The Buhner.com Blog

The premise is simple.  So simple in fact, that it’s already been done and named the Gong Show.

But television nowadays (especially in the summer) is repackaging the same old crap and making it new again, and since American Idol is popular, why not bring the show back?  In fact, Simon Cowell (ever one to capitalize on something) brought us “America’s Got Talent” on NBC, which on the surface seemed entertaining enough: take the Idol concept, expand it to any kind of talent (not just singing), put Regis Philbin on it, and stir.  There’s not much difference, and if you’ve never seen the show, you’d assume that it would be pretty much similar.

However, it’s the delivery of said product that hurts this show the most (with the judges being a close #2).  If you’ve ever wondered if a good show can fail with bad direction and camerawork, look no further.  Performers come out and generally have something like 90 seconds to two minutes to perform.  There’s a good portion of singers, but there are all other kinds of acts too - jugglers, acrobats, dancers, magicians… all of whom are more visual than singers.  You can hear a singer and determine whether or not they suck.  You can’t listen to a dancer on the radio.  It just doesn’t work.

Unfortunately for viewers, the camera crew and director seem to think this is still a singing competition and constantly are going for odd camera angles, aerial shots, and crowd reactions.  This would be great for the singers - it’s horrible when a performer has 90 seconds to be amazing, and 15 seconds of that is wasted on camera shots of Sally Spectator with her mouth open or clapping.  She thought it was good, shame I didn’t get to see it!

The worst thing about this is that the show uses audience call in voting to move one of the acts to the next round.  If you don’t see 17% of the act, how can you accurately judge it?  This voting process has killed most of the non-singing acts, with only two of the five “viewers’ choice” acts being performance acts.  In fact, both acts it could be argued wouldn’t have gotten in either had it not been for judge Piers Morgan - the Simon Cowell of the judging group - making criticism to both groups that drove them to tears.  Celtic Spring, a family Irish step dancing act, was told that they’d be more successful by Piers if they fired their parents and their youngest brother, who can’t be more than 7.  The comment brought the youngest kids to tears, which was understandably heartbreaking, and probably gave them enough momentum to put them in the next round.  The comment was probably unnecessary too; the fact that the group is a family group that brings everyone in was part of their appeal.  The parents aren’t dancing, they’re in the background playing the music and while the youngest boy doesn’t bring that much to the table, he isn’t hurting them at all either.  He’ll be better eventually.

Quick Change, the other group that made it through, had criticism that was a little more deserved.  The group consists of a man and woman, with the two performing a routine where they use magic to keep changing the woman’s outfit numerous times through the performance.  That’s it, though.  It’s a great trick, but the routine for the mostpart doesn’t change, and the trick is the entire show.  In contrast, magician Nathan Burton (who probably has the strongest argument in being “screwed” by the show) put on a more varied and energetic show.  However, with Piers ripping Quick Change for not changing their act at all and flat out insulting the male member of the group (calling him “stupid”) which brought the female member of the group to tears, that was good enough of a sympathy push to get them to the top number of votes in the “wild card” show.

Which brings us to the judges - who if not for the bad production of the show would probably be called out more often as being one of the worst flaws about the show.  Like Idol, Talent has three judges: the beforementioned Piers Morgan in the Simon Cowell role, pop/R&B artist Brandy, and David friggin’ Hasselhoff.  I’ve read that people put Brandy into the Randy Jackson role, while Hasselhoff is in the Paula Abdul “you tried so I love you!” role.  I could see that, although Hasselhoff occasionally tries to show a “mean streak”, while Brandy too can have her soft moments, although she seems to have dropped that as we hit the later rounds.  Brandy also seems to be more critical of the musical acts and the “family” aspect of the show, as shown by her extreme disapproval of burlesque dancer Michelle L’Amour, whom Morgan and Hasselhoff stereotypically panted over and approved to the point that they pushed her through to the next round.

Morgan tries to take his role as the Simon Cowell character a bit too literally, in that he tries to be mean instead of critical.  Cowell’s appeal is that you hate the fact that he said what he said, but deep down inside you kind of agree with him.  While Cowell can be somewhat subtle in that there’s criticism in with the insult (Cowell generally only does a direct insult if someone’s really bad, like in the auditions for Idol or just does something that’s a mistake for them), Morgan almost pushes an insult button with his “criticism” in that he feels he needs to “be bad”, and finds himself looking for criticism even when he approves of an act.  It comes off as really strained and a feeble imitation.

The judges as a whole have a difficult task in that they’ve got a lot of different types of act, and it’s difficult to judge a magic act compared to a singing act - they’re two completely different things.  But at the same time, there’s a lack of knowledge of certain types of performance that shows that the judges are limited.  The best example of this was a band called Ten13 Concept, a punk/ska band whose initial performance wasn’t televised but who performed on one of the semi-final shows, only to have the performance ripped apart by all three judges as they watched in confusion.  The judges said the music was mish-mashed together and there were too many things going on at once, which isn’t suprising since it’s a multi-person band with brass, guitar, bass, drummers, and a singer.  Had a rapper come on stage and the judges dismissed it as just “talking with scratching going on in the background”, the judges would have been laughed off the stage.  But the lack of knowledge of punk/ska (while I didn’t necessarily expect the judges to “get” the performance) just kind of shows that they’re not necessarily looking for the most talented, just what they know.

And then there’s the Rappin’ Granny.  Holy friggin’ Christ.  For Piers to rip into the Quick Change people for being a one trick pony and to universally agree that this novelty act gets through with a unanimous approval from the judges just puts a hole though the entire competition.  I can criticise Idol for jumping the shark this past season when the viewers dumped Chris Daughtry and later Katharine McPhee just to see spastic and limited singer Taylor Hicks win, but that’s due to public voting, which is as much a popularity contest as it is a judgement of talent, but in the case of the Granny, this was the actual judges voting - people put on the show to judge talent.  Rappin’ Granny, also known as Vivian Smallwood, is actually an actress who has 18 credits listed on her IMDB profile.  It probably doesn’t help that she’s performing a rap style that I think is complete crap (”crunk“) and that it’s been done before, with the old lady from The Wedding Singer doing the Sugarhill Gang.  Hell, my main argument is that if it hadn’t been a 73 year old lady, would the person have been moved forward to the next round?  It’s doubtful.

So that’s my rant on Talent, even though I can’t really complain that much - it’s better than a decent amount of stuff that’s currently on.  But if they keep going this route or try to put the show up against real competition (the show is actually schedule to come back for its second season in January of 2007 - the same time American Idol comes back for season six) and it’s going to get eaten alive if they don’t make changes.

So I’ve been in NC now a little over two months, and the whole “fast food” difference thing has warn off.  We’ve eaten at just about all of them, and any novelty has worn off.  There was however one that I had heard whispers about, but had never bothered to get around going to: Cook Out.

The main strike against Cook Out in our eyes was the whole grilling aspect of them.  Tara does not like burgers on a grill, and that’s one of the main appeals of Cook Out.  In fact, the little I’ve seen online about them (they don’t have a website at all) raved about the burgers just like you would have made on the backyard barbeque.  Not a strong selling point, especially to a woman who spent the majority of her life across the street from a Burger King, having to smell “flame broiling” every day of her childhood.

However, people still raved over this place, so in a recent drive to scope out possible eating establishments near work, I saw that there was one nearby.  Today, I gave it a shot, since I was by myself and I don’t have a personal prejudice against grilled burgers.

I didn’t get a burger - I don’t know how they are.  However, I ended up getting their combo plate thing, which gives you a sandwich (burger, chicken, or barbeque and possibly some other stuff), two sides, and a drink for $3.99.  I likes me some barbeque, so I went with that, got hush puppies and cole slaw, and dropped the extra 80 cents I think it was to get a shake.  I had heard about the shakes.  Get the shakes, the intranets said.  Being a big “order and move” guy, I was horrified to see a huge list of shakes on the menu.  I caught a glance of “peanut butter & banana”, so I went with that.

Damn, that was good stuff.  The barbeque was very good, although I’m learning about the “no slaw/slaw on the side” warning I got from another non-local.  My barbeque sandwich had a decent amount of que, but had a heaping pile of slaw on top of it.  Since the slaw wasn’t that good, it kind of downplayed what was otherwise a very good sandwich.

As I mentioned, I wasn’t crazy about the slaw - it seemed strong on the mayo and with minimal vinegar.  There was another taste in there too (mustard?), but it just wasn’t that great.  The hush puppies were pretty good.  I had gotten some hush puppies from Smithfield’s a few weeks back and were disappointed (maybe I’m stuck in my Northern ways, but I remember hush puppies being round and with a lot of seasoning) by what tasted to me like plain fried cornbread.  These had a little more flavor - they seemed to look the same, but the flavor was a little tastier so there might have been some more spices in there, or the oil might have been better.  Who knows?

The shake was very good.  Pieces of real banana in it (along with a little chunk of peanut butter I detected) so the real flavor is there, not just syrup.  There were tons of flavors, and I got the food quick, so they’re really on the ball.  Apparently they make an awesome watermelon shake that’s just seasonal, so I may have to check out this place again.

WARNING - BASEBALL POST

The transaction rules of Major League Baseball aren’t the easiest things in the world to follow.  There’s a good reason for this; Major League Baseball doesn’t list them anywhere.  While the MLB website has a link for their rules regarding play (don’t run to third when you hit the ball, dumbass), some of the more complex rules regarding baseball and their handling of transactions can be lost.  While other sports have somewhat simpler rules, baseball’s can get confusing, especially around this time of year when the trade deadline comes and goes.

First off, most people see “deadline” and assume that it’s really a deadline.  It’s not.  It’s a deadline for trading at full capacity.  A player can be traded after July 31st or even August 31st.  There’s just different rules that come into play.  Trades made before July 31st don’t have many restrictions.  They still have to follow the restrictions set forth by the CBA and the player’s individual contract (such as 10/5 rules and no-trade clauses), but for the mostpart if team A wants to send a player to team B for another player and team B agrees, they can do it, up until the “trade deadline”, which is July 31st at 4PM each season.

Which brings us to waivers.  See, a team can still trade a player after the deadline - the issue is that the player(s) being traded have to “clear waivers”.  The waiver process is basically a procedural process; a team tells the league office of the palyer or playes that it wishes to place on waivers.  Then, the teams of the league get a list of all the players that have been placed on waivers.  The other teams in the league have 72 hours to contact the league office (not the team waiving - the league office) to let them know that they would be willing to take the waived player, contract and all, from the other team with no compensation for the waiving team.  As Jamey Newberg put it excellently, it’s like putting out your garbage a few days early.  If someone walks by before the garbage man picks it up, they can have it.

However, there are more than one type of waiver, and for the purposes of this example, the waiver being used here is a “major league waiver”.  The difference between a major league waiver and other waivers is that a major league waiver can be pulled back, meaning that if someone claimed the waived player (thereby letting the waiving team know that they’re going to take him off the other team’s hands for nothing except paying his salary), the waiving team can change their mind and say that they intend to keep the player and that the claiming team can’t have him for nothing.

It doesn’t cost a team anything to place a player on waivers, and as long as a GM knows what the hell they’re doing, they don’t run any risk in doing so.  If a player makes it through without being claimed, he’ll be eligible to be traded.  If a player does get claimed, the GM can just pull him back - no harm, no foul.  Generally, waivers are pretty hush-hush, especially the post-deadline waivers, since players that the team has absolutely no intention of trading are put on the wire, often to disguise or confuse other GMs so that they don’t end up claiming the player or players the GM really wants to get through.  After all, if you’re a GM and see that the Yankees waived Andy Phillips and Derek Jeter, Jeter’s the name that stands out to you.

However, even with this unbeatable defense of being able to pull the players back, there is a flaw; a player can only be pulled back off of major league waivers once a season.  It’s like sticking your hand out and teasing the dog - you can pull it back and not get bitten once, but do it twice and you’ll pull back one less hand.  This is important, as I’ll explain later.

A GM has an option instead of pulling a claimed player back too.  The GM can deal with the team that claimed the player, but only that team.  The reasoning there is that the team that claimed him still apparently wants him, but the waiving team has the leverage that if the claiming team doesn’t offer a good enough package, then the team will just pull back the player from waivers and they won’t get him.  A GM can also just let the player go and be claimed.  This works well for a team that’s trying to just dump a salary and doesn’t necessarily want to pay the player.  A team claiming a player on waivers just takes the player, contract and all, so if the team doesn’t want the player any more or that contract is just too much, then the team might let the player go.  This can sometimes screw a team that places a claim on a player to prevent him from being traded to a rival.  The best example of this took place in 1998, when Randy Myers, then of Toronto, was claimed by the San Diego Padres on waivers.  Toronto had put Myers on waivers and the belief was that the Atlanta Braves were very interested in obtaining the lefthander for their bullpen.  The Padres put in a claim on Myers without any interest in the player, with the assumption that the claim would squash the potential Braves/Jays deal.  Myers, who had pitched mediocre in the first year of a three year, $18 million dollar contract (which was backloaded, with only a little under $4.5 million of that due the first season) wasn’t that appealing to the Jays though, and the Jays informed the Padres that they could have Myers and pay him the remainder of his $18 million contract.  The Padres scrambled, eventually sending the Jays a minor league player in exchange for “Myers” and cash to pay the remainder of Myers’ contract for the ‘98 season, although the Pads were now on the hook for Myers in the 1999 and 2000 season.  He pitched 14.1 innings for the Padres that season and none in 1999 and 2000 due to a shoulder injury.

I’ve used a lot of words to say the basic principles of my point, which are:

• Players can get traded after the trade deadline, even if they get claimed on waivers
• Players get put on waivers all the time after the deadline, whether the team wants to trade them or not
• Players generally don’t know they’re on post-deadline waivers
• You can waive a player as many times as you wish, but you can only pull him back once

ESPN.com pretty much dropped the ball on all of these.  First (while not necessarily ESPN’s fault) word got out that Andruw Jones was placed on waivers.  This isn’t earth-shattering news when you realize that again, players are placed on waivers all the time during this post-deadline period, but considering players don’t generally know the process (Jones was reportedly upset to know that he was placed on waivers) and the team’s position (GM John Schuerholz stated that it wasn’t the team’s policy to “comment on waiver moves”, as the process is generally “secret”), this non-story may have caused some bad blood between Jones and the Braves.

The major issue that I had with ESPN.com though was the handling of the Javy Lopez trade between Boston and Baltimore (ESPN constantly referred to Lopez having to “clear waivers” where Lopez didn’t need to if Boston had claimed him), and more recently dropping the ball and announcing that Livan Hernandez was now officially off the market since he was claimed by a team, only to then announce an hour or so later that Hernandez had been traded to Arizona.  ESPN.com’s original story stated that he couldn’t be traded due to the claim, then corrected the “Dewey Defeats Truman” story by stating that Livan couldn’t be dealt because he was claimed “and a deal could not be worked out”.  The story (which I had linked on another board) is gone now, although Google cache still has the Truman story v.2 still saved for now.

This isn’t to say that the baseball writers don’t know their stuff at ESPN - Peter Gammons is still one of the most knowledgable baseball people out there, but still recovering from a brain aneurysm.  Buster Olney and Jayson Stark seem to know their transactions and rules, but they’re in the trenches while lower level employees write the website content.  With news moving so fast and online content always needing to be updated, there still has to be some level of editing upkeep with ESPN’s stories in order to maintain credibility.

LATE UPDATE: They’re at it again, announcing that Ricky Ledee was going to New York after having been claimed by the Mets after being waived Monday night.  With it being Tuesday afternoon that the story is out, there’s no way that Ledee could have been waived Monday night and the Mets know that he was awarded to them Tuesday afternoon, since waivers take 72 hours to process.  There are plenty of other teams that could claim Ledee that are higher on the waiver priority list than the Mets.  This isn’t to say that Ledee isn’t going to be a Met - just that he couldn’t have been waived on Monday night.