Bradley Whitford is Ridiculous.

From Burn Notice creator and producer Matt Nix, comes a Fox action-comedy about a washed-up cop and his young, by the book partner, called The Good Guys.  I mean, it sounds like so many other cop shows, but the trailer and the cast make this show must-see, right?  At least I think so, if for no other reason than Bradley Whitford is hilarious and should fit perfectly into this role.

Giving Tiger a Break?

Not only a break, but surely a monster payday, considering this ad is going to be repeated by idiots like me, the mainstream media (nod to Sarah Palin and bringing "MSM" to the "mainstream," if you will), and CBS/ESPN/ABC, etc.  It's great marketing, or at least a great attempt at marketing, to both rehabilitate a brand (Nike Golf and Tiger) and a man, but does this really sooth the collective conscience of the golf community, the advertisers/sponsors, and the public?  I don't think so.

I get the sentiment of the ad.  Quiet, sincere, apologetic.  But I don't think any of it matters. It's the voice of Tiger's father, Earl Woods, who died a few years ago, narrating a personal message to Tiger - "did you learn anything?"  I don't think he did.  Moreover, I don't think I care that he did.  To me, addiction or not, 15-plus women in several cities and graphic sexual messages to each not only spells public martyrdom, but also prevents forgiveness.

You know, I hope he shoots 85 tomorrow and 90 on Friday.  Eighteen majors and the title of "Golf's Greatest" belongs to one man, and forever will - Jack Nicklaus.

Major League Blunder

Major League Baseball filed suit a while ago against CBC, an organization in St. Louis that sponsors a fantasy baseball league, for infringing on MLB's intellectual property. CBC predictably argued that it was a First Amendment issue and that the names and teams of the players was within their right to free speech. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with CBC and the Supreme Court turned down MLB's writ of certiorari, effectively affirming the Eighth Circuit's opinion and preventing MLB from collecting licensing fees from those companies that use its "intellectual property."

Can you imagine paying for the right to speak about baseball or paying for the right to refer to the players and the teams in fantasy baseball? Neither can the Eighth Circuit.

Does this make sense to anyone?

Okay, so this is the best Oklahoma could do, right? They saw that THREE of their players took money one summer for work they did not do, so the university decided to limit the players that can be hired by the same employer to FIVE.

Sure, it sounds good on paper to limit the number of players that work somewhere, but how is that going to actively limit the amount of money that is taken in without working being done? The better solution for Oklahoma is what they said they had done last year - spot checks on employers and monitoring certain at-risk employers.

In any event, even if you limit the players working at a certain facility to five, those same three might still be out there working for the same employer, right? It just seems like this is one of those announcements that is much more bark than bite.

So much for the Kennedy Court...

Last year, Justice Kennedy was the preeminent judicial figure in the country as he essentially cast the swing vote on all the important issues before the Court. He was the decisive vote in all 24 of the 5-4 votes in the 2007 term, but this term has not really been seen as having the same strength (see the roundup here).

It's interesting to see that Kennedy is playing less of a role, as are the ideological changes in the Court this year. There do not seem to be the same ideological lines as in the past, with Justices Souter siding with the more conservative Justices on occasion and all kinds of interesting pairings. The days of the Kennedy Court seem to be waning, but are they gone for good? I don't think so - I think we'll be hearing from Justice Kennedy on some of the new grants for next term.

Premature Babies - what about the health risks?

A recent article on MSNBC suggests that medical advances over the last couple of years have done little, if anything to improve health and viability of infants born premature after only 22 or 23 weeks. The article notes that survival rates have not changed significantly in recent years.

My first thought about it is that there must be a type of cost-benefit trade off (not to sound callous) between ensuring the child survives and the quality of life that child will lead. More and more often premature babies can survive due to the marvels of modern medicine, but those premature births mean that the neurological, immunological, and autoimmune development has not fully taken place. As a result, infants tend to encounter significant medical challenges down the road. It's unlikely that children born so premature lead any semblance of a normal life (here is just one example).

Certainly there are moral issues with saving or not saving the infant, but there needs to at least be a consideration of those future problems, wouldn't you think?

Stevie Williams and Tiger Woods

This is one of the best pieces I've seen in a while. It goes through the story of Stevie Williams in New Zealand and his rise to prominence as Tiger's caddie; but the story does much more. It shows Stevie Williams as more than just the guy that carries Tiger's clubs. Tiger's not the only one with a philanthropic streak - just wait to see what Stevie did for a childhood cancer hospital down under.

Traffic Tax in Manhattan

Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, tried to find a solution to congestion and global warming issues in his own sphere by attempting to implement a "traffic fee" of $8 a day for entering lower Manhattan during peak driving hours.

It's about time someone took a stand on these sort of issues and tried to implement a wide scale program. I give major points to Mayor Bloomberg for trying to work through this, despite mixed success and attention. Not only does it support the environment by presumably lowering the greenhouse gas emissions in downtown NYC, but it also encourages use of public transportation, which Americans generally a loathe to use, compared to their European counterparts.

Beyond those implications, it serves several economic purposes by allocating the roadways to those who value them most during those hours of the day. The same theory applies to charging fees for use of certain lanes on the interstate - if you charge a fee for the faster lanes or the less congested lanes, then it allocates the traffic based on value (though some would also argue its based on wealth disparities as well). It's an interesting thought and is being considered and implemented in pilot programs across the country.

For some more in-depth economic analysis, check out Gary Becker's writings on the Becker-Posner blog.

Charlton Heston - Dead at 84

Charlton Heston died today at age 84 after one of the most illustrious careers in film. I may not have agreed with (any of) his beliefs about conservative values and gun ownership, but you have to give him credit for his incredible accomplishments throughout his time as an actor and spokesman.

In one of his lesser known roles - and one of my favorite movie experiences with him - he played the Player King in Kenneth Brannaugh's full-length version of Hamlet. While one of the smaller roles he played, he truly brought the character to life and it embodies his ability to be a great show-stopping character, while also being a minor and role character. He helped inspire Brannaugh in the film and really demonstrated the importance of the players and their impact on the later events in the play.

He was a larger than life actor and certainly to what most young actors aspire.

Friday Night Lights is Back

In a fantastic moment on Wednesday, NBC struck a bit of a bizarre deal with DirecTV and the "Friday Night Lights" team to come up with a third season. The first season will air on DirecTV, but more importantly, the show will air exclusively on Channel 101 on DirecTV in the fall, then return to NBC in the spring - meaning the first episodes of the third season will air on satellite before airing on network television.

It understandably helps spread the costs, but one of the key benefits is that even if ratings drop next year, which is a distinct possibility, it keeps the show profitable for the network and allows them to keep it running through the season and maybe into a fourth season.

I'm okay with this arrangement. I mean, I guess I have to be. As a huge fan of the show, it's a bittersweet kind of moment - I have to wait until the spring (when it is no longer football season, by the way) to see the new episodes (odds I spring for DirecTV are about 0%), but at least the show is coming back for a third season. It was great news to see that the critically-acclaimed show would be back again, so at least there's that.

My prediction, however, is that FNL is done after the third season unless they develop some new characters to succeed Saracen, Riggs, Landry, Smash, and the rest of the team. Coach Taylor can stay, but the high schoolers have to graduate, right?

Selling Organs??

This morning, in the Freakonomics blog through the New York Times, Stephen Dubner discusses an article in the Wall Street Journal (found here) about kidney sales and potentially opening the donor market to include sales (Freakonomics post here). The idea sounds great - increasing the supply of kidneys to a market that seems to continually fail due to shortage. It would allow families to experience life with loved ones longer. It all seems like roses on a spring day.

Consider another perspective, which Dubner neglects to mention: these kidney sales creates a huge adverse selection problem. Not only in the fact that poorer people would be more susceptible to giving their kidneys to wealthy people, but also in that those who need the money, are less apt to have healthier kidneys. Consider this: a drug addict in an inner city looking for a fix and willing to earn several thousand dollars - as well as free prescription drugs for the healing process - just by selling their kidney. Odds are also pretty good that health care has not been a number one priority and so the quality of the kidney will also suffer.

Another example is the Red Cross's constant decision to not pay money for donations of blood for transfusions. Experiments and pilot programs at hospitals and other areas around the country have tried exactly this - cash incentives for blood donations, only to find that more of the pints of blood were required to be disposed of because they did not meet the requisite quality standards. In the same respect, open kidney markets will likely create the same lower qualities in kidneys across the market. It would also probably create more cases like when a recent organ recipients all contracted AIDS from a donor (see the story here).

While generally I support increasing kidneys to the market, the free market will only prove to damage the integrity of organ transplants across the country. If the government is able to heavily regulate the industry and test vigorously for quality, it is feasible.

I've said it before, but I just love the serenity and perfection of flowers in pictures. Capturing the one moment makes it seem like the world is at such peace. A little flowery and emotional language, yes, but that doesn't make it any less true. Some days, it's the little things that help you get through.

The Magic Telescope

In a remarkable discovery, physicists working with the MAGIC telescope (MAGIC standing for Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov Telescope) noted that higher energy gamma rays travel through space at a speed slower than their lower energy counterparts. In a potentially groundbreaking study of two gamma-ray flares from a black hole in the Markarian 501 galaxy, gamma rays in two different energy ranges came to Earth four minutes apart. The physicists at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) state that it is still possible that the low energy rays left the black hole at an earlier time, but that is yet to be fully explored.

The implications of these findings are hugely important. They affect the foundations of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which stands on one assumption that radiation travels through space at the same speed regardless of energy levels. If these findings are accurate, then it shakes the foundations of most modern physics and may lead to further discoveries and innovations in the field.

To a better description of the issues and a more scientific approach, check out Scientific American. For a look at the foundations of physics, geology, chemistry, and biology, look at A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It is a truly fascinating book and provides great insight into the development of the earth sciences.

Fight Against Cancer

One cause that I’ve endorsed over the last several years is the fight against cancer. I know it’s a general cause and something that a ton of people are behind, but it’s something that I have a bit of a personal history with and it’s something that should be shared. Hundreds of thousands of families are affected by cancer each year – whether in winning or losing the battle – and it is something which will inevitably affect us all.

In my time at the College, I was fortunate enough to work with some great people at the American Cancer Society as well as with some fellow students in raising money through ACS’s Relay for Life. In 2005-2006, we raised over $50,000 in a College-wide effort. This year, we’re hoping to raise even more. To donate to the College of William & Mary’s event, check out the donation page.

It isn’t just about raising money for the research, but it’s also about raising awareness of the support for the families, friends, and sufferers. One of the most important ideas is to let those dealing with cancer know that there are ways that will help them, rather than the next generation of cancer fighters. Sure, there are breakthroughs in cancer research each year, but a cure for cancer is a while down the road. In the meantime, those in need of the support must be made aware that the support is out there – getting help, coping, and encouraging further research. To see what you can do to join the effort, check out the American Cancer Society.

Cancel This

There are so many problems with television today that I couldn’t possibly begin to enumerate all of them here. Instead, I’m going to talk about the one that I find the most troubling – or rather, the most annoying – that is, why networks are so quick to pull the trigger on cancelling new shows.

I can understand the reasons behind it. Shows with low ratings or the wrong demographics for the network lead to fewer advertisers vying for the ad spots in those time blocks, which, in turn, leads to lower ad revenue for the network. The economics of it, though a bit course, make sense to me. Networks want to increase the revenue for their parent company and their shareholders benefit.

Each week there are ads for a new, and admittedly horrible, reality show staring some schmuck looking for his fifteen minutes of fame. It doesn’t cost the network much because they don’t need to pay out huge amounts to, say, the cast of Friends, to film one episode. Like in Age of Love, a new reality show that is, according to several publications, the “summer’s guiltiest pleasure,” they provide the house and the amenities, but they aren’t paying each individual hundreds of thousands of dollars per episode, in addition to an expensive crew, and more. It’s a reality show where the people are competing to essentially be on the show and so the competition reduces the cost to virtually nothing.

One problem with the cut and run technique is that advertisers are privy to these mindsets. Advertisers want to put their weight behind the premiere episode for new series, but then don’t want to touch the show until there is an established following. Sure the networks make a boatload of cash with the premieres, but there is more cash to be made by the established series that have consistently high advertising draw. Advertisers want to discover the demographics, find out whether the show’s morals line up with their corporate morals, and then determine whether it is reasonable to put their money into nationwide ads during that slot. With established shows, the data is more plentiful and makes these decisions easier.

In an age of “I want it now” attitudes and more short-term viewpoints, networks are jumping on the easiest, lowest cost, and highest revenue fads that hit the market rather than coming up with the long-run strategies to win the ratings game. New shows hit networks each season – or in some cases, it seems like each week – to try to appeal to the ever-changing consumer psyche. It’s understandable from the network’s point of view, but it’s annoying and frustrating as a viewer.

From a viewer’s perspective, we want quality shows over quantity of shows. I don’t want to sit through the gluttony of fifteen crappy shows when I can watch two or three excellent shows that are well thought out, well put together, and provide great entertainment. I want to see a show that brings you into the characters’ lives and makes you care about the characters rather than believing they are expendable. That is the sign of a quality show. If the network is cranking out mediocre television and new shows of the same quality each season, it makes the network look like an overpriced discount shoe store that can’t make up it’s mind whether it wants to be high-class or play to the lowest common denominator. It also shows that the network is looking more at filling its schedule with pointless drivel rather than putting any sort of effort into a new series.

Another point that isn’t stressed enough is that shows mature as they continue. The writers begin to notice the quirks of the actors and write those into the characters. The teams working on the project begin to meld and work together in ways that are just not possible during the first six or seven episodes of a series. In some rare instances, everything clicks and the show just works from the first moment (while I’m a little biased, I like to think that was the case with The West Wing). In those other cases, the first episodes get through the ratings game and are allowed to develop into stronger shows. Like in any office, you have the first few days when someone new starts, a new project begins with an eccentric group of people, or a new department is put together, where there are kinks that need to be worked through. A few weeks or a few months later, things start to click and the office runs smoother. The same can be said as a show matures. The show, typically, only gets better with age (no cheesy wine joke here).

As a corollary, viewers cannot get into shows if they think they are going to be cancelled (Bill Simmons, ESPN columnist has a great bit about this in his mailbag while talking about Friday Night Lights). I’m not going to start watching a show on, say, NBC that’s starting in the spring if I feel like it’s just filler until the fall schedule comes out. This was the main problem over the last few years with NBC – especially this past year. Heist, a show with an Ocean’s 11 feel, was on NBC in spring of 2006, but only ran for seven episodes. The show was created with an ending in site – the crew was going to rob a chain of jewelry stores in Hollywood at the same time – just before awards season. The first episodes dealt with a few minor thefts to get set up for the bigger heist. Unfortunately, the show was cancelled after seven episodes – or more accurately, was just taken off the air without much notice from NBC – so we never got to the jewelry theft. Similarly, Black Donnellys from this past spring ran for only a handful of episodes before being dethroned after strong reviews but low ratings.

I watched both shows and felt totally used at the end of each. It’s like dating a girl for the weeks leading up to prom, only to take her to prom and leave you sitting in the limo. You’re stuck. You want to start watching a show that’s going to require at least a season because of the longer term plotlines, but you don’t because odds are it is going to be cancelled. An interesting dichotomy, but more accurately, it’s the reason we don’t watch as much television. I’m hesitant to get into shows that build over more than one episode because I don’t want to be left in the limo again.

Another point about shows maturing is that people become more attached to the characters. The stories of the characters start to make more sense than the individual episodes that only give you a brief glimpse into their lives. This attachment leads to an almost insatiable desire to watch each week and follow the stories. For the networks, it leads to higher ratings and alas, higher revenue.

One other point that we’ve seen in recent years is the art of the spinoff. CBS and NBC have perfected it with their different flavors of CSI (Vegas, Miami, and New York) and Law & Order (The Original, SVU, and CI), respectively. ABC is working on it this season with a new take on Grey’s Anatomy, called Private Practice. These spinoffs not only lead to new plotlines, new character development, and new paths, but also allows the network to build on the strength of the already created brand. ABC describes Private Practice as a show with “exciting new faces in a sun-drenched new city to create a show with a whole new vibe” centered around Dr. Addison Montgomery from Grey’s. There is already a built-in audience awaiting the show’s arrival. There is little need to brand it initially, as the show will take on a life of it’s own and differentiate itself as the season progresses. Allowing a show to mature beyond six episodes can be a great addition to revenue.

Looking for the quick hit for ratings booms may be profitable in the short run, but letting shows mature can pay huge dividends. And after all, isn’t that what the network is looking for?