If this article is correct — and many sources suggest it is — NBC will announce tomorrow that Jay Leno will stay with the network when he leaves The Tonight Show next May. At some as-yet-unspecified date, he will move his hour long show to 10 PM each night, probably renaming it The Jay Leno Show or something of the sort.

Of all the options that had been discussed in the media — Jay going to ABC, Jay going to Fox, Jay doing specials for NBC, etc. — this probably makes the most sense from the network's point-of-view. They've had trouble filling their time slots lately and have been looking for programs that don't cost two million bucks an hour to produce. In fact, Jeff Zucker (who runs NBC) had been floating trial balloons for the idea that NBC might offer its affiliates fewer hours of network programming per week and let local stations fill some time slots. The affiliates will probably like this better, especially if Leno delivers a strong lead-in to the local 11:00 newscasts.

But this is such a radical change that no one had suggested it out loud. It will make Leno the most visible star ever on a network. No one has ever filled five hours per week of prime-time network programming. He is undoubtedly to receive staggering amounts of money if this works…or even if it doesn't.

The move will piss a lot of people off, including producers who'd been hoping to sell new shows to NBC. Leno's going to consume five hours that could have been available for their wares. And you have to wonder how Conan O'Brien's viewing it since he'll still be second-in-line for the big guests…and now that he'll be in Hollywood also, that may make it very difficult. The folks behind Jimmy Fallon's new program, which will take over Conan's old time slot, have to be wondering if viewers will really want to watch three talk shows in a row. There are a lot of things to think about here and it's all so unprecedented, it's hard to know what to think.

Anyway, congrats to Mr. Leno. I'm going to be at his taping on Wednesday and I'll report back if he says anything about this to the studio audience. And I'm sure I'll be back with more thoughts as this whole concept settles in. It's a major sea change for network television.

Jonathan Handel has a long piece here on the issues in the AMPTP-SAG stalemate. I'm not sure I agree with all his conclusions and deductions but the article is informative in many ways.

I never ate an Aunt Jemima waffle in my life but I really liked the animated commercials they once had Jay Ward's company produce. Here's one. That's Bill (Bullwinkle) Scott as the voice of Wallace the Waffle-Whiffer and Daws (Everybody Else) Butler as the Professor type guy who narrates.

Jeff Abraham sends me this link to a program (or rather, programme) on BBC Radio 4 — a half-hour history of The Three Stooges. I haven't been able to get the link to work so let me know if you do. And hurry. It says the show will only be online for a few more days, you knuckleheads. Thanks, Jeff.

Richard Howe has taken approximately 11,000 photos of street corners in Manhattan. 7,322 have a Duane Reade drugstore on them but all are fascinating.

The AMPTP has posted on its website what its spinmeisters are saying is a fabulous offer for the Screen Actors Guild…and the last they're ever going to get. This is how the game is played. They make Absolutely Final Offers and act like some force of science makes it humanly impossible for the terms to be any better.

How is this offer? Entertainment lawyer Jonathan Handel doesn't think much of it. Neither does my friend Bob Elisberg. As I've been saying here for some time, the studios got AFTRA (the other actors' union) to take a mediocre deal and now they're insisting that this year's labor negotiations are a settled matter and SAG has to fall in line and take it.

Obviously, SAG doesn't. Just because one union takes a lousy deal — or in some cases, a deal that's acceptable for them but wouldn't be for you — that doesn't mean you have to take it. The AMPTP is especially skilled at structuring an offer that is good for Union A and bad for Union B. The Directors Guild has made most of its gains over the last few decades by being Union A in that situation.

Obviously, SAG might. The solidarity a union needs to mount an effective strike does not seem to be there. Rumors abound that various ***Big Stars*** oppose a strike and those rumors are not causing that solidarity to appear. One of the wise things the Writers Guild did before it hit the bricks was to do an outreach to "A" list screenwriters and TV Show Runners and to get most of them on board. Presumably, SAG leadership is currently attempting something comparable and I wish them well. It really is a crummy offer.

Rob Hansen sends the following regarding this message which I posted earlier…

Reading last night's missive to you when you posted it, I spotted a small but very significant typo on my part. Actually, the first London convention was held in 1938, not 1939. Sigh, this is why writing emails last thing before turning in for the night is not a good idea.

As it happens, the second ever London convention was held in 1939 at Druid's Hall (full name: The Ancient Order of Druids Memorial Hall), amid a large papier mache model of Stonehenge, apparently. It's always amused me that the building erected on this site after the war later housed the Aliens Registration Bureau.

In the meantime, Anthony Tollin sends this…

My late friend Sam Moskowitz put on the first American science fiction convention in Newark, New Jersey on May 29th, 1938. The following year, 1939, Sam ran the first World Science Fiction Convention, so named because it was originally to be held on the grounds of the New York World's Fair, over the 4th of July weekend. Julie Schwartz, a friend of mine whom I believe you knew too, chronicled that weekend (and 4SJ's participation) on pp. 49-52 of his memoir, Man of Two Worlds.

Well, of course I knew Julie very well…too well at times, but that's another matter. He kept explaining the history of science-fiction fandom to me and getting me more and more confused with each explanation. I hosted a couple of panels over the years and attended meals where he and Forry Ackerman and sometimes Ray Bradbury reminisced over "those days" and it always resembled the scene in The Sunshine Boys where they're arguing whether Sol Burton was the manager of the Belasco or the Morosco.

As I said, I really am not an authority on this aspect of fandom…when and where the first conventions were. I defer to you and Mr. Hansen. I just want to know who invented panels at conventions and how many more I have to host before I have the record.

Forty-four Presidents of the United States (well, 43 plus the guy soon to be inaugurated) morphing from one to the next. This runs four minutes and is most interesting for the last minute or so…so you might want to fast-forward.

Newsweek recently conducted a poll that suggests Americans are becoming more tolerant of Gay Marriage. They also just ran this article by Lisa Miller which summarizes what the Bible has to say about the topic and about homosexuality, in general. It isn't what some would have you believe.

Interested in what's going on with the Coleman-Franken recount wars in Minnesota? Maybe not. But this piece by Jay Weiner, a local reporter who's covering the story, is not so much about who's ahead as about how they're trying to get there and — more significantly — who those people are.

Here are two that seemed worth answering in public, starting with this one from Rob Hansen…

A fine tribute to Forry Ackerman, someone I've known about for decades but whom, unfortunately, I never got to meet. I've recently been putting copies of a WWII British fanzine online — Futurian War Digest — and so have read a fair bit about how he helped British fandom during the war. Here's a small tribute to him from 1941.

I do however have to take issue with your claim that "the first known s-f fan convention was held in New York in 1939." Not even close. It wasn't even the first SF convention to be held in New York. That would be the Second Eastern Convention of February 1937. "Second?" Ah, that's where things get a little complicated.

The actual first ever SF convention was held at on Sunday January 3rd, 1937 at the Theosophical Hall in Leeds, England. Among those who had travelled from all corners of the country to attend were Arthur C. Clarke and Eric Frank Russell. UK fans had been talking about this event in their fanzines for months beforehand, fanzines that were also sent to the U.S. On October 22nd, 1936 a group of five New York fans travelled up to Philadelphia to meet up with some of that city's fans in the home of one of them, Milton Rothman. While they were chatting away, someone got the idea of declaring this impromptu gathering the first convention. Hence the 1937 event in NY being the second. I don't actually regard a gathering in someone's front room as a convention and consider the Leeds event the first ever con, but there are those who disagree. So it goes. The first ever London convention was held in 1939 in Druid's Hall (lost in the Blitz, alas), which also predates the first Worldcon.

Probably more than you wanted to know on the subject…

Yes, but interesting, nonetheless. Actually, over the years, I've heard a lot of fanzines and gatherings described as "the first fanzine" or "the first convention" and don't claim to be enough of an authority to declare a definitive answer in either category. You'll notice I said the designation of The Time Traveller as the former was just a widely-held view. I should have said the same about the alleged first convention. I believe Forry claimed the con he attended was the first but maybe there was a little asterisk there…the first by some particular definition.

By the way: Here's a link to the New York Times obit on Forry, which includes the declaration that he was born Forrest James Ackerman but took to using "J" (sans period) as his middle initial. The piece also reminds me that I should have mentioned that Ackerman created the character Vampirella… and wrote one or two of her early stories in one of his few forays into the world of comic books.

Changing the subject, here's a message from Michael J. Hayde…

Enjoyed the O.J. commentary. I find it odd, though, that you're convinced that he's guilty of the double murders. Did we watch the same trial all those years ago? Maybe I shouldn't say this, but I think if I'd been on that jury, having witnessed all that transpired in the courtroom, I'd've been on the side of acquittal.

In writing up the election, some pundit — maybe one you linked to — wrote that it was great for America because it meant race was no longer "a deal-breaker" for the Presidency. I'd submit the original O.J. trial was a similar step forward: race could no longer tip the scales of justice when the prosecution puts forth a shoddy, unconvincing case.

Okay, so if you'd been on that first O.J. jury, you'd have voted to acquit. Now, the question is: Do you think he did it? I sure do…and I don't know why you think that's odd because most people do.

I wouldn't argue that the prosecution did a less than stellar job, and I also think Judge Ito (remember him?) bungled the basic responsibility of his job by allowing the case to get out of control and off onto so many tangents and confusions. But I also think there was so much evidence of Simpson's culpability — and not one indicator that anyone else dunnit — that Professor Irwin Corey should have been able to prosecute that case and get a conviction.

I mean, just to dredge up a fraction of the proof: It was undisputed that the killer dripped blood at the murder scene. The next day, Simpson turned up with a deep cut on his hand that seemed to have occurred the previous evening and he had no explanation of how he'd gotten it…plus, there was the little matter of the DNA in the blood evidence matching his.

There was a lot more than that — O.J.'s history of violence against his ex, the limo driver's testimony, the blood evidence at Simpson's house, etc. — but just the stuff in the above paragraph is enough. We strap people into electric chairs in this country and parboil them based on less proof. And while the "Dream Team" managed to get the jury to be generally suspicous of the evidence, they never specifically disproved a bit of it.

I'd say he did it. So, like I pointed out, do most people. It's been a while since I've seen any poll on this but the last time, I think the tally was that more folks claimed they'd seen flying saucers than thought Simpson was innocent. My guess is it's a lot of the same people. I wonder how many of the jurors at that first trial still feel he was framed. (And yes, I understand they had to vote based on the case put before them, not all the other stuff that you and I get to consider. I still think, with all the exclusions and ineptness, there was more than enough there to convict.)

And I think I'd disagree with your second observation, the one about the Simpson verdict changing the rules of the game about race in courtrooms. If it had been a poor, non-famous black guy in front of an all-white jury, you might have a point. But the panel that turned Simpson loose was mostly black and even then, the defendant's money and celebrity were a lot more significant than his skin color. To me, the main thing that verdict changed in this country was to put it right in everyone's face that sometimes, our judicial system isn't as infallible as we'd like to believe it is. It can be manipulated, especially when expensive attorneys are involved, and it sometimes arrives not at the truth but at the exact opposite.

Surveys say that Americans are slowly turning against the Death Penalty and that doesn't seem to be because they decide it's cruel or barbaric. Increasingly, they just don't trust the system to find the right people guilty. A lot of that is because so many convicted murderers are being freed on DNA evidence but some of it is because of the Simpson verdict. If a jury can set an obvious killer free, it can also convict a guy who's innocent. I think that's the legacy of the first O.J. trial. The legacy of this most recent one is that, happily, we probably won't have any more.

You'll enjoy this: Six and a half minutes with the amazing Al Jaffee, living legend of MAD Magazine and one of my favorite people on this planet…

Hey, I occasionally tell you here about a comic book called Nature that's issued by the the Educational Publishing Department of Channel Thirteen/WNET in New York. I write for it and it's a great gig because I get to preview the terrific TV show of the same name. Here's an article about this worthy project.

Okay, so what exactly is O.J. Simpson's sentence? I thought it was fifteen years in prison and he's eligible for parole in nine but all the news sources I'm seeing are a little incoherent on the topic. Right now on this page, CNN has a story headlined, "O.J. Simpson gets at least 15 years in prison." The first sentence of the story immediately contradicts that headline…

Former gridiron great O.J. Simpson will serve at least nine years in prison for his role in an armed confrontation with sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel in 2007.

Simpson was sentenced to a maximum of 33 years after a rambling, emotional apology in which he told District Judge Jackie Glass, his voice shaking, that he was sorry for his actions but believed he did nothing wrong.

I understand that nine years is to when he's eligible for parole…but if he was sentenced to a maximum of 33 years, where does this fifteen number come from? That's what everyone was saying on the news coverage I watched earlier…fifteen years. They were also saying, "Well, at least he didn't get a life sentence." Thirty-three years might be a life sentence to Simpson, who is 61. Fifteen years probably wouldn't be.

If you think this is confusing, you should have watched Fox News, which was giving out a wide array of numbers all day. In the picture above, as you can see, the crawl at the bottom says he has to serve "at least 15 years." As with the CNN report and most others, that's kind of misleading. If he's eligible for parole in nine years, then he's been sentenced to serve at least nine years, not fifteen.

The crawl in the screen shot below says "Simpson sentenced to 15 years; eligible for parole after 6." That's a better way to put it except that the 6 is wrong. He's eligible for parole in 2017, which is nine years, not six. And what's with that box that says "15 to life?"

I'm sure there's a simple explanation for all this. It's just kinda bizarre that none of the news reports — at least the ones through which I've waded — seem to give it. The L.A. Times article doesn't mention the fifteen year number at all and says he was sentenced to 33 years but is eligible for parole in nine. The Times piece also says something I hadn't heard elsewhere, which is that Simpson was offered a plea bargain — for a lot less time than he'll likely serve — and the offer was declined because "Mr. Simpson wanted something just short of a public apology."

Nice going, O.J. The judge was right: Arrogant and stupid.

I need to buy something real silly on eBay so I put the "beggar's banner" up. If you're the kind of person who feels good when he or she tips a website, here's your opportunity to feel good. I'll take the banner down when I get enough to pay for my purchase.