RSS feed for InstantSpot site Tracy's Blog

I reject your reality, and substitute MINE.

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:35:47 GMT

Beware Reality

It’s difficult to assess the fallout from the Hollywood writers’ strike, but it’s going to be big.

When “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” went into reruns this week, hundreds of thousands of American citizens lost contact with what’s going on in the outside world. The recourse to vintage episodes of “The Colbert Report” immediately disconnected voters — at least the ones too young to remember the ’70s — from the nation’s unfolding political drama.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. However much we may miss our daily dose of faux mock reality, the discomfort is nothing compared to the pain we will feel if the networks respond to a prolonged strike by falling back on the writer-free, unscripted, real reality TV. Forget Colbert. Think “America’s Next Top Odontologist.”

There is a close relation between reality and labor unrest. Reality is a natural place to rummage for ideas for a television producer who is out of writers to provide them. It’s already there, so the sets are cheap. And television audiences have proven that there is no dialogue so bad that they will refuse to listen.

Some old-timers in Hollywood peg the dawn of reality TV to the great strike of 1988, when writers walked off the lot and NBC punished the rest of us with “Group One Medical” — in which real doctors infotained America with real patients. In 1988, Robert Stack’s “Unsolved Mysteries” became a weekly show. “On Trial” and “USA Today: The Television Series” — fortunately no longer with us — also hit the airwaves in that fateful year.

Admittedly, reality TV scored some hits, such as “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” in the late 1990s. But there was still a hope that the genre might recede into the darker corners of cable when the threat of a combo strike in 2001 by writers and actors sent studios again scurrying for the real world.

Today, the dial is cluttered with offerings like “Dancing With the Stars,” “American idol” and “America’s Next Top Model.”

And there’s always more: chefs fight over appetizers; rich middle-aged housewives bicker in big houses; cops chase perps. This might sound elitist, but when “The Office” goes out of production, we worry about what might happen to its place in the lineup.

Regardless of the outcome of this labor struggle, for the sake of America’s television-watching citizenry, we implore the networks not to let reality TV intrude further upon our free time.

Don’t destroy the fantasy.

A I PREDICTIONS

Thu, 03 May 2007 12:43:50 GMT

IDOL PREDICTIONS and observations

All of them are set for careers in recording, rightfully so.

Jordin Sparks – Dodged the bullet, this time.

Next time it will be her or AmKneesia.

Chris Richardson – Bye bye. I CALLED IT!

His final peformance was quite ‘pitchy’

If he’s goana be Blake’s opening act, he’s got work to do.

LaKisha Jones – her and Jordin are my next picks to leave.

And girl, wear sumpin’ with sleaves!

Phil Stacey – Bye bye.

Okay, I missed this one, but not by much.

I did say he would be gone next week.

Phil, either grow some hair or shave your eyebrows.

Blake Lewis – My #2 pick.

He is the first really original style we’ve seen come this far.

His originality is his forte’.

He’ll be back. Original but versatile too.

He should be Melinda’s opening act, not Chris.

Melinda Doolittle – My #1 pick.

I don’t care what anybody else says, she’s the best.

A versatile singer, great range from high to low.

Able to sing any style anytime, with class.

Far and away the best singer there, two notches above the rest.

IDOL PREDICTIONS

Wed, 02 May 2007 11:19:34 GMT

IDOL PREDICTIONS and observations

All of them are set for careers in recording, rightfully so.

Jordin Sparks – A nice looking young lady, she will be very good in the future.

But….she’s going home. I really believe she picked the wrong song this week.

And dang, that girl is HUGE, with a capital HU. Not fat, just BIG.

She looks big enough to just pick up Simon and toss him into the audience.

Chris Richardson – A good singer but not versatile.

Well suited for today’s pop music.

But….he’s going home. He has a nasal tone to his singing voice that is annoying.

As far as appearance, I don’t think the burr-knob haircut is flattering.

And what’s up with moving his head when he sings?

He looks like an angry, indignant black woman wagging his head to and fro.

LaKisha Jones – A very good singer but not that versatile.

I like to call her AmKneesia, (humor)

Well suited for soul & pop music.

She’ll be back. She has a terrific talent, needs work on her lower range.

As far as appearance, she needs Stacy & Clinton. (What Not to Wear)

She will probably be leaving next week.

Phil Stacey – A good singer but not an idol by any means.

Besides, he has two first names. What’s up with that?

Isn’t that kinda’ like being named Tom Fred, or Sam Bill? (humor)

He’ll be back. In the long term, he oughta keep his regular job.

As far as appearance, the Daddy Warbucks look wierds me out.

I own quite a few hats and have never worn them down on one ear.

He should be leaving next week.

Blake Lewis – My #2 pick.

He is the first really original style we’ve seen come this far.

His originality is his forte’.

He’ll be back. Original but versatile too.

As far as appearance, the hair looks better combed down, no matter the color.

He should have a band, singers and dancers right away.

He’ll make a killing on hip-hop if he stays true to his style.

Melinda Doolittle – My #1 pick.

I don’t care what anybody else says, she’s the best.

A versatile singer, great range from high to low.

Able to sing any style anytime, with class.

As far as appearance, at first she needed a neck, her new haircut did that.

She knows how to dress for her body type.

Far and away the best singer there, two notches above the rest.

ANYBODY REMEMBER PAT'S MEMORY PILLS?

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:20:16 GMT

Still Waiting for Answers

Surely no one beyond a handful of the most self-deluded Republicans in Congress was surprised at the disclosure by George Tenet, the former intelligence director, that there was never a serious debate in the Bush administration about whether Iraq actually posed a threat to the United States.

It has long been evident that President Bush decided to invade Iraq first, and constructed his ramshackle case for the war after the fact. So why, after all this time, are Americans still in the dark about the details of that campaign?

For that matter, why don’t Americans know the full truth about Mr. Bush’s illegal domestic spying program or his decisions on how to handle prisoners of the war on terror? And now there are new questions begging for answers — about the purge of United States attorneys and about campaign pep rallies in executive branch agencies that might well have violated federal law.

For six years, the Republican majority in Congress ignored the administration’s power grabs, misdeeds and incompetence or, worse, pushed through laws that gave legislative cover to some of Mr. Bush’s most outrageous abuses of power. Now that the Democrats control Congress, they have opened the doors of government in welcome ways. But the list of questions just seems to grow.

We hope Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, enforces the subpoena of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss prewar claims about Saddam Hussein’s long-gone weapons programs. Ms. Rice, who was national security adviser before the war, says she has answered every possible question. Actually, we don’t have room for all our questions.

Just a few: Did she vet the briefing Mr. Bush got from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s rogue intelligence shop on Iraq’s alleged efforts to acquire uranium? The Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department thought, correctly, that the report was false. So why did Ms. Rice permit the president to repeat it to the world? Or did Mr. Bush also know what he was claiming was wrong?

The same applies to other claims about Iraq, including a false report about the purchase of aluminum tubes for bomb building, talk of mushroom clouds and fairy tales about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. When it became clear the intelligence was false, why didn’t Ms. Rice make sure the public found out? Before the war, Ms. Rice was not in a post requiring Senate confirmation, but she is now. If she refuses to testify, the House should hold her in contempt.

It is imperative for Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, to finish two remaining studies on prewar intelligence that his Republican predecessor, Senator Pat Roberts, had no intention of completing. The first, on the errors made by the intelligence agencies in predicting what would happen after the invasion of Iraq, is expected to be finished next month. The final piece of the report will compare what administration officials said about Iraq with the actual information they had. Both reports are essential for understanding how this country got into this mess. Mr. Rockefeller will have to make sure the White House does not drag out the declassification procedure.

And then there are the questions about the purge of federal prosecutors. There is mounting evidence that many of the eight fired United States attorneys were punished for refusing to prosecute Democrats on phony election-fraud charges. Who ran this purge? And is it true, as it now seems, that others were rewarded for bringing weak corruption cases timed to close races?

For the last six years, the White House has also conducted seminars in each election cycle that certainly seem like an effort to use government agencies to help G.O.P. candidates. Did they violate the law that forbids the use of federal offices for campaigning?

Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political “architect,” is at the center of both of these scandals. Congress needs to issue, and enforce, subpoenas to compel him and other top White House officials to testify.

Mr. Bush’s supporters are already arguing that Congress’s much-needed investigations are politically motivated and backward looking. Actually, the baldly political act was the Republicans’ refusing to do their constitutional duty of oversight for the last six years. Mr. Waxman said his panel issued four subpoenas to the Bush administration under Republican leadership. The same leadership issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to the Clinton administration.

As for looking back, Mr. Bush has hardly given up the habit of stonewalling Congress, or shown that he has learned the limits of his power. The war in Iraq not only continues, but Mr. Bush is escalating it and repeating many of the same myths about Saddam Hussein. The country does not need any more myths. It needs answers.