Using Awesome Knowledge for Stupid Purposes

Best College Class of All Time: Philosophy of Punishment
Professor of Said Class: The Amazing Dr. James Stuart
Lesson: Philosophical Arguments

So, a backstory. My best friend and I were in a class together called the Philosophy of Punishment (which was about the penal system in our capitalist society) taught by an extremely funny, intelligent man named Dr. Stuart. Dr. Stuart referred to himself in the third person when lecturing about articles he had written (i.e. "Stuart says in paragraph four...." "You're Stuart!" we would quietly say. Then we would smile, and thus we became "The Smiling Girls.") We were the only ones who understood his jokes because everyone else in the class was clueless. What I remember most: the difference between systematic and abberational errors, with the classic example of Lee Iacocca taking over GM and expunging it of its systematic errors. Anyway, one day Dr. Stuart taught us about philosophical arguments. Basically, they go as thus:

John F. Kennedy was murdered.
People who are murdered are dead.
________________________________
Therefore, John F. Kennedy is dead.

Two or more premises lead to a conclusion and to make a logical argument, the conclusion must follow the logic of the premises. Simple, no? Well, I'm going to use this awesome ability Dr. Stuart has bestowed upon me to make an inane, unimportant-to-anyone-but-apparently-me argument. Of course, it's about late night TV. Surprised? Have you read this blog?

The logic according to the critics:

Jay Leno threatened to leave NBC if they didn't give him the Tonight Show.
Threatening to leave if you don't get a show makes you a douchebag.
________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Jay Leno is a douchebag.

Okay, using their own logic:

Conan O'Brien threatened to leave NBC if they didn't give him the Tonight Show.
Threatening to leave if you don't get a show makes you a doucebag.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Conan O'Brien is a douchebag.

See the double standard there?

I don't think Conan is a douchebag. I enjoy Conan on occasion. I just wanted to point out how the critics skew their own logic because they've made a decision on who is "cool" and must spin every story to support their opinions.

There will be more arguments to come (I hear that groan). I had a few in mind but of course, they aren't coming to mind right now. They will, though. They will.