling me that I didn’t understand a book I’ve read three times is calling me stupid) to argue faith into me.

I get that some people read the Bible and find comfort and peace in the pages. I didn’t. I would read a few chapters and feel cold, empty, and alone. Reading a few more chapters left me even colder, emptier, and more alone. Reading some chapters made me angry. Some chapters made me hate myself, not because I was leaning toward atheism, but because I wasn’t already shouting my status as an atheist. But my religious leaders had successfully drilled into my young mind that atheists are necessarily evil, that it’s impossible to be good without God. I doubt the religious leaders of my youth had ever met an atheist, or given them a fair shake if they had.

I want to make a few things clear. I have absolutely no interest in trying to convert other people to atheism. I also have no interest in pretending to be a believer so believers can feel good about “saving my soul,” or whatever it is that makes it so important to them that I believe in a deity, preferably theirs. I do have an interest in keeping religion, particularly biblical literalism (Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc.) out of science classrooms. I care about my country. I would not hire a plumber who was trained by ballet dancers, or an electrician who was trained by dentists. (Or, for that matter, a dentist who was trained by electricians. I might be interested in a ballet performed by plumbers, but I would never confuse it with the real thing.) The content of biology textbooks should be determined by biologists. The content of geology textbooks should be determined by geologists. People who don’t know what the scientific method is should teach their children that they have to understand what their teachers say, but they don’t have to believe it. And if their children turn into scientists who don’t believe in the literal truth of the Bible, parents should love them anyway.

If you want to believe that Chthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn butted heads in the sky, causing the Big Bang, fine. You’re entitled to that belief. But you’re not entitled to make science teachers teach it. But I digress.

I’m not as concerned with what other people believe about cosmology and spirituality and religion as I am with the First Amendment. As I read it, the US Founding Fathers considered it a dangerous thing for government to legislate what people think and believe, also their expression of their thoughts and beliefs. I take it a step further: It’s foolish for smaller organizations, and especially individuals, to try.

I am an atheist. That fact does not change your beliefs (or lack thereof), or at least it shouldn’t. If it does, then you probably had issues with your stated beliefs before you ever knew of my existence. But again, I am not interested in converting anyone to atheism; I respect that others’ experiences are not identical to my own. But I’m not going to try to explain or justify my lack of beliefs. Been there, done that. Should probably buy the T-shirt.

Stargate Universe

SyFy canceled Stargate Universe today. It will apparently finish its second season and then die an ignoble death. Fans of the earlier incarnations of the Stargate franchise seem pleased. My feelings are mixed, and that's a compliment to SGU.

The only reasons I saw Stargate (the feature film) were that my sister wanted to see it (and when she saw a movie, I usually saw it, too), and at the time I had a bit of a crush on James Spader. My sister loved the movie. I... didn't. But then, I studied Anthropology, and had taken enough classes in Archaeology to know who Erich von Däniken was. If you don't know, he's a Swiss pseudo-scientist who claims that the Egyptians could not possibly have built the pyramids, so they must have been constructed by aliens from outer space (he goes into a bit more detail than that, but that's a sufficiently fair assessment of his "work" for the purposes of this post). Stargate is one of the few films I've seen that's actually made me think less of an actor I'd previously liked. I don't remember how long it took before I could watch James Spader in anything after that.

Anyway, because Stargate takes Erich von Däniken seriously, I studiously avoided watching SG-1 and SG-Atlantis. I had no desire to contribute in any way to the further propagation of pseudo-science founded on some form of bigotry (and assuming that a group of people couldn't have built the structures that they did, in fact, build, so you can use those structures as "proof" that there is intelligent life in outer space is bigoted, or at the very least prejudiced).

I wanted the franchise to die.

When Stargate Universe was announced, I initially couldn't have cared less, except that it was further propagation of a bigoted myth. Then they cast Robert Carlyle.

Cracker: To Be a Somebody
Trainspotting
The Full Monty

They cast the one actor who could have made me interested in the show. Then they added John Scalzi as Creative Consultant, and my watching the show became a certainty.

One of our generation's best actors played one of the most interesting and complicated characters on any current television show. They made only passing references to the pyramid bullshit, which helped keep the show out of trouble (at least as far as I was concerned). I also felt like they didn't settle--everyone in the cast seemed right to me, the dialogue had unexpected depths of subtext, the characters weren't always sympathetic, and the production values were better than a science fiction series based on pseudo-science has any right to have.

So, while I'm glad that Erich von Däniken no longer has a television franchise spewing his lunatic ravings, I'm sad to see so many good people out of work, and I'm sorry they won't get to finish telling their stories.

RIP, Stargate Universe

Richard Milhouse Nixon: The Real Irish Jew

In the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote: "The highest, as the lowest, form of criticism is a mode of autobiography."

With that in mind, the critical thoughts of Richard Nixon (as reported in The Washington Post):

"Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks. It's sort of a natural trait. Particularly the real Irish."

"The Italians, of course, just don't have their heads screwed on tight. They are wonderful people, but . . ."

"The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality."

"[Bill Rogers] says, well, 'They [Blacks] are coming along, and that after all, they are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.' So forth and so on. My own view is I think he's right if you're talking in terms of 500 years. I think it's wrong if you're talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have to be, frankly, inbred¹."

"[M]ost of our Jewish friends . . . they are all basically people who have a sense of inferiority and have got to compensate."

For the record, I don't know what kind of drunk I am because I don't drink (and my not being Irish has nothing to do with that). I don't think my head's screwed on particularly tightly, even though I'm not Italian. I'll leave the question as to whether I'm a "wonderful" person to others. My grandfather was Jewish, so I guess I'm 25% aggressive, 25% abrasive, and 25% obnoxious. (Actually, I'm not very aggressive at all, but I can be quite obnoxious; how about 5% aggressive and 45% obnoxious?)

But how, using his own rubric, does one explain Nixon? (He seems like he would have been a real mean drunk, I think that everything he said about Jews probably applied to him in greater measure, and I'm not sure exactly where his comments on African Americans came from--"500 years"? Really? Even considering the enormous strides they'd made in just the dozen or so years prior to the recording of these comments?)


¹I'm not sure how Nixon defined inbred, but I do not think it means what he thought it means.

On the money

The Arizona Daily Star's political cartoonist, David Fitzsimmons, was perfect on December 1, 2010. Seriously.

We passed hornets a long time ago...

The mad mob does not ask how it could be better, only that it be different. And when it then becomes worse, it must change again. Thus they get bees for flies, and at last hornets for bees.

Martin Luther -- Whether Soldiers Can Also Be in a State of Grace (1526)

Word Nerd: Literally

literally adv. 1. in the literal or strict sense. 2. in a literal manner; word for word. 3. actually. 4. in effect; in substance; virtually. --Usage Since the early 20th century, "literally" has been widely used as an intensifier meaning "in effect, virtually": The senator was literally buried alive in the primaries This use, common in many styles of speech and writing, is often criticized for being the opposite of the original meaning of "literal." In such cases, nothing is lost by omitting "literally."

--Random House Webster's College Dictionary



I literally think that "literally" is one of the most literally overused words in the English language. Literally. Never mind misused. Which it also literally is, despite the literal inclusion of the literally wrong definition in a literal dictionary (on literal paper literally bound and literally everything). Common usage is not necessarily proper use.

One of the reasons "literally" is overused is that it's almost never necessary. There is no difference between entering a room and literally entering a room. "Literally" is word I can live without, and if you try, you might find that you can live without it too. Literally.

Use the right word, not its second cousin.

I've seen this too often to post links or cite references, but religions have tenets, not tenants.

tenant n. 1. a person or group that rents and occupies land, a house, an office, or the like, from another, usu. under the terms of a lease; lessee. 2. an occupant or inhabitant of any place. -- v.t. 3. to hod or occupy as a tenant; dwell in; inhabit. --v.i. 4. to dwell or live (usu. fol. by in).

tenet n. any opinion,principle,doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.


(Definitions from my copy of Random House's Webster's College Dictionary; title of post stolen unashamedly from Mark Twain.)

wtf? Seriously, WTF?????

A guy (hipster, or maybe just hipster-wannabe) wears a jean-jacket with Charles Manson's face on it and is featured on Styleite as a new low in hipster fashion. He claims that the jacket wasn't his, he didn't know who Manson was, he had to Google Manson to find out, and while Manson was "creepy," it's even creepier that the woman who wrote the piece for Styleite knew who Manson was.

Er... being able to identify one of the most famous serial murderers in American history is creepier than the famous serial murderer is? Mentioning that the guy's friend's jacket is a fashion low is "propagating his creepiness," but his buddy, who bought the jacket, and the person who made the jacket escape condemnation for "propagating [Manson's] creepiness"?

Wow. Just... wow.

Also--wtf?



ETA: Styleite has posted a follow-up in which another man claims (with some credible evidence) to be the man in the Manson jacket, which is another wtf? moment, but it makes the impostor's post even more wtf? If you ask me, which you didn't, but there it is.

Arizona Politics

Dear Idiot(s):

I hope you're not complaining about government waste and government budgets being out of whack, because this sort of thing costs taxpayers money and helps to make the budgets out of whack. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite on top of being idiots, racists (don't complain about that--if you don't want to be called a racist, don't use swastikas), terrorists, and all-around assholes, would you?

Thank you.

Seriously?

It was reported in The New York Times today that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife called Anita Hill at her office at Brandeis University to ask for an apology from her "and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband." Mrs. Thomas considers this to be extending an olive branch.

You have got to be kidding me.

I learned in 2nd grade that if you have to ask for an apology, it probably isn't going to be sincere, and that's if the person doing the apologizing actually did something wrong. In this case, it's Justice Thomas who did something wrong, and his wife wants an apology from the person who was wronged?

This country is doomed, I tell you.

(I won't even get into the grammar and spelling issues.)

Arizona Politics

I had a lot to say, because lately ("lately" being the last thirty years or so), Arizona politicians have been giving Arizona residents a lot to talk about while not doing much that actually benefits the state and its citizens. However, the surfeit of talk hasn't accomplished much either, so rather than contribute to the talk, I'll contribute to the snark, which at least has the potential to make someone smile.

I would like to suggest that citizens of Arizona write in "Alice Cooper" for governor, because it's about time we had a governor who knows how to apply make-up.

Terry Jones

I was going to say something about a certain religious person who's recently made a name for himself by being stupid, but I decided not to add to his fifteen minutes of fame, even if no one does read this blog.

So, instead, I'm going to sing, er, write the praises of Terry Jones, former Python, who, it seems, is writing an opera with Anne Dudley (I think she's been nominated for an Oscar; despite this, she has done good work). I hope there's a duet called "Nudge, Nudge."

More Brewer

Gail Collins of The New York Times wrote a decent op-ed column about the Arizona gubernatorial debate that actually includes some of the more substantively disquieting moments from Gov. Brewer and didn't focus entirely on the brain freeze. It wasn't soft on her, and it wasn't unfairly hard on her.

I'm sympathetic about losing one's train of thought, especially in a high-stress environment. But the junior-high cafeteria level debate skills and the transparency of her talking points should give every Arizonan who is thinking of voting for her pause. The job of Governor entails international diplomacy, even if it is just Mexico, and this level of debate does not inspire confidence that she can listen and respond to what she hears.

Brewer/Goddard

Two reasons not to vote for Governor Jan Brewer:

1. Last night's debate.

2. There likely won't be any more.

There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for Brewer, but those are likely to be the focus of the national media. Actually, the national media will likely focus almost exclusively on the Governor's opening remarks, and omit the exchange about border security in which she attempted to hand Mr. Goddard his ass but got caught off-guard when he responded to her completely unveiled attempts to portray him as soft on border security by recounting his efforts on the smuggling activities that are the state's responsibility.

Kill Devil Hills, NC

Hurricane Earl is threatening the outer banks and is likely to do some damage all along the East Coast.

While my thoughts are with the people who've had to evacuate and I hope the damage is minimal, being removed from the storm by a couple thousand miles allows me to think of more trivial matters, such as how Kill Devil Hills got its name. I've checked the town's official website, and if the information is there, it's well hidden.

Normally I don't like to rely on Wikipedia, but the story there is a good one, about shipwrecks and rum (and the rum wasn't even cited as the causal factor in the shipwrecks). Apparently, the local wreckers would scavenge whatever they could from the wrecks and hide the salvaged rum behind the hills where the Wright Brothers eventually made their historic first flight. The name of the town doesn't derive so much from the shipwrecks as from the rum--it was reputedly strong enough to "kill the devil."

Mediaite Needs a Proofreader

After performing an inexhaustive survey of articles on Mediaite (but not its sister sites), I have found the following errors:

• Unnecessary commas.
• Missing verbs.
• Incorrect pronouns, e.g., “they” instead of “there.”
• Questionable priorities. (Is “irresponsible” really worse than “inflammatory”?)
• Misused words in titles. (Did MSNBC really “promote” Glenn Beck’s rally? Or did they just talk about it a lot?)
• Amusingly incorrect comparisons in titles, e.g., “MSNBC Appears to Be Promoting Glenn Beck’s Rally More than Fox News” implies that MSNBC is telling people to attend Beck’s rally, and to watch Fox News, but more to attend the rally.
• Incorrect punctuation, e.g., semicolon where a comma should be.
• Incorrect words, homophones. (“Cantor through [sic] a smile on his face”? Seriously?)
• Attempted parallel construction with words that don’t allow for it. (“…described, ridiculed, and bewildered at.”)
• Misuse of “exact.” (Unless physicists have successfully managed time travel into the past, Glenn Beck’s rally was on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, not the “same exact day.”)
• Incorrect interrogative pronoun. (“Who she accused” should be “whom she accused”; “whom” is the object of “accused.”)
• Missing punctuation.
• Missing spaces between words.
• Noun-verb disagreement. (“Media” is plural and takes “are”; “paparazzo” is singular, while "paparazzi” is plural.)
• Apostrophes in possessive pronouns. (Correct: hers, its, theirs. Incorrect: her’s, it’s, their’s. Apostrophes are used in contractions and with possessive nouns, but not possessive pronouns.)
• Missing subjects.
• Typographical errors (“in” instead of “is,” “cowtow” instead of “kowtow.”)

These errors and others like them are in almost every article over the last few days. The website’s founder Dan Abrams posted a lengthy article that was mercifully free of errors, and regular contributor Steve Krakauer also does a good job of keeping the errors at a minimum, but for the amount of original text in the majority of articles on Mediaite, too often I find myself stopping to try to figure out what the writer means to say.

The errors just get worse in comments, but a goodly number of the commenters need to brush up on their reading for comprehension skills before worrying about their writing skills.

"Posh Nosh"

Posh Nosh is the best cooking show ever.

:)

Capitalizing Titles

Not every word in a title is necessarily capitalized. Initial articles (A, An, The) are, but internal articles (a, an, the) are not. Conjunctions (and, but, or) are not capitalized. Prepositions (to, in, on) usually are not, but some publications will capitalize prepositions of five or more letters (Above, Through, Under); this is a matter of preference. The to of infinitives are not capitalized. Titles are italicized. Authors and/or publishers are not. (Adapted from Webster's Standard American Style Manual, 1985. Wow. I need a new style manual.)

Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew

Under the Volcano

A River Runs Through It (or, A River Runs through It, which I think looks a little odd, but is acceptable)

The Fellowship of the Ring

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

(I suppose I should mention that in On the Origin of Species, Darwin does not discuss the evolution of humans, that the definition of "race" in his times has fallen out of favor, and that some of the wording and editing of the content of the book were the direct result of consideration of potentially severe consequences had it not gained sufficient acceptance among Darwin's contemporaries. I suppose I should also write a separate post about that, but not tonight.)

Days and Days

I hate days when I feel like I've accomplished absolutely nothing, and I've been having far too many of them lately.

Spellcheck is the enemy

Just because two words look a lot alike and sound a lot alike, it doesn't mean they're the same word. And just because spellcheck doesn't tell you that you've misspelled a word, it doesn't mean that you haven't misspelled a word.

For example, spellcheck will not tell you that you mean "lose" when you wrote "loose." Spellcheck will not tell you that you mean "there" when you wrote "their" or "they're." Spellcheck will not tell you that you mean "too" when you wrote "to." Or "two."

Spellcheck is not your friend. Spellcheck is no one's friend. Spellcheck is the guy who "helps" you move in to your apartment, but is all too happy to drink the beer and eat the pizza after leaving all of the heavy lifting for you and your Chihuahua. Spellcheck implies that it's making promises, but it's only leading you on. It'll break your heart if you let it.

Huckleberry Finn and the Mosque

In recent decades, Mark Twain’s classic novel Huckleberry Finn has faced numerous banning attempts, often because of its profuse (and dated) use of the n-word. For that reason, it can be an uncomfortable read. The story, however, remains sublime, and the one character most frequently referred to by the notorious epithet can rightly be considered the book’s hero.

When Jim has his own freedom almost within reach, he runs into the runaway Huck. Jim knows that Huck’s father is dead (Huck is not yet privy to this information), so he also knows that this 14-year-old boy is alone in the world and that the world is not kind to 14-year-old boys like him. Jim sacrifices what he believes to be his one chance at freedom in order to protect the kid. The choice is heartbreaking and the sacrifice is noble and sad. Jim, through his choice, demonstrates the better nature of humanity that eludes most of the other characters. He made his sacrifice voluntarily, without being asked. He did it because it was the right thing to do.

Huckleberry Finn asks thoughtful readers under which circumstances they might be willing to sacrifice their own freedom.

Recent events beg different but related questions: Under what circumstances would you ask someone else to sacrifice their rights or freedoms? And what is the cost of setting that precedent? I submit that the criteria for requesting fellow citizens to suspend or sacrifice their rights should be at least as demanding as those for which one would willingly sacrifice one’s own rights without being asked to do so. I fear that I am in the minority.

The so-called Ground Zero Mosque has an unfortunate number of people insisting that Muslim Americans give up their right to build their community center in its proposed location because it is insensitive to the feelings of 9/11 survivors and victims’ families. (It should be noted that 9/11 survivors and victims’ families are not of one opinion on the matter.) Is “insensitivity” really the threshold we as a nation want to establish for requesting the suspension of rights? We claim that we believe all people have inalienable Constitutional rights, but too often we are willing to ask some groups (Muslims, gays, atheists, blacks, Latinos, Jews, Japanese, women, etc.) to serve their country, our country, by giving up the rights our soldiers, their soldiers, are fighting and dying to protect; and each time we make that request, we step a little farther away from the American ideal.

The President, in keeping with his Oath of Office, defended the Constitutional right of Muslim Americans to build their mosques. He later backpedaled, insisting that he was speaking only about the legality of it, and not the wisdom. Obviously, the same First Amendment that guarantees Muslims the right to build a place of worship wherever they want also guarantees others to express their opposition to it. But if you question the wisdom of building a mosque a few blocks away from Ground Zero, should you not also question the wisdom of opposing it?

The Answer is in the Question

Why are commercials for depression meds always so depressing?

Word Nerd: Healthy/Healthful

My dictionary includes "healthy" as one (but not the primary) definition of "healthful," but when it comes to discussing usage of the words healthy, healthful, and wholesome, it confirms what I had believed to be the case, specifically that healthy and healthful are not exactly synonyms. Something that is healthy possesses health or promotes health (my dictionary cites a "healthy climate"), while something that is healthful is conducive to physical health. So when it comes to food, if it's good for you, it's healthful, but if it's healthy, it's still alive.

Things that are "wholesome" have some freshness or purity, and are beneficial, either physically or morally. When it comes to food, "wholesome" and "healthful" are synonyms. But who says "wholesome" anymore?

Political Campaigns (Audiovisual)

Negative political ads would be a lot more entertaining if the voice-overs were all done by Bill Hader impersonating Vincent Price.

Come to think of it, so would positive political ads.

And OxyClean commercials.

Pedantry

Eminent: adj. 1. high in station, rank, or repute; distinguished. 2. greatest; utmost. 3. lofty; high. 4. an anatomical projection, esp. on a bone.

Imminent: adj. 1. likely to occur at any moment; impending. 2. projecting or leaning forward; overhanging.

The eminent (def. 1) doctor's departure may be imminent (def. 1), but the imminent (either def.) doctor's graduation is not necessarily eminent (def 1, 2, or 3; 4 is right out).

The Tempest and Forbidden Planet

What follows is a brief and incomplete comparison of The Tempest by William Shakespeare and the classic science fiction film Forbidden Planet.

Prospero vs. Morbius

When Prospero referred to his books, he understood what he was doing. When Morbius tapped into the Krell machinery, he only thought he understood what he was doing. Prospero’s backstory is richer. Morbius, on the other hand, has something to learn (and to regret) before the end of his story. Prospero would win in a fight, but it’s easier to relate to Morbius. Winner: Prospero, if only because Shakespeare wrote his dialogue.

Miranda vs. Altaira

Both are only children. Neither has seen a human man besides her father until after the story begins. Both are beautiful. Miranda has been educated by her father; presumably, Altaira was also (unless he hooked her up to the Krell computers, which doesn’t seem likely). Prospero did a better job educating his daughter, but that’s hardly Altaira’s fault. Miranda has a strong sense of propriety, whereas Altaira must figure that out on her own (consequently, she probably had more fun). Miranda is the less offensive stereotype.

Ariel vs. Robbie the Robot

Both serve their masters with their innumerable and immeasurable skills. Morbius made Robbie, and the robot must obey him—there are no conflicts between them. Ariel serves Prospero as part of a bargain made long in the past. Once Ariel has served the purpose Prospero has for him, he will be set free. They have disagreements about the end of their “contract,” so he is more than an appliance. Robbie can do amazing things, manufacturing any material thing anyone could want from nothing. Ariel can’t do that, but he can conjure up a tempest that delivers a direct hit to a particular ship, and then he can see to it that the ship and its passengers are unharmed.

Caliban vs. the Id Monster

Caliban was the son of a witch (Sycorax), and he embodies the basest impulses of humanity. He is manipulative, he lies, and he is resentful. He also provides the play with its best conflicts and plot reversals. Without him, the play is little more than a soap opera without villains. While he isn’t exactly a villain, he’s not the sort of character one would want to spend any significant amount of time with in real life. He is slightly more thoughtful than Morbius’s Id Monster, an invisible beast that wreaks havoc when Morbius sleeps. The Id Monster is violent and uncontrollable, and would easily defeat the weak Caliban in a fight. But the Id Monster is thoughtless and not his own character, being a part of Morbius’s subconscious mind.

Overall, Forbidden Planet isn’t a patch on The Tempest, and comparisons between the two, while common, are also a bit of a stretch. The Tempest really is about the characters, while Forbidden Planet is about the visuals. I know some people don’t think The Tempest should be considered one of Shakespeare’s comedies, and while it isn’t as funny as some of the others, it can’t possibly qualify as a tragedy (no one dies) or a history (it is fiction). And there are exquisitely ridiculous scenes, such as the scene on the ship during the titular storm, in which the noblemen on the ship demand to be treated with respect and gentility by the crew, even as the crew labors to keep the ship under control.

The Stupid Late Night Wars

I watched Oprah Winfrey's interview with Jay Leno, and I think Leno was right about the absurdity that he's been in the news so much. Why am I commenting on it, then? I refer you to the title of this blog. So... my useless opinion(s) on this useless business...

Selfishness is not always a bad thing, and there isn't always a reason to hold selfishness against someone. While it's selfish for Leno to want to host the Tonight Show, it's understandable and not in itself something to hold against him. The selfishness that's a problem is his apparent inability to look beyond himself at the consequences of his actions. Here I'm talking about the (minimum) four hours of prime time he didn't have to take up for his 10:00 show. According to this interview, he didn't even realize that he'd be putting 1,000 (or more) people out of work until after it was pointed out to him after he'd agreed to do it. While he said he regretted that, he apparently still hasn't connected this to the charge of selfishness. He also said in the Oprah interview that he thought the network would ask him to do 2 or 3 nights in prime time, and returning to late night (for the half-hour show) never occurred to him. When Conan announced that he didn't want the Tonight Show to be on at 12:05, why didn't Leno suggest this as an alternative?

Cheap shots. Letterman took a cheap shot at Leno by calling him Jay "Big Jaw" Leno. Leno's response was to take a cheap shot a Letterman's marriage. Leno thinks this was fair. It would have been fair if Leno had taken a cheap shot at Letterman's hair or teeth. Leave his wife out of it. (And yes, if you bring his marriage into it, you bring his wife into it.)

All in all, I can't say that Leno said anything I didn't expect, so I can't say my opinion of him has improved much. I'm sure he's devastated.