Changes

If it ain't broke, fix it anyway-ancient business proverb

Well it's been quite awhile, and this blog is actually a letter I sent to Pantene, that I decided I'd share here, since it's been awhile since I posted, and I wanted a copy to keep for myself.

It may seem petty, but really this is a blog and a letter for anyone that faces an unexplainable and often annoying change in a product that they've dedicated themselves to, whether it's shampoo or a make of car. So here goes, I'll keep you posted on my impending form letter reply.



I'm writing to express my dissatisfaction with your recent changes to your line of shampoos and conditioners. I realize that nothing really stays the same in life, and businesses feel they need to change with the times, but was it really necessary to change a product that dedicated users were comfortable with?

A new logo or something along those lines I can understand (I never cared for it, but I get it) but to revamp your entire line? Whats it accomplish? You have a little more color on the bottle, along with overblown descriptions of your product that a 3 year old could see through.

I don't mean to belittle your work. I know I couldn't make my own shampoo myself, so that's why I and so many others rely on companies like you to do that for us, and we're appreciative., but this new line and updated style is no good.

First of all, I spend more than enough time in certain stores that like to move things around every day, and now I have to spend time figuring out exactly what the hell has happened to my shampoo. By the way, from what I can gather, the exact formula I used for curly hair is gone,gone gone. (I don't like the moisturizing stuff, never needed it, so I'm not buying into that noise)

Aussie pulled the same thing a few years back, more than likely a cost cutting measure and I said "au revoir" to them as well.

Frankly I don't put a lot of stock in polls either. For all I know, you interviewed a bunch of people (which I never heard about) and they said "Why yes, I love your product, but what would be really cool is if your staff shared their writing talents with the world and made your shampoo sound more like a science project than a hair care product"

So I guess that's that. I hate that it had to end this way, but you did what you felt you needed to do, and now so am I.

Au Revoir, Pantene
name held upon this being my own blog

Oh, TV what happened?

This Blog is rated M for Mature.

"I have never yet met a man that I dident [sic] like,"-Will Rogers, 1926

"I never met a tv I didn't like"-Me, circa 1988

Boy, a lot has changed over the years, and nowadays I'm more likely to call my old friend an asshole(the tv, not Will Rogers)

The idea for this blog came to me in the shower, a place where a lot of my ideas come to me, when I'm doing something mundane and not paying any attention, these things pop in my head.

This also happens while I'm driving, eating and shock of shocks-watching television.

This was really inspired by an article concerning the final episode of "The Jay Leno Show" on NBC.

You remember that so called colossal failure (That still drew decent ratings, but not the absolute highest) that got the ax this past Tuesday.

Apparently it didn't even draw the ratings that a encore presentation of Law And Order:SVU did on Wednesday-an episode that had already been aired TWICE.

It garnered 2 million extra viewers than Jay's show(on a given night-don't forget to read the fine print, folks)

In actuality it just grazed past Leno for his finale-but the headline doesn't want you to know that.

Who sent out this release? NBC?

What really irks me is that when this episode originally air on October 21, 2009, it was repeated 3 NIGHTS LATER on October 24th, 2009.

3 FUCKING NIGHTS LATER.

So while Jay looks to be the loser, what does it say about us as viewers who get Law & Order episodes spoon fed to us with alarming regularity and we eat them like candy?

Can't get enough Law & Order:SVU on NBC? Don't forget to tune into USA Network for the Big Law & Order:SVU Marathon this weekend! For 16 HOURS OF LAW & FUCKING ORDER! Don't Forget this is just one series in a franchise of LAW & ORDER.

How about some LAW & ORDER for television programming in general?

You can bet your bippy that someone, somewhere is going to watch EVERY SINGLE EPISODE of this show. I don't care if you like it. I like NCIS, but Dear Lord, we're battling obesity in America and they blame it on the food?

You can eat all the granola and rice cakes you want, but it won't save your big ass if you watch Television for 16 hours-Don't give us a reason guys.

The networks are as lazy as we are.

Every Summer, there is now a "Worldwide Day of Play" usually in September, where the tv execs have decided that we the people, need to get off our ass and go outside and do something!

You know it's getting bad when they have to run that across the screen and go dark for 3 hours.

Now we don't want to wear the little tikes out, since this is only a once a year thing, so let's make it 3 hours.

Trouble is, when they come back in-Spongebob Squarepants Marathon!! Thank God! I almost broke a sweat out there!

The point is, that with repeats, threepeats, marathons and what have you, television is really becoming that "vast wasteland" the snobs spoke of back in the day.

This is of course a cost cutting measure because a couple of pricks got the green light to go out and buy every damn station they wanted.

Who says you can't have it all?

So when one or two companies own everything, then you get programming aimed at getting the absolute highest demographic out there and influenced by the same handful of people.

Sure, television has always been about ratings, but how on earth did the stations survive when a Full House repeat only aired once a day?

It's a surprise Disney is still in business huh?

While it may seem trite, with everything else going on in the world, I think someone that cares and has power should break up these monopolies and put the networks up for grabs to anyone that cares about what they do.

Think about all the jobs it would create, people actually going back to work and producing, editing, programming and making magic.

You think Disney gives a Mickey Mouses ass if their channels are entertaining you? No, we apparently watch anyway.

I say, By God, if you're gonna make Lucky Charms good for me, then make VH1 good for me-if anyone still knows how.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm gonna go watch just 1 episode of Benson, and go out and play.

What's In A Lousy Band Name?

So I was inspired to write this week's blog by reading another website where I get most of my music news. The site name isn't important, as this is not a cheap plug, but the band names I have learned about are sometimes as interesting as the news itself.

I won't say a lot about these names as they speak for themselves. Everyone has an opinion on if "Beatles" was brilliant, or meant nothing as a name. Keep in mind, the name is not a reflection of the music, you can love a band and still think it has a God awful name. For instance:

God Lives Underwater-now taking a quick peek at another site that is basically an online encyclopedia (again, no names here-or help from the audience) we know the name was derived from a previous band called GLU and those initials were used as a backronym to form that name. Whatever. It struck me as stupid from the moment I heard the name, and sorry, but I think the Stones woulda been screwed if they had used it first.

Flaming Lips-I've heard worse, but this sounds like a venereal disease.

The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus-Really was EVERY other name taken? If I started a band and for some reason God himself assigned us this name, I would break them up immediately and give up my dreams of fame and fortune-and risk facing his wrath.

As Tall As Lions-What are you trying to say with this name? Are you quirky? Ironic? In a competition with The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus?

Every Time I Die-Yea, sounds kinda "Metal" but when it comes to naming a band, use a name, not a part of a sentence.

Finger Eleven-They were originally called "The Rainbow Butt Monkeys" and dare I say it, that name made more sense.

Chickenfoot-Before you get mad, I didn't say that their music sucked. This is indeed a supergroup in every sense of the word, so why give it a crummy name? The origins of the name come from the fact that there were originally three members and there are three talons on a chicken's foot. I guess if there hadn't been three brothers named Jonas then they wouldn't have to settle for this.

I could go on and maybe someday I will again. But for those that read this and say "What difference does it make? What's in a name and why should it affect who listens to them?"

To that I say, How do you think all those girls named "Bertha" feel?

I'm with L-oco

So here I am, a couple of days removed from the final broadcast of The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, and it's still a sad situation.

Kudos for Conan for a great final show and his positive spin on things, I especially enjoyed his remarks on cynicism. There's a fine line between sarcasm and cynicism, and cynicism continually crosses that line these days, or at least blurs it.

I started a blog, just to get things off my chest, whether anyone reads it or not isn't the point really, but everyone's got something to say, it's just nice to keep a record of our thoughts.

I will say though, speaking of having something to say, that I have mixed feelings about the "I'm with Coco" campaign that has taken the internet and media by storm these past couple of weeks.

It started out as a show of support for Conan, and you can tell when he speaks of it that it really is overwhelming to him.

Now, in light of Conan's remarks on cynicism, I can't help but wonder what Conan thinks of a portion of his supporters now. With his tenure now over, it has given fans time to reflect-and bash Jay Leno.

Sure, that was always going on, but this is the kinda stuff that Conan doesn't want, and certainly doesn't condone.

You're free to think how you want, but come on, Conan has got new things in the works, how about everyone else?

The subject of my first blog concerns this situation and now, it's more of the same stuff.

We have had enough problems over the years getting along, whether it's disagreements with others over race, religion, sexual preference, politics, etc.

Now we have moved past some of these issues (somewhat) it's 2010 and we're dividing ourselves on the issues of late night talk show hosts.

Do I really have to choose?

Do I really have to be a Leno supporter, or a Conan-ite?

Do I automatically support EVERYONE except Leno if I like Conan?

Bottom line is I'm really starting to get annoyed with some of these "supporters" who are the cynics that Conan isn't.

In September, Conan will be on another network, no one's sure where just yet, I'll check him out, just as I will Leno, Letterman and whoever else I feel like, but to cut one or two people out of the picture out of some show of "support" is a dumb ass move in my book.

There's not much enjoyable television these days, enjoy what you can, and only after you truly move on, should you follow Conan wherever he moves.

More To Come

Interview With My Hair

Here's an interview I did awhile back with my hair. I thought I'd share it so you might get to know me a little bit better....

Note:This is not a vanity project.


Sam: Hey hair, what's up?

My Hair: Eh, just hanging around

Sam: You do want me to call you "Hair" right?

My Hair: Well, calling me "Ass" would be silly wouldn't it?

Sam: Yea, I guess you're right, so the first question is you've been through a LOT of changes over the years, anything in particular stick out to you?

My hair: Yea, that cowlick you had when you were six.

Sam: I see what you did there, but what I meant was, any particular style?

My hair: Oh, well that time you got a mohwak, what were you pissed off at me?

Sam: Not at all, I really liked it actually.

My hair: Yea, it was cool and all, until you decided to trim it yourself.

Sam: Yea, that's true, live & learn.

Sam: Hair, ever since you've grown out, you've been quite the conversation piece, some people have even accused you of being a wig....

My hair: Now hold it right there, where the hell, do you get off asking that cra..

Sam: I'm just saying, do you take that as a compliment?

My hair: Well it depends, on if they think I look like some kind of discount wig, or one of those like Zsa Zsa Gabor used to hock.

Sam: I'm assuming it's one of the finer quality wigs.

My hair: Now you're making me blush.

Sam: Speaking of changing colors, how do you feel about dye?

My hair: I fully endorse it.

Sam: Why's that?

My hair: Well, you want to look you're best, you know what they say: No play for Mr. Gray

Sam: Yea, but some people think it makes them look distinguished

My hair: Sam, an asshole is an asshole no matter what color their hair is.

Sam: Okay, what do you think about balding?

My Hair: Shit happens, just God don't let it happen to me!

Sam: You'd freak out?

My Hair: Yea.

Sam: Is it vanity?

My Hair: Vanity's got nothing to do with it.

Sam: Do you stare at bald people or feel sorry for them?

My Hair: No, that's what toupees and surgery are for.

Sam: What if they can't afford it?

My Hair: Then they should do it anyway, call it a beautification project. Government blows money on that shit all the time.

Sam: What do you think of ponytails?

My Hair: I'm not into bondage, man.

Sam: Did you have any idols growing up?

My Hair: John Stamos, I was crushed when he got his hair cut, I didn't curl for days, I just laid there.

Sam: That was some sad shit.

Sam: Now, you've been compared to some pretty famous hairstyles haven't you?

My Hair: Well you'd know about that, let's see, Jimmy Garvin, Jim Morrison, Cactus Jack, Bob Seger..

Sam: Are you influenced by these men?

My Hair: Oh, absolutely. I'd have to say one of my biggest influences would have to be The Beatles.

Sam: Interesting. Hair, one last question, what kind of legacy would you like to leave the world?

My Hair: Well, Sam I know how you can do things on a whim, so I wanna ask you, if the day ever comes and you decide to cut me loose, I'd like you to donate me to "Locks of Love"

Sam: Wow, I'm impressed, hair. That's very giving and selfless of you.

My Hair: I do what I can.

Sam: Well hair, I want to thank you for your time & being there for me, and I hope we're together for many more years to come.

My Hair. Word!

Leno, Conan etc.

Ok, I wanted to write this and get this all out-my thoughts on this situation with Late Night programming. A lot of people are down on Jay Leno for what appears to be him taking back The Tonight Show from Conan O'Brien. But there's more here than meets the eye.

Let's go back a few years to the decision NBC made to give the Tonight Show to Conan. Now Conan has been loyal to NBC and put in a lot of work and after a shaky start, made his version of "Late Night" a hit, and kudos to him for that.

Here's the thing most of us forget though, Jay was enjoying doing the Tonight Show-who wouldn't?
And Jay didn't want to just give up and retire, so he received offers from other networks that would be thrilled to have him.

NBC, not wanting to lose Jay to another network, made him an offer: A 10 p.m. slot. Make no mistake about it, this was a VERY bold move. This way, Conan gets the Tonight Show, Jay gets a show, and NBC not only keeps them both, but they also have a program that's cheaper to produce than a scripted show 5 nights a week.

NBC also offered Jay 2 years-regardless of ratings. Now, suddenly NBC is worried about poor ratings and claims that their affiliates aren't happy.

Now think about this for a minute: You're a newscaster at a small station(I don't care if you're in California, everyone is small time compared to a major network like NBC) Are you seriously going to go to NBC and complain about one of their biggest names dragging down your ratings? maybe you're ratings suck because you're on NBC-just an idea.

Anyway, I really don't think anyone has balls(or an ego) big enough to go running to NBC to complain, but that's NBC's excuse. So suddenly Jay's 2 year deal is off.

Whose fault is that? Certainly not Jay's, he's just doing his show, which NBC had him take, because they were afraid Conan might get impatient waiting for Jay to retire so he can host The Tonight Show.

Did Conan get a raw deal? Yes. Did Leno? Yes. I really don't care for this belly aching David Letterman and Jimmy Kimmel are dishing out, Dave has been pissed ever since he got passed over nearly 18 years ago, and frankly I've always felt Jay should have gotten the show, he was the permanent guest host after all, and conceivably Garry Shandling was next in line after him, and if you really want to get down to it, had Joan Rivers not walked away from her permanent guest host gig subbing for Johnny Carson, she could be hosting the show at this very moment.

When you get right down to it, this was probably a move done by NBC so they didn't have another situation like back in 1993, when Letterman jumped to CBS. I'm just sayin'

Jimmy Kimmel, really doesn't come into play here, besides him throwing his 2 cents in, he's really inconsequential in this whole deal.


So what we have here is a mess started by NBC and the facts are these:

They tried to push Jay Leno out of a job he wasn't willing to leave.

They offered him a show with a 2 year contract and changed their minds.

They never gave Conan a chance and quite frankly you'd have a hard time convincing me they really care about Conan at this point.

So, I suppose jay will return to the Tonight Show, since Conan is walking away from it, and Conan might go to Fox, and we'll have 3 channels to flip through somewhere down the line, but for the record, this comes down to NBC, not Jay Leno and if you can't understand why Jay won't retire, then you my friend, have never had a job you actually enjoyed.

And we'll be right back......