Is it time to end the Big Music Name Super Bowl Halftime Show?

Another halftime show has ended in controversy.  During the recent Super Bowl Halftime Show, Madonna and several Musical Acts of today performed.  Madonna performed several classics and a new song as part of the show, and many people had opinions on how good, or bad Madonna was.  But the focus after the game has been on British singer MIA who decided to remind the audience how many points the New England Patriots were leading by at halftime—either that or she was telling the audience that she was the star.  Regardless, this is now the second big musical halftime production in 9 years that has ended in controversy.  The first one, when Janet Jackson showed a little too much of her body to MTV’s initial approval, ended up forcing MTV to all-reality TV and sending a lot of shock jocks (including Howard Stern) to either early retirement or satellite radio.  In this instance, both the NFL and NBC immediately condemned the middle finger, but the aftershocks are still yet to be felt.  Perhaps the biggest effect of this incident may be the end of the Big Music Name Halftime Show.

Ever since Ms. Jackson got nasty in Houston, the NFL and network TV has tried to tow the line between playing it safe and entertaining the audience with legendary names in music.  Some have worked well (Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney are examples) and some have not panned out well (like Tom Petty and The Black-Eyed Peas).  Madonna has had more positive feedback than negative in this version, and personally, I think she would have been nice without the additional singers.  When the best guest singer was last seen at last year’s Grammy’s dressed up as a big parrot with rejects from Jim Henson singing a song called, “F**k you”, you need to dump the back-up crew.

If you want to make a statement, the Grammy’s or the MTV Music Awards is the place to do it, not in front of over a billion people watching a sporting event.  This is exactly what the NFL did not need, and the knee-jerk reaction will probably be the reason next year’s Super Bowl Halftime show will feature Up With People (and nobody wants to see THAT).

Of course, some people are defending MIA’s right to “Express Herself”, and many of these people are the same ones who will crucify any larger than life leader (they have been probably piling on the deceased Joe Paterno in recent weeks, but that’s for another post). My response? The NFL watched the rehearsal and did not see MIA do that in practice. MIA decided to wait until the real show to pull her attention-getting stunt. That was premeditated.

Here’s an idea:  it’s time to end the Practice of Using Big Name Music Acts as the Super Bowl Halftime Entertainment.  If you want to have a music act, why not a marching band, like they do it at many halftime football games?  Why not invite the reigning DCI World Champions to be the Halftime Entertainment?  Many who are musically inclined (especially with Bands) will stick around, while those who aren’t will take a break to watch something else.  Do we really need to keep audiences in their chairs for four hours straight?

You know the day is coming when some musical act will lie about their intentions and use their halftime show as a protest of their own.  That will probably kill the Halftime Show altogether.  Also, not everyone will be completely satisfied with the Big Name Choices for Halftime and will have already made up their minds before the show, no matter how good or bad it was.  You could see it in last night’s comments on Facebook and Yahoo!.

In the end, the NFL can tell me to take my opinions and go away.  But, I’m just offering a little advice.  It’s time the NFL did away with the Big Production Shows and just focus on the Game.

Wireless communications: Building Obama’s re-election hopes?

The worst kept secret right now is that the US Economy is beginning to strengthen as we head into the 2012 Presidential election primary and general election cycles.  This would definitely help the incumbent, Barack Obama, as he attempts to win a second term.  How much that economy strengthens may determine whether Obama gets that second term or whether Mitt Romney becomes President.  It appears the key number is 8, as in 8% unemployment rate.  The current unemployment rate sits at 8.5%, and according to historical evidence, no sitting President has won an election with an unemployment rate above 8%.  Not to mention the fact that a lot of people have stopped looking, and if they start looking again, the unemployment rate will rise again.  So if Obama is going to win a second term, the economy needs to improve and soon.

Probably one of the hottest areas for employment right now is the Wireless Industry.  2012 is shaping up to be the year where “4G” communications, notably LTE, will stand to make huge inroads across this nation as wireless data networks continue to replace cell phone networks as the dominant form of wireless communication.  Verizon Wireless is well on its' way to complete nationwide LTE service by next year.  MetroPCS and AT&T have deployed networks in several locations and will look to expand their networks to compete with Verizon on a national level.  Leap Wireless and other regional US cellular are beginning LTE build-outs in various locations.  Sprint and Clearwire will be beginning their switch from the older WiMAX standard to the LTE format, as they try to play catch-up.  T-Mobile will use advanced HSPA+ in an attempt to compete speed-wise with the other National carriers.  In short, this year will mark the largest change in the wireless industry since the late 1990s when digital cellular began to replace analog cellular as the US’s main wireless communications.

Right now, talking with industry insiders, many of these wireless networks are putting up new cell phone towers and even software-defined radios antennas in order to meet the increasingly changing world of communications.  Sprint has just started deploying a new multi-mode base station that they hope will be the future of cellular base stations.  But another dynamic is at work.  Given the increase of smartphone usage in this country, more people are using their phones to such a point, that a cellular network meltdown is projected in 2013.  Cellular providers know this, and are doing everything they can to try and prevent their networks from crashing.  Putting together smaller base-stations and linking them with their larger cell tower into networks could spell the difference between expanding the capacity of the networks or leading to disaster as more people move to smartphones.

There’s also a hope by the wireless industry that Congress and the FCC will free up additional RF spectrum, also allowing these networks to increase spectral capacity.  So far, the Obama administration has shown interest to help free up spectrum, but so far, not enough spectrum has been released.  Wireless networks have attempted to buy up all unused spectrum as a result, led by Verizon and AT&T.

So there’s a lot of work to do over the next two years.  And that work requires creating high paying jobs to meet those demands.  The question is will the FCC and other government agencies help or hurt the wireless industry.  Based on the last 6 months, there is a perception the FCC and the Dept. of Justice may block the ability to create wireless jobs, based on the opposition to the AT&T – T-Mobile failed merger attempt.  But some analysts, including Yankee Group, concluded the merger would cost jobs, damaging AT&T’s claims that the merger would add jobs and ultimately killing the merger.  The FCC later approved AT&T’s efforts to buy Qualcomm’s unused 700 MHz spectrum.  So the FCC’s role is still unknown whether it will be a roadblock or rubber stamp for the wireless industry.

Regardless, the ability for the wireless industry to upgrade their networks to handle the increasing traffic demands may either benefit or hinder the job market.  And that may be the difference between a one-term or two-term Obama administration.  So, it will be a very interesting year in the wireless world to say the least.

High School Yearbooks and Showing off too much, too early

By now, everyone has heard of the story regarding 18-year old Sydney Spies, a Senior at Durango High School.  Sydney wanted the High School Yearbook to use a provocative picture of her as her Senior Picture.  The picture was of her wearing a white mini-skirt and a black shawl that only covered her upper chest area.  The Yearbook and School refused to put the picture in the yearbook, and now Sydney and her family are suing the school claiming that their rights were violated.  Sydney claims that the picture is consistent with her desire to be a model when she graduates and was meant to show her beauty.  Most people, however, disagree with that line of thinking and believe the picture make her look more like a stripper.

Long before I met my wife, I attended South Gwinnett High School, where my class was full of beautiful young ladies who were even more beautiful than Ms. Spies.  In fact, 3 of my classmates won Miss South, which I’m sure has not been done before and hasn’t been since.  But I don’t remember any of them dressing provocatively in their Senior Year pictures.  Come to think of it, I don’t remember any of them dressing that provocatively in school.  They looked great in prom pictures, in school pictures, and even when they were dressed modestly or casually.  These were the kind of ladies you could take to mom and dad, go on a fun date, or just watch a movie with.  They had great restraint, because many of them wanted to be known for more than just good looks.  Many have grown up and gone on to be successful outside of High School in various ways.

Single young guys probably see the pictures of young Ms. Spies and probably think of the Rick James song, “Super Freak”.  You know, “She’s a very kinky girl, The kind you don’t take home to Momma…”.  Ms. Spies comes from a new generation of ladies who prefer to show off their bodies instead of being modest.  Many of these new generation of young ladies are willing to wear Victoria Secret’s pants that have the word “Pink” labeled across the buttocks or some other word that would give the impression they want to get intimate immediately.  They dress way beyond their years and more often than not find their way into trouble with teenage boys, or in some situations, older men.  These men are less interested in marrying these kind of young ladies and more interested in one-night stands.  The inability to show modesty or restraint is going to lead to problems for many of these young women.

Ms. Spies appears to be heading down a dark path that will lead only to a life of ruin.  It’s not too late to turn it around, but if she doesn’t do it soon, I’m afraid she will become another sad story of a teenage “beauty” who ends up as an example of what can go wrong when you try to draw attention to yourself with your body too early in life.  It’s a shame they will never learn the examples that many of my female classmates at South lived.

The long goodbye to two business icons…

Since Christmas, the sad news of two American icons has brought back a flood of memories from my childhood and it has reminded me that nothing is forever. 

The news regarding Sears closing 100+ of its stores (both Sears and Kmart) across the country may not have been a surprise to anyone, but it was still a sad reminder that Sears nor Kmart are giants in their respective stores.  In the 1970s and 1980s, both Sears and Kmart were the place to go for anyone’s needs.  Sears was the home of great brands like Kennmore, Craftsman, DieHard, and other lines.  Sears even invented the Discover Credit Card back in the 1980s, and had businesses that included Caldwell Banker real estate, and Dean Witter Financial.  And who could forget the Sears Catalog?  Kmart was America’s discount store.  But, beginning in the late 1980s, Target and Wal-Mart cut deeply into Kmart’s advantage, and by the late 1990s, Kmart was headed for bankruptcy.  After emerging from bankruptcy, Kmart bought Sears out, but the combined companies continue to be hounded by Wal-Mart and Target on the discount side, Macy’s on the Expensive Mall side, Best Buy on the electronics side, and internet giants like Amazon.com.  Sears and Kmart have struggled to re-invent themselves in recent years.

The second icon to have serious trouble is Kodak.  Eastman Kodak was once a giant in American history.  The Rochester, NY company was the undisputed King of Photography for a long time.  Their cameras are legendary—Instamatics, Brownies, Retina, up to the Advantix.  But, unfortunately, Kodak success in film cameras would eventually lead to its demise in the digital age—even though Kodak invented the first digital camera.  The inability to see where the future was going cost Kodak, and a series of decisions that made people question what Kodak really wanted to do in the digital age has led the company to an almost certain bankruptcy.  (Side note:  what is it with Rochester, NY founded companies and the failure to see the next big thing?  Look at Xerox and the fact that they literally invented computer operating systems, but ceded that business line to Apple and Microsoft.)

As a kid growing up, we always had Kmarts close to us.  When we moved to Snellville in 1979, visiting a Kmart was a big deal.  We could find clothing, toys, daily products, and other goods at Kmart (at least until one of my sisters started working at Richway in the 1980s).  What we couldn’t find there, we could always find at Sears when we went to either Northlake Mall, or later, Gwinnett Place Mall.  My family had the Sears charge card.  Heck, we didn’t even have to go to Sears.  We could always go to the local catalog store in Tucker to buy stuff as we needed.

It has been some time since I really shopped at Sears.  Sure, we got a Washer and Dryer from them in 2009, but aside from that, I have rarely stepped inside their store to shop over the last decade.  It’s almost as rare for me to visit Kmart, though I must admit I do go in there a little more to shop.  Still, whenever I shop, it’s usually at JCPenney or Target, because the things I need I can usually find at those places.

My family was a photography family, or so I have learned through talking with various family members.  When I was a young boy, we would take pictures with Kodak cameras, send the film to the local Fotomat to be developed, then enjoy the pictures.  In the 1980s, we had a Kodak Disc Camera, which we used as our primary family camera.  My first camera was a Kodak camera and I used it to take pictures across the country from Elementary School to College and beyond.  For Christmas of 2003, I bought my first digital camera, a Kodak Easy Share, and I even got the accompanying printer.  That camera would not last long, but I was able to replace it for free and the next Kodak digital camera would document the greatest moments of my adult life—the courtship of my eventual wife, our honeymoon, my trip to Australia, and finally, the birth of my son, Joshua.  Shortly after Joshua’s birth, however, my love affair with Kodak ended, and the two cameras my family currently own are Nikons—a point and shoot for general stuff, and a digital SLR we use for special occasions.

Kodak and Sears/Kmart will not die.  My gut is they will still survive, but not at the levels they once dominated.  Some companies have a funny way of surviving, even after apparent liquidation (think Bennigan’s restaurants and Service Merchandise).  Still, we will not see them at the levels they once were.  Probably some 15 years in the future, I will come across a Mall, and see the Sears logo or drive past a Kmart, and it will bring back happy memories of my childhood.  Maybe I’ll even see a Kodak product and remember how I use to love their cameras.  But it won’t be the same.  Joshua will not revere either company the way daddy once did.

I am saddened by their downturn.  I wish they could continue to live on.  But time marches on.  And one day, every company will have to deal with what Sears/Kmart and Kodak are dealing with now—even Apple, Wal-Mart, Target, and other high-flyers of today.

The dumbest political campaign of 2012…

The Senate seat of Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchinson is becoming open after Hutchinson announced her retirement a while back.  The seat should be considered a safe Republican hold, but if one Republican candidate gets his way, the Democrats would have a great chance to win the seat.

Craig James, an ESPN analyst, has decided to run for the Texas seat as a Republican.  He is a former running back of the famed “Pony Express” at SMU.  He used that experience to land College Football analyst gigs at ABC/ESPN, and at CBS.  On paper, being an analyst would be relatively safe and not be a polarizing position.  However, James has two problems.  First, James spends most of his time during College Football season outside of the state of Texas, and Texans do have a knack of not trusting people who give the perception that they are out of state.  Second, and more importantly, his actions over the last 30 years may have contributed to the demise of 2 big-time College Football Programs in the Lone Star State, a sin that many consider unforgivable in a Football-crazed state.

First, James’ time at SMU was during SMU’s peak.  It was a National Power to the point that they were a National Title threat in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  But there was a lot of seedy things going on under the surface, such as players getting paid, and shortly after James’ left, SMU was given the NCAA “Death Penalty”—a sanction that destroyed the program and has taken many years to recover from (if they ever recover).  Though James was never implicated in any of the underhanded things going on at SMU at the time, he and other members of the Dallas school during that time have been branded as contributors to SMU’s demise.

What he did a few years ago interfering with Texas Tech, however, is well-known.  Mike Leach had taken the Red Raider program from obscurity into a National power, winning 11 games in 2008.  In 2009, Leach was helping Texas Tech to another winning season, when Craig James and his son, Adam (a sophomore at Texas Tech), leveled charges against Leach that Leach mishandled a concussion that Adam had suffered.  Craig used the ESPN brand, along with Spaeth Communications, who had developed the Swift Boat Campaign to derail John Kerry’s 2004 Presidential Bid to smear Mike Leach.  That smear campaign ultimately led to Leach’s firing before the 2009 Alamo Bowl.  Leach is now suing Texas Tech, Craig James, ESPN, and Spaeth Communications, and evidence suggests that Leach has a reasonable chance to win the case.  Craig James’ handling of the situation has made him a target by many in the Texas Tech community, and stirred up the SMU faithful in the process.

So why in the name of God is James running for Senate?  Besides the reasons James says, ego is involved.  James thinks he has vast support in the state; otherwise, we wouldn’t be running in the first place.  However, many Republicans don’t want the headache of dealing with James as a candidate, and are pushing him to drop out.  Many people think this would be a good opportunity for ESPN to fire James considering he has taken a leave of absence to run.  And others think James should just disappear completely.

So, how long will James continue to run given all the headaches he’s going to have to reckon with?  As many as his ego will allow him, I guess.  Sooner or later, though, reality will catch up with him, maybe while he still has a gig left with ESPN to go back to.

The changing dynamics of education…

Recently a cartoon depicting the change of attitudes among parents, students, and teachers has been making the rounds of Facebook. In 1969, the poor grades a student would have was mostly the fault of the student in the eyes of the parents. In 2009, it was the opposite. The poor grades a student would have was mostly the fault of the teacher in the eyes of a parents.

The change of attitudes have coincided with the changing dynamics of the parent-teacher relationships. A long time ago, most parents worked with teachers to help educate their kids. Parents trusted the teachers to provide their kids with the best education possible, and when the kids were not learning properly, they focused their wrath on the kids and would maybe try to work harder with the kids to improve their grades. But there have been changes to that trust. The pressure of gaining scholarships, the increasing revelations of adult relations between kids and teachers (in real life and in Hollywood), the helicoptering parent attitudes around their kids, the pressure schools face in order to not lose government funding, the increase of social issues creeping into schools, and other factors have contributed to such an erosion of trust between parents and teachers that now the parents blame the teachers for the kids poor grades.

Ironically, many of today’s teachers and school administrators were students not that long ago. And let’s be honest: some of those once-students were not the best of the best students. Many of the once-elite students went off to work in Wall Street, at multi-billion dollar companies, become lawyers or politicians that now dictate rules to schools instead of supporting schools, or work for places that would provide more salary to them than teaching. Teachers are over-worked, underpaid, and underappreciated. So why would a once elite student want to go through their adult lives barely living from paycheck to paycheck, deal with regulations that their predecessors did not, and deal with angry students and parents who think they know better than the teachers on what the teachers should teach? Wouldn’t the elite student feel better off going somewhere else making money and not have to deal with hundreds of parents more concerned with their little Johnny or Susie getting an A?

Parents of today also don’t always pay attention to everything going on with their kids. Many parents have two jobs to work in order to afford the best for their kids and can’t always give their kids the love and support they need. They want everything: money, fame, and smart kids who get scholarships. They feel money and things will buy the kids happiness and help them learn to always get A’s. The kids are unhappy and feel they need attention one way or another. So in some situations, the kids invent the issue to help get them attention.

In short, parents and kids contribute to the problems of today. But there are also teachers who cause problems as well. The pressures of being a teacher today (money, hours, support) sometimes get the better of teachers. Some turn to alcoholism, drug use, and, in some cases, having sexual relations with their students. These extreme examples help further erode the trust parents and teachers once have. Even without extreme examples, teachers are human, too. They can possibly show favoritism in some situations to kids of friends, only helping out those who may or may not need the help, while neglecting those who really need help to learn.

So how do we solve the problems? There is no easy answer, unfortunately. It will take years, maybe even generations of hard work to regain that trust, if it can ever be regained. And it has to be hard work on all sides: from parents who take time to help their kids learn, from teachers getting the support from administrators and who avoid the temptations of the world, and from kids willing to do what it takes to become the best they can be. Maybe we never had a perfect world between students and teachers and maybe we never will, but we won’t know if we don’t try.

Is the GOP deliberately trying to lose in 2012?

As we have finished up the last of the pre-Iowa caucus debates which will begin to determine who will face President Obama on the GOP side in the Fall 2012 Presidential election, a disturbing thought has entered my head… is the GOP trying to lose in 2012 to set up regaining the White House in 2016 with a huge majorities in both houses of Congress?  It’s possible, especially when you consider how weak the GOP field is this time around.  Outside of Mitt Romney, it has largely been the C and D-list GOPers who have been vying for the nomination.  Rick Santorum was last seen getting tossed out of the Senate by an alledged pro-life Democrat.  Michelle Bachmann spends more time demanding apologies from late-night band leaders than campaigning.  Rick Perry is making George W. Bush look smart.  Herman Cain was the leading guy for 10 seconds before sexual misconduct allegations ended his run.  Ron Paul is… well, Ron Paul.  John Huntsman could probably beat Obama… if the guy could get just any love from the GOP and Tea Party folks.  And Newt?  He’s got more baggage on him than an airport claim area, and it keeps growing.

Look at who sat out the 2012 GOP Primary.  Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Guliani, and Mike Huckabee all decided to take a pass in this year’s primary-all better candidates than most of the current 2012 choices.  And there are other Governors who were just elected on the GOP side who are very green, but who could make a run in 2016.  Perhaps the GOP wants a Tea Party candidate who would fail against Obama to break the strong will of the Tea Party to a point in 2016 where the Tea Party might be more willing to accept a moderated selection.

Meanwhile, if Obama goes on to win re-election next year, the list of Democratic candidates in 2016 will be thin.  Vice President Biden has indicated he would take a run at President, but he will be older than Reagan when Reagan ran in 1980.  Hillary has indicated she is through running for President.  And there aren’t too many other experienced Democrats who could be a worthy successor to President Obama.  Devall Patrick of Massachusetts is a possibility, but Democrats from Massachusetts haven’t done well since Kennedy.  Martin O’ Malley might have the resources to make a run, but would a liberal from Maryland who needs 75% of Democrats in the Legislature to get anything done in Maryland work on the National Level?  Perhaps Andrew Cuomo of New York may be the ideal choice to run on top of the Democrat ticket in 2016, but they may have to deal with an Occupy group that will force the Democrats to be more liberal than they would.

At this point, the GOP seems content to let Obama win re-election so they can strengthen their position for 2016.  With an aging Democratic leadership in Congress, the Republicans knew the list of likely Presidential options will be so thin that they can focus on taking down just a few people to easily win in 2016.  Is it too difficult to imagine such a scenario?