Open Letter to Craig Ferguson

Dear Mr. Ferguson:

I'm just now settling into your landmark episode with Stephen Fry. The one with no audience, and no other guests. I've listened to your monologue and I want to comment a bit.

I remember in the glory days of talk shows, the excitement of watching The Mike Douglas Show, with his round panel of guests. Or how my parents used to make Johnny Carson their Must See TV. And Tom Snyder, whom you mentioned, always seemed to be very interesting, with interesting guests.

Somehow the art of the talk show, the late night variety anyway, has devolved into some kind of bizarre game show schtick. Funny bits that used to be on the "variety" shows seem to dominate. The "talking" is mostly pre-rehearsed and for someone selling something. It's a bit too formulaic and predictable.

For the record, I hated Craig Kilbourn, and his sophomoric take on the talk show. I never ever watched his show.

But I started watching yours almost immediately. I was, and have continued to be, enchanted by the cheeky monkeys and the puppets and the brazen honesty that you bring to this late-night landscape. I was well into the pace of watching you with pleasure every night when that upstart Fallon came on the scene. And, I have to admit, I was swayed at first into watching him. He seemed to be very astute with the Mac and iPhone and the tech-savvy crowd, of which I am a part.

Then, he branched off into comedy set pieces and too many lame audience games and REALLY bad musical guests, so I've fallen off watching him. Never really liked Leno much. It feels like his time is past (a long time ago), and after the shabby way that NBC treated Conan (another flavor that I only perused occasionally), I can't watch Leno ever again.

But, to me, it always seems like you're struggling. The struggle seems to be what you know in your heart to be a good show, versus what the standard format of a late night show is, or what CBS censors tell you, or whatever. The times when you've hit the show out of the park is when you follow your heart and do what you want to do with it.

I, for one, am glad that you got away from the lame comedy skits and "remotes" from somewhere they are not. The new reality (at least the one I know on the Web) is about honesty and authenticity, and that seems like somewhere you could really excel.

What you have over Fallon, well aside from your dashing good looks and big one, is the art of the urbane and literate. I was (and continue to be) thrilled when you put in the surrealist Dali as a regular bit. It was such a wonderful innovative bit of television, and one area that no one else really covers.

The best interviews you do are with guests who interest you. But with all the hoo-ha that is also going on, you have time to ask about three questions before you have to get to the next guest or next musical act or next signoff. I personally would much rather you have a guest for an entire show, and do whatever you want with them.

Mind you, not every guest is as interesting as Stephen Fry. But there have been many, many times in the past where I've really wished you could talk to someone longer.

Even the people who do have "talking" shows: Larry King, or Joy Behar (as you mentioned), or Charlie Rose, still seem like they are constrained to a format, all official and strained. You and your guests have always felt like you are sitting in your living room, chatting. That's awesome.

In fact, in my dream world of the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, I would LOVE to have no warm-up comedian, no audience even. Just you and the guest. You, released from that crazy constraint of suit and tie, dressed in shirt and jeans, or whatever you're comfortable in, kicking back in a big leather armchair.

Maybe you could have one day a week with the boring guests and the musical acts and the audience.

But what a treasure a regular show with no audience, no schtick, no nothing but talking would be.

Most of all though, I am a loyal audience member of yours. I know others who feel the same way. I think everyone would say: Follow your dreams for your own show. Do it before you get bored. Break new ground. Let Tom Snyder live again. Or, even better, let YOU live with your passion.

Be honest and real and unscripted. (Don't even waste the damn cards.) People know the difference between pre-arranged schtick and actual talking.

It is a new world. Late night television needs to keep up. NBC is a mess. Letterman is happy with his format. Be happy with yours, and it will make us happy. Even if that means changing it completely.

Whatever that means to you, we'll keep up and we'll enjoy it. (Love the Spanish word of the day, btw.) Engage our minds with literacy. Delve into scientists and inventors and whoever it is that makes you interested, not just the latest actor or actress to plug their movies. More authors! Whoever. Whatever nobodies you want to interview. Be honest, be real, we'll follow. Trust your instincts. Trust your audience. We are there for you.

Oh, and I am glad that you finally got on Twitter. Love ya!

*********************************************************************

Big Time Streamy FAIL

Someone said to me recently that wanting to be in someone's web series is the new "can I show you my script?" in Los Angeles. Everyone and their brother has a web series, similar to how everyone used to shop their scripts around town. The difference being, mostly, that web series ARE getting made. We can make them. It's faster and cheaper. You don't have to rely on monolithic corporations to give you the greenlight. And all of that is wonderful.

And while podcasting and the web series craze started around the same time, it's the web series (another word for video podcast, or vlog, or vlodcast, or video series, or podcast with video) that has really taken off. So much so that while the audio podcasts seem to have been left in the dust, now video podcasts/web series have their own awards show: the Streamys.

That's great. I'm happy for them. And, truthfully, the nominees do seem to have talent and deserve to be there. There are many of my favorites which were also left out, but I suppose that's true of any awards show.

Strangely, for an awards show in its second year, it's already branched off part of the awards, the tech version, to another day. Those were earlier this week. Tonight, we had the Streamys, main event.

Boy was it exciting! The website boasted a red carpet at 4 pm, the awards themselves at 5:30, just like the Academy Awards! Don't know about anyone else, but when I tuned in at 5 pm, all I saw was a black screen (on the Web, where it all was due to broadcast live).

No matter. Who cares about red carpet ho-has anyway? The awards are what matter!

So we wait. Until 5:30 pm PST, popcorn in hand, for the awards show that celebrates our peers, the best of the best on the Web.

What do we get for our trouble? Far too many lewd, crude and obnoxious jokes for my taste. Two streakers! (which actually did liven things up a bit). Nearly naked people grabbing at celebrities, although that was just David Faustino, who used to be a celebrity, didn't he? Yeah. The Streamys was like that.

In fact, that moment, when hot sweaty bad-joke-spewing David Faustino tried to grab Felicia Day, a suffragette for actresses on the Internet if there ever was one, that moment really sums up the Streamys. Hot sweaty naked twerps trying to be funny disrupting the rest of us from getting on with the business we are developing here.

The Streamys, in short, didn't take themselves seriously, while the web series creators, who know better, take themselves very seriously. Felicia Day, who dedicated her award to geek girls everywhere (like me!), really represents the best of the web series phenomenon. She wasn't getting cast (for those who don't know the story) in traditional media, so she worked on her own to develop The Guild, which became a huge Internet phenomenon.

The Guild now has its own DVDs, is in its third season, and has it's own Twitter following, Knights of the Guild. It's brilliant.

I don't know who puts the Streamys together, who votes on them, who selects the nominees. I do know a few things about the awards show broadcast, though: it was quite possibly the worst award show I've ever seen (and I've seen MANY). It was only broadcast over the Internet, and someone had left a mic on, in addition to the one monitoring the action onstage. So throughout the THREE HOURS AND TEN MINUTES that this thing droned on, the entire time, we could hear some twerps near this other open mic, chatting, eating food, conversing with someone nearby. It was beyond irritating.

In addition to that major faux pas, tech things kept going wrong. Footage was supposed to run that didn't run, or the wrong footage ran, or the whole screen went dark. Nearly everything you could imagine going wrong, did. Lame skits seemed to run on for days. So much so that you nearly forgot you were here to watch some awards being handed out. I was arguing with someone online about whether or not the show even HAD a director. If so, PLEASE fire that person, and never let them direct another award show.

Dreadful. No pacing, no flavor.

There were moments, deep into the show, when real celebrities took over and gave the show something worth watching. Kevin Pollak, honored for his show, Kevin Pollak's Chat Show (which I think I'm going to go catch up on once I finish writing this), went on a rant as he was presenting "Best Guest Star in a Web Series." "Go produce your own web series! Best Guest Star?" It was wonderful and funny. The nominees, though, were people like Tony Hale and Nathan Fillion, no shabby acting talent here.

Chris Hardwick in what may or may not have been scripted, pulled out a mic of his own (better sound) and ranted about the creators of web series. Also brilliant.

In one of my favorite moments, the super talented (last seen in Dollhouse) Fran Kranz walked onstage. Then they ruined it by having a stupid bit where he awkwardly got a pie in the face. Yawn.

It was worse than watching awards at your junior high. Grow up, people. Realize this is our industry. Treat it like the business it is. Respect yourself AND your audience. Isn't that what podcasting/video blogging/web series is all about? I was embarrassed and ashamed of most of these people.

One of the highlights for many other people (though I was so zoned and bored by that point, I could hardly care) was when Auto Tune the News came on, and auto-tuned film clips. When they later beat Rocketboom in their category, all seemed right with the world.

The other award winners were uneventful to me. If you care, I'm sure www.streamys.org has the results. Just don't watch any of the awards show. You'll thank me later.


***********************************************************************

Be Interesting. Be Real.

When confronted by Twitter for the first time, many newbies freeze. What do I write?

One of my favorite Twitter users, @unmarketing, recently blogged about when to blog and when not to (http://www.un-marketing.com/blog/2010/04/09/frequently-futile-how-often-should-you-blog/).

Now that we've all become content creators (whether we like this realiity or not), it's become imperative that you understand the answers to these questions.

For so long, we sat by passively as others churned their content at us. I remember in the early days of the Internet, big media companies and advertisers scoffed at the prospect of people actually wanting to create their own content, instead of having it done for them. Many of them have since gone out of business.

I mean, really, what could we nobodies have to say that would rival the relevance of Jon and Kate Plus Eight, or the latest mistress out of the woodwork from Tiger Woods? Yeah. Pretty much ANYTHING you have to say is more interesting to me that that crap. I know I'm not alone in believing this.

There are a million things that happen in each person's day. (And yes, some people choose to blog/Twitter about all of them. I don't recommend this.) The color, the flavor, the tenor of your day, though, is specific to you and your perception of it. And that's what I want to hear about.

FAR too many blogs and Twitter posts hover around the "how do we make money from this crap?" tangent. They aim their posts at marketing something to you. I avoid these posts/blogs like the plague. I care about them as little as I care about Tiger Woods.

Realize that we are in a distinctly different time now. Our mission, all of us, is to take what is valuable from our lives and broadcast that to others. Podcast it, blog it, Tweet it, LiveStream it, however you've gotta do it, just do it. But consider editing a bit. Just because the world is now your blank slate, doesn't mean that we are all hungering for each salivating morsel of it.

Play by plays of each sandwich you make probably can take a blog pass. But that encounter you had with the grocer that made your day? THAT I want to hear about.

In short, what is important to you? should be the top Twitter question. If you retweet others (and you should), it should be something that moves you. If you #FollowFriday others (and you should), it should be people whose posts really make your week better. That is how we show our interconnectedness. (If I value you, and you value someone else, perhaps I might get something out of their Tweets too?)

Those who haven't yet jumped on the Twitter bandwagon might not understand this. Or those, like the collosal jerkoff Conan O'Brien, who made such a big show about following one person (without realizing all it said was, to a mass audience: I don't understand Twitter at all.) It's not about one to one anymore, or even one to many. It's even more than many to many. It's like we are all part of a giant rushing stream, and we are compelled to contribute our important part.

Sure, if you want, you can get all uppity and protect your Tweets (also not understanding Twitter), but it's all about the discourse now. Shy folks, private souls need not participate.

We are twisting and molding and shaping our future right now. From the hands of those who would shovel crap down our throats. We can make it whatever we want. But to do that, we have to distinctly and clearly voice what is important to us.

Implicit within that is also one of the rallying cries of the new age. We, the imperfect, are taking over this world from those who would force perfection on us. So we have podcasts using shitty mics, and blogs with typos and Tweets that are typed when we are drunk. Yep. We do that, and it's ok. In fact, it's great. Imperfection is what is valued now.

Adam Curry talks about the new authenticity. Being real and honest and true is the currency of today. Mainstream media has forgotten what truth is all about. We need to remind them. Constantly.

Unmarketing was talking about some people's need for a "blog schedule" (every day, or every week, or every Friday). He was at SXSW. He wants to post whenever the spirit moves him. And you know what? That's ok. In fact, that is how it works today. You share something when you have something to share. I'll still be paying attention to you, once it's there.

I don't demand perfection from you, and I hope you don't demand it from me. Let's just get real together, shall we? Cause we all can make the world a better place that way.

This Year's Oscarcast Makes History

Every year they try it. Most years, they fail. This year, they failed (this hot new producer duo of Shankman and Mechanic), but produced some good moments.

It's not easy trying to juggle many potentially time-consuming things. How to make an Oscarcast fit within three hours? Here's what they tried: telling all nominees that speeches had to be 45 seconds long. That they would have a chance to thank every last person with the webcam that was backstage. Into this webcam, they could ramble and thank every last teacher they've ever had. At least, that was the working theory.

They also decided, early on, to cut the traditional Best Song performance. After all, Peter Gabriel had been angered the previous year when they asked him to perform only 45 seconds of his nominated song. (Can you blame him?) This year, they got rid of it altogether.

However, in some quarters, Best Song nominees and rambling incoherent acceptance speeches are why we watch the Oscars. So, what else you got, new golden boy directors?

Well, their idea seemed to be to court the youth vote. Get the youngsters to watch the Oscars by having Miley Cyrus and the kids from Twilight present. (A colossally bad idea, as it turned out.)

Then there were the hosts. Plural. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin had been enlisted this year. As Oscar hosts go, they weren't quite Letterman bad, and not nearly Jackman good. The opening banter that reeked of "Oprah-Uma"ville, was pained and awkward. Their own jabs at each other were stagey and mostly unfunny. Although the concept of them descending from the ceiling (wasn't this stolen from the MTV awards?) mostly worked well.

There were other ouch moments. Neil Patrick Harris (who should've been hosting) appeared in an opening dance number that seemed apropos of nothing. Although the fan dancers were... um, colorful.

Their Snow White moment came when they chose to honor film icon John Hughes (who passed last year) with a film montage. And several of his featured actors onstage, each saying a few words (some of which had just been in the montage). Judd Nelson looked scary sick. Macauley Culkin has seen better days. We get it. John Hughes created some great, memorable movies. We miss him. But the endless homage to him was out of place.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, apparently Lauren Bacall and Roger Corman had been given honorary Oscars. All they got was a smile and a wave. Oh, and a standing ovation.

There was also a horror movie montage, apropos of nothing, except to chastize the Academy for not choosing more horror films. (Um, ok...) Inexplicably, it wasn't at all tied in to Roger Corman's award.

Although there were no Best Song performances, they did grace us with an interpretive dance segment to the Best Score nominees. Draw your own conclusions, but I think this is the moment most people chose to go to the bathroom or refill on snacks.

Those were the travesties, now let's talk about what they did right.

Camerawork was stellar (other than one too many closeup on George Clooney). The stagecraft was state-of-the-art. Lights and stage worked well, and proved interesting. And best of all, when the winners wanted to talk for a bit, they let them. They were only pushed off with music if their speech had gotten boring. So Jeff Bridges was able to thank those he wanted and needed to thank, and Lloyd Bridges is smiling down in gratitude.

The best Oscar moment for me this year came when Barbra Streisand came out to announce Best Director. She herself had memorably been nominated once. Up to that moment, no woman had ever won before. No African-American had ever won before. It was a proud, tearful moment when, as she opened the envelope, she paused and said, "It's finally time. Kathryn Bigelow. Hurt Locker." It was the most powerful moment of the evening.

Oh yeah, The Hurt Locker won Best Picture, and six of its nine nominations. Avatar won three. Precious, Up and Crazy Heart all took two. Inglorious Basterds, The Young Victoria, Star Trek and the Blind Side all took one.

That was another powerful moment. All awards season long, statues had alternated between Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock. On this night, it was Ms. Bullock's name that was finally called. She offered her Oscar up to her mother, and cried in the process. It was beautiful.

Another really moving choice from previous years that thankfully they kept was the tradition of actors commenting on the nominees. They did this for both Best Actor and Best Actress. It was joyous to see each nominee tear up as the person onstage spoke directly to them. And that felt like a win for everyone.

This year's Oscarcast? Nearly three and a half hours. Maybe next year, they'll do it better.

On the continued fakeness of The Bachelor

There are certain reality shows I like and continue to watch, mostly Survivor and The Bachelor. I like them because they provide what really only podcasts provide in the media landscape: truth.

From the first moment when Sue Hawk gave the blistering speech to Richard Hatch on the first season of Survivor ten years ago, TV was changed forever. And hopefully, those who make TV realized that while scripted shows are wonderful, it is the scent of the real that people really hunger for.

Some shows: Survivor, The Amazing Race and sometimes The Bachelor, seem to adhere to "let's leave it real" as their esthetic. The problem with these shows, and adding "writers" to them, is that then you are manipulating reality, diluting what was already pure. I can't speak for anyone else, but that makes me not want to watch them anymore.

Last season, The Bachelorette had a particularly heinous twist (obviously some producer came from The Amazing Race or some similar show) where the bachelors were running obstacle courses and crap to get to the one woman to date. It was absolutely horrible. I hope they never repeat it. It was a big misstep.

Another (and yes, we have a trend now) is manipulating the ending. And I'm so pissed off about it, I have to write about it.

Let's revisit, shall we? In that very same Bachelorette edition, there was a guy named Ed that we didn't see very much of. Certainly didn't see Gillian (the Bachelorette) falling for him in any way whatsoever. There was big drama when suddenly he was "called back" by his work. In other words, it was his job or his new girl (potentially).

Even then, I thought: come on now. You know ABC vets these people six ways from Sunday, and they have to sign papers which state: during the next (six or eight) weeks, I have enough free time to pursue this thing till the end. Certainly. It was so in EVERY PREVIOUS Bachelor/Bachelorette version.

But apparently some (obviously male) producer decided that wasn't dramatic enough. We couldn't just see Gillian falling in love with Ed (which, btw, we didn't). We had to have this big reveal. He leaves. Shocker! He can't live without her, he comes back. She takes him back. (Which comes from out of nowhere.) And another contestant whom we had seen her falling in love with, Reid, gets bounced. And HE comes back, heart in hand, to actually propose. But no, unbeknownst to us, she had somewhere along the way (not in the edited and shown version of the show) fallen in love with this Ed guy.

Dear God, put a woman on this thing!

What we want to see (speaking for the women out there) is some poor schmuck (male or female) gradually falling more in love with someone among the candidates. So that at the end, when they propose, we can all go: "Awwww" because that's how it's supposed to be. That is what fell into place right before our eyes. We are lucky to have seen it. They are happy to have it. Swoon.

Like Tricia and Ryan. Though we didn't really understand it, it was obvious she liked him. That was beautiful. (And they are still married.) Is that so hard to put together? Come on, producers!

No, apparently they like this "finalist towards the end suddenly gets called away by his/her job, then comes back because she/he is too in love." Yawn. I know it's a scripted manipulation. You know how I know? Oh, other than they did it frikkin LAST SEASON TOO? I'm currently watching The Bachelor episode where he is frolicking with his chosen final three. AND THEY CUT TO ALI, the girl who had the job angst on the last episode, in her apartment. CUT TO HER. Being all angsty. "I can't stop thinking about Jake." Make me throw up.

Oh, lemme guess. She comes back, disrupts the final rose ceremony and he bounces someone else to keep her. Maybe he'll end up marrying her, like Gillian did with Ed last season.

For me, from this moment on, this is no longer fun. Any more than being manipulated in real life is fun. No thanks, Bachelor. I hate this.

On the Spirituality of Giving

This post is a response to this blog/podcast post:

http://sethsimonds.com/do-you-give-to-beggars/#comment-3922

Thank you for bringing this up, Seth. I wanted to respond at length.

There was a time in my life when I scorned "beggars" as I passed them on the street. Couldn't wait to get as far away from them as fast as I possibly could, hoping that no particle of them would actually come in contact with my person. I, like many, judged these people, muttering inside about their possible alcoholism or other addictive problems that I didn't want to contribute to. And boy, wasn't I superior by just moving on?

Since those times, however, my spiritual practice has evolved quite a bit.

So, to answer your question, my response is: YES. When someone asks, I give.

But let's not look at this by the prism of money. Let us instead look at it from a more spiritual perspective. By passing that homeless person, I was essentially putting my spiritual money in the bank of the cynical and the jaded. The judging and the negative. The superior and the holier than thou.

By GIVING, it opens everything up. It opens ME up. It opens up the person asking. It makes everything right with the universe. It's the right thing to do. It is, then, putting my spiritual money in the bank of the "we are all in this together." The "we only care for each other" on this planet mindset.

Because here's the thing. It's tough to ask someone for money, or for anything. It's a blow to your pride, usually. And if you're in the position where you have to ask, you probably need it. So I no longer judge what they are going to be spending it on. Doesn't matter in the scheme of things. If they are asking, and I'm able to, I give.

Now, mind you, I wouldn't wanna be Oprah, who probably has all kinds of people asking her for all kinds of things. She probably has a team of folks fielding requests.

But my general spiritual principle is that if some person crosses my path, in whatever way: on the street, online, at a social event, whereever, and they ask me for something I'm able to give, I have to give. And usually, I give them exactly what they ask for. If they ask for 50 cents, that's what I give them. If they ask for $20, and I have it, I'll give it. If they are asking for my time, or a service I can provide, I give it.

Bragging about giving isn't why I'm writing this, though. I think it's a really fundamental mindset change that we all need to go through that is being discussed here. So much of the world is a cynical, mistrusting mess. Every single time each one of us chooses to give instead of walk away, I believe the world changes for the better.

We have spent many years being bitter and cynical and mistrusting. Let's all start building back up that reservoir of trust and love and community that this world needs again. What is $5, really, when you think of the spiritual foundation you are actually building with that (seemingly inconsequential) action? As the ad says; Priceless.

For me, the more I give, the more I feel connected to my community and to the world at large. And the more material wealth I attain, the more essential it is to give large parts of it away. I do believe with that one simple gesure, the flow begins. Money flows, spirit flows, love flows.

Maybe you were only seeing the joy in the man's face. For me, that is where my joy lives too. Let me give, freely, without any thought of reciprocation. That opens up great gushers of kindness inside me.

So many people are hurting right now, barely able to get by. Yes. If they ask you for it, GIVE. It's the right thing to do. Always.

Ten Ways to Be Happy in 2010

Someone sparked this idea on Twitter (thank you, @gracekboyle!), and it inspired me to write a blog post about it.

1. BE GRATEFUL

This is really the core of any happiness that I've found. Whatever you have: not enough, enough, too much, way too much, be grateful for every last stitch of it. In my experience, if you can be grateful in a day, you're well on your way to happy already.

2. BE GLAD YOU HAVE A JOB.

You're one of those people whose entire department got laid off, and you're stuck doing five people's jobs? Be glad you have a job. Think of ways you've always wanted to do things, and now that no one's there you can implement them.

3. BE GLAD FOR ALL THE FREE TIME.

If you're on the other end of that spectrum, and are feeling like you've been unemployed for too long, relish in all the free time that you have after being a hard-working slob for too many years. You can finally read those books you've set aside. Get some gardening in. Tackle that home improvement project that your wife/husband bugs you about. The world is your oyster, baby. It just, ahem, doesn't have a job in it at the moment.

4. GO WILD WITH SELF-IMPROVEMENT

OK, maybe you're like me and can just do one thing. So pick one thing and start it this year: yoga, meditation, long walks in the park, whatever. Put it in your day planner. Make it happen. You'll feel better, I swear.

5. TURN OFF

At least an hour a week, turn off something that's distracting your attention: computer games, the evening news, Guitar Hero, afternoon soaps, whatever it is that's keeping you from becoming a better self. Turn it off. Keep it off. Commit to an hour. See how it feels. Go for longer.

6. TUNE IN

Use that time to get intimate with yourself. For women, a long bubble bath usually works. Or a massage. Contemplating your chakras in meditation. Working out. Whatever it is that you do just for yourself. Do it.

7. LET THE WORLD FLY AWAY

Too many of us get bogged down in the judgments of others, trying to conform to society's standards. Practice this well, and you'll be much closer to that elusive happiness thing. Work consciously (daily if you have to) on self-acceptance. We are all at the ready with shame about those five extra pounds, or that bad skin, or those knock knees: whatever it is you really dislike about yourself. Look in the mirror and say (out loud is better): I LOVE MYSELF EXACTLY AS I AM. Mean it. Live it.

8. MAKE TIME FOR FRIENDS

Yes, I know. Twitter is addicting. Internet porn is compelling. Put it down and spend a lunch with a friend you haven't seen for awhile. Or make some popcorn and let someone else share that TV you are so proud of. Reaching out to a friend will go a long way to paving your road with happiness.

9. SLEEP MORE

Most Americans aren't getting enough sleep. Sleep restores and refreshes your natural body clock. Get more of it.

10. PICK ONE DIET ITEM

Everyone resolves to quit every heinous thing in their diet, gets overwhelmed and gives up. How about this. Pick ONE thing that is doing your body harm and skip it for a week. (Caffeine, sugar, fast food, sodas are just a few suggestions.) Notice how much better you feel without said item in your body. See if you can do it again the following week. Test, rinse, repeat.

Let me know how it goes.

Radio Is Dead: Halloran No Longer On Air

2010 begins with sad radio news. Shakeups at morning shows all across the country, and radio legend Mike Halloran no longer on air at San Diego's 94.9 (where he had been for seven years). It is a sad and sorry day for terrestrial radio. If it wasn't dead before, it surely is now.

But what of the future? Wither radio?

Here's what I really wish: that these amazing radio talents (Halloran, Sovel, TK, Kurt St. Thomas, Angie C., the FNX crew, etc.) that are no longer appreciated by terrestrial as we know it, just take the bull by the horns and forge a REAL radio in the Internet space.

Suck it up about the salaries (yep, you're gonna make less initially), and just do Internet radio we can be passionate about. The money may not be there now, but it will be.

Do radio the way you always wanted to. Not crap dictated to you by consultants, where playlists rule the day; but music that makes you feel alive, music you are inspired by.

Like terrestrial Indie 103.1 was, but even freer and moreso. There has not YET been a station like that online. One with personalities that we love to listen to, and hear commentary from; one that is REALLY about the music, with a vast lack of bullshit.

Even Indie 103.1 dot com is too playlist oriented (for reasons that boggle my mind). Give us people talking, and music we love. How hard is that? Why hasn't anyone done this yet?

Like how Huffington Post reinvented newspapers for the web, and now it's the gold standard. We need that for radio on the Web. And boy, would I love Halloran to be masterminding something like that. Or the ones we loved at Indie. Or the ones we loved at FNX. Or all of the above.

Because otherwise, radio is going to die. I'm a hardcore radio addict, and I could honestly never listen to radio again, now that most of the folks from Indie and Halloran are no longer on air. What is the point?

Breaking bands? I get my new music online, in any of various sources.

The bands fan pages on MySpace or their own websites are more reliable sources of new music anyway, and you can interact with the bands you love there. All of that used to be the bastion of radio. No more.

What I wanted from my radio station was this: music I could just turn on, and listen to. Whatever was played. Listen because I enjoyed what the jocks had to say, because I liked the music, because interviews and banter was informative. I would still do that if there was a viable alternative. But, sadly, there isn't.

GIVE US ONE, OH GREAT RADIO GODS. Forge a real radio station on the Internet. One that everyone hears about and has to listen to. One that isn't constrained by ratings malarky. Or corporation dictatorship. One that bands love and come to (like they did to Indie 103). One that truly remembers and honors the music that matters.

Really? Is this so hard?

On Humility, or an Open Letter to Mo'Nique

Dear Mo'Nique:

I heard about your recent refusal to appear at all these award shows coming up, even though you are nominated.

http://goldderby.latimes.com/

You stomp and scream and cry, demanding that you didn't get paid enough for the film, and if you have to traipse to all these things, you wanna get paid for it. And you know, it's an understandable request.

But let me just school you for a minute in the way things work in Hollywood, since you don't really seem to get it. And, in the spirit of your character in Precious (and no, I'm not adding the damn pretentious title after it), let me be straight-up and honest about it. Brutally honest.

Here's what it is. You may think, as an actress, that the goal is the work, to get a deeply moving role, blah blah. That may be true. However, the reality is also that in the overall scheme of things, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING, that you do: no talk show, no other role, no stage work, no nothing will help your career and image in the industry as much as winning an Academy Award.

This should be obvious, apparently it isn't to you.

Every time after that, in every ad, every magazine article, every everything, it's going to say: Oscar-winning actress Mo'Nique in big, bold letters. Just let that sink into your brain for awhile.

Because here's the thing. Here's the reason I'm writing this letter to you. THAT IS within your grasp. Right now, with this role in Precious, you nearly have the gold plate inscribed. I promise you.

BUT to get from here to there, there are a lot of steps along the way. And tantrumy diva behaviour might hold up, even for this role. Might. Right now, from where I stand, it looks like you're on a crash course to self-destruction.

So maybe you don't really get the Hollywood scene. Trust me with this too, this is the closest you are ever gonna get to this gold. People have a once-in-a-lifetime shot at this usually, and this is yours. So listen well.

You may've previously played the actress game, which involves auditioning, and getting roles, and doing those roles. Etc. This awards-show circuit is a whole other side of the Hollywood machinery.

Here is how it is properly played, for those skilled and in the know. And you can choose to ignore this advice, but trust me, sister, this right now is your shot. I'm saving you years of learning.

With a powerhouse role like this, the award accolades start coming in early. You get nominated at everything from the New York Critics Circle to the Golden Globes, if you're lucky. The BAFTAs. The LA Critics. And the more of these you choose to go to, and smile and nod, and accept your award, the more a part of the industry you will appear. Those IN the industry will say to themselves, she's not a crazy diva actress. She's a respected actress and we want to give her an Oscar for that, because she is playing our game. And further down the line, they will HIRE you because they remember that you were the one winning all the awards.

All those uphill battles you've been fighting as an actress go away because you become a known quantity in their minds. Now, you may jump up and down, screaming about what a great actress you already are, and while that may be true, Terrence Howard had it exactly right. You may have won over your friends, family and fans. Those aren't the people who get you JOBS.

Right now, just the bad press you have already have about this matter may have derailed any respect you might've had in the industry (talk show be damned; this fiasco is the PR version of Britney shaving her head). It may just be too late. I don't think so. I think you still have time to salvage it, if you suck it up and start acting with some humility going forward.

Here's what you have to do, immediately, if not sooner. Get your publicist all over the Internet putting out this fire. Saying instead, Oh no, Mo'Nique would love to appear at your awards event. Go there, say not one word about money, smile, nod, pick up your award. Rinse, repeat. Over and over. Like it's one of those magic walkways they have at airports. The momentum in place will just push you through it.

And if you keep doing it, I promise you, there is an Oscar at the other end. Did you know that an actress's fee goes up significantly if she has won an Oscar? And the FIRST role you do after winning an Oscar you can pretty much cherry pick? That is there waiting for you.

Having lots of money may be your goal. It may be your only goal. You may not care about "the art." You may not care about the respect of your peers. But if you do, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP right now, and do this. Without complaint. Without requests for additional payment. The payment comes in the roles you get later. And the doors that will be opened for you. When in the future, it's between you and another actress for a role, you'll ALWAYS have the "well, she won an Oscar" card to play.

You seem like a smart woman, Mo'Nique. Fix this PR travesty right now. Do the awards circuit. And if, for whatever reason, you choose not to, I sure hope that Academy voters remember Samantha Morton's name as an alternative. At least SHE gets it.

CONSTANCE AMIOT Rendezvous de novembre

Pourquoi faut-il que l’on fasse des promesses
Je te jure que le temps les renverse
Il emporte avec lui les plus belles images
Dévalise les saisons comme on tourne les pages

J’aimerais récolter les plus belles histoires
En plaquant des accords sur le manche de ma guitare
Mais le temps qui de temps en temps oui le temps qui brille
Comme une étoile

Pourquoi traduire les mots les plus tendres
Toucher du bois quand on manque de bol
Pour adoucir le mois de novembre
Les volets qui claquent et les détails qui clochent

Et le temps qui de temps en temps oui le temps qui brille
Comme une étoile

J’aimerais emprunter le chemin des rêveurs
Ajuster mes adieux à des « au revoir »
A bientôt rendez-vous aux couleurs de l’automne
Essayons d’être heureux du moins jusqu’à ce soir

Mais le temps qui de temps en temps oui le temps qui brille
Comme une étoile
Le temps qui de temps en temps, le temps qui brille
Oui le temps qui de temps en temps, oui le temps qui brille (x3)

Les jours s’abritent dans les manteaux d’hiver
Et dispersent dans le vent, tout ce qui dure
Pourquoi faut-il que l’on fasse des promesses
Ceux qui s’endorment comme des toiles accrochées sur les murs

MICHELLE'S TRANSLATION (one found online is inaccurate)

NOVEMBER RENDEZVOUS
Why is it that we make promises ?
I swear that time reverses itself
It carries with it the most beautiful images
Robs the seasons as you turn the pages

I would like to gather the best stories
By plating agreements on the neck of my guitar
But time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Like a star

Why translate the most tender words?
Touch wood when you miss the bowl
To soften the month of November
The shutters banging and details that are wrong

And time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Like a star

I would like to borrow the path of dreamers
Adjust my farewells to a "goodbye"
Soon return to the colors of autumn
Try to be happy at least until tonight

But time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Like a star
Time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Yes, time, from time to time, yes time that shines (x3)

The days shelter themselves in the coats of winter
And disperse in the wind all that lasts
Why is it that we make promises
To those who sleep like fabrics hung on walls ?

Are We Addicted To Giving Our Own Opinions

Are We Addicted To Giving Our Own Opinions

Posted using ShareThis

Google Messes Things Up Good

Here is the original link which prompted this story:

http://www.musicpowernetwork.com/MusicResources/GoogleMusic/tabid/111/Default.aspx

I don't know if you go searching through music lyrics the way I do (I use Google to search a music lyric at least every day, and usually multiple times in a day). What is it I prefer to get in my search? First, a lyric that has the right words, that's key.

But after that, all I want to do is go there, copy the lyric and post it in whatever it is I'm working on. Simple cut and paste. I don't sell it or repurpose it or do anything nefarious with it.

Increasingly (I've been doing this for at least five years now with regularlity), I find websites that will show you the lyrics, but they have something blocking the text so that you can't copy it (ie, it's useless to me). metrolyrics.com is one example. I used them all the time before. Now they are one of my last choices. So that was annoying.

Then, they increasingly started, more and more putting ads on the pages. Also annoying, but you could ignore them. Until the ads started having music videos in them, which started playing when you opened the page. Beyond annoying.

I want a simple experience: lyrics, copy, paste, done. No ads, no frills, no frou-frou nonsense. Don't want links to an artist's page (though if that helps me get truer lyrics, that's great). But I'm not looking to buy their music. I have other venues for that if I want to do that. All I want is bloody lyrics. That's all.

And I have noticed what this article talks about. First, it was things like last dot fm and Rhapsody creeping in. Sure you might be able to eventually get to the lyrics, but you have to subscribe and listen to the record first. Um, no.

There already were sites that I avoided because they were full of popups and did crazy things to my browser, even crashing it. I would learn to go only to the reliable sites (lyricstime dot com and sing365 are still pretty good) for that purpose. But increasingly, the wholle first page or even couple pages of searches are full of CRAP. Amazon and other music sites. All I want is LYRICS.

Do you get this people? If I don't get that, I go somewhere else for it. I don't wade through ads, or buy stuff just cause it's there. I go somewhere where my experience is hassle-free. Google really needs to learn this. And ESPECIALLY if none of the monies made here are going to the artist anyway. Can someone just do a lyrics site that doesn't bombard you with crap?

Top 10 Best Picture predictions for Oscar

BEST PICTURE

1. The Messenger

2. Up

3. Capitalism, A Love Story

4. An Education

5. The Hurt Locker

6. Bright Star

7. Where the Wild Things Are

8. Julie & Julia

9. Coco Before Chanel

10. The Damned United

New Noise conference overview

October 8-10, 2009

The first annual New Noise conference took place in lovely Santa Barbara this past week (October 8-10). I was lucky enough to win all-access passes (thank you, Twitter and @lalawag!) so I went to everything on the schedule that I could squeeze in. This meant conferences by day, lots and lots of bands by night.

The wondrous Michael Franti and Spearhead kicked off the festivities on Thursday night, but I didn't arrive until Friday morning. Sadly, this meant I also missed Murs.

Let's address each part separately, and I'll give you an overview, in case you weren't there, or hadn't even heard about it, and wonder why you should go next year. Basically, because SXSW has become a zoo, and for those of us in California, is far away anyway. New Noise is sort of like a mini version of the music portion of SXSW.

The biggest highlight was the caliber of speakers: people top in their field, capped by the keynote from Pandora founder, Tim Westergren. It was pretty universally looked upon as the best session of the two days.

But along the way, we were treated to people from all aspects of the music industry: A&R execs, suits from labels, people working with greening the musical landscape, musicians, software developers, lawyers, managers, and Internet entrepreneuers. All of them provided their take on where we are at during this moment in music history.

Essentially, the gist of the conference sessions was this: The big four music companies are overly bureaucratic and useless; smaller niche music publishers are the hot item of the day; terrestrial radio is dead, but Internet radio is alive and thriving.

The ones with the power now, in case no one had noticed: the consumers and the musicians themselves. Musicians are now compelled to become even greater musical marketers than ever before, and if they do, they will be hugely compensated (as long as they are good).

The old routines of being a band, playing in clubs, getting noticed by someone, getting groomed and signed to a label, having the label package and promote you (and take nearly all of your royalties, thank you very much) have happily gone. The labels would then push your product to targeted radio stations, who would play it into nauseating boredom (OK, that last editorialism was mine), and you would have a fantastic hit on your hands.

The new model is to promote your band everywhere: MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, cyberspace at large. If you attract the attention of an A&R rep (yes, they exist and are seeking talent), you might get directed to a label which specializes in your type of music. Or they might counsel you to stay on your own. (Having your music on iTunes is a good thing, but having it, even for free, on your own website is better, because you get to keep the email of the customer and retarget them.)

In music, as in many areas of entertainment, it's about putting together, packaging and marketing your "brand." Building a customer fan base, who tends to be fiercely loyal and loves to give you money, and keeping those fans happy.

You can seek out "airplay" anywhere you choose: of course, Internet radio is still popular, but there are also podcasts, UStream, YouTube, fan sites, etc. The niche areas have taken the place of radio as far as breaking artists, according to panelists, including some who worked at major stations in major markets.

The "new DJ" has become the music supervisor at a TV production company. If you get your song on one of those shows, you can make bank. In fact, the music jackpot today is no longer getting on a major radio station in a major market, but rather, getting "an iTunes commercial and at the end of Grey's Anatomy." I hear The Submarines (who've had both) out there smiling, somewhere.

In short, the future looks great for pretty much everyone, except the major labels and terrestrial radio. The artists are reaching more fans more directly. The A&R people are signing more people they are excited about. The consumers get many more choices in as many ways as they can handle them. And lots of people are thinking of ways to get that new music to you more enticingly (hopefully with ads attached somehow).

What does the future look like? Well, no one knows really. The people on the two Green panels (promoters on one, musicians on another) believe that working a low-carbon footprint into every concert is very much on the horizon (apparently R&B and hip hop artists are dragging their feet the most). Some would like to see recycling worked into every aspect of a concert tour, as the norm, rather than the exception. Many on the panels see this as doable in the near future.

"Every artist when given a choice: do you want to recycle? will say yes," said Chris Baumgartner of MusicMatters.

One person stated that they thought at least one of the four majors would also die within the next year. Another stated that they thought Billboard magazine would go out of business by year's end (probably an easy call too). One person stated it most succinctly: "The [majors] were so busy looking for the 'next big thing,' they neglected the one that came along: the Internet. They were blindsided by it. They didn't expect that at all. They are still trying to catch up, but it's too late." One called them "dinosaurs." Another said that bureaucratic music labels move to slowly (in this age of Now) to be effective at all.

The genie's out of the bottle, in short. Consumers now have the power, and they like it. Musicians have more money, and they like it. Radio's structured playlist system, where the real DJs don't even get to pick the music, is dead. It has been replaced by choice-filled Internet radio: both former terrestrial versions gone Internet and up-and-comers with spiffy software like Pandora, Blip and last.fm. What is not to like about all these things?

All of these are things that most of us knew, but still, it was good to hear it over and over from so many different aspects of the business. And if you were a musician, you might have walked in there, thinking that the best path would be to try to get signed to a major and get your music into the hands of a radio DJ. You would've walked out of there realizing that instead you need to fine tune your message, your method of reaching fans, even giving music away to do so, and that getting signed anywhere might not be the best way for you to make money, unless it's with a specialty label who features your type of band. As always, the most important thing is to be a great musician with something to say, and an innovative way to say it. Good luck!

NEXT UP: The music at New Noise

Kanye's Bit Was Staged, Or Who Were They Kidding?

Let's look at the facts for a minute here.

Kanye West gets up on stage and interrupts an acceptance speech at the MTV Video Music Awards by Taylor Swift.

The audience boos, the country is in an uproar (it's all Twitter can talk about for awhile). There are rumors of him "being drunk" (as if that makes it ok or understandable).

The next day, everyone apologizes to everyone, and we go on.

Except this. It was fake. And here's why.

Jay Leno, whom NBC is banking a heck of a lot on with his new 10 pm gig, just happens to have his first show right after the VMAs. Funny. His guest is Kanye West. Huge ratings.

Two days later, Taylor Swift is on The View, also talking about the VMA debacle. Also huge ratings.

Except this. BOTH guests were booked prior to the VMAs.

And, further, both guests are clients of agency William Morris Endeavor (WME) Entertainment. Coincidence? I think not.

Remember that Bruno/Eminem debacle, which later turned out to be staged? Both of them, also clients of WME.

Now here's the thing.

Do these people actually think this kind of media manipulation works? Obviously they do. They did it with Bruno/Eminem and came back for more for the VMAs.

They don't, apparently, realize that we are in a different age now. The age of transparency. Where a person is accountable for their actions. Further, where things can be checked with a few keystrokes.

The end result of all of this, to my eyes, is that everyone looks bad.

Eminem. Bruno. Kanye. Taylor Swift.

But most especially the charlatans at William Morris Endeavor, who use these old school tricks when we are in new times. Shame on you!

Growing Twitter like a rosebush

My roommate, a dear, sweet woman, is far more social than me. But yet again today, we had another discussion about "I don't get this Twitter thing." I've been trying to get her to thrive on Twitter the way I do, but she doesn't even understand the basic concept of it. Given how social and gregarious she is in first life (far more than me), this kinda blows my mind.

So while we were talking about it, a concept I've been playing with came to the forefront.

I have two Twitter accounts, both packed full with 2000 people that I'm following. Initially I considered just filling up an account with 2000 and moving on to the next one, to whatever suited my needs. But this has proved to be impractical. To say nothing of the confusion, if someone is on one list and not the other; or mistakenly on both. So, trust me, multiple accounts really doesn't work, unless one is for business, one for pleasure, which is how I tried to structure them initially.

But what I found, in using them, is that I gravitated much more to the personal one (@michebella), only checking the business one (@michebel) on weekends or through my iPhone. The personal one, I use daily.

And also, and I was trying to explain all this to my roommate today, the personal one I care for like a rosebush. I am constantly pruning and caring for it. I am strictly vigilant about those that I'm following. When I first started (both accounts), I just ran helter skelter, adding as many folks as I could. I wanted to get up to that 2000 number, thinking that was the point, after all.

It isn't.

Sure you want to have lots of followers, and usually having 2000 will get you close to 2000 following you. On my personal account, I currently have 1400 following me, and can't seem to get it past that number. Oddly, on my business account, I quickly added the 2000 and got over 2000 following me. (I still don't understand that.)

It all started this morning with a discussion of Mafia Wars, and why I think it's rude to one's Twitter stream. My roommate's retort was: "Well, they are all just writing about what they had for breakfast anyway, what difference does it make?" (The usual thing from those who aren't really using Twitter the right way.) But it made me think of my business account, and how in a recent perusal, I had the same frustration that my roommate was having.

The reason I wanted to write this column is because I think this is really key. Part of really GETTING Twitter, I think, is making your Twitter stream work for you. Meaning getting value, as much as possible anyway, out of each and every person you're following.

People bounce others for many reasons. It could be that they are always talking about sports and you don't care about that. Or they fall on the opposite side of the political spectrum than you. The important, even KEY, thing here is that you don't sit there, frustrated, as my roommate does, and bemoan, oh this is stupid. You bounce them. And add someone who does provide value to you.

I'm not saying that every little nugget I put out there in the Twitter stream is golden. Or that anyone's is, for that matter. But it really is like buildng a friendship. You take the good with the bad, and hope that overall, it's a good experience.

I feel very strongly that everyone should have at least 100 people they are following, because if not, you get the same crap from the same people over and over. No one is that interesting.

But once you get up toward 250+, you get more of the concept of a stream, an organic flow of ideas and thoughts. It's easy to scroll past those that don't interest you. Less than that, you're just left thinking that it's all stupid.

Look at it this way. You have the whole world in front of you, like one huge dinner party. Who are you going to talk to? and why? whose advice are you going to seek out? who do you want hanging around just cause they have a cute turn of phrase? And if you're now saying, well, Michelle, I don't KNOW the whole world, I have no idea! This is what Follow Fridays are for.

Those who understand and stay on Twitter, regularly participate in Follow Fridays. Many have explained it better than me, but in short, you have people you value on your list. On Friday, they will tell you who they have on their list that they really like (for whatever reason). So add them.

Or at least check them out and then add them. This is how your list can grow every week, organically, with people you find interesting. Cause very likely those you find interesting will have interesting friends too.

But don't SETTLE for a crappy list and just moan about it. If people are swearing too much, or flashing too much nudity, or whatever you hot buttons are: unfollow them.

When I settle down to my Twitter stream, it is a pleasant blissful place. I get inspired, enlightened, calmed. I learn things I don't know. I hear about the latest news. I hear what others think about the latest news. Some friends drop songs off that they like.

Here's the thing. Just like any good party, you don't have to linger on someone talking about their foot surgery or their mom's constipation. You go on to the next one, or, if that's all they talk about, you unfollow them.

It's your Twitter stream. Make it grow, make it flower, make it work for you. That, I think, is what those masses leaving Twitter don't get. They expect it POOF! to be this amazing thing. You really have to work at making it amazing. But once you do, you won't want to go back to just watching crap scroll by, I promise you.

Now if I could only convince my dear roommate of this. Sigh. I'll keep you posted.

COCO BEFORE CHANEL (in French with subtitles)

Most people, if asked to describe the clothes of Chanel, would use adjectives like clean, classic, elegant. If asked to describe the person of Coco Chanel, if they even knew the answer, they might use adjectives like austere, gruff, reserved. Actress Audrey Tautou, who portrays her in this new movie, "Coco Before Chanel," spoke afterwards about her. She described the poignant final scene as the moment when Chanel shut down everything that came before and became the revered icon we all came to know. The one who changed fashion forever, arguably more than any other person.

So what was "Coco" (real name Gabrielle "Bonheur," aka "Happiness, quite ironic) really like? Before the House of Chanel? And why should we care about that?

What I really found fascinating about the film is how although it's definitely stuck in its time (the late 1890s and early 20th Century), Coco Chanel herself is quite clearly a woman ahead of her time. How does a visionary get from an impossible situation to creator of an empire? One stitch at a time, apparently.

She just kept doing what she did, and one thing led to another.

The film begins with Coco and her sister being deposited at an orphanage, their father not looking back. How they made their way as best they could: singing in cabarets, finding men to latch onto, whatever they could.

What really remains as a throughline of Chanel's character, though, is how determined she is to land on her feet. And how though there really wasn't a career for women doing what she did best, she created it.

All of that, perhaps, one would expect from a movie about Coco before Chanel. What is really unexpected, and beautiful to see, is the love story.

Belgian actor Benoit Poelvoorde is wonderful as the first strong man in her life. But the lingering love story between Tautou's character and American Alessandro Nivola is charming and engaging to watch. For me, that was the best chunk of this movie.

There have been many movies made about the Coco Chanel we knew. When have we ever seen her in love? And with a lover who realizes and appreciates who she is, and finally sets her in the right direction? It was really beautiful.

Having seen many of the previous Chanel movies, this movie finally left me with a realization of who this woman really was, and why she was the way she was. Well worth a watch.

The Future of Radio...Really?

I just had a little dustup in the Twittersphere about the future of radio.

Aw, let me backtrack a little bit. Anyone who knows me and listens to my podcasts knows how much I love radio. I love radio passionately. I still fall asleep with my iPhone next to my ear, playing my favorite Internet radio station, much as I did with my little red transistor listening to CKLW back eons ago.

And anyone who knows me knows that I was laid off from my beloved newspaper job recently. I am, and have been all my life, a media maven. Gobbling up as voraciously as I could all forms of media: TV, radio, newspapers, magazines. Constantly they filled my little life. They were what I cared most about.

So it is with great sadness that I say again here, as I've said many times in my blog, my podcast, on my Facebook page, and on Twitter, that I think media, at least old school media that we used to know, is DEAD.

Newspapers are dead. Magazines are dead. Radio is dead. TV is on its last legs, and is trying to rejigger itself to the new medium which lives and has swallowed all of them whole: the Internet.

That is my stance, and my belief. Further, I believe that any of us who used to be in media should get our relative acts together and reappropriate them to the Internet or face our own destruction. There is no retooling of the old stuff to make it work. It's broken, it's gone. Let's all move on, shall we?

So, I came across this post from someone in media whom I did respect. Someone on Twitter who always posts enlightening, interesting posts (whom I will not name here). He was directing us to another guy, an old-school radio guy, who was proclaiming "The Future of Radio." In the dustup that ensued, the respected guy offered, "No, really. Just so you know, he's a new media evangelist."

hahahahahaha

And that means that he gets paid big bucks for offering his opinion on where we are at and where we are going? Really? Really now?

I checked out the man's blurb for this "Future of Radio" webinar. Here is the statement which stopped me dead in my tracks, openly mocking everything else that came after: "designing the format clock to maximum advantage." Really? That's what the future of radio involves? Continuing to perpetuate the scourge of radio foisted upon us in the 70s, the "format"? The one where you pick from A, and B, and C, to come up with a repetitive mix that is pleasurable to listeners? Really?

Does this man, this "new media evangelist" (oh, excuse me, "RAB Certified Digital Marketing Consultant" (choke, cough)) even own an iPod? And is the format-churning radio really relevant for anyone anymore? Are my facts wrong, or has radio been bleeding listeners like newspapers have been bleeding readers? Even the current format-oriented radio stations? Much less ones out there in the "future."

Boys and girls, the horse has left the barn. It's moved on to other things. And if I didn't have friends I care about programming radio stations, I wouldn't even be listening to the Internet radio I listen to now, I'd be surfing on Blip.fm and Pandora and any number of alternate music sources. To say nothing of the vast horizon of music-oriented podcasts out there.

The new media evangelist goes further to talk about "brand loyalty." Really? There is brand loyalty to old-school prepackaged radio stations? Hm. Not in my world. I cannot imagine any way you could "redesign the format clock" to make it work in my world.

The last terrestrial radio station I listened to, and loved, was LA's Indie 103.1 (and now listen to in its Internet format). One thing not having it around has made me really realize is that the whole premise that radio today is based upon: repetition to create "hits" is annoying as hell. I really don't wanna hear a song six times in one day. No matter the song, no matter how much I like it. For that matter, I don't want to hear it three times in one day. Once a day is just fine. Once a week is even better.

That's my preferred listening mode these days. I would venture to bet that most people follow along these lines. Having CDs in their car to listen to, walking around with their iPods or Zunes. Maybe radio plays in the background at a party.

It just kills me that someone gets big bucks for telling people how to put a finger in a dyke that's already burst. And furthermore, the man's picture on the promo piece is SKEWED. Sheesh. Some evangelist. Can't even get his Photoshop right.

What do you think?

Julie and Julia Sings

The Julia Child that I remember was the stumbling over, too drunk version of herself that was almost a caricature. So it is good to remember, instead, her early days. The days that made her what she is/was: a star in the cooking pantheon.

"Julie and Julia" is really the story of the writer, Julie Powell (who wrote the book on which this movie was based). But it is Julia Child who is the fascinating one, and played by Meryl Streep (arguably our best living actress), those moments are riveting.

Meryl Streep is just (again) astonishing. Child had a very peculiar cadence to her voice, and Streep's vaunted facility for accents captures every nuance. But it's more than that. It's the way she holds her head, the way she walks. The way she seems like such a huge presence on screen (Child was larger and taller). And deep, deep in her characterization, there is a passion, a love that perhaps didn't appear so much in the Child of late that we knew.

This Julia Child loves Paris. Loves France. Loves French cooking. Loves her husband. It was a wondrous time in her life, and every single second of it was riveting to me.

Ann Roth's costumes are simply superb. Nora Ephron's direction really serves the story.

I didn't think it possible, but you are truly drawn into both women's stories. Amy Adams is more engaging and fetching than she has been in awhile. Supporting characters like the always amazing Jane Lynch, and Mary Lynn Rajskub from 24, make this a very fun movie to watch.

You probably will want to go out to eat afterwards, though, so have a good French restaurant lined up.

Funny People Not Funny

You hear the name Judd Apatow, most likely you're recalling at least one of the funny movies he's responsible for. I mean, sure Knocked Up, while being funny, was also a treatise on the vast disparity between men and women sometimes. But by and large, it was funny. That's what one comes to expect from him.

Funny People was distinctly not funny.

That said, it was one of the most real and poignant commentaries on the state of Hollywood of any movie out there. It really left me thinking deeply afterwards (as Knocked Up did as well). This is the sign of a great movie. I just wish it wasn't so disturbing.

Adam Sandler, who shows he can really touch those dramatic heartstrings, and that he's maybe lived a few of these moments himself, stars as the super famous comedian lead. You see him walk through his day: signing autographs, taking pictures with fans. Then, finding out he's dying.

You see him chewing on this information as he walks through his humongous gilt laden castle of a home. It is the soul of the artist laid bare, and it's painful to watch, frankly. We wanna see our comedians make us laugh. We don't wanna see their angst-ridden crisis of conscience as he looks around and finds no friends or family around him.

What evolves is that he takes a struggling comedian under his wing and we have a sometimes funny buddy picture with the two of them. But what remains and runs like a scathing current throughout is the real fact that while his comedy is top-notch, his people skills are not. His whole life has been in service of the funny, and along the way he kinda neglected the whole wife-family-kids thing.

It ends, as you'd expect it to, on a note of hope. But along the way, you are walking through this man's sad, sad life. It's very real, very inside Hollywood. Just probably not a place many want to stay for very long.

How to REALLY be on Twitter

Everyone from Oprah to Ashton Kutcher is convinced that you need to be on Twitter. And if you look, you can find a zillion social media experts telling you to be there, and how to make money there (good luck with that, btw). Mashable has just published a great all-Twitter all-the-time guide so you can plan your every move.

And yet, I still keep hearing about people staring at blank screens, wondering what all the fuss is about. People who join Twitter, all excited, then leave after a month. People who haven't the foggiest idea of what to do, how to really live here. This column's for you.

I am revising and refining this as I go along, but here's what I know so far. When I first joined Twitter (@michebel), I followed people like crazy. Mostly tech people and podcasters that I knew about, cause that's who was talking to me. I followed and followed and followed, and pretty soon I had amassed 3000+ people that I was following. Not long after that, Twitter put these stopgaps in place (rather than getting fail whales all the time), which only allowed people to add up to 2000 people. Period.

So, I was stuck with the need/desire to add lots of people, and had a doorstop put in front of me. I did what many did to get around this: I opened another account. Pretty soon, that too, had 2000 (different) people that I was following. Now, I don't recommend that you have unlimited accounts that fill up to 2000. Even two is probably not a good idea.

The deal with Twitter is that once the same number follows you, you can start adding more. So, for example, if I was following 2000 and 3000 were following me, I could add another 1000 more. Your followers can be unlimited, but the amount you can follow is capped.

Most folks don't know all that. Many learn the hard way, like I did.

Let's just say I wanna start all over again, like I'm a Twitter newbie. How would I do it now? What have I learned about adding people to my stream?

Start with the basics. If you only follow ten people, for example, say your close friends, you are going to see posts from all of those ten friends. And that's it. Some of them may post like mad, and some of them not at all. So, no matter how much you love those ten friends, you may see a whole lotta hogwash from one friend and nothing from the other nine. Or even lots of posts by a couple people, prompting the often heard refrain: Twitter is stupid!

Well, all due respect, but that's because you're not doing it right.

Think of it like this. Twitter is like a constantly running stock ticker. Words are constantly coming out, and I do mean constantly. To get the most value out of it, you have to add the most value in. I mean that in several ways.

If I were starting over, I would cherry pick those I add to my stream. I would seek out each person's profile, read some of their Tweets and see if even one thing on the page makes me go: Hmm! or Wow! or Interesting! And if several things do, they are a definite add.

When you are looking at other people's profiles: look for this especially: the following-follower ratio. It should be about even. The best Tweeters are good about following people back. (If I wasn't constrained by the 2000 limit, I'd be following everyone.)

Since I didn't take a lot of time when I originally added them, I'm taking that time now. I have a running list of those I want to add, and I fine tune my list every single day. Those who target ads at me, or use words like #moonfruit to win a MacBook are removed, and I add new folks from my list. And every single day, my Twitter stream gets better and better.

I suppose it varies what people want out of their Twitter stream, but I look at it like this: a constant flow of information I want/need. Some, for example, are happy having friends who just spew links at them. I find this to be tiresome. In fact, there is only one guy on my list who only spews links. (But his links are really good, so I keep him.)

But I find a mix of people who spew links, people who quote some wisdom or poetry, people who just write funny or interesting things and people who might inform me about something I want to know about (a concert, a movie premiere, a TV show starting), is really what I'm looking for. And that is, by and large, what I spew back.

I also listen to music on Blip, and post the songs I'm listening to there. If you do more than a few, you'll lose a few followers, but for me it's worth it.

It's a give and take stream of consciousness. You put stuff in, you take stuff out. It's constantly going back and forth. My roommate (who still doesn't "get" Twitter) said recently: "Do you read every single thing in there?" Yes, by and large I do. And I look at the pictures that people send, and watch the videos and follow their links, and repost interesting stuff back to my Facebook page, or add things of my own. That's REALLY what it's about.

People who don't get it yet (including mainstream media, MSM) can see Twitter as a waste of time. Lots of people saw chat rooms as a waste of time too. I made some of my best friends through hanging out in chat rooms, so I respectfully disagree. But since the early days of CompuServe and AOL, I've learned the importance of developing community online. And Twitter now, really does (as we've seen by all the correspondence with Iran in recent times) plug you into the whole world.

That is pretty overwhelming indeed.

So break it down. Down to your own personal little chunks. Not everyone is going to have gold nuggets every single time. But have people on your stream who amuse you or make you laugh or make you think or just make you feel better. That is really the reason to be on Twitter. We are the World, Twitter is us.

The Conundrum of Wes, Or When Did The Bachelor Become Fake?

I admit it. I'm a girl, and I'm addicted to The Bachelor/Bachelorette.

It was one of the reality shows that hooked me from the very beginning, with its attempts at classy romance. Lush locales, pretty clothes, elegant people. I loved it.

I've watched nearly all the seasons of both shows (all episodes). Didn't care for the Navy guy (who chose no one in the end) or the blond guy (I think second season.) Other than that, I was pretty much there. I've seen their twists and turns, but by and large, it was predictable. And we LIKED THAT.

It's fairly simple, really. Classy women wanna see a classy woman (or man) choose another classy man (or woman), and take them on elegant dates. Simple formula. It works. Don't mess with it.

That is one thing that reality shows should have learned from the first season of Survivor, and we know from Twitter. Leave people to themselves, and they'll surprise the heck out of you. Just thinking of that speech of Sue's from the final Tribal Council gives me chills now.

The Bachelor series has been fairly free from controversy. Other than the guy picking the girl, then dumping her last season, and re-picking the previous girl, in front of a national audience, there wasn't a whole lotta drama. (Don't worry about the dumped Melissa. She went from tears on The Bachelor, to finalist in Dancing with the Stars, to a cushy gig with ABC News.)

People thought that whole thing was fake. To me, it seemed very very real.

This season, though... We have a wonderful new Bachelorette, another dumpee from last season's Bachelor. By and large, she seems pretty straightforward and smart. Except for this whole nonsense with Wes. The Twitterverse is also starting to talk about how this was a producer manipulation, and not real. "Cause how could she be that stupid?"

For those of you not hanging by your TV every week, here is the basic gist. Wes is a musician. With a band. His deal for going on the show is to promote his music. He doesn't give a crap about the girl. In fact, he has a girlfriend back at home in Austin, TX.

Now, what's really fishy about this right from the start is that you know the producers vette the crap out of every contestant. Checking and rechecking and rechecking again so that no craziness shows up when they least expect it.

Either the producers are really losing their touch this season, or they planned all this. My roommate even thinks that Wes isn't a "guy," that he's actually an actor. Because what we we're seeing is Wes, trash talking the girl (Jillian) to his buddies in the guys' house, then being all nice to her and telling her there was no problem. It's brought up MORE THAN ONCE, the reveal actually spans three episodes.

And, bizarrely, she KEEPS him for two of those three episodes, finally getting rid of him this week.

When he's trash talking her, he says stuff like he's only there for his music, he doesn't care about the girl. He just wants publicity for his band. When he takes Jillian on a hometown date, there's Wes' band. SURPRISE!

Now, I will say this: to the producers' credit, they showed as little of his music as possible. Didn't even really show his band (thankfully). They made the camera shots ALL about Jillian. Still. Wes was there.

It felt very much like Wes was manipulating Jillian, but it felt just as much that the producers were manipulating us. And it's really never felt that way before. Not since "Johnny Fairplay" lied about his grandmother on Survivor has an audience (and show) been so manipulated and used.

Wes is in the limo, boasting about how he got to fourth place, while having a girlfriend. That's something to boast about? That you AND YOUR FAMILY lied on national TV? That's gonna sell records for you? And sell out your upcoming tour? Really? You think so?

I dunno. Maybe I live a sheltered life, but the people I see and interact with in social media are all about transparency and truth-telling. That's the currency we trade on these days. So while everyone is steaming about what a colossal jerk Wes is, I think I'm a bit more mad about this season's producers, who added all kinds of hokeyness this season: from the Amazing Race-style treasure hunt to the weird foot fetish guy to this guitar-playing Wes.

Just give us our Bachelor, straight up. No muss, no fuss, and especially no Wes. Thanks.

On MSM vs. Twitter

Michael Jackson is dead. Long live the Thriller.

That's not what this story is about, however. The more interesting thing is how this story, like so many these days, unfolded. I simultaneously heard about it on Twitter and heard Chuck P. on Internet radio station Indie 103.1 mention that he was reading it also.

Now let me say this about that. In the entire time that I've been on Twitter, I've seen many stories broken: earthquakes, the plane in the Hudson, the unrest in Iran. All reported on Twitter long before any traditional news outlets get ahold of them.

Having worked in newspapers, I understand this. The traditional pattern for a news organization is that you hear a rumor. You go check it out. You get at least two separate sources to confirm the news/rumor. Then you go with it. Not before.

However, let me just suggest that news organizations need to rethink this a bit. Not that they should run with unconfirmed reports, but let me go further into this Michael Jackson is dead story.

After reading it in multiple places on Twitter, including reports which said "I've talked to his tour promoters. They confirm the death." (which was good enough for me to believe it), the mainstream media (MSM) insisted on walking through their paces, dragging out what we on Twitter already knew.

Luckily, we had TMZ, who had initially broken the story, confirming it. Then the LA Times confirmed that he was in a coma, and then confirmed his death.

We end up with the bizarre reality of CNN "kinda" reporting his death. "The LA Times has confirmed, but CNN has not..." WTF?

CBS News confirms. Then ABC News confirms. Still CNN holds out. What are they waiting for? By this time, there are friends of the family, UCLA staff, city staff, all of whom are quoted on Twitter as having confirmed it. It really made CNN look laughable.

Sure, I understand. It's a big story. You don't wanna get it wrong.

But here's my other truth, as I told a friend of mine who was skeptical just hearing it from Twitter. There has not been ONE single thing that I've heard first on Twitter as fact, that didn't turn out to be so. Twitter is not a place for rumor-mongering, that I've seen. It is a network of people able to get news in ways that other people not right next to his hospital bed cannot. And should be respected as such.

Bruno's Butt Signifies a New Media Paradigm Change

Maybe it's already happened somewhere else, and it escaped my attention. But to me, the moment I saw the tide turning on the new media revolution will always be marked by Bruno's bare butt.

People can discourse endlessly about how silly Twitter is (cause they don't use it) and how no one wants to hear about what you had for breakfast (because they don't get it), but there is a very real revolution happening here. And it's happening on all fronts: TV, radio, newspapers (what's left of them), magazines.

Here is the weapon we are using: transparency. People on Twitter and in all social media are becoming, like it or not, more honest about their lives and what matters to them. It has become a mass force, whether those in power realize it or not. A tide that would now be difficult to turn. If you are in the media, you would do well to adopt the new honesty.

Let's take another look.

In previous days, stars hired publicists to create stunts for them to get their name in the press. I heard just recently about some publicist admitting to hiring the bobby soxers to scream for Frank Sinatra. (To which I say, shameful.) In any case, it went on. It went on a lot. And the public was blissfully ignorant to these maneuverings. They took whatever craziness they saw in the press as "just those wacky folks in Hollywood."

But just now, something astonishing has happened. 

We have a pretty spectacular stunt at the MTV Awards. Sasha Baron Cohen, in the guise of his new character, Bruno, comes out, dressed as an angel, flying through the air, but askew. As if something has gone wrong. He lands, butt in Eminem's face. Eminem and bodyguards storm off. And SCENE.

One could, perhaps, detect something shady about this event by the fact that MTV's cameras cut to Eminem just BEFORE Bruno lands, looking worried. Or the fact (and maybe only Hollywood folk know this) but any guy handling the rigging for someone flying who lets them instead land on a celebrity would NEVER have a career in this town again.

So, even before Andy Sandberg's writer came out with the concept that it had been rehearsed, WE KNEW. We knew and had already dismissed it as a fakery. Not just we jaded Hollywood types who view everything through fake eyes. No, the mainstream Twitter universe knew. And were saying so.

And to me, that moment represents a landmark watershed event. The tide has truly turned on fakery and lies.

Now, if Eminem and Bruno wanted to be truly au courant, they would just man up and say, yeah, we thought it'd be a funny gag. It was staged. We'd laugh. They would really look cool. Instead, they are sticking with the "no, it was a horrible tragedy" story.

Made me think back to that brouhaha with Eminem and Michael Stipe a few years back. Nothing is real. Except the new reality in the new transparent universe we live in. Tell the truth. You'll like it.

On this season of 24

Tonight, I was lucky enough to watch a screening of the last two episodes of Season 7 of "24" with about 1600 of my closest friends. Actually, it was a SAG screening, a week prior to the episodes actually airing. After the screening, cast members, director and producers talked to everyone. It was bliss. But all of that is for my entertainment page and podcast.

What I wanted to talk about here are some of the questions addressed in this season. Let me also say upfront that in my entertainment writing I'm already talking about 24 taking the Emmy for Best Drama this season. I truly believe it deserves it.

My thesis, though it was applicable moreso in the West Wing years than in, for example, the year The Sopranos won, is that the Best Drama, in large measure reflects the themes of where we are as a country. The issues we are struggling with, the landscape of what matters to us.

For me, that's what separates what is labeled "Best" Drama over just good shows. It's everything all together. The direction, the writing, the acting, the set design, the costumes, the cinematography, the editing, the music--everything that goes into a great show. But when you have five (or this year, seven) shows that all fit that qualification, what pushes a show further to finally take the statue?

It's those big question things. I'll save the discussion of the other shows I think are going to be contenders for another blog. This is in-depth on 24.

So, in case you are unlucky enough to not be watching this season of 24, let me walk you down the path of what happened in this season (and don't worry, I'll leave the key details out of the last two episodes, since most people haven't seen them yet; though I do want to talk about the themes in them).

The biggest hot button issue, ripped from our own headlines, is the subject of torture. Anyone who's seen any episode of 24 knows that Jack Bauer (our hero) is pretty much down with the torture thing. (Didya see him rip that guy's ear off with his teeth? Ok, then.)

When our story opens... well, not including the pre-story where Jack was a good guy, saving kids in Africa... the agency that Jack's worked for for six previous seasons (CTU) has been disbanded, primarily because of its torture tactics, to say nothing of its blatantly ignoring the law at its convenience. Jack, in fact, is before a Senate subcommittee as our season opens.

What you must know about Jack, if you don't already, is that although no one is completely "a good guy" or "a bad guy" in this show, Jack is about as good a good guy as you can get. His motives are pure, and driven. Through seven seasons, you can say this for sure about Jack: he does what's right. That is, if he's tasked with guarding the president, guard the president he does. If he is tasked with getting information out of someone, he does that too. In both cases, by whatever means necessary. Some of these means, I assure you, are pretty gruesome.

Along the way, he does care for his family and friends and innocent bystanders to the greatest degree possible. If he could save everyone and torture no one, I genuinely believe he would do that. But he deals mostly with some pretty shady characters, and sometimes has to go to their lengths to fit in (as he did this season). So even just there, it got into some grey area. But that's the gist of it. He drives, pushing through concrete, to get to his objective. 

That is why, in short, he is our hero. He can filter through all the competing agendas and distractions and multiple things going on to get to the main point: save the president, extract information from the bad guy, whatever.

So, as the season starts, he gets taken out of the hearings, to help the FBI with one little case, which lasts a very long 24 hours. So much happens in this season, it's unbelievable.

But at the beginning, he is tasked to work with two FBI operatives who absolutely and unequivocally don't believe in torture. They work within the confines of the law, and that's it. They are appalled by Jack Bauer's brutal tactics, and tell him so, frequently.

Of course, as the season wears away, they are put into situtations which require a change of attitude on that score.

And that, then is what is different about this season of 24. The characters this season really have more of a conscience. Even the smaller characters. There is one, bombs are armed and ready. One guy says: Push the button. He actually refuses. Little things like this never happened on 24 before.

What are the repercussions of our actions, it seems to be asking. When is torture justified? Ever? This conversation is being played out on our political stage right now.

What I wanted to look at is the bigger picture. If our new President Obama is indeed rebooting our ship of state as this season of 24 is rebooting the fictional government picture, let's look at what really needs to happen here. We can argue endlessly about how we all got off course exactly, but this is the deal. We need to all reboot ourselves individually so that what is at our core is not cynicism and sneaking around doing the most convenient thing. No cutting corners and saying, It's good enough.

But simply this: DO THE RIGHT THING. The most humane, the kindest, the most letter of the law. We all know the difference between good and bad. CHOOSE GOOD. Simply that.

We have three characters now whom we can count on to do the right thing: Jack Bauer (our hero), Renee Walker (introduced this season, who has been built up to be like the female Jack Bauer, but with more of a conscience) and our new female president (and btw, 24 had the first black president too!), Alison Taylor.

They have goodness at their core. We can count on them for this, we can root for them because of this. It's good to have good people to root for again.

Like I said, there were 1600 fans of 24 filling the theatre. It was exhilarating and thrilling, first of all to be watching the show with all of them, but what was also remarkable to me: they cheered, loudly, when the right choices were made. When characters chose to do the right thing.

Believe me when I tell you that all choices on 24 are difficult ones. But we, as a country and individually, need to get back to the place where what guides us forward is doing the right thing. Whether that is giving a quarter to the person begging for it on the corner, and not asking questions about it; or refusing to commit felonies just because our bank manager boss asks it of us; or whatever our own personal situation is.

Hone in on what is the right choice. Instill it in ourselves. Make it part of our makeup. And when we are faced with a choice, we choose the right thing. Every time. That is truly what President Obama is tasking us with. That is what we, collectively, need to be doing right now. Bringing back that crazy thing called integrity that totally disappeared during the Bush years.

Prosecuting those who condoned waterboarding, instead of looking the other way. That's what we have laws for. There is no "putting the past in the past" crap. Wrongdoers are punished. Criminals are brought to justice. That's how this country really works. Part of our job as citizens is enforcing that.

I love 24 as a show because it reminds me, through Renee Walker and Alison Taylor and Jack Bauer, that this is what we need to do. In every small action. In every big action. In every case, at all times: The right thing.

On the importance of hand shakes

This blog is in response to this post:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/09/hand-shaking-is-so-medieval-lets-end-it/

Wow. Michael Arrington. My first response, dude, is that you seriously need to deal with that little OCD problem you've got going on there.

(Most normal people don't freak out when touching others to this degree.)

But I want to address this from another perspective. While it is true that all sorts of touch can spread all sorts of disease, so do public toilets and whatnot. DEAL.

The more relevant point to me is that most people live large parts of their lives today where they never even get away from their computer, or leave their homes. And when in public, they are hypersensitive to touch. I say this living in Los Angeles, where the whole celebrity "don't touch me" thing just compounds the problem. People just flat out don't touch here.

And that is as big a problem as the OCD discussed previously.

Touching IS a part of socialization. Touching, handshaking as he describes, may have its origins in wanting to show you have no weapon, but there are other, more spiritual things that are also exchanged in a simple handshake.

You look in the person's eyes. You assess what type of person you have in front of you. And just this act of initiating trust (whether socially motivated or not) increases intimacy between two people. I don't know about anyone else, but someone who fist pumps me, or bumps my elbow, instead of shaking hands, I'd be highly suspicious of.

Course, I'm German, and handshaking is HUGE over there. (In fact, Mr. Arrington, maybe you should avoid going there. They are all about the handshake, even in casual meetings.)

I am a hugging type of person, and once I become friends with someone, I HUG them. People in our culture don't get nearly enough hugs. When was the last time you got one?

People need/desire/crave touch. The handshake is one of the few types of touch that is totally socially acceptable. To take that away would provoke even more serious consequences for our society than the "disease" craziness that you talk about.

So get over your damn self. Be a man, shake that hand.