MY BOOB TUBE IS SAGGY

For any television junkies out there, you may be interested in the on-going saga that is the Screen Actors Guild (or SAG) negotiations. In a nutshell, the SAG leadership -- like the Writers Guild before them -- is thinking about a strike in order to try and receive a better contract. Here's some recent news from Studio Briefing on the matter:

Wednesday's announcement by the leaders of the Screen Actors Guild that they will conduct a strike authorization vote next month -- raising the possibility of a strike as early as January -- has had the unintended effect of swelling the signature count on the "No SAG Strike" petition being circulated online ... Meanwhile, the British trade publication Screen Daily, has published an editorial in which it observes that a strike would affect the movie business internationally. "It is not unreasonable for Screen Actors Guild President Alan Rosenberg to point out that 'You can't use hard economic times as an excuse to sell out the future,'" the editorial says. "Well no. But the studios are also right to point out the foundations for that future have not yet been built and this is the wrong time to fight over the spoils."

I'm going to be honest and say that -- while I was totally behind the WGA strike -- I've actually been arguing against this one. It may be completely selfish on my part, but the TV industry that I love so much has never really recovered from that event, and I feared that a SAG strike would pretty much just do it in completely. In addition, I have to admit that I was with those folks who've been saying a strike in this economy just doesn't make any sense. I mean, who cares that people get a few more Internet royalties if no one has a job?

Well, you know what? ... I've completely changed my mind on this issue; the following are some recent events that motivated my change of heart (broken down by network):

ABC - As I mentioned in the last blog entry, my favorite show in the whole world, Pushing Daisies, was cancelled last week due to low ratings. And ABC, in the same announcement, stated that another wonderful show, Eli Stone, is probably gone as well.

NBC - Two new shows from last season that really struck a cord with me are Chuck and Life, but NBC just recently stated that neither of them are on the schedule starting in January. The network did, however, give the beyond dreadful (and incredibly low rated) Knight Rider a full season pickup.

FOX - The very low rated (and terribly boring) Sarah Connor Chronicles just got a full season pickup, but FOX also announced that (genius) Joss Whedon's new show, The Dollhouse, is going to be on Friday nights; virtually guaranteeing its demise.

CBS - I don't watch any of the eighteen CSI shows, so I don't really care much about this network.

Well, there you have it ... EVERY SINGLE ONE of the new shows from last season that I like is either gone or soon to be gone, yet a bunch of crap is being spared. So, what "television industry" exactly are we trying to protect by avoiding a strike here? Is it the one that continues to replace quality entertainment with shows about wife swapping and mean nannies?

Yes, it is true that Pushing Daisies never recovered from the WGA strike, but neither did anything else. The solution to low ratings isn't to constantly cancel and replace things (or continuously shuffle them around the schedule); it's to nurture the stuff that's actually good. This is a concept that the idiot suits in charge never seem to get despite making the same dumb mistakes every year. Is it any wonder that people are watching less TV than ever?

Therefore, since it looks as if nothing I like is going to be on past January anyway, I say LET'M STRIKE! I hope all the networks tank.

SAVE THE DINOSAURS?

I have to admit that I'm really torn on the whole concept of bailing out the big three auto makers. My heart says to let'm go down, but my head thinks that could be extremely bad news for the country.

Before getting into that, however, a little background ... I am pretty opinionated when I want to be (or even when I don't), but I'm not generally arrogant enough to think I could run a business better than most. For example, I've said many a time that I am not "a finance guy" in advance of expressing to my thoughts on the whole Wall Street situation. Having said that, there are two areas where I -- in all modesty -- feel you could litterly plop me down in the CEO chair and receive far superior results than you're getting from the knuckleheads in charge today. One such area is television: I mean, who cancels Pushing Daisies but gives Knight Rider a full season? But that's a post for a different day.

The main area I'd like to discuss is the automobile industry ... Long before $4 a gallon gas, I was telling anyone who would listen that the first U.S. company to own fuel efficient cars would be the "winner" in this arena. And I distinctly remember some friends calling me naive when I said that -- the day I took over as CEO -- I would demand that all our cars be hybrids. I also remember arguing that these old school thinkers in charge of GM, Ford, and Chrysler need to be replaced with a Steve Jobs type who could innovate and shake things up. "It's just not that easy," my friends would say. Well, who's having the last cry now?

So, my inspiration for writing this post was a recent op-ed piece by Thomas L. Friedman titled How to Fix a Flat. In the column, he starts off by saying the following:

How could these companies be so bad for so long? Clearly the combination of a very un-innovative business culture, visionless management and overly generous labor contracts explains a lot of it. It led to a situation whereby General Motors could make money only by selling big, gas-guzzling S.U.V.’s and trucks. Therefore, instead of focusing on making money by innovating around fuel efficiency, productivity and design, G.M. threw way too much energy into lobbying and maneuvering to protect its gas guzzlers ...

... And it included endless lobbying to block Congress from raising the miles-per-gallon requirements. The result was an industry that became brain dead ... Nothing typified this more than statements like those of Bob Lutz, G.M.’s vice chairman. He has been quoted as saying that hybrids like the Toyota Prius "make no economic sense." And, in February, D Magazine of Dallas quoted him as saying that global warming "is a total crock of [expletive]." ... These are the guys taxpayers are being asked to bail out.

Amen, brother! As one of my friends often points out regarding his newest vehicle: "This is basically the same car I was driving 35 years ago." Can you imagine if the computer industry ran this way? Friedman then goes on to talk about placing conditions on such a bailout and ends this way:

I would add other conditions: Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol.

Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.

Hmm, demonstrate a plan for hybrid-electric and then call Steve Jobs? Where have I heard that before? So, yes, I will say without hesitation that I could have single-handedly saved the U.S. auto industry. But my phone never rang :(

Okay, now that I got that "I told you so" moment out of my system, the question still remains of why we should help these horrible people who have spent that last half century doing everything in their power to ruin their own companies. Well, simply put, the loss of jobs that would result from them going down could very well throw us into a depression, and I don't think you can underestimate how many Americans are linked in some way or another to this industry. If unemployment wasn't steadily rising (and the credit markets weren't frozen), then I would say to let them go into bankruptcy. But I'm just not sure we can afford to let that happen in this financial climate.

That being said, I reluctantly agreed with the Wall Street bailout a few months back, and that has pretty much been a dismal failure. It seems that many of the banks -- rather than opening up lines of credit -- just hoarded the cash or used it to pay for bonuses, dividends, and even luxury trips. What's to say that these idiot car executives won't do much of the same?

So, should we bail them out or not? ... I just don't know. Do you?

WHAT NOW?

Uh-oh, I think this might be me :)



Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

OLBERMANN ON PROP 8

Okay, WOW!

44. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

So, I was asked yesterday why I haven't posted anything since the election. Well, the answer is ... I simply can't find the words to express my feelings. Seriously, I keep thinking I'm going to wake up any moment and watch McCain on MSNBC giving a press conference to announce his Chief of Staff or something. But it's not a dream, is it? Or maybe it is a dream in the best possible sense. After eight dark years that is W.'s reign, we just elected a smart man; a good man; a genuinely compassionate man; and yes, a black man. Who would have thought?

We're not a perfect nation: a few states (including mine) collectively decided to add hate and discrimination into law (I guess gay is the new black). And it sure didn't take long for my victory bubble to deflate a little after reading this ugliness in Noozhawk. I mean, does the following sound at all "gracious" to you?

Yet, if Obama proves himself, we will gladly give him his due. But he’d better protect our country. And he’d better rein in his spendthrift Democrat majority in Congress ...

Right, it's the Democrats who have spent us into the ground. Then, there's this ...

I’m sorry to find many of my “liberal” friends are psychological bullies who seek to silence genuine questions using insults and attacks. Such tactics are no doubt effective with some people — by intimidating them into silence you can convince yourself that they agree ...

Right, it's the liberals who yelled "Kill Him!" and "Terrorist!" at their rallies. And finally, there's this little gem ...

In his acceptance speech Obama acknowledged those of us whose vote he didn’t get. He claimed to want to earn our trust. Fine. We aren’t going to agree to socialism because we work hard for our money. Share the wealth of the shadow banking bandits — not ours — We-The-People. We want our borders secured and our country protected against radical Islam. We don’t think it’s fair to nationalize health care without nationalizing the legal profession ...

Huh?

So, no, we clearly aren't there yet. But let there be no doubt: Today is a good day in America.

TL MAKES HIS FINAL PUSH

Well, the election is just around the corner, and this is probably my last post before Tuesday. So, I'd just like to reiterate how excited I am to vote YES for Barack Obama and NO on Prop 8. I'll leave you with a couple of funny videos to bring the points home:

Opie and Ritchie make the case for Obama ...




Hmm, gay marriage doesn't affect me at all ...



VOTE!