The TV Zone

By now you may have heard the big news out here in BH - that Jay Leno told USA Today that he is done with NBC next year. Done, as in: No primetime specials, no special ambassadorship, no syndicated series for some division of NBCUniversal, no guest-hosting job on "Access Hollywood"...

He's outta there.

The news broke innocuously, but like all tectonic shifts in this business, such news often does. I remember when Johnny took the stage at Carnegie Hall in '88 or '89, and told advertisers at the NBC upfront that he would hang it up at 30 seasons. There was no press release. No formal "this is it" statement. Just a brief and modest aside to a thousand stunned advertisers.

And I don't believe he ever said another word about it in public.

Then, this news this morning. The piece - by an enterprising reporter by the name of Marco R. della Cava - was ostensibly just about Jay's vast collection of cars, and his gearhead love of all things mechanical (though I was a little surprised that there wasn't much talk about motorcycles...)

Della Cava asked the right question, or maybe just snuck in it during a fascinating conversation about the 1936 Lagonda Rapide LG45 Team Car.

"Ummm, Jay, before we I ask you about the Lagonda Rapide LG46, which I believe came out in 1938 and I do believe I see one over there in the corner, I was just kinda wondering: Are you gonna stay with NBC next year...? "

Maybe that's how it came up. But Jay had a message to deliver too. Here it is: "I am definitely done next year with NBC." Another network? "I'm not a beach guy, and the last time I was in my pool was to fix my light. Don't worry, I'll find another job somewhere..."

Don't worry. He will. So let us quickly review the options, then I'll tell you what I know:

ABC: As "Nightline" replacement, and lead-in to "Jimmy Kimmel." Tricky because you don't wanna alienate JK, who certainly believes he has a right to 11:35...Letterman felt the same way, and look what happened there. Even with all the joking at press tour yesterday, Steve McPherson knows this is a delicate operation. I suspect, though, ABC will perform it adroitly. Odds are good Jay'll come here.

Sony: A syndicated deal, as reported some months ago by the NYTimes, is apparently on the table, or could be on the table. It would be for a vast sum of money. Problem is, Jay's not motivated by money. If I've heard this once, I've heard it a thousand times. I believe it. Odds here are slim.

CBS: Only if Dave walks in '10. Only, and a big only. We in the press - Okay, I in the press - have predicted in the past that Dave'll walk, only to be proven wrong. He'll walk one day. Who knows when. And Dave might just sign a new contract to keep Jay away from CBS; I imagine - nay, believe - the slightest residue of bitterness remains that Leno got the job that he believed rightfully his all those years ago. CBS odds not so high, in my opinion.

Fox: The dark horse. Jay comes here for the 11 p.m. job, and there will be - I am convinced - an offer for an 11-midnight show. The pitch to Jay could be very appealing: You'll get a younger audience here, an "American Idol" lead-in (or at least a lead-in from late local news that's been boosted by "AI"), and the chance to build a big audience that could blunt or damage or even scuttle the Conan-hosted "Tonight" show. I don't think Jay's a guy motivated by revenge, but on some level, he's a brutal competitor, and the chance to demolish the network that abused him and tossed him aside like a moldy head of cabbage has to be enormously appealing. Odds of Fox are, I think, very good. Not quite as good as ABC, which has the slight edge, because of 11:35, but still very good.

Here's what I do know: No decision has been made. I am positive - or close to positive on this, despite Jay's on-air kidding the other night (he held up that "headline of the future," which showed him at ABC, remember?) I am told reliably and told by a sterling source that Leno's camp can still not hold negotiations or discussions with any interested party. I don't know when the window opens, but when it does, it will be front page news, believe me.

But today, we know just one fact: Jay will not be at NBC after his contract ends next year.

Sorry for this very long blog entry, but this is the biggest news in TV this year.

(Photo: NBC)

After years of Emmy ignominy, "The Wire" appears poised to get a Best Drama Emmy nomination when awards are announced July 17.

How do we know this? Because in an unusual move, the Emmys Thursday night announced drama and comedy finalists, or -- as Emmy put it -- the "top ten vote-getters." The so-called blue-ribbon panel screenings of these vote-getters takes place on June 28 and 29. Then? I'll let Emmy explain: "The results of those panels, who will watch and judge the work of each finalist, represent 50 percent of the vote. Both results will be averaged together to come up with our five nominees in each category . . ."

But I'm burying my lede. You are dying to find out what the other shows are. Dying . . . and I'm delaying here, or to use a fancy word, temporizing, just to build the excitement, anticipation, thrills.

Oh, for Chrissakes, Gay, will you please open the damn envelop.

Without further temporizing, dear friends, herewith the list -- ta dum. (Quickie analysis to follow.)

Top 10 Comedy Series Finalists

Curb Your Enthusiasm
Entourage
Family Guy
Flight of the Conchords
The Office
Pushing Daisies
30 Rock
Two and a Half Men
Ugly Betty
Weeds

Top 10 Drama Series Finalists

Boston Legal
Damages
Dexter
Friday Night Lights
Grey’s Anatomy
House
Lost
Mad Men
The Tudors
The Wire

Quickie analysis

Comedies: No "Desperate Housewives" in comedy? After a pretty good season? This crop looks strong, but I'm befuddled by "Family Guy;" I must be missing something but after 20 years, the greatest show in TV history, "Simpsons", couldn't crack this list because it was animated, and had to settle for that silly and insignificant "animated" category. Why does "FG" earn a bye here? Meanwhile, glad to see "Weeds" which deserved to be here before (but you know Emmy!) and absolutely thrilled to see "Californication" is not. Thanks God, this isn't the Golden Globes. What should be on the final list? "Weeds," "Rock," "Men," "Conchords," "Office."

Dramas: What sticks outta this list like a broken thumb (swollen to 10 times its size?) You are correct, sir / madame! "Grey's," which belongs on this about as much as "One Tree Hill;" in fact, "Hill" has more right to be here than "Grey's," which had a stinky season. (Just ask Kate Heigl!) Of course my heart is gladdened by the fact that "Lost" is here. What should be on the final list? "The Wire," "Mad Men," "Lost," "Friday Night Lights" (hmmmm), and "Damages."

What it's about: Those of us who struggle to pay our gas bill always look wistfully to the day when we can pay said bill, but tonight at 10, CNBC takes us into a world where something as picayune as $4.55 per gallon is as momentous as a molecule on a mote of dust on a mite's middle toe.

The world of super duper rich.

This hour begins with a Rolls show, and ends with the stark screen graphic that tells us the average salary is $26,323, but the 400 richest Americans are worth a total $214 billion which is more than the GNP of 149 nations. "Super Rich" is filled with such stats, and after a while they'll drift away from your plain of consciousness, as if they are just more numbers in a sea, nay, universe, of grandiose figures and outsize bank-rolls. Forty-nine thousand households have net worths of between $50 and $500 mill, and 125,000 between $25 and $50 mill. In 1985, there were 13 billionaires from sea to shining sea; now there are more than a thousand.

Millionaires are the mere middle class rich and barely merit inclusion here; this is the rarefied world of wealth, where a billion is a nice pile of peanuts, but you're only really interesting when your pile is up to ten billion. The show - narrated by vet CNBC reporter, David Faber - profiles many of these people and - my suggestion - bring your sunglasses because every one of them seems to have a taste for gold lame.

There's Tim Durham, who confides that it costs 23 grand to change a tire on his Bugatti (he's got 70 cars scattered about, each one worth more than your house, twice over...). There's Glenn Stearns, a poor kid from Maryland now worth - I think I heard the program right - $100 billion. Maybe $100 million. Whatever. There's Anthony Scaramucci, of Manhasset worth only $80 million; he seems like he's almost a pauper in this crowd. These are people who go on vacation to places like Parrot Cay (above) where a lousy room costs two grand a day. Many make their lucre from hedge funds, and in fact, it seems like most do.

Bottom line: David Faber is one of the best financial reporters on TV, maybe the best, as far as I can tell, so you start out with the assumption that this will be a well-told hour that's richly - pun absolutely intended - reported. It is. But like all pornography, wealth pornography starts to wear thin after a while, no matter how skillful or thoughtful the treatment. Faber and his producers, it seems to me, do just about everything right: They offer perspective, talk to the right people (including Ron Chernow, the National Book Award-winning author and biographer of J.P. Morgan), ask the right questions, and provide the requisite beauty shots. But still something is missing, and that is opinion. A subject like this, at a time like this, absolutely demands a moral, or ethical, perspective, which can be summed up in one question: Is such wealth RIGHT? Or does it represent a serious failing on the part of a nation where so very many are struggling each and every minute? Hedge funds? Only the most excoriated financial instrument since Teapot Dome, but most of these people seem to have earned their money this new-fashioned way, by profiting off of others' misfortunes. Is that right? I'm not sure, but I think a question is merited. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, in his Harvard days, used to rail against the paper millionaires who didn't actually make anything. Do THESE people? And if they don't, isn't there a question to be asked, to wit: Is this kind of wealth and iniquity good for the longterm health of the economy and the country?

This hour is fascinating - but I do wish it would have taken another hour to go deeper, and hit harder.

There's so much more to say about George Carlin that it seems like a few little blog posts here and there, a Newsday appreciation by yours truly here, and a bounty of other tributes everywhere else seems almost insignificant.

So this morning, I have some more. First, my last word about "Seven Words." It was a routine that (for many) came to symbolize TV's rapid descent into vulgarity and coarseness. However, it's also well worth nothing that what Carlin did was to make a comment on the fact that the descent was already well under way; the point of the routine was that TV was already soaked in most of the words (notably the f-bomb) that he mentioned, but that the ever-hypocritical boob tube trafficked in euphemisms for those various words and acts. You couldn't say these words on TV -- merely demonstrate them. The point was about hypocrisy and remains valid today.

Now ... NBC set up a special site yesterday so that you can check out his entire monologue from the October '75 premiere of "SNL"; snippets of it are available in lotsa places, notably Hulu, but you get the full monologue here. What's notable about it, besides it being the first monologue on the most influential show in television history? In part, you can see exactly how deeply Seinfeld was affected by this guy. (Jerry, BTW, headlined a terrific and generous "Larry King Live" last night, which also had Roseanne Barr, Bill Maher and Lewis Black.)

Another benefit: You can see Carlin as adroit performer. We usually just seem to mention those words but forget this other aspect. Here's a quick clip, but if you want to see the whole thing, please go to the special NBC site ...

The Presumptive Nominee is a happy man right about now. He's fist-bumping whoever he's coming into contact with. He's thinking, "maybe I should make MICHELLE the vice president - hey, Hill was veep to Bill during two terms..." He's thinking, "what did Whoopi just say...Oh, it doesn't matter." He's thinking, "man, that dress was expensive but it was worth every PENNY." He's thinking, "behind every successful man, there's a woman...No, I better NOT think that. That's sexist as all get out. Hill would take me to town on that one...doesn't matter, she's not running anymore. Or is she...?"

Of course, I have no idea what the Presumptive Nominee is thinking. I only know what I am thinking: Michelle Obama's appearance on "The View" was a political slam dunk - a performance so adroit and so skillful and so savvy that the political attack dogs out there are writhing in agony. "Why couldn't SHE have said &%$*&@! instead of Whoopi," they're saying. "Why, why, WHHHYYY!!!???"

You know, I'm pretty certain (but, being a seat of the pants sort of blogger, not 100 percent certain) that millions of people suspect Michelle Obama is a Theresa Heinz type - the sort of significant o who just can't HELP but say something that will turn a hundred million Americans against her with just one verbal slip - or as Freud might say, a " lapsus linguae" that'll tell people what's really going on in her sub-conscious.

I'm no Freud, but her sub-conscious seems to match her conscious pretty nicely, if this outing was any indication. She was funny, smart, interesting and - most important - likeable. She even said nice and remarkably disarming stuff about Laura Bush. Michelle O - you don't mind if I call you "Michelle O," do you Michelle? - was seated in the middle of our kaffee klatch crew, and joked immediately (again, shrewdly) about the bump: "It's my signature bump," and Whoopi comes back with a good ice breaker (not that there was any ice to break) with, "you should be really happy it's not a chest bump."

Michelle O got all the hard questions almost before the first commercial break, which - from her perspective - is exactly when and where she wanted them.

How does she feel about all the attacks that have started up - the ones about her patriotism, etc? (Our "View" gals didn't dignify the ludicrous "whitey" slur with a question, to their great credit.)

"I take them in stride. It's part of the process. Of course I'm proud of my country. No where but in America could my story be possible. I'm a girl that grew up on the South Side of Chicago; my father was a working class guy who worked a shift all his life, and got two children through Princeton. He's now the coach of Oregon State - go Beavers! I tell people just imagine the pride that parents who didn't go to college felt through their own hard work to have us achieve the things they couldn't imagine. So I'm proud of my country without a doubt."

Now you may be as cynical as me, and think - "well, what do you expect her to say?" - to which I'd answer: I actually think she's being sincere.

Joy asked her the Hill/sexism question, as in - do you think that Hill was subjected to it during the campaign? Said Michelle O, "yes, people aren't used to strong women and at times we don't even know how to talk about them, so yes, and there were elements of racism that will go on [too.] I think Hillary Clinton has said she's created 18 million cracks in the ceiling and we need to keep pushing on it and keep pushing...so that when my girls come along they won't have to feel it as badly."

Masterful response. Notice the first use of "we," as if to suggest that even SHE might be complicit in this whole sexism thing.

Next up, Babs asked the 'ol "should Hill be veep?" question.

Michelle O stepped up to the plate, squared away, and saw a big fat pitch come right down the middle - without ANY heat or motion - connected, and sent that sucker right into the parking lot:

"My answer, and people have asked me this before, is that the one thing that a nominee earns is a right to pick the vice president that they think will best reflect their vision for the country. And I'm just glad I will have nothing to do with it."

Oh, you're good, Michelle O. You're very good.

(Above: AP photo.)

Tom Brokaw, the next moderator of "Meet the Press?"

Yes, the next moderator. As always, NBC News is luckiest news division - despite what happened last Friday just before 2 p.m. - simply by virtue of having Brokaw on its payroll. Once again, duty calls and if I know Brokaw, and I think I do, he'll answer that call as he's done so many times before.

There are so many reasons why Tom Brokaw should be the next moderator of "Meet the Press" - at least on what might be called a "transitional basis" - that the best way to lay them out is a list, so here goes.

1.) Soothing for viewers AND the network: The death of Tim Russert is, like any death, disruptive, but this one was profoundly so. Russert manned this program for seventeen years and manned it brilliantly. He WAS the face of Sunday morning, to a large degree, and WAS the face of NBC's political coverage. As a result, NBC needs a new face that is also profoundly familiar and trusted. There's only one at NBC which comes to mind.

2.) Brokaw knows the territory. He, like Russert, is an encyclopedia of political fact and trivia, so much so that he's had to bat down rumors for literally decades that he would run for office from home state South Dakota. Moreover, Brokaw has worked by Russert's side, on-screen and off, for nearly twenty-five years. No one knows the rhythm of this coverage better than Brokaw.

3.) No one else is ready. This is beyond self-evident. Of course, there will be the insta-rumor that Katie Couric is up for the gig, but any whiff of positioning on her part will kill this possibility so quickly that heads will spin. Yes, NBCU topper Jeff Zucker wants her back at NBC, or so I believe, and maybe for a role at MSNBC. Katie wants the 9 p.m. "Live" slot on CNN - that I believe too. Now, "Meet the Press" will be considered almost a certainty too. But she won't be back, if ever, at NBC until next year. NBC needs someone next week. The others? Chris Matthews? Never ready for this job - he's too cable. David Gregory? Smart guy and first-rate interviewer, while his agent would dearly love him to replace Matt Lauer one of these days. I say - as good as he is - the guy's got "trust" issues with viewers who are pretty good at reading faces on the tube. Gregory's not ready for this job, and maybe never. Brian Williams? No. Absolutely, no. Viewers - and NBC staffers - will see it as a part time gig for him, and one to which he will devote neither all his time nor energy. He'll fly down to Washington on Fridays, and back to NYC on Sundays; this schedule would devalue his role at "Nightly," and you can't have that.

4.) He'll answer the call. I think and believe Brokaw will. He'll need assurance, and I'm sure get it, that this is only a temporary measure, say for six months or at most a year. He'll get the assurance too that NBC will offer try-outs to others, so that someone else will be ready to step in the moment he's ready to move aside. He won't want this forever, but maybe he'll grow into it. I've always believed - and still do - that Brokaw needs more work, even though his doc unit keeps him very busy. On some level, one that even he won't admit to, he misses the "Nightly" tonic - the stardom, influence, excitement, rush. Brokaw, meanwhile, is a terrific multi-tasker in the game of life: He can work very hard, and play pretty much the same way. (His idea of "play," of course, is running the rapids in some wild river out west.) This shouldn't be a major pull for him, again if it lasts only through election.

5.) Brokaw will get the bigshots to appear. Sure - you say - anyone would wanna come on "Meet." But what about the other Sunday shows? They compete for guests too, and without a major player at the helm of "MTP," those guests may be more disposed to appearing on ABC or CBS. With the eminence at the helm - that would be Tom - "MTP" will be better positioned to meet this immediate challenge.

6.) Brokaw will be handling much political coverage through November anyway - this will make him both sharper, and give the network more gravitas in the process, much as David Brinkley did for ABC News. So, Tom as anchor of "MTP" through inauguration, and THEN hand-off to someone else.

7.) Finally, Brokaw is the choice that will most completely, and most deeply, honor Russert. Yes, I leave this until last, even though it may be the most important reason of them all. There is only a handful of on-air people left in this business who exemplify the glory of the Big Three network news divisions of decades past. Bob Schieffer is one. Russert was another. And Brokaw is the last. It's a very abbreviated list for the simple reason that the heavyweights are all gone. Even Mike Wallace will likely NEVER appear on the air again. "Meet the Press" is network television's oldest program, born in the half-light of this industry's creation. It crept out of the primordial ooze, so to speak, and became, instantly, a vitally important program in news and politics. Russert intuitively believed that, consciously understood it, and adjusted his professional bearing accordingly to meet that vital role. This is why Russert was so successful, and why the mourning that we now see on NBC's air (and elsewhere) is so genuine. There's only one person who similarly understands "Meet the Press's" role and who can meet it accordingly, and imbue it with the symbolism that it so richly deserves. You know by now who that person is.

Well, Tom. What's your answer?

I'm back!

(Or, Gay said grimly to himself, I'm back.)

"What?" (Says you.) "You were gone? I didn't even notice."

Oh, you're a clever one. I appreciate the wit. In fact, this blog was handled in my absence by my able and hardworking editor and colleague, Andy Edelstein. I was on something called a "vacation." I highly recommend it.

I was down in North Carolina. You're not going to believe this, but they don't have TV down in North Carolina. For entertainment, they run through the woods, shooting at wild boars (or so I'm told.) "American Idol?" They think it's some sort of wild boar. Never heard of it. Flava Flav? They think that's some kinda sody pop. "Dancing with the Stars." They like to dance with the moonshine down in North Carolina, if ya know what I mean.

Actually, I'm kidding. They do have TV.

It's just that I forgot to watch it. I also highly recommend that on occasion. (TV Turnoff week BTW began yesterday.)

But we need to catch up, and since all of you depend solely on this blog for news about the TV industry and other assorted chicanery, let's just go through everything as quickly as possible.

Kristy Lee: Did you hear? Ha. Ha. Of course you heard. My God, she finally got voted off. The only thing that gobsmacked me about this was - what took so long? I'm pretty certain votefortheworst - those scamps - kept her in the hunt this long. She wasn't bad, this FOB (Friend of Britney), she just wasn't as good as the rest. Plus, Michael Johns gone before KL? Jeez.

ABC News debate: I hear that Charlie Gibson showed up dressed in a clown costume and George Stephanopoulos was in some sort of court jester get-up. Very odd. They asked the candidates about stuff like their pin lapels and what sort of cereal they eat, and this hugely important question: Pizza: thin crust or regular? The debate was roundly panned! Apparently viewers thought the two anchors had trivialized the whole process. Imagine.

Tony Snow joins CNN: This is good news cuz it means the guy has beaten his cancer AGAIN. He's an amazing guy and I'm happy for him. But some people will interpret this to mean that Fox News - where he worked all those years - got bushwhacked (so to speak) by its arch-rival. In fact, I kinda doubt that - FNC and Snow never got along. It was a truly poisonous relationship.

"Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles:" Re-newed! Yes, that's huge news. I thought this bubble had burst, but nooo. Fox just announced this, plus dropped the additional news (no biggie) that Brian Austin Green is gonna be a series regular too.

Prez Bush on "Deal or No Deal:" I missed this, getting in from the moonshine state a little too late. But yes, the thought occurred to me as well. If Howie Mandel decides to step aside for any reason, I think I've got a perfect replacement for him. Plus, this has never been done - although Bill Clinton once thought of doing a talk show.

Gary Dourdan Leaving "CSI:" Holy cow (again.) This is true. I don't fully understand why. He's smart enough not to ask for a raise - ya know what Billy Petersen does to people who ask for a raise on his show. I'm guessing it's the old standby reason: ratings decline, show-runners decide to shake up cast...

Above: Me on vacation! Actually, Brian Austin Green on vacation. Not for long - he's got a fulltime gig on "Sarah Connor."

Come on, come on, come on, people. Get a grip!

GET A GRIP!

The exit of Michael Johns is not, repeat not, shocking.

Yet why has the morning buzz turned to a morning roar - that Johns exit was like some sort of amazing turn, totally unexpected, profoundly terrible, etc.? Michael Johns' exit has become, all of a sudden, this season's Next Big Flap, the First Big Flap being lap dancing pictures-or-whatever of David Hernandez.

I just saw Kelly Ripa do a Paula - Omygod omygod omygod (goes Kelly). He was a latter day JIM MORRISON.

What? Kelly, you were born like 30 years after Morrison died. How would you know what Jim Morrison was like.

I knew Jim Morrison. Michael Johns was no Jim Morrison.

Now, let's put this in proper proportion, shall we? It was a "surprise." Just a surprise. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I mean, come on. He wasn't going to win "American Idol." David Archuleta is going to win "American Idol." That is so certain, so writ in stone, so don't-even-bother-arguing-with-me (because I'll just plug my ears and go "neeener neeener neeener...not listening...not listening") that I've even written my lead for the story the night he wins. Here it is:

"David Archuleta won 'American Idol' last night."

Catchy, isn't it? You're right. I'll work on it.

But here's my point (and I do have one): Michael Johns was good, but not great. His last few outings have been blah. Aerosmith on Tuesday? Blah blah. Kristi Lee, who effectively LIVES in the bottom three, has actually gotten better - or better at getting more clever in song choice. Brooke - one of my early favorites - has gotten worse, to the point of awful. Yet she has so completely conned her fans with that sweet lil' ol' me act that they don't even hear her performances.

But Johns never seemed to work his fans, never worked the judges. He was a bit of a cypher, really, unreadable, inscrutable. The Great Sphinx of the seventh season.

Sometimes it's not just about the singing. Sometimes it's about selling yourself too. Johns never learned that little secret. That's why he's gone.

No shock. Just a surprise. And in hindsight, a small one.

Talked to someone late yesterday who's plugged into the CBS rumor mill, and one thought making the rounds is that Katie could be gone long before the various news reports have her gone. Conventional wisdom now stands that Katie stays through inauguration, and then leaves. But the crush of recent press may force the issue sooner, and the standout line in today's New York Times wrap is "in a few weeks."

A few weeks? At the outset of the May sweeps? Maybe even just in time for the Pennsylvania primary (April 22) which should be one of the biggest stories of the political season?

It's certainly possible, but maybe it's also worthwhile keeping a couple of thoughts in mind. If Katie's forced out, then CBS has to eat the balance of her contract, which is around $40 million. That's a far worse outcome than anyone at CBS wants to contemplate. In other words, this decision may pretty much be in Katie's hands - assuming CBS doesn't believe the recent press has caused so much damage to her and the franchise that it's WORTH $40 million to cut bait.

Another consideration: Who would replace her? It now seems pretty obvious that the network prevailed upon Bob Schieffer to postpone his retirement for just this reason. If Katie goes, the call will go out to Bob.

And another consideration still: How will he feel about that? Ever the trooper, he gracefully bowed out when Katie came aboard a couple years, yet I always believed that this was a reluctant exit. He'd never admit it, but Schieffer knew his stint was a success, knew he should have been in the chair years earlier, but out of deference to his friend, Dan Rather, never forced the issue. Schieffer had something to prove - that he had the chops and talent to be the heir to Cronkite - yet he never got the chance to fully prove it.

It was - if you will - an instance of anchor interrupted.

Now he'll be asked to save the franchise once again, knowing full well that he'll be shuffled aside as soon as they get the Next Anchor of "Evening News" (assuming they don't cancel the program outright.)

Schieffer, I imagine, has complicated feelings about this whole situation right about now.

Now that the jackals