Happy New Years!

Silly me, I tuned in to the network coverage of Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's Eve show at 11:55 p.m., expecting to see the ball drop in Times Square.

I forgot that they do all that rockin' New Years coverage leading up to Midnight in the Eastern time zone, not Central. Oops! You would have thought I'd have learned my lesson by watching the TV coverage of New Years during the transition from 1999 to 2000, as we all waited to see if the power would go out on the East coast first. Except I happened to be watching that year in Columbus, OH, which is on Eastern time.

Oh well. Instead of Dick Clark or even Ryan Seacrest, they had some total boy band a$$ clowns up on stage some place in LA, and no one in the crowd looked like they were over 23. New Years must be a young person holiday.

Even if my wife and I could get a babysitter for long enough to allow us to attend a New Year's party, we always know that the kiddos will be awake at 6:45 a.m., so we simply can't afford to stay up that late any more. My current circumstance notwithstanding, mind you.

Have a happy New Year! I can't believe we're nearing the end of another decade already. 2009! *** John Cusack Movie Reference Alert! *** "TEN YEARS, MAN! TEN YEARS!"

Living in the '90s

My wife and I discussed getting a TiVO recently. We don't watch many TV shows, but there are some we would like to watch if our schedules allowed it. "My Name is Earl" on NBC pops to mind. The 7-8 pm Central time slot is a dead zone for us, because that is always when at least one of us is doing the "B" routine with our two kids: bath, brush, books, and bed.

A TiVO might also help us to keep track of our favorite shows -- the ones we do want to watch if available -- as the networks randomly move them into different time slots from week to week. Maybe it just seems random, and different from week to week. Either way, it can be incredibly annoying!

I should explain a little about our current TV setup, which in some ways is very advanced and in some ways resembles TV before cable. You see, we don't subscribe to cable, Dish Network, DirecTV, or any other expanded lineup of channels. I know, it's shocking that people who still watch TV (not those crazies who completely avoid TV altogether) have decided to do without cable. My wife and I realized several years ago that we were watching too much TV with all the options available on standard cable (70-some-odd channels), so we first downsized to the basic package (about 12 channels). We then went to only over-the-air antenna reception after we moved to Illinois in 2005.

How can an over-the-air antenna setup possibly be advanced? First, I purchased a Sony HDTV, one with a built-in HD tuner, not one that said "HD ready." So the TV itself can decode the HD signals that all TV stations are required to broadcast, and I don't need any cable or satellite set-top box to be an intermediary. I researched what type of antenna I needed to receive HD signals through the ever-handy AntennaWeb.org website. I bought an omnidirectional powered antenna from Radio Shack, plus what I needed to mount that sucker on a five-foot pole on my roof. After that, it was a simple matter to connect the antenna feed via a standard coax cable into the back of my TV, turn it on, and start watching HD programming on the digital stations.

We currently receive several options on each traditional broadcast network. CBS, the last local affiliate to go digital, shows its usual lineup on 3.1 and another broadcast called MyCFN on 3.2. Our local PBS station usually shows different broadcasts on its three digital channels, 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3. WILL uses 12.3 as their version of a home & garden network. ABC just has 15.1, but they used to show a startup music video channel on 15.2. That was awesome, but failed because they didn't carry ads. NBC has its usual programming on 17.1 and an all-weather channel on 17.2. The same is true for the CW, Fox, and we even get some version of the Home Shopping Network over the air.

We also added what I now call "the brains" of our home entertainment center, a Mac Mini. The Mini allows us to connect to the Internet from the living room, using the Sony HDTV as the monitor (had to get a DVI-to-HDMI converter cable to make the connection work). We store our music, pictures, videos, etc. on the Mini, and can download movie purchases from iTunes and watch them right through the TV. The Mini is also hooked into the surround sound system I already had, so movie sound comes through the surround speakers in the living room. We watch DVDs using the Mini's SuperDrive, and the only drawback there is that sometimes the discs we get from Netflix are scratched beyond what the Mini can handle. Oh, and the Mini is connected to the Internet via a home wireless network, plus it has the wireless keyboard and mouse. It's a pretty sweet setup, really.

The only thing we're really missing is a way to record live TV for viewing when our schedule allows, which is why we thought about getting a TiVO. I've always been interested in TiVO for several reasons. The first and foremost is how everyone who has TiVO completely raves about it, even after other DVRs hit the market. TiVO users can't stop talking about how easy it is to use, and how they can't live without the service after they tried it.

I'm also intrigued by the possibility that a brand name that became synonymous with a product (think Kleenex for facial tissues or Xerox for copies) could some day fail to exist. TiVO's market penetration remains desperately small, on the order of only 4-6 million households in America. Given that America now has over 300 million people living in roughly (very rough!) 200 million households, that's a pretty small number. It's not inconceivable to think that the company, TiVO, could cease to exist while people still talk of TiVOing their favorite shows on their cable- or satellite-provided DVR machine.

However, after considering how much TiVO wants for a HD version of their DVR box ($299.99), plus adding a $59.99 wireless Internet adapter, plus the thought of having to pay roughly $10-12 per month for the service as an ongoing subscription fee, we're going to pass on getting a TiVO. Call me cheap, but I still think that is quite a lot of money to spend just so I can watch "Earl."

***John Cusack movie reference alert!*** To paraphrase the movie Say Anything: So, if we know so much about TV, why are we sitting alone on a Saturday night watching over-the-air broadcasts?

"Choice, man!"

*Edited on 10/23* As an addendum to my previous post, I just may have to bite the bullet on the TiVO. Last night, for the first time, I was able to catch the last 15 minutes of ABC's "Pushing Daisies." I love shows with quirky humor, so Scrubs, Eli Stone, and even Ally McBeal in the late '90s all caught my eye. Pushing Daisies seems to be another of those type of shows, but it's on during that 7-8 pm dead zone for us. And didn't Pushing Daisies used to be on HBO or Showtime? It seems like something they would produce.

Are We the Car We Drive?

In the time of $4 per gallon gasoline, many people are seeking ways of reducing their fuel costs, period. People who have the option and can afford to move closer to public transportation are doing so, even in car-crazy LA. More and more people are bicycling to work, a mode of transportation I try to use whenever possible. Even Texans (who live in The Land of Big Trucks, and everything is bigger in Texas, haven't you heard?) are buying hybrids and even those golf-cart looking electric vehicles for short trips. People eagerly await the roll-out of the new Chevy Volt, signing up on even unofficial wait lists.

And yet, car manufacturers continue to resist one of the clearest means of increasing fuel efficiency in current-model cars: reducing the horsepower produced by the engine. The prescient Gregg Easterbrook (who is a visiting Brookings Fellow and contributing editor at The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic and The Washington Monthly, in addition to writing several books, including the fascinating "The Progress Paradox") described this fuel mileage vs. horsepower battle in his two most recent Tuesday Morning Quarterback (TMQ) columns on ESPN.com, the archive of which is here. If you like to get insights into the game of football you can't find anywhere else, plus much more (he often delves into science fiction, TV and movies, and things related to Congress), his column is well worth the time it takes to wade through it. Plus, he posts pics of cheerleader babe professionalism. W00t!

Easterbrook already covered the issue better than I could replicate here, but it did get me thinking of reasons why automakers have all progressively expanded both the size and horsepower of their cars. The Honda Civic, for example, is now about the same size or larger as the Accord used to be, way back when. It's not just Detroit. For crying out loud, the 1979 Accord had a whopping 72 horsepower! 72!!! Which was up 4 hp from the previous year. The current Accord, with available 3.5L V6, puts out a max of 268 hp. So, it is easy to see why (some, not all) car manufacturers are protesting the rise in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Speaking of which, there was a recent WSJ opinion piece that tried to link the CAFE standards to Detroit's poor showing in recent automobile sales. That's like saying NAFTA is the reason for agricultural subsidies in California. They might be tangentially related, but there's not a causal relationship there. The author of that opinion piece remarked how GM and Ford actually did quite well selling smaller, Euro-style vehicles in places like Europe and South America. So, why are they unable to sell such cars here in America?

My own hunch is that we, as Americans, still attach significant unspoken tags to the cars we drive. If we drive a Porsche, it means we have lots of money and are pricks. If we drive a Prius, obviously, we care more about the environment than we want to look cool. If we drive a big truck, then we're manly men! (Honh! Honh! More Power!!!) I think this explains why people drive big monster SUVs for ferrying around the kiddos much more so than just needing the space for hauling more stuff. If we just needed the space, then why don't people still buy wood-paneled station wagons? This also helps explain why my wife's brother, who lives in Austin, TX (The Land of Big Trucks, and everything is Bigger in Texas, haven't you heard?) not too long ago traded his BMW Mini for a Ford F-250, even though he doesn't have a 10,000 lb boat to haul on a regular basis. Why buy the F-250 if you have no boat?

For the longest time, Americans could get away with driving whatever they wanted because gas was so cheap. Having lived overseas in Europe and Japan, I wondered when America would be forced to pay as much (roughly $4 per gallon) as they were paying back in 1996. That time has now come, although I haven't been over there since we started paying $4 per gallon to see if their prices rose along with ours.

Maybe peoples' perceptions will change as everyone gets used to buying $4 gasoline. Maybe a guy who buys a Toyota Yaris will be seen as smart and more desirable for dating, rather than as a wimpy nerd. Seriously, have you ever seen a guy driving a Honda Fit? I haven't, even though the slogan (The Fit is GO!) is catchy. No guy would be caught dead driving a new VW Beetle, unless his truck was in the shop. Speaking of VW, their Cabriolets have always been known as a "chick car." End of discussion. Someone recently completed a study in which women listened to different vehicle sounds, and the ones they felt were most sexy belonged to the exotic supercars. I'm not making this up. So, the previous question about the Yaris is most likely an overwhelming NO.

I know we Americans often define ourselves by what we do, a topic that was used to great effect in the ***John Cusack movie reference alert!*** movie "Grosse Pointe Blank." If you've seen it, you know he played an assassin who goes back to his high school reunion and tried to relate to his classmates, who had settled into "normal" jobs like BMW dealer, radio DJ, realtor, and security guard. Are we what we do for a living? Are we the car we drive? Are we defined by our hobbies? Can we be known for the assistance we provide to others?

For now, I'll go back to driving my 1999 Mazda 626 and dreaming about that Acura TL I've always wanted. Best car for the money, I say. I just wish I could trade some of its 286 hp for better gas mileage.

93.5 The Source - Classic Alternative (?)

Not too long ago, one of the radio stations in my area changed its format, as terrestrial radio stations often do. I have no idea if this was in response to dismal market ratings (how do they get those listener inputs, anyway? I get the concept behind a Neilsen set-top box recording what a person watches on TV, but how do you faithfully record a person's radio habits?), or if it was part of an ownership change or some other station format shakeup happening around the same time. All of those things are distinct possibilities.

The radio station itself is now known as 93.5 The Source - CU's Original Classic Alternative. You can see a little of what they used to be just in the URL, btw.

Now, when this switch first happened (or, more correctly, when I first realized it by stumbling through the radio dial), I was flat-out ecstatic! I called my sister, who has always had strong alternative radio programming in her local market, when 93.5 was playing Devo's "Working in a Coalmine," which I can't recall ever getting significant airplay, even back in the day. Sure, when I was growing up, Casey Kasem was countin' 'em down on the Billboard Top 40 every Sunday, and we didn't dare miss that. At the time, I thought we were being radical and subversive by listening to early Police albums up in our stuffy attic during the summer months. I know!

During my formative years of high school and college, I of course went through a Classic Rock phase (doesn't everyone?), followed by the Big Hair Band phase of the late '80s and early '90s (can anyone else top seeing Joan Jett play a free concert in downtown Dayton, OH, plus concerts by Lita Ford, Warrant, Trixter, and Firehouse? Oh, and Spinal Tap, for good measure), followed by Grunge and Alternative in the early- to mid-'90s.

So, the fact that a local radio station is now playing music that I really, really liked from about 15-25 years ago is a huge bonus for me! They reach back to the early '80s Pop, New Wave, Ska, and post-Punk genres, too. Every once in a while, they'll even throw in a song by those three white Jewish kids from Brooklyn, just to cover all bases. So far, no Dead Kennedys, but they do play "Punk Rock Girl" by the Dead Milkmen. All of which is a real treat to find on regular radio. As I told my sister, this is the kind of stuff I put on my iPod! Perhaps the best part was the lack of commercials during the early months after the format switch.

But I did get to thinking: how much that is recorded by bands today should be played by a "Classic Alternative" radio station? I'm specifically thinking of a recent song like "Pork & Beans" by Weezer. Weezer, of course, is grandfathered by the work they did during the early '90s alt music scene. If Social D were to record a new album, I'm sure it would get air time. How about U2? They've been around so long, they often pop up on classic rock stations. New material by Sting? He's in the same boat. Speaking of the Beasties, they're still recording new material... I think. What about Moby? New stuff by Duran Duran? I'm sure there are a million examples that could be thrown out there.

It's an interesting question, and one that's worth further debate. On a related sidebar, I loved the ***John Cusack movie reference alert!*** film "High Fidelity," where they often riffed on top ten lists of music-related things like this. So, this could be a top ten list of artists that deserve to be grandfathered into a Classic Alternative radio playlist. Or the top ten artists that should NOT be grandfathered. Either way works. Thoughts?