My Photo

Sponsor

Availability on NewsTex



  • This blog is now syndicated through Newstex's revolutionary "Blogs-on-Demand" product, which delivers premium full-text blog content to its web and media customers, including LexisNexis, CanWest, and EBSCO.

Availability on BlogBurst


  • BlogBurst.com

  • This blog is a member of BlogBurst, a syndication service that makes premium blog content available to major publishers like Reuters, Internet Broadcasting (WNBC, WMUR, etc.), USA Today, Fox News, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, and many more. I am proud to announce that this blog made BlogBurst's leaderboard for the first quarter of 2007 (that means it ranked in the top 100 for the quarter, out of the more than 3500 member blogs -- with over 1,000,000 post headline displays and over 1000 full post views on Reuters alone). My spinoff blog, Political CommenTerry, is a member of the BlogBurst network as well. See the link below to Political CommenTerry, the ultimate authority on U.S. politics!
  • Political CommenTerry

BlogCritics Contributor


  • Blogcritics: news and reviews

May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by TypePad

« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

June 30, 2006

Joe Leaverman?

Connecticut Senator and former Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman is facing a tough primary challenge for his Senate seat from liberal Ned Lamont in August. Lieberman has indicated that, should he lose the primary, he might leave the Democratic party and run for the seat as an independent this fall.

Connecticut obviously does not have a "sore loser" law. Some states employ this kind of law to prevent a candidate from getting on the ballot as an independent in the general election, after losing his party's nominating primary. Generally, this kind of law applies only to losers of primaries, not those who may have lost out when their party decided the nomination with a caucus or convention.

June 29, 2006

Syndication vs. Network Broadcasts

Local TV stations broadcast shows from three different categories: local origination, syndication, and network affiliate content. Most people recognize the local origination stuff when they see it. It consists mainly local news, weather, and sports, along local talk shows and the occasional community-oriented special program.

However, some people have trouble distinguishing between syndicated shows and those provided the by the network that the station is affiliated with, like ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox. The confusion is understandable because both types of shows are produced by the major studios and television networks. In addition, they both target national audiences. Adding further to the confusion is the fact that many shows originally run as network content and then their reruns air in syndication. Therefore, a  show can start out in one category then move  to the other. So how can you recognize the difference?

First, a show that is in syndication might air on different network affiliates, depending the market. For example, Wheel of Fortune might air on the ABC affiliate in New York, the CBS affiliate in Chicago, and the Fox affiliate in Los Angeles. Conversely, a show provided as network content would air on stations affiliated with same network in every market. For example, American Idol airs on the Fox affiliate in every market.

Second, a show that is in syndication might air at a different times in different markets, even within the same time zone. For example, Wheel of Fortune might air at 5:00 in Boston, 6:00 in New York, 7:00 in Philadelphia, and 7:30 in Washington, DC., even though all four of those cities are in the same time zone. A show provided as network content, on the other hand, will generally air at the same time within a given time zone. For example, American Idol might air at 8:00 every Tuesday night in all markets in the Eastern time zone.

Now, an example of a show that moved from network content to syndication would be Friends. This show started out in the mid-1990's as an NBC affiliate show. It aired only on NBC affiliate stations on Thursday nights. It would air at the same time within given time zones. However, once the show completed its run on NBC, it went into syndication. Now its reruns air mainly on weekdays on different network affiliates and at different times, depending on the market.

June 28, 2006

John Warner: The Accidental Senator

John Warner is now in his 28th year and fifth term as a U.S. Senator from Virginia. Warner, a Republican, carries a lot of clout in the Senate as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Nationally, he's one of the most respected members of the Senate.

Interestingly enough, Warner's career in the Senate almost never got started. When he first ran for an open seat in the Senate in 1978, he lost the Republican nomination to an up-and-coming younger politician named Richard Obenshain. However, Obenshain's bright future in politics ended abruptly when he was killed in a plane crash just two months before the general election. After Obenshain's funeral, Virginia Republicans called an emergency session to pick a new nominee. Warner, the runner-up to Obenshain in the earlier primary, was selected. Despite the disadvantage of a late start, Warner managed to pull out a narrow victory in the general election over Democrat Andrew Miller, the state's former Attorney General.

Early in his Senate career, Warner seemed like a solid, mainstream Republican. During his third term, however, he started to cultivate a rather tumultuous relationship with members of his own party, some of which no longer see him as a true Republican. Many observers, including myself, feel that Warner should have been honest and dropped the Republican label many years ago.

He began to show his true colors in 1993 when he refused to support Mike Farris, his party's nominee for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. He felt that Farris was controlled too much by the Christian Right. At least indirectly due to Warner's withholding of his support, Farris became the only statewide GOP candidate to lose that year. Then in 1994, Warner actively campaigned against Ollie North, his party's nominee for Virginia's other U.S. Senate seat. He even recruited former GOP gubernatorial candidate Marshall Coleman to run as an independent and siphon enough votes from North to throw the election to Democratic incumbent and former Governor Chuck Robb. Even then, North just barely lost. This time, Warner's actions were seen as the direct cause of a fellow Republican's loss.

By the time Warner was seeking his fourth term in the Senate in 1996, he had angered many of Virginia's staunch Republican voters and they began a "Dump Warner" campaign. However, Virginia's GOP party rules allow the incumbent to select the nominating process. Knowing he would probably lose the nomination at a convention or caucus, where only party regulars would be voting, he selected a primary. In Virginia, primaries are open to all registered voters, so Warner encouraged Democrats and independents to vote in that primary and save his political skin. He also counted on the fact that voters have short memories, even those who lean Republican and/or conservative. His strategy worked as he handily defeated Republican rival Jim Miller for the nomination.

In the general election that year, I voted against him, and apparently so did many others who normally vote Republican. John Warner was supposed to win in a cakewalk over relatively unknown (at that time) Democrat Mark Warner, who had never held elective office. However, the election turned out to be very close, with John Warner winning by the slimmest of margins. Mark Warner thought it was close because he was such a good candidate, but it was really because people like me had become sick and tired of John Warner's antics and wanted to teach him a lesson. Still, the close election provided Mark Warner enough momentum and impetus to successfully run for governor of Virginia five years later.

John Warner was virtually unchallenged when he ran for his fifth term in 2002. However, I still did not vote for him. It's been rumored that he might retire after 2008. Let's hope so. One thing I do know is that he'll never get my vote again.

June 27, 2006

Fox Baseball Market Bias?

Fox TV only seems to be interested in large market teams for its regular season national broadcasts of Major League Baseball on Saturday afternoons. I can't remember the last time I saw on of their games that didn't include at least one of the following teams: New York Yankees, New York Mets, Los Angeles Angels, Los Angeles Dodgers, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Boston Red Sox, Atlanta Braves, Houston Astros, San Francisco Giants, and Philadelphia Phillies. That's only 11 out of the 30 MLB teams that get showcased.

Don't hold your breath to see a Cincinnati Reds-Pittsburgh Pirates game on Fox anytime soon. Ditto a Minnesota Twins-Toronto Blue Jays game.

I know Fox is in business to make money, but this is ridiculous. I remember seeing a much broader range of teams on NBC's broadcasts of Saturday afternoon baseball when I was growing up.  They would even show the small-market Minnesota Twins in years in which they would consistently finish fourth or fifth in their division. 

Of course, once the postseason begins, Fox or ESPN will broadcast every game, regardless of market size. Sadly though, with player free agency still running rampant, the large market teams naturally dominate and the small market teams rarely make it to the postseason. Therefore, the regular season is generally the only time these teams can be seen, and thanks to Fox, this has become a catch-22!

June 26, 2006

TV Shows I Wouldn't Watch, Even for Pay!

I would not watch any of the following TV shows, even if someone offered to pay me:

The Sopranos

Sex and the City

Will and Grace

Medium

Ellen

Dr. Phil

The Oprah Winfrey Show

The Simpsons

The Family Guy

Dancing with the Stars

The Apprentice

June 25, 2006

A Libertarian Who Opposes Gay Marriage?

How can one who claims to be a libertarian oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage? That's a question I get quite often. Yes, I am a libertarian (lower case "l", because I'm not a member of any political party) and yes, I oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage. However, I see no contradiction here.   

I believe people should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy as long as it doesn't directly and adversely affect someone else. I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy. What people, including gay and lesbian couples, consensually do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of my business and none of the government's business. Likewise, if gay and lesbian couples want to perform "marriage" ceremonies to celebrate their unions, that's fine with me. No one should be allowed to stop them.

However, when two people ask the state to officially acknowledge and/or sanction their union, the line is crossed from the private realm to the public realm. The state has the right to set the criteria for determining which unions it will officially recognize. The state sets the criteria based on the will of its people and their elected representatives. In other words, the state has the right to determine what it will recognize as a marriage and what it won't. That's it. It's not a matter of hate or denial of rights, as some gay and lesbian advocacy groups would have us believe. Would one say that the state hates those who under 15 years old because it won't grant them marriage licenses? Would one say that the state is denying rights to siblings because it won't recognize their "marriage" to each other?

To illustrate my point, let's suppose Joe Schmo is great guy. On his birthday, his friends always throw him an extravagant party and bring him lavish gifts. However, some of them soon decide that this isn't enough. They want the state to recognize his greatness as well. Therefore, they petition the state to declare Joe's birthday a state holiday. The state might respond as follows: "Yes, we know Joe's a super guy, but he doesn't yet rise to the level of someone like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or Martin Luther King. Therefore we feel that he doesn't merit a holiday." Now, does the state have the right to make this determination? Of course it does, and it also has that same right to set its criteria for recognizing marriages.

Anyway, I believe that at least part of the criteria for defining a marriage should be the requirement for it involve one man and one woman. Most Americans agree with me on this. However, I would actually go a few steps further and require that couples wait 60 days (without cohabitation) from the time they apply for marriage license before being allowed to get married. So much for those ridiculous "quickie" Las Vegas marriages! In addition, I would be in favor of making anyone who has been divorced three times ineligible for marriage. I say we should have true sanctity of marriage. Silly me!

June 24, 2006

Good Riddance to an Unfair Fight

I’m amazed at the number of retired military personnel who will lament the fact that drill sergeants are no longer allowed to physically strike recruits. It seems to me that it should be quite obvious as to why this practice was justifiably abolished – it was unfair because recruits weren’t allowed to strike back!

June 23, 2006

Will Hillary's 2008 Campaign Begin and End in 2007?

Will Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign crash and burn in 2007? Similar things have happened before. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two presidential campaigns that officially began and ended in the year before the election – Gary Hart in 1987 (although he futilely attempted to restart his campaign later that year) and Dan Quayle in 1999.

   

I see a distinct possibility that Hillary’s campaign could implode early next year, shortly after she officially announces her candidacy. Even now, at least eight months before her official announcement will come, her popularity with Democratic voters is starting to freefall. And that’s not supposed to happen to any candidate until after he or she announces. Yes, she’s probably collected the most money of any of the potential Democratic contenders so far, but that alone will not save her. Ask Howard Dean. If she sees the handwriting on the wall, I believe she will pull the plug quickly. She’s too proud to risk the humiliation of being drubbed in the primaries.

   

The problem with Hillary is that more and more Democrats are coming to grips with the fact that she probably could not win in the general election, even against the nominee of an unpopular Republican Party. I keep hearing the word “polarizing” coming from the mouths of many Democrats when they are asked about their opinion of her. That characteristic might be inconsequential in a state or district in which one party dominates, but it usually proves disastrous in a general election for President of the United States. Democrats have no desire to extend their presidential losing streak to three and therefore match the Carter-Mondale-Dukakis debacle of the 1980’s.

 

Also, as the stature of Red State Democrats like Evan Bayh and Mark Warner starts to rise, hers will likely diminish even further. Keep in mind that the last three Democrats to capture the White House came from what are now “red” states. The last time I checked, New York didn’t qualify.

June 22, 2006

Bush "Dynasty" Began on a Cold Night in Iowa

We are nearing the middle of the third Bush presidency, the second  of two for George W. Bush, which followed two for Bill Clinton, which followed one for George H.W. Bush. Whether the Bush presidencies should be called a dynasty is up for debate. What's probably not up for debate is the likelihood that there would have been no Bush presidencies had it not been for the events of a cold night in Iowa back in the winter of 1980.

On that night, a little known former CIA director and former one-term congressman named George H.W. Bush registered a stunning two-point margin of  victory over heavy favorite Ronald Reagan in the Iowa Republican Caucuses. Before that night, Bush was just one of a number of presidential wannabes who were hoping that some kind of miracle would allow them to seriously compete with Reagan for the GOP presidential nomination.

Had it not been for his performance that night, the Bush name would probably have disappeared into the mist of other political also-rans who were also challenging Reagan for the nomination - names like Phil Crane and John Anderson - and the elder Bush would likely have never been considered for Vice President, much less for President. Consequently, the younger Bush, without the political clout inherited from his father's two terms as Vice President and one term as President, would probably have remained just another obscure Texas businessman to this day.

By the way, who remembers Crane and Anderson? Probably no one but political junkies like me! Of course, there were some more well known contenders as well, like Bob Dole, John Connally, and Howard Baker. However, Bush's name recognition at that time was more at the level of Crane and Anderson.

At any rate, Bush's victory that night caught candidate Reagan and even seasoned political analysts by surprise. Reagan recovered from his loss in Iowa, scored a resounding victory in the New Hampshire Primary, and ultimately won the presidential nomination and the presidency. However, thanks to Bush's Iowa performance, Reagan's victory didn't come until after a long, arduous, and often nasty nomination fight with Bush that lasted throughout nearly the entire primary and caucus schedule. It put Bush, one-on-one, on the same political stage with Reagan, as if he were Reagan's political equal.

When Reagan's original choice for a running mate, former President Gerald Ford, turned him down, he tapped Bush, the only politician who was able to stand toe-to-toe with him that year and the only logical choice he felt that he had left. The rest, as they say, is history. 

June 21, 2006

Random Rants #53

The most difficult part of most any job is figuring out where to begin.       


President Bush should close down Gitmo as soon as possible. If we have enough evidence to hold the suspected terrorists being housed there, then we should have enough evidence to go ahead and charge them with something. Otherwise, we should return them to where they came from.


Lazy people constantly miss out on the satisfaction of a job well done.


If you'll truly look around, you will see much more to be happy and excited about than to be sad and depressed about. 


It's difficult to be depressed and busy at the same time.


Upper Peninsula: That piece of Michigan that looks as if it ought to belong to Wisconsin. 


Yesterday I saw the following posted on a church marquee: "Complaining displeases the Lord." Hmm...I wonder if its members will keep this in mind the next time another movie like The Da Vinci Code is released! 


No matter how comfortable a pair of new shoes might be, they still need some time to be broken in.

Blog Summary


  • No-holds-barred commentary (and humor) by Terry Mitchell on a variety of subjects such as current events, society and culture, politics, personal finance, technology, religion, health and well-being, sports, media issues, and trivia.

    His blog entries have been picked up or linked to by mainstream news services like Reuters, CNN, Wall Street Journal Online, USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Austin American-Statesman, the Dallas Morning News, the Chicago Sun Times, the Palm Beach Post, CoxOhio.com, Northwest Florida Daily News, ConsumerAffairs.com, WWL-TV, WMUR, and WNBC. In addition to his blogging, he is currently a regular columnist for etalkinghead.com and American Chronicle. He has also written over 100 feature-length articles that have appeared on numerous Web sites.

    In this blog, Terry will never miss an opportunity to assail political correctness or take pot shots at the conventional foolishness.

    In this age of information overload, Terry knows that most people don't have time to read long, rambling blog entries. Therefore, he serves up most of his posts on this blog in small, bite-size portions. You'll appreciate his cut-to-the-chase writing style that gets straight to the point without the unnecessary and boring lead-ins.

    Also, Terry makes following promises in regard to this blog that very few bloggers will make:

    1) Posts which are always family-friendly and free of profanity and vulgarity (despite this fact, this blog is never boring and never shies away from controversy).

    2) A reasonable effort to assure proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure.

    Readers are free to comment, both pro and con, on any post. However, any comments that include profanity or name-calling will be promptly deleted. One who cannot defend his position on a given issue without resorting to such tactics is, at best, too ignorant to adequately defend his position, and at worst, lacking a defensible position altogether.

    For Terry's biography (in his own words), see the "ABOUT" link on the left side of this page, just below his photo.

Search


  • Google
    Web This Blog

Ezine Articles Expert Author


  • EzineArticles.com/?expert=Terry__Mitchell Platinum Author