Hitting the Big Time Well, not me, but somebody I know is: the Young Manhattanite himself and editor of the Gothamist Interview series, Andrew Krucoff, is guest editor at Gawker this week. Go visit him!
That certainly trumps the news that the Tennessean has started doing radio spots promoting its "news you can use" theme with tidbits from my article on barbecue. posted by RSaunders at 9:43 AM⇒
(0) comments
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Frustration I've been coping with being stuck on 29.5 lbs lost for the past 4 days. I need to break through the 30 lb barrier once and for all.
My friend Jed has launched a new blog, Better Off Jed. When I regain feeling in my forearms--I'll explain in the coming days--I'll add a link to him on the left-hand side. Welcome people from Jed's world.
In the meantime, some more t.v./media notes:
American Idol Bitching: Why do people insist on calling this a talent contest? Why do people continue to feel frustrated that the "most talented" are losing? Since when has talent ever been a prerequisite for success in America, and why should it start now? It's for an "idol" not for the most talented. Talent is only one factor. This is what explains Jennifer Lopez. She's not that good of a singer, or that much of a dancer. But she's good enough that, given that every straight guy wants to fuck her and every girl wants to be her, she's a pop superstar.
The same applies for Idol. Whether Americans are solving a very complicated maximization problem intuitively or simply making "fast and frugal" decisions, they are considering things besides talent.
Another rationale I would offer is this: perhaps people realize that if the person they like most wins, they will be the last person to have their album come out; so, they let them get voted off to accelerate the timeline of their recording career so they can buy albums. Exhibit A: Clay Aiken.
Condi Rice Speech: Apparently enough people bought tickets that Nashville was not blacked out of local t.v. coverage of Rice's speech at Vandy today. Condi became the first graduation-time speaker at Vanderbilt, though it was for this new creation called Senior Day. The actual graduation will be Friday sans speaker as per tradition.
She was awarded the Chancellor's Medal for public service. I'm not sure how she qualifies, based on 3 yrs as a terrible NSA or as a junior staffer in previous administrations or a mediocre historian. But, I was impressed she made a very typical commencement address with surprisingly little politics or warmongering.
She was able to work in a lie though: she said Vanderbilt football will have success. Seriously, given the administration's predictions about Iraq, do we need her to perpetuate VU's football jinx?
What occurred to me during the speech though was how much she talked about Ideals and being an Idealist in the very capital I sense of the word. The administration talks like this all the time, but what it reminded me was how liberals and Democrats were for so long dismissed as Idealists and not to be trusted with international politics, too willing to trust in the positive motives of foreign actors. We needed Realists to manage foreign policy.
Now, the Republicans are the Idealists. The Democrats haven't yet lain claim to being Realists (they'd have to act and be able to speak in some simple declarative sentences occasionally--they suffer conjunctionitis), but there's an opportunity for them to beat Republicans over the head in the same way they used to be beaten over the head.
Anna Nicole: Anna Nicole Smith has lost 70 lbs, shockingly, none of it from her breasts. She credits some diet pill called Trimspa. Finally, all the weight loss answers I need in a single pill! She will be on FHM's cover in July, and I suspect Playboy can't be too far behind.
What I wonder is, what if Ted Rall, and other war opponents, took these people's advice and left America. I wonder what the country would be left with and how it would all change. An interesting thought experiment. I'm sure the hawks will have this Homer Simpson-like vision of utopia, as when Homer J. daydreams about Germany, the "Land of Chocolate." i hope he gets the Pulitzer next year. posted by RSaunders at 6:13 PM⇒
(0) comments
More TV Observations Tomorrow I should hit the 30 lbs. lost barrier. My BMI has dropped from 33.4, or officially obese, to 29.6, which is merely overweight. I'll post more on this after I crossover. I'm thinking I could be under 220 lbs before going home for my sister's graduation.
But first, some Sunday t.v. observations.
Survivor: Not much shock at the outcome. More importantly though, why has Amber apparently sought fashion and hair advice from Courtney Love's stylist? Maybe she should stick with the stringy, oily look. It's amazing the difference a tan makes. I need to keep that in mind for my weight loss.
The person who cleaned up best was Jenna L., though most of that transformation comes from hair straightening and a good makeup artist.
Poor Jerri. Who knew she would become an activist for reality participants' rights and dignity? More importantly, will this jeopardize a future Playboy appearance, or does this mean she'll have to settle for Penthouse?
Poor Hatch. Props to Probst for talking to Richard about his new love, an Argentinian man, but bollocks to CBS for not getting a camera on his lover, the only person whose friends and family were referenced but not shown in the audience.
Wacchovia Golf Tournament: I'm on the treadmill watching the final round, and two things hit me. First, the closed captioning person at CBS seemed to be having significant problems. Lots of missing characters or blocked out characters. Maybe s/he changed the font to Wingdings2.
Second, at the conclusion of the 72 holes, we had a tie between Sindelar and Oberholser. They have to replay 18 as the first hole of a sudden death playoff. So, the cameras get in position, and what do I see? Oberhoelser getting off of a golf cart that has apparently carried him to the tee. So, I guess all that argument against Casey Martin was bullshit just like I thought. Sure, he walked the 72 holes (and the subsequent 2 playoff holes), but he didn't walk to the start of each hole, and the competition is not over until the match is decided. I've sent my question to the PGA, maybe I'll get an answer and post it.
Yawn! A lot of t.v. to watch yesterday and this morning. Here're some quick notes:
Friends: What I saw of the finale and the clip show were fine. Definitely representative of the show in its better moments. However, did anyone see them on Leno last night? In my best Chandler-ism, Could they have been any less happy to be there? Obviously Kudrow was irked, but none of them seemed especially happy about it. Not that I don't blame them, but it was odd to see them make so little effort to mask their irritation at apparently being compelled by the network and/or Warner Bros. to attend.
Also a side note: with the band playing from the set of Friends, is that a record for the number of minorities on Friends?
Survivor: I'll be happy for the show to be over. I can't help watching because Boston Rob reminds me of a college roommate, and I'm just fascinated by arrogance. I'm sick of the challenges, too. What about a good old fashioned Rock, Paper, Scissors tournament, 4 out of 7?
CSI: When did this show get so smutty? I'm no prude, but they seem to be going out of their way to incorporate some labored double entendres into the dialogue. Also, the show seems to have lost almost all creativity. There's always a hair. There's always only one supplier of a special type of mulch that links directly back to the murderer. It's in the Law & Order trap of being so formulaic that it's just nonsensical.
Rumsfeld testimony: Rumsfeld did a decent job in his opening statement, probably enough to keep his job. A couple of things struck me.
First, I was surprised that until Sen. Allard spoke, the Republican senators were just as pointedly critical as the Democrats.
Second, I think Rumsfeld actually makes a good point that the information on abuse has been available for several months, but nobody cared enough to pursue it, apparently because the photos, videos, and "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs hadn't been distributed yet.
The senators come off as whiny when the complain about the lack of consultation from the administration. Power in the government is not something shared. If Congress wants to be included, it needs to use the tools at its disposal to compel the president and his deputies to respond. When you authorize wars without a declaration of war, you have yielded power. When you authorize funds for the war without any accountability, you have yielded power. When you initiate investigations after the fact, you have yielded power. The congressmen seem to be governing on the cheap, in terms of effort.
Primetime's Makeover: It was interesting to see a news show pimp the makeover phenomenon, but I think Elizabeth Vargas did a pretty decent job of at least asking thoughtful questions. Of course, they didn't let her tee-off on some of the responses because they don't want to damage one of the few ratings and money successes on the network. I was also impressed that the husband said he didn't care for the makeover, though it was apparently mostly out of his own insecurity. So often they do more than is necessary. I'd be curious what makeup alone, and maybe some work on those skin-bumps she had would have done. But, when you get a free makeover, there's probably no excuse to skimp on procedures.
Awards My friend Bill invited me to tag along with him to the Music Row Magazine Awards ceremony at BMI here in Nashville. It was held in BMI's atrium with lovely snack foods (little chicken salad croissants, roast beef sandwiches, salmon, some killer artichoke dip) and drinks (including beer and wine--not from a box) for all. While there I met the song plugger of the year Sherrill Blackman, and I got see an old friend from my improv days, Tracy Gershon of USANetwork's Nashville Star.
Apart from having quality eats and low key dress code, the thing that I really appreciated about the awards ceremony is that the people attending seemed to care about the awards, they were allowed to speak as long as they wanted, and there was no band to force them to shut up. And it got me thinking about problems with Oscars and Emmys.
People are always bitching that those shows are too long and too slow and blah blah blah. I'm of two minds about this. Part of me says, "Well, you know what, it's their damned show and their damned awards. If you're bored, turn the damned channel." And after seeing this awards ceremony in person, with everyone standing around, with some low and not-so-low conversation in the background, that the problem is not with the show but with the fact that it has an audience of people that are not part of the industry. And as an outsider, shit, I don't know who most of these people are or know many of the songs or musicians or artists; but, as an outsider, I was interested to hear people talk about what they had to say on their special day. And if I didn't like it, I could just walk the 3 blocks back to my office.
On the other hand, since those awards are on t.v., signifying an invitation to the general public, I suppose it is reasonable to ask that the shows are watchable; and, if I'm an advertiser, to expect that it is watchable so that people will stick around for my commercials.
Based on my time at this ceremony, here are some quick fixes:
Eliminate "walk outs": This is the time it takes for the presenters to walk out onto the stage to present the award. Get them closer to the podium (which to Oscar's credit they did this year for most awards), or better yet, start with them already at the podium. This probably hurts the designers who miss out on having their gowns viewed for 30 seconds on stage unobstructed by the podium; but, you know what, they get all the free publicity they need at the red carpet arrivals. The people who care can watch that crap then.
Eliminate category introductions/witty banter: This almost never goes well. The banter is seldom witty, and the introductions are just useless. All you need is a simple declarative statement or two saying, "Sound editing is....These are the nominees for..." and you're done. We don't need meandering statements like, "The perfect rug. The right curtain. An authentic Stradivarius on the mantle. These are the worries of the set designer..." blah blah blah. Those types of intros, while informative in a very specific way, lose their value when every single intro is done in the same style. Cutting these lines saves us from inept line readings from the presenters, speeds up the process, and all without slighting the work of the nominees. The only people hurt are the writers, but writers are used to being screwed; they should be able to handle this one.
Don't be so stingy on the time: Setting the limit at 30 or 45 or 60 seconds just forces people to think they have to fill that whole time. Use some reverse psychology: tell people they have as long as they want and they'll get it over with quicker. Ok, they probably won't. First, let's get a countdown clock on the screen for viewers at home. This will aid our heckling. Second, they should create a "minutes" bank and display it on the screen. If you finish early, they go into the bank to be used by somebody else. Maybe they can give an extra gift to winners who deposit more time in the bank. Third, sometimes we really want to hear what these winner says, even if we don't know who the hell it is. Sometimes the winner is so very funny or touching or interesting that it's worth putting up with several bad speeches to hear one really great one. Coming directly from the Music Row awards, I think the real lesson is that a simple thank you is sufficient. You should be able to thank the people you need in not too much time. While the magnitude of the award wasn't the same as an Oscar or Emmy, the bigger the scale, the bigger star; so, they should be able to handle the pressure with composure.
Redeploy the writers: For all the writers screwed out of writing intros, you should gain work by helping performers write their acceptance speeches. And no, getting your agent or your agent's secretary to write something up doesn't count. We only listen to actors talk because somebody has put words in their mouth to say; we should adhere to that rule in televised ceremonies, too. Because it is on t.v., this stuff is supposed to be entertaining, so dammit, entertain us! Let them tell a story. Or a joke. Or just something interesting.
Is There a Dentist in the House? The most distressing thing about television cosmetic surgery makeovers like "Extreme Makeover" and "The Swan" is not the proto-eugenic vision of women's beauty being pushed nor is it the inappropriate conduct of the doctors and their staff (e.g., on "The Swan" the assistants cheering the huge new breasts, the doctor complaining that his wand his smaller than his colleague's), nor is it the humiliation they suffer at the hands of their coaches in front of and behind their backs.
No, the most distressing thing is the state of dental health in America. Apparently all those jokes we make about British dental health has been a bit misdirected. Granted, there is an obvious selection issue going on here: they're taking the very worst applicants and bad teeth make for easily observable improvements. However, I still can't get over how bad these teeth are! There has got to be something that could be done to improve Americans' teeth before they become such a disaster.
Obviously, the rotting of teeth is probably related to sugar consumption, and probably poor brushing habits. While it's hard to change behaviors, especially eating behaviors, it's probably even harder (and more expensive) to fix the other main problem: crowding of teeth and crookedness. Why does this happen? I wonder if it's not something nutritional. Is there something wrong in children's development that their jaws do not develop large enough to accomodate all their adult teeth? I think I'm going to have to track down a dentist and ask them about this.
Perhaps the other explanation is genetics and good periodontistry. Some people who have genetic predispositions towards bad teeth may have wealthy parents who can afford to get their children braces and extractions and everything else. As a result, the child's teeth are fixed, making them more attractive to mates, but it's a false signal to potential mates who can't observe the genes that made her original bad teeth. I wonder if "ever wore braces" is a question on the eHarmony dating survey. posted by RSaunders at 10:58 AM⇒
(0) comments
