An After School Activity

When it's slow at work, my mind tends to wander to the inane or ridiculous. So, while I was working in the fitting room, there was a woman with her two children, trying on clothes. Afterwards, she comes out and her children begin to run up and down the fitting runway.

Once the mother gathered her children and left, another employee looked at me with that look one makes when they see a parent not parenting. I think we've all had that look on our face at one time or another. The employee then motions me over and I see the little girl on the ground. "Did he knock her over?" I asked. She nodded yes.

This got me to thinking. Everyone is familiar with cockfights. If you're not, cockfights are an aggressive blood sport that pits two specially bred and trained roosters against one another in a pit. Often wagers are made to determine the winning cock and fleeing from police will become a favored past time. But why not substitute roosters with children?

After continuing to think about this, it was clear that a cockfight with kids was too pedestrian. It needed more structure, so I decided it needed to have the grit of Fight Club, with a UFC rule thrown in for safety. I certainly don't want any children to die that would be irresponsible. Therefore, I decided to come up with a few rules.

Rule #1: Only combatants between the ages of 2 and 10 are eligible.

Rule #2: Combatants will fight those in the same weight class.

Rule #3: Only two combatants to a fight.

Rule #4: The fight is only over when a combatant is knocked out.

Rule #5: Fights will go on for as long as the combatants are conscious.

Rule #6: Everyone goes out for ice cream after the fight.

I figure if kids are going to fight, and they are; you might as well give them an arena to do it with a few basic guidelines. These fights can be held anywhere where children are available, toy stores, play grounds, schools, you name it and a fight can take place.

Mr. Pressler Falls Down

For those unaware, Paul Pressler, CEO of Gap Inc. has stepped down. I'm almost sure this has nothing to do with the criticism's I raised about his leadership in my post, "AberGAPpie & Fitch". Nonetheless, I'm willing to take the credit for Mr. Pressler taking a much deserving break from destroying iconic brands. Gap Inc., you can thank me by adding a little something extra in my check next week.

Now what happens? Well, the son of the founder's of Gap Inc. is taking over on an interim basis while they scour the globe looking for someone with retail experience. Hey, wait! I have retail experience! Pick me! On second thought, please don't, although I do have a few thoughts on what I would do if I were to become the CEO of Gap Inc.

The first thing I would do is start closing stores, a lot of stores. I'm talking a third of them across all brands. After which I would focus on upgrading and cleaning up the existing stores. If you walk into an Old Navy right now, they seem rundown, especially ones that have been open for a while.

Next, I would put the brands through a product overhaul. Let me tell you what Old Navy's problem is, it doesn't know who it's customer is or why they should shop there. If someone on the street were to come up to me and ask me why they should shop for their clothes at Old Navy, or any of the Gap brands, I couldn't tell them. It certainly isn't as value priced as it once was, they are generally unstylish and occasionally obscene.

Finally, get rid of the Tri-Brand Credit Card. Yes, it saves the company a lot of money but the truth of the matter is, store cards are bad for your credit regardless of the ridiculous benefits. Instead, I would roll out a co-branded Visa or MasterCard. This would not only ensure that Gap Inc. would maintain a loyal customer base, but every time they used the card to buy gas or groceries, they would be reminded of their favorite stores, and continue to earn points towards coupons they can use at all Gap Inc. brands. Coupons incite spending.

I know, I'm a genius. It's just a shame they haven't started doing this, they could have saved themselves a lot of embarrassment. Maybe with the next CEO, they will finally get it right. Sometimes I get the feeling this company is like Donald Trump, it always tends to focus on the wrong thing.

Season Limits

I've decided there needs to be a change in television. My mom and I watch a lot of television; we would put the average viewer to shame as to how much television we consume on a daily basis. That ultimately makes us experts. We know what's funny and why it's funny. We know what's sad and why it's sad. Heck, my Mom and I can even anticipate and quote dialogue before a character even utters it. That's how much we know about television. So when I say there needs to be a change, guess what, TV execs need to listen.

The change that must occur are season limits. Often a show will go on for much longer than it should, take Friends, Scrubs and The Simpsons begin prime examples of what I mean. Honestly, how many times did Ross and Rachel have to break up and get back together? To prevent this from happening in the future, I am proposing that all television shows limit how many seasons they are on the air.

First, let me talk about the half-hour sitcom. The sitcom is notorious for staying on the air longer than it should. After awhile the jokes become predictable and stale, and I feel the writers begin grasping at straws to gain the audiences attention. They will either introduce a new character or make the show raunchier. Ultimately these tactics fail and the show is canceled. My proposal would limit sitcoms to a maximum of five seasons. I think in five seasons, the writers can develop their characters and still maintain a fresh perspective and sense of humor. Obviously some shows, like Two and a Half Men, should have been finished in three.

Scrubs is a great example of this. Now in its sixth season, Scrubs is finally wrapping things up and a sense the series is coming to an end is apparent. The problem, this season should have been last season. The jokes now are predictable and stale. Yes, Dr. Cox is going to call JD by a girls name; the janitor and JD are going to be at odds once again; Turk and JD are going to confess their love to one another. These things happen on a weekly basis and it's time to put this baby to rest.

So rarely is there a series that breaks the five-season rule and maintains that fresh sense of humor, Seinfeld and Frasier immediately come to mind. These series are so rare they should be considered the exception and not the rule. Because as we know, more series fail than succeed.

As for hour-long dramas, this type of show will normally tackle serious topics and thus characters tend to need more development because of the type of work they do. But when these series go too long, much like comedies, they in a way lose their identities. Writers begin to put characters in outrageous scenarios, like relationships or putting them in trouble with the law or even giving them a child. That is why, in order to prevent these things from happening, a season limit of seven should be put into place.

When looking at dramas currently on right now and how many have met and exceeded seven seasons (ER is in its 13th season; Law & Order, 17th season; Law & Order: SVU, 8th; CSI:, 7th), it may comes as a shock to think about losing some of your favorites. One would need to keep in mind that you may get a better experience because it would force writers to make the most of each episode. You likely would get deeper and denser storylines and the character's development would be quicker.

ER is a great example of this. This series really should have been off the air years ago. With so many cast changes, it's time to put this baby to rest. Don't get me wrong, I love ER and have been watching it since I was 15 years old, so it is a part of my personal culture. However, ER would have been just as good if it was only on for seven seasons as it is at its 13th season. Another prime example is The X-Files, which ran for a couple of years longer than it should. David Duchovny had the right idea when he decided to leave the series after the seventh season, though he did play a small role in season eight.

Reality shows are a bone of contention. As much as I don't want my daily television to be bombarded with reality shows, they are. Not just with me but for the millions of views of them around the world. These are probably to most loved and hated genre of television by most everyone. They take up more time than they should and they keep adding more every season. To keep things under control, I would limit reality television to a maximum of three seasons.

You don't know how hard this is for me to say, because you may have read my last post about the 11th season of my favorite reality television series, The Amazing Race. Regardless of how much I love this series, it did make a fatal flaw in it's eight season when they did the family edition. Talk about a jump the shark moment.

Then you have a series like Survivor. Survivor is one of those shows which rely heavily on a psychological and strategic aspect of play, but that is only half the show. The other half has the contestants running the same obstacle course, doing the same puzzles repeatedly. In addition, the game can only be played a few different ways, socially, strategically, as a leader or as a provider. I have yet to see it played any other way no matter what they throw at them. After only three seasons, it all still would have felt fresh and would have gone out on a high note.

This all may seem like a harsh way at looking at television. But it's time for something new: new shows, new characters and new storylines. These things are hard to come by when we are constantly watching the same programs year after year. My plan would shake up television, by providing a better experience for the viewer and the actor. Actors will work harder because they know that their job is temporary, and they need to land that next role. Viewers will receive better stories and well-rounded characters as well as get new experiences ever few years. And that's how it should be.