This year, however, I was not part of the South Carolina primary. I moved across the South Carolinian border to North Carolina a few years back and am no longer registered to vote in the state to my south. I am no longer a king maker. Nevertheless, looking at the results of this year’s South Carolina primary, I have to wonder if South Carolina is no longer a king maker either.

The final tally in the South Carolina showed Senator McCain coming in at 33% of the vote, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee coming in at 29% of the vote and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney coming in at 15% of the vote. Former Senator Fred Thompson finished in a virtual tie with Governor Romney at 4th place. In a state that is normally associated with a strong conservative element, I have to say that I’m disappointed in my former home state.

There are a number of theories associated with why Senator McCain did well in South Carolina, with the idea that he had some remaining infrastructure from 2000 seeming the most credible. I am hopeful that the notion that South Carolinians voted for Senator McCain because they thought he would have a stronger chance in the general election is not something that actually floated through voter’s minds, as it seems to be a weak standard by which to pick the man that will represent your party.

Looking to tonight’s race in Florida, odds seems to be much higher that those in the Sunshine State are now holding the crown that will be placed on the eventual nominee’s head. This is a year, however, when the nomination might not come down to who wins the big battles but who wins the most small skirmishes and that means that people will not be looking back at the South Carolina primary and saying it was the the key to the Republican nomination. This time around, South Carolina, a king maker, you are not.

It’s fairly easy to see why a guy would want to put himself in the shoes of the P.I. in the preceding example. It’s the same reason that guys enjoy watching shows like _Mad Men_: even those that are too young to remember the 60s still dream of the office where the guys sit around, smoke cigars, and have a glass of scotch with the guys after work. Modern shows like _Boston Legal_ continue this trend with their scotch shipping, cigar smoking, balcony end scenes. The time of cigars after work and P.I.s helping the damsel in distress might have passed us by, but television seems to want to bring some of those themes to the forefront, though with a slightly modern twist.

Over the past few years, a number of shows have tried adding “unique” spins to the classic private investigator formula. It started with _Angel_, the vampire with a soul, who opened up _Angel Investigations_ in, appropriately, the “city of Angels_”. The Sci-Fi channel tried their hand at the modern P.I. genre with their adaptation of the Jim Butcher series of books, _The Dresden Files_, a story of a wizard working as P.I. and police consultant in Chicago. Late last year, CBS threw its proverbial hat into the ring with _Moonlight_, a story of a vampire P.I., living in Los Angeles (yes, that does look familiar, however, comparing those to shows is not the purpose of this piece). Having seen every single episode of the three shows just mentioned, it’s time to take a look at FOX’s latest offering to the modern P.I. world, _New Amsterdam_.

To start off with a little bit of a technicality, the lead character of _New Amsterdam_, John Amsterdam, is not technically a P.I., he’s a homicide detective. This doesn’t stop the show from having some classic P.I. hooks, most noticeably the main character giving a slight narration as a story progresses (something that occurred both _The Dresden Files_ and _Moonlight_, but was absent from _Angel_). What separates Amsterdam from your average detective is his immortality. (The rest of this paragraph is going to explain how he acquired his immorality, so move on if you want to have that revealed in the context of the show.) The back story follows the tale of young John Amsterdam when he first crossed over to the New World. During a battle with Indians, Amsterdam prevents one of his fellow soldiers from slaughtering a helpless female, and receives a sword through the chest for his trouble. As a reward for his honor, the Indian female uses some form of magic to grant Amsterdam immortality, including freedom from aging, until he “[finds] the one and [their] souls are wed”. It is explained that he will feel it in his heart when he meets “The One”.

Since an average TV show lasts about 43 minutes when the commercials are stripped out, it’s always a good sign when you pause the show for the first time and find there’s only 5 minutes left. Unfortunately, with _New Amsterdam_, I was checking the time remaining when there was 30 minutes left. The show tries to do a lot: setting up the back story, establishing John’s role in the world, laying out the negatives associated with immortality, and yes, introducing “The One”. Oh, and there’s a semi-straight forward murder mystery involving a real estate developer, the developer’s son (who reveals his sexuality for no compelling plot reason), the developer’s mistress, and the boy who loves the mistress. Looking at that setup, it’s probably not too hard to figure out the mystery. In fact, it seemed rather tacked on to the show, as if the show was moving into and out of that story in sharp, abrupt turns.

The main problem with the pilot, however, wasn’t the plot (though it sure didn’t help), it was that the lead character just was not particularly compelling. Yes, he’s immortal, but its not his immortality that helps him solve the case, it’s just his vast knowledge. Though it’s impressive that he know so much, mostly because he was around for it, the things he knows could have just as easily been known by someone who was well versed in local history. Adding to the problem is that Nikolaj Coster-Waldau does not light up the screen like David Boreanez did in _Angel_ and does in _Bones_. Coster-Waldau isn’t in the same league as the star of NBC’s _Life_, Damien Lewis. And without the ability to suddenly throw out magic (like Harry Dresden in _The Dresden Files_) or go full-on vampire (like Mick St. John in _Moonlight_), Coster-Waldau’s John Amsterdam is pretty much just a walking encyclopedia who has a near death experience when a pretty doctor gets off the subway. Unfortunately, his spouting off with “To be human is to die” and “dying is what makes life worth living” do not help his cause.

Since _Angel_ went off the air, I’ve been hoping for something to come along and takes its place. A show that has a strong lead character who ,when push comes to shove, can throw down with anyone. Someone who isn’t afraid to get into areas of grey, even dark grey, when fighting the proverbial “good fight”. Oh, and that person having cool power like immortality wouldn’t hurt. FOX’s _New Amsterdam_ falls pretty far short of those goals. Instead of waiting to see if _New Amsterdam_ can gain its footing in this strike shortened season, it would be much wiser to catch up on the BBC’s _Torchwood_, with lead actor John Barrowman playing time traveler and former con man Jack Harkness, who nearly fits my 3 point criteria from the opening sentences. At least that way, you’ll have a James Marsters appearance to look forward to.

Mrs. Clinton & Obama

They’re fairly interchangeable at this point. Hilary is the devil we know, while Obama is the devil no one knows. Neither one articulates any position on anything (except that they’re against fighting Islamic radicals in Iraq) and neither one of them has ever accomplished anything of substance. If they were beholden to a group other than the far left, I’d write them off as useless; however, due to their allegiance to the kooks of left, I find both of them to have potential to impact our country’s future in a very negative way.

Ron Paul

The darling of the internet. An isolationist & a protectionist who publicly claims to be in favor of a strictly abiding my the constitution. In a quick survey among my non-political online friends, it seems that a large number of them align strongly with Ron Paul’s views. I, on the other hand, find his views to be outdated and detrimental to continued American exceptionalism.

John McCain

I have utmost respect for a man who has given so much for his country. I do not, however, agree with him on a number of issue: (1) his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, (2) his immigration policy that includes amnesty for illegals (if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck…), (3) and the way he would deal with terrorist detainees, an approach inline with the ACLU. I cannot support a man who I disagree with that dramatically.

Mike Huckabee

His strong Christian faith is always a positive for a candidate. On a number of social issues (abortion, gay “marriage”, etc…) I align with him. His fiscal policies, however, as outlined by his record in Arkansas, are distressing. Combined with his populist rhetoric and apparent open border tendencies, I fear that those who are in his camp are being duped.

Rudy Giuliani

We are at war with the irreconcilable element of radical Islam. For that reason, Rudy Giuliani stands out as a strong candidate to lead us. Unfortunately, his stance on social issues such as being pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-open borders prevent him from being a candidate I can fully get behind.

Fred Thompson

If D.A. Arthur Branch was running for president, I would vote for him in a heart beat. Unfortunately, it’s not Arthur Branch that’s running, but the actor who played Arthur Branch: Fred Thompson. I have high hopes for Fred Thompson, because he has articulated the things I believe in. It also unfortunate, because I fear that not enough people are hearing him. His late entry into the race generated buzz, however, his name has been lacking in a large amount of the media coverage recently and I worry that the chance he had to kick in the door of the established candidates has passed.

Mitt Romney

The charges leveled against Mitt are rather weak in context, namely “he’s a politician” and “he’s a flip flopper.” Looking at the latter charge first, Mitt’s apparent transgression was switching from a pro-abortion position to pro-life position. The general rule in politics is you get one change on the abortion issue. Both Al Gore & Dick Gephart were pro-life before they realized that in order to excel with the Left, one must be in favor of unfettered abortion. Unlike Mr. Gore & Mr. Gephart, however, Mitt’s realignment has been scrutinized heavily and, more importantly, was a move in the right direction (pun partially intended). The charge of Mitt being a “politician” are also built on a foundation of cards. Mitt was a successfully CEO as well as a Governor who managed to implement strong free market principles in a very liberal state. The main difference between Mitt and someone like McCain or Giuliani is that, if in the past, he has said the wrong thing, everything he’s saying now, is the right thing.

To start things off, let me know articulate what I think is the ideal scenario for media distribution: (I’m going to limit this discussion to movies, just to simplify things)

I’m watching the Red Sox on television when the game goes to commercial. An ad comes on for the latest Milla Jovovich movie (for the sake of this example, lets say she’s humanities’ last hope against a horde of evil zombies…since she seems quite good at that role). I find the ad interesting enough to want to watch the movie, so I flip over to my AppleTV and browse through “New Releases”. I find the movie I want and click purchase. Apple deducts from my iTunes account and starts downloading a High Definition copy of the movie to my AppleTV directly as well as marking that’s I’ve purchased the movie within the iTunes database.

Later, I decide I’m going to go dinner and want some entertainment when I eat. I have the movie I just purchased on my AppleTV, but I obviously can’t bring that whole contraption with me, so I head over to my computer, open up iTunes and browse to “Recently Purchase Movies”. I find the Milla Movie in the listing and choose “Download in an Alternate format”. I pick “iPod” and set it to download while I go get ready to head out. After it’s finished downloading, I sync the movie to my iPod and go on my way.

The main point of the above scenario is that when I pay money to see a movie, I want that movie in whatever format I want to view it in. Currently, I own a lot of DVDs. They take up shelf space, they don’t look aesthetically pleasing wherever I have them on display, and putting them in any sort of order can be rather cumbersome. I would much rather have all of them stored digitally and available for playback on my AppleTV whenever I want to view them. Today’s laws, however, make it illegal for me to rip the content off the DVDs I own and store them digitally. I’m, therefore, forced to use my media, that I own, in a way that I feel is less than ideal.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the rumors and stories mentioned earlier to see if the media companies are getting any closer to reaching the ideal viewing scenario. Story (1) was a new set top box from Netflix that will allow streaming of content to your television. I have to admit, this sound promising. Assuming the box is affordable, the subscription plans are similar to Netflix’s current approx. $20 for unlimited downloads of media content, and the library of available content is as extensive as their rental library, then this really has potential. Of course, those are three very big “ifs”. Also, there is no portability with this “strategery”. I’m stuck watching content on the TV that has the Netflix box attached to it, I can’t load the content onto my iPod and take it with me.

iTunes movie rentals (Story (2) from above) have been getting a lot of play on Apple blogs, Tech blogs, and Media blogs. I am going to go off the rumors at this time, making a note that the official plan might change things. Currently, it appears the plan is to provide movie rentals at $3.99 a piece. The most common rumors concerning DRM on the movie rentals is that you will have 1 week to watch the movie after you download it and 24 hours to finish watching the movie once you start watching it (this DRM “strategery” is similar to that used within Xbox 360 movie rentals). I have a few problems with this method of getting media. The first problem is the method of delivery. Currently, there are no rumors about being able to purchase the rental directly from my AppleTV. Though this might change at the official announcement, the current plan involves purchasing the media on my computer and then transferring it or streaming it to my AppleTV. Second, there is no mention about the quality of the downloads. Most sources point to the downloads being “iPod Hi resolution” quality (i.e. 640 x 480), a resolution lower than current DVD standards. If I’m paying money for content, I want it in the highest resolution possible. Third, the price point. At a $4 per rental price plan, I would only have to rent 5 movies in the course of a month to blow through the cost of my Netflix subscription. My Netflix subscription lets me have 3 movies out at a time, allows me to keep the DVD as long as I want it, and contains TV on a DVD (and odds are you won’t be able to get 4 episodes of a show for $4).

The price point issue discussed in the previous paragraph requires some further exploration. I intentionally left price point out of my scenario so I could discuss it in depth later. The basic question comes down to: What price would I be willing to pay to own a particular piece of media content? There are a number of camps on this question, some dealing with complicated “pay less for less resolution” formulas, and some suggesting a “rent to own” model. Personally, after putting in some time thinking about how much I’d pay for the content in my ideal scenario, I’ve decided that my price point is $4. That’s $4 to own a movie, that I can download an unlimited number of times, in an assortment of digital formats. I pay $4 for a movie today, I download it to my iPod tonight and watch it, and then, in 4 months, I can download it in HiDef to my AppleTV for no extra cost. Now, I do not want be a pollyanna and suggest that this type of plan is right around the corner. Clearly, the media companies think their content is worth approx. $15 to own at this time. A trip to Best Buy on the day of a movie release or finding a gem in a bargain bin might result in you picking up a movie for $13 or even $10, but most likely you’re going to be paying around $15 for most recent movies. The question then becomes: if a media company can sell a million copies of the movie at $15, why would they charge less than 1/3 of that price in the future? Two possible reasons come to mind: (1) piracy and (2) rental service.

Let’s examine (1), Piracy, from the paragraph above. A quick search on a few popular BitTorrent websites for a recently released movie will reveal hundreds of thousands of people downloading the film. How many of these people would pay $4 for this movie to avoid the hassle of going through a BitTorrent service? 60%? 70%? Combine that with the people who think $13 is too much to pay for the latest Jason Stratham shoot ‘em up movie, but wouldn’t mind paying $4 for it, and I find it hard to believe that the total amount of money brought in by the movie studio wouldn’t surpass the amount brought in with their $13 DVDS, with the added side effect of dramatically reducing piracy. Item (2) above, Rental Service, is a little more difficult to understand. A quick glance at the monetary issue would probably point out the obvious question: “Who would pay $3 to rent a movie when you can pay $4 and own it forever?” Well, odds are, probably no one. But is that such a bad thing? Are people actually renting movies 2 or 3 times? Though this move might prove to be the end of the rental industry, those funds should be transfered back to the media companies through purchases. Also, would someone continue to spend $20 a month for a Netflix subscription when they could use that same $20 to purchase 5 movies? The latter seems much more likely to me.

Rumor (3) from the opening paragraph was the updates to the Vudu platform. For those unfamiliar with Vudu, it’s a set top box that allows television purchases, movie purchases, and movie rentals via the interwebs. It’s very similar to the functionality found within the Media part of the Xbox 360, but with a slightly easier to interface and a higher cost ($399 for the box). Movie purchases cost $20, but it is unclear of whether you can download a movie, watch it, delete it and then re-download it again without cost. Also, there is no way to transfer the content to your portable media player, so we’re once again forced to watch the movie from our Vudu box. The main rumor concerns the availability of more HiDef rentals via Vudu. That sounds like promising news, however, it turns out to fall into the same pattern we’ve seen before, namely: price. HiDef movie rentals on Vudu are rumored to run $5.99 with 24 hour clock. You can watch the movie as many times you want within 24 hours, but once the 24 hours are up, you have to pay full rental price to see it again. That seems to be a high level of restriction for a $6 rental.

The inclusion of Quicktime versions of movies on new FOX DVDs (rumor (4) from above) seems like a very promising development. It shows FOX is aware that people might not always want to watch a move via their home DVD player, but possibly on their iPod or iPhone when they’re traveling. There is not sufficient information concerning DRM requirements on these files, or concerning the quality of the included video file,to give an accurate thumbs up / thumbs down rating. This development, however, appears to be a move in the right direction.

Up to this point, I’ve mostly discussed video content. Though Rumor (5) concerns audio content, it’s a perfect illustration of how media companies simply don’t understand how customers want to receive their content. Once again, on the surface, Sony’s announcement to go DRM-free on some of their music catalogue seemed quite promising. It turns out, however, their distribution model is severely flawed. Instead of using one of the existing online stores (iTunes, Amazon Mp3, etc..) to sell the content, Sony is requiring its customers to go to a brick-and-mortar store (a Best Buy, a Wal-Mart) and purchase an “album unlock card” there. A customer can then go home and use the code on this card to download the album in the un-DRMed format. It is almost inconprehensible that a company could think that this method of media distribution would be effective. Instead of sitting in front of the computer, clicking on the albums I want to purchase, I have to go down to the store and buy a card so I can go home and download the music? What advantage is there to that over a standard CD purchase? And with the cards priced at approx. $12.99 a piece, aren’t the odds in favor of the CD actually being cheaper? I do not foresee Sony’s DRM-free sales to be particularly stellar.

In the preceding paragraph, I chastised Sony for their “buy in the store / unlock at home” model. My complaint requires some clarification. I have no problem with the “buy in the store / unlock at home” being one aspect of the distribution channel, as long as a “buy at home” model exists. In fact, there are some scenarios where I think that the “buy in the store / unlock at home” model could be quite effective. Imagine going to see a movie in the theatre and, as you leave, there are places where you can purchase the movie you just saw for the $4 mentioned previously. Just walk up to the seller (whether it is person or machine), plunk down $4 and leave with a little card so you can unlock the movie when you get home. Obviously, this “strategery” would fly in the face of the current “Wait 3-5 months before putting out the DVD” model that’s currently in place, but wouldn’t it result in many more impulse buys? What if the only way you could get the movie while it was in the theatres was via this “buy in the theatre / unlock at home” channel? That would provide some shelter for the theatres but also capitalize on people’s feelings about a particular film. A whole column could easily be written on these type of movie “release in the theatre v. release to the public for purchase” issues and how the media companies have refused to evolve within the market place.

A disconnect exists today between media companies that produce content and the customers that consume said content. Though this disconnect might not be as wide for a large percentage of the population as it is for me, it’s hard to imagine people aren’t frustrated with the way their forced into certain behavior concerning their media watching. Will media companies make changes as drastic as those I’ve outlined here? Most likely, the media companies won’t make those changes any time in the foreseeable future, however, there are some promising developments that they’re at least trying to experiment with the idea of modernizing their distribution channels. Until such time though, it’s going to be their way or the highway.

My first stop was iTunes. I didn’t think either Kanye or 50 were part of the EMI, but I figured it was worth a shot. It turned out both of these albums were only available in the standard iTunes DRM format, so I decided to move on. Stop #2 was Rhapsody. I tried for about 10 minutes to figure out how to purchase any song from Rhapsody, regardless of whether it was DRM-ed or not. I finally gave up and decided that the secret to using Rhapsody must be using their Windows software and moved on.

Stop #3 for me was gBox. I had heard about this site, but didn’t really know a ton. I was once again thwarted, as it turns out gBox is Windows only. Finally, I decided to give Wal-Mart a shot. I didn’t get very far, as the “windows only” message came up on Wal-Marts music store as well.

So after 4 different online music sites, I had actually only been able to browse 1 of them on my Mac. At this point, I normally have simply given up, however, I decided to get out one of my Windows laptops to see what those Windows-Only sites had to offer.

Rhapsody involved downloading their software. It wasn’t too bad, however, I would prefer being able to buy directly from the website. I did a search on Kanye first. It turned out that he was only available in WMA format. I did a search for 50 Cent and _Curtis_ came up, with the “Buy Mp3″ option. I took a closer look though, and saw it was the “edited” version. I clicked on the “unedited” version. No “Buy Mp3″ option. It appears this was only the case for his latest album too, as a number of his other “unedited” albums seemed to be available in MP3.

With strike 1 from Rhapsody under my belt, I moved on to gBox. Apparently, they have structured their site to revolve around the concept of “gifting” music, whether it’s you buying music for someone else or you making a list of music you want people to buy for you. It sounds like an interesting concept, however, their site is practically unusable. The interface is cluttered and confusing, while being particularly brutal for someone who wanted to just do a simple search by artist. Eventually I did find 50 Cent’s artist page, however, _Curtis_ wasn’t listed on it at all.

Down 0-2, I turned to my final hope: Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart site was easy enough to navigate. I tried 50 Cent’s album first. It came up immediately, _Curtis_, purchase Mp3. I figured I’d hit the jackpot. It was then I realized the flaw in my thinking. Wal-Mart only sells the edited versions of the CDs. So much like Rhapsody, I could only buy the edited version of _Curtis_ in Mp3 form. I didn’t bother even looking for Kanye’s CD since that would have been edited too.

So, after about an hour of playing around in the tubes of the inter-webs, I came up empty in my quest to get un-DRMed versions of Kanye West and 50 Cent’s latest albums. Since it was only 8:30, and I did want these albums, I hopped in my car, headed to Best Buy, purchased both albums at the release day price of $10 a piece, and then returned home to rip them into 256 Kbps AAC files. When it was all said and done, that was the only way I could reach my goal.

With that as a the background, we have a troubling development on the social networking aggregator “UpScoop” (I’m intentionally leaving all links to the UpScoop site out of this post). Previously, their privacy policy read like this:

After a member provides his email address and email password, Upscoop extracts all the email addresses within the member’s email address book. NOTE: Upscoop does not email, contact, or spam any friends from an email address book. (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:uL5Uoiffy6UJ:https://upscoop.com/privacy_policy+upscoop+spam&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

However, today, it now reads like this:

After a member provides his email address and email password, Upscoop extracts all the email addresses within the member’s email address book.

Notice the difference? It seems clear that UpScoop plans to follow Quechup and start soliciting more people to come to their sites. The question is, will they honor their previous privacy policy or just start mining whatever database they’ve already collected of information concerning users?

With now what appears to be 2 examples of social networking sites doing “questionable” things with the address lists they find when mining address books, I think it’s probably time to stop using these automatic “friend finder” features. I’d love to give sites like Facebook the benefit of the doubt, but it looks like the trend is no longer to use your information to help you connect to your friends, but instead to use your information to help build up marketing databases. I can only blame myself for not recognizing that the later motivation was probably the driving force behind that feature all along.

The interlude segments this week were fairly strong. The _Hollywood Helping Humanity_ featured Ryan Ziering asking for people to “donate their unused Carbs” while the ACLU commercial explained how they sued to back up the University of North Carolina in the university’s effort to make all their students study the Koran. The “Guy White, Closet Conservative” cartoon wasn’t the best one I’ve seen, dealing with Guy deciding to announce to the company he was a conservative, but ultimately backing down.

Dennis Miller’s _The Buck Stops Here_ lacked a cohesive theme this week, instead going for a bunch of quick hitters. He discussed Hillary’s War Vote and her confusing spin of it, how liberals say “but” while moderates say “however”, and how the killing of the terrorists before they kill us can be though of as “pre-emptive universal health care”. Overall, it wasn’t close to his stinging cristism of Harry Reid and was more in line with his earlier efforts that were on the weaker side.

The news segments on the Half Hour News Hour have been strong through my last few viewings and this week was no exception. It seems like both of the co-hosts are really getting their timing down and Jennifer Robertson (who goes by “Jennifer Lang” on the show) has really taken her performance up a notch from when the show started. Some joke highlights include: Rosie moving up the terrorist priority list due to the al-Qaeda in Iraq’s leader being captured, Gore’s Daughter’s wedding having more people at it than his _Live Earth_, Rudy writing his “Prenup with America”, a Democratic debate focusing on Gay issues will be done as a musical, and the coup de grace: Democrats plan to show how serious they are about the war on terror, by promising to have more sleepovers.

So why is that people do not identify themselves as conservatives as these younger ages? The reasons lie both with external forces and with conservatives themselves. The external forces are numerous: public school systems are full of liberal teachers, pushing their views on their students; university campuses are full fledged indoctrination centers, and the drive-by media trumpets liberal ideas on nearly all topics everyday. Combining these factors together it’s easy to see why young “skulls full of mush” might be swayed into believing liberal ideals. Then, as more young people start saying they’re liberal, those that are afraid to be “left out” of the group, also say they’re liberal. Some younger girls make it known that they will not date (or beyond) a conservative male, while college-age males might prefer a girl who doesn’t follow a morality instilled by a solid conservative upbringing. In the end, a wave of factors come crashing down on young people, trying to get them to lean to the left.

Though blame for a lack of conservative young people can be placed on external factors, conservatives have to take some of the blames themselves. One of the major problems in getting young people to explain conservative ideals is explaining what conservatism is, especially when compared with how liberalism is defined. Take an issue like health care, where a liberal might say “Everyone should have their health care needs provided for”and a conservative might say “We should let the market help in lowering health care costs.” Clearly, someone who is not versed in economic principles and free-market concepts is going to be drawn to the liberals answer. Why? Because it just “seems nice”. In addition to the lack of message coming from conservatives, you have people like Jon Stewart (who more twenty-somethings get their news from than probably any other newscaster) making this poor conveying of principles sound even more ridiculous.

So how can this trend be reversed? The easiest way would be if a charismatic conservative, with excellent oratory skills, was to emerge on the national stage. The question then becomes: Is there such a person out there? The conventional wisdom is that the next big “star’ of the Republican party is Eric Cantor, but as Bob Novak said recently, “he’s a makes the trains run on time” type of guy. That’s not what the Republican party and the Conservative movement need right now, and finding what they do need, might be a long time in the making.

Be any measure, the internet has grown at a tremendous rate. Larger quantities of homes now have high speed internet access and people carry a bevy of devices with them that allow access to email and the web. The question then becomes, why would anyone want the government to start interfering with an industry that’s featuring such spectacular growth? Though I clearly cannot speak for everyone, most of the reasons are pretty standard anti-market feelings: the “big tel-co” will start charging more for content to be delivered faster and the “little guy” won’t be able to have his site viewed because it will take too long, or worse, the tel-co will block access to some sites all together. As is usually the case with people who don’t understand basic economic principles, these fears are misguided.

What we have with the Internet at this time is scarce resource. Despite its vast nature, there is in fact a scare amount of bandwidth available for people to utilize, and the most efficient way to distribute this bandwidth with is via the free market. If a company has the financial resources to pay more access to more of this bandwith, then that company should be allowed to access it. It’s simple distribution of a resource. What people normally fail to understand is, there’s a difference between there being “scarcity” in the bandwidth and there being a “shortage” of bandwidth. A common mistake is people are only looking at the existing infrastructure of the internet as it stands now, the cable companies, the DSL companies, utilizing cables to bring the internet into your house. This constricts the market too narrowly however as there are other alternatives such as cellular internet, possibilities for city-wide wi-fi, internet delivered via power lines, etc… that are all in different stages of development. The way people will access the internet in the future has potential to be vastly different from the standard set of technologies we have today. All ones has to do is look at the difference between dial up modems of 8-10 years ago and the speed of cable modems & dsl connections of today in order to see what kind of advances can be made.

Additional reasons against net neutrality include the fact that it’s unnecessary to make a law against monopolistic activities for a specific industry, when there are already laws against monopolistic activities on the books. The most important reason to oppose Net Neutrality, however, is that passage of such as law paves the way for much more heavy handed government regulation of the internet. It ultimately could result in a bureaucracy that controls the internet, much in the same way the FCC controls television. In this period of growth and innovation with the internet, the last thing it needs is governmental red tape.

The classic example of Freedom of the Press v. Freedom of Consequences occurred a few years ago when the Dixie Chicks said they were embarrassed that our President hailed from Texas. What followed was a backlash, as people stopped buying their CDs (or destroyed ones they owned), people stopped attending their concerts and radio stations stopped playing their music. The most common defense of the Dixie Chicks (normally from people on the left) was that the Dixie Chicks were simply “exercising their freedom of speech.” Well, yes, the Dixie Chicks were exercising their freedom of speech, and at no point where they kicked out of the country (like on the left’s seemingly popular figures, Hugo Chavez, might do) or executed (like another leftist favorite, Fidel Castro, might do), instead the general populous decided they did not agree with the Dixie Chicks’ point of view, found the Chicks’ comments offensive, and decided they would not support their music as a result. It wasn’t the government that came down when the Dixie Chicks insulted our president, it was the general public who responded.

A more recent example occurred on FOX’s television show _So You Think You Can Dance_. Choreographer Wade Robson had the dancers perform a dance he described as “anti-war”. Depending on your point of view, you could take this to mean either “a general opposition to war” or a specific criticism of the United States’ on going struggle with islamo-facists, specially in the Iraqi theater. A number of people, myself included, took the latter opinion and voiced enough concern towards the network, the show, and in forums discussing the show, that one of the show’s producers issued an apology for the performance. (Robson issued a “clarification of intent” on his website as well, but tried to remain semi-defiant but adding that it was “not an apology”.) As one would expect, various television review sites were dismayed that the show was apologizing for their dance number. The usual calls of freedom of speech and freedom of expression were made. Once again, these people failed to understand the difference between Wade being allowed to say what he said without having harsh retribution from the government and the general public being allowed to react to Wade’s seemingly ignorant statements.

I’ve written here previously about the Left’s attempts to stifle opinions they don’t agree with, but it’s clear that’s only half of their “strategery”. The other half is try and prevent people from standing up when the Left makes claims, no matter how outrageous these claims are.

I’ve been to a number of golf tournaments, from lower level tournaments like what used to be called the “Canon Greater Hartford Open” in Connecticut, to upper level tournaments like the Wachovia Champsionship in Charlotte, and even major tournaments like the US Open at Pinehurst a few years back. Through all the experience, however, I would say the atmosphere at the US Women’s Open at Pine Needles was the best I’ve witnessed. Though the people involved with putting on the tournament play a role in that, what really set this tournament apart was the attitude of the players. Whether it was the smiles to young children in the crowds, the acknowledgment of the gallery when the gallery showered them with congratulations, or stopping on the way from putting green to first tee to sign autographs, the ladies really went out of their way to show their appreciation.

Though their demeanor and attitude would be enough reason for young girls to have the ladies of the LPGA as role models, it cannot be emphasized enough that these girls are immensely talented athletes. Whether it’s the raw power of Britney Lincicome, the athleticism of Natalie Gulbis, or the finesse and talent of Paula Creamer, these girls are famous not because of some fluke movie or some inheritance they are due, instead they’ve worked hard, developed their skills and now exhibit their talent, skill and athleticism on a weekly basis. They are living embodiments of practice, hard work, and dedication and are prime examples of what a young girl should aspire to.

If I were to take a survey of my friends, or even males 18-35 in general, the number that would be enthusiastic about attending an LPGA golf event for a weekend would not be particularly high, regardless of the fact that young women like Paula Creamer are in fact, magnificently stunning in person. Though that particular demographic might not be drawn to the course, young girls and their parents should be. In an age when it’s hard to point our young people in the direction of good role models, for one weekend at the end of June, the Pine Needles Golf Course was bursting with them.

The first topic I’m going to discuss is a shortage. Probably the biggest misconception about shortages is that a shortages represents an actual physical lack of something (as in, there isn’t physically enough milk for everyone to have enough milk to drink), but this understanding is quite off from what a shortage really is. A shortage means that there is not enough of something for everyone to get what they want, at the current price. There is the key: “at the current price”. Too often people forget to remember that prices have a profound effect on our economy, especially with the distribution of goods. Let’s look back at the milk example again. Let’s say a gallon of milk costs 50 cents. Well, at 50 cents everyone in the neighborhood would probably go to the store and buy some, to the point where the store sells out. When the next person comes into the store, there will be no milk. This is a shortage. Of course, part of the issue is that at 50 cents, people might buy more milk than they’d buy if say, the price were $1.00, and probably more than if the price were $2.00, and progressively up to the point where the milk costs too much for people to buy anything. So if person X buys 3 gallons of milk at 50 cents, they might only buy 1 gallon at $2, and that last person who strolled into the store in the evening and found no milk when it was 50 cents, might find plenty of milk left at $2.00. To sum things up, prices help regulate how much of something someone buys.

The second topic I’m going to discuss is common a misconception about profit, namely, if you’re making a huge profit, you must be charging a lot more per item than it cost you to make said item. A simple example can show how it is possible to make a profit without charging much above cost. Let’s say, for the sake of example, that I develop a new drink, something that catches on as a replacement for both coffee and soda, so people can drink it at all times during the day. If everybody loves this drink and can’t get enough of it, I could conceivably charge as much as I wanted per bottle right? I mean, even if it costs me $1.00 to make a bottle, I could charge $10 because everybody wants it, right? That’s actually not the case (due to a principle known as “substitutes and complements” that’s a little off topic…), so I’ll charge $1.50 per bottle. So I’m only going to make 50 cents a bottle, how could I make any money? Well, if I end up selling 10 million bottles of the stuff, I’ll end up making 5 millon dollars in profit. The basic principle here is I want to increase the number of transactions that have small little profits, instead of having a smaller number of transactions that have a proportionally larger profit. As Dr. Sowell points out, this is the principle behind large grocery stores; they count on people buying a large number of items per visit as smaller profits that add up to a large overall profit. In summation, if people buy a lot of something, a company can make a large profit even if they hardly charge over the cost it takes to make that something.

Though I doubt I just explained those two principles as well as Dr. Sowell does in his book _Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy_, I hope that provided a little economics background that will help in understanding a few issues that I plan on tackling next. it’s unfortunate that our school system does not provide a strong foundation on the principles of market economics, but thanks to people like Dr. Sowell, there are still ways for people who to get the information they need.

The one brand new segment that ran throughout the show dealt with being “carbon neutral” and using compact fluorescent light bulbs. This segment illustrated one of the issues not commonly brought up when discussing how much more “electrically efficient” CFLs are, namely, CFL lightbuls contain a fairly significant quantity of mercury. The segment showed how breaking one of these bulbs can result in such measures as calling in a ‘haz-mat” crew or having to have your own person be decontaminated. In addition to this segment, there were two commercials: (1) a “Hollywood Helping Humanity” commercial, congratulated Joey Buttafucco and Amy Fisher on getting back together and (2) an “ACLU” commercial that points how the ACLU forced Los Angels county to remove a cross from their county seal, as well as another “Guy White, Closet Conservative” cartoon, which was rather forgettable.

The news segments this week continued the strong run they’ve had over the past few weeks. They touched on how a judge would not allow an Al Qaeda terrorist to be held without formal criminal charges (”So he can now return to flight school”), on what constitutes “Spring Break in Gaza”, a few shots on Kevin Federline and Paris Hilton, and a nice little crack on Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis Miller finished of the show with his _The Buck Starts Here_ segment. Though not quite the verbal beat down he put on Harry Reid last week, Miller had solid run down of the religious zealotry of those who believe in man-made “global warming.” He broke down how people who oppose this religion are known as “deniers” and stated his wish that those on the far left were as serious about fighting the war on terror as they are at fighting against those that they feel are effecting the planet’s climate in some way. Overall, it was a solid way, to end a solid show.

5 Wood #1:

5 Wood #2:

7 Iron:

I’m going to focus my reply to Gore’s statements about how the war should be waged at this current juncture compared to his statements in 1992 instead of going into an in depth analysis of how his statements in ‘92, and those of other Clinton Administration officials in the period leading up to the Iraq part of the War on Terror ,provided strong justification for the policy of regime change when it comes to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

I agree with you that there is a big difference between Iraq in 1992 and 2002. Sadam had 10 more years with which to foster his terrorist ties, to allow Al Qaeda to move freely throughout his borders and to work on potential weapons of mass destruction programs. There were 10 years, 8 of which had Al Gore in power, in which America stood idle as the terror threat amassed around the world and Saddam projected his capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction (whether full of false bravado or not). There is no possibility of Saddam Hussein harboring terrorists in Iraq, providing training grounds for them, or providing them with weapons of mass destruction, at this time and that is to some degree due to our actions against him. As for your arguments of international allies and how a war would impact our moral authority in the world, unfortunately, we live in an era where America is the “last, best hope” of free people the world wide. Though I am not as Wilsonian as the current President Bush in my philosophy of spreading democracy, removing Saddam from power helped make America, and the world as a whole, a safer place, if only for the reason that it took a safe zone for terrorists to train and made it an area where they were forced to actively engage us (if you can use the term “engage” for people who’s primary methods of engagement are to set road side bombs, kidnap civilians and destroy holy sites.) The whole twist that “we went there for WMDs and there were none so we should leave” or the “Bush said Saddam had ties to 9-11″ are straw man arguments that have no real impact on the fact that it is in America’s best interest to help the Iraqi people fight against the Al Qaeda terrorists who are trying to break down the Iraq’s fledgling democracy before it has a chance to succeed, while Iran stands on the sidelines and routes for a new area they can spread their brand of Islamo-Fascism.

For Gore to say he was against the Iraq War from the start might be factually accurate, however, it would be hugely misleading for someone who was part of an administration that repeatedly stated the threat of Saddam Hussein to America and the greater world, especially given this video footage, to say he’s always been against military intervention in Iraq. Ultimately, though people who are fans of Al Gore can find ways to explain how his statements in ‘92 do not contradict his statements currently, the American people as a whole will view his current view as largely hypocritical and an ad campaign that prominently featured excerpts from this footage would be hugely damning to Gore in the popular election.

Miller piles on Reid, from calling him a “dim bulb”, saying his speech “oozes like a stuck chalk gun”, and even throwing in a Dorian Gray reference for good measure. Up until this point, I’ve found Miller’s segments to be rather stale, but he clearly brought his “A” game this week, in explanation of how a “hack like [Reid]” could be in a position of leadership.

The news segments this week were on par with the high quality news segments from last week. Jokes included takes on: Paris Hilton heading back to jail, Hillary Clinton turning to faith in time of crisis (and Bill not being able to remember Faith’s last name), Castro looked trim and healthy…standing next to Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich being more popular than the “TB Airplane Guy”, and one particular joke that drew a mixed crowd reaction: “A recent study shows 71% of College Girls are sexually active…the rest…just lie there…”

Though not as good as Dennis Miller’s segment, the other “skit” segments were pretty strong. The best was a segment dealing with “The Evolving Male,” i.e. a man who was more in touch with his feminine side so he could better relate to his wife. The looks on the wife’s face as the husband explained his marriage style were priceless, and gave a good setup for when he busted out with “will you grow a pair!” The opening segment was also fairly solid, in it featured a producer / agent who were trying to convince the show’s hosts to do more “moderate” jokes. When the hosts refused, the agent leaned over, pulled off his mask and turned out to be Rush Limbaugh. Not an earth shattering segment by any means, but a solid way to start the show.

For the 2nd week in a row, the 1/2 Hour News Hour put on a solid performance with some really funny moments. Odds are, the Dennis Miller piece will get some media play and therefore there should be an audience spike next week to see what the show is all about. If the show keeps up on its current pace, I’d bet that the people tuning in next week will be watching the following week too.

Looking first at some of the skits, the “Rush as President” bits are solid, mostly because of Rush’s larger than life presence. He carries the scenes even if the material isn’t exactly exciting. The second “skit” was the “Feature Story” that discussed Jimmy Carter’s “Ex-presidential” legacy. Basically, a presidential “historian” came on and explained all the great that happened as a result of Jimmy carter leaving office (Iran freeing the hostages, the US winning the Cold War, etc…) saying it wasn’t Ronald Reagan who accomplished these things, rather they were accomplished as part of the Jimmy Carter “Ex-Presidency.” The money line came when asked “So, if Jimmy Carter’s going to take credit for all the positive things that happened after he left office, shouldn’t he be held responsible for 9-11 too?” The response: “Come on, everyone knows that 9-11 happened during the Clinton Ex-Presidency.” The final skit that deserves mention was an interview with a representative from “Americans against Guns.” This man claimed that he had been the victim of shootings on multiple occasions (A old lady when he tried to take her purse, a home owner when he tried to steal things from the home owner’s home, and a bank guard when he tried to rob a bank.) “People having guns make it unsafe for us common criminals!” I completely agree.

The new segments this week were particularly strong as well with jokes concerning: Miss USA being booed at the Miss Universe pageant in Mexico city (her talent was building a 700 mile fence), the UN responding my Islamo-Fascism by sending a really strong letter, Mitt Romney being willing to donate his presidential salary but John Edwards keeping it and “feeling really guility”, Steve Jobs thinking Al Gore would make a good president since Steve “wrote Al’s Software” (there was an “Al-Pod” reference in the background), and a few jokes about Rosie O’Donnell quitting the view and Paris Hilton heading to prison. Overall, the new segments were very high quality.

The show once again finished up with Dennis Miller’s _The Buck Starts Here_, which was okay with some Gitmo reference and his referring to President Bush as a “waits for the DVD to come out” kind of guy. Though Dennis has yet to really find his stride, it looks the rest of the show might have, or, at the very least, is on the right track to.

7 Iron:

5 Wood #1:

5 Wood #2:

Driver #1:

Driver #2:

Swing #1:

Swing #2:

In a recent column on Real Clear Politics, Robert Tracinski broke down what might be the “most alarming” part of Algore’s new book _The Assault on Reason_, namely its “justification for government controls over political speech.” Tracinski breaks down how Gore appears to suggest the usage of “tools” like anti-trust laws and the FCC to prevent alternative media sources like FOX News and talk radio from being able to exert influence on the political debate. Using these “tools” they can try to fulfill their idea of having the “ability of the leftist elite to impose its conventional dogmas on the national debate, without the need to persuade or convince others.” Utlimately, Tracinski sums it in the concluding sentence of the piece:”To do this while billing himself as a defender of reason is an act of supreme insolence.”

A current example of the Left trying to stifle free discussion and debate has arisen around the latest attempts at a “comprehensive immigration bill.” The latest “comprehensive” bill (deemed by Rush Limbaugh as the “Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007″) has been met with criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. The acts by the bills “defenders” however are focussed primarily on those on the Right who oppose the bill (a group that includes William F. Buckley and George Will) labeling people who have legitimate issues with the bills as “nativists”, “protectionists” and, of course, “racists”. Instead of trying to opening debate why they feel the Immigration bill is not purely an amnesty for those who have entered the country illegal, the bill’s defenders lob ad hominem insults at people who question the bill’s authenticity, hoping that accusations of racism will be enough to keep those opposed to the bill from freely voicing their opinion.

The most recent article of NewsMax contains an article entitled _After Imus and Roise, Who’s Next?_ that discusses how “media watchdog groups” have set their sights on trying to give people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly the Imus treatment. What NewsMax points out, but most media outlets fail to mention, is that these so called “media watchdog groups” are actually the creation of former operatives of the Democrat party and that the people who fund these groups are the people who fund the most radical of the Left wing organizations. Basically, these groups listen to popular conservative media and try to use their “willing accomplices” (as Rush likes to call them) in the “Drive-By” media to try and stir up controversy about quotes taken out of context, hoping that their mere existence will cause people to be more careful with their discussion of issues. They’re simply another tool that the Left and Democrat Party use to try and prevent people from freely expressing their ideas.

The above examples are far from of a full enumeration of the way the Left is trying to stifle the free flow of ideas, but merely a small taste of the tactics they’re employing to try and make their way of thinking the only “acceptable” way of thinking. Thankfully there are forums like Talk Radio that allow some of the propaganda spouted from the Democrat Party to be countered, however, as time goes on, the Left’s efforts to quash those forums will only intensify and it will be up to people who truly value the freedom of speech to stand athwart their efforts and yell Stop!