Trimming the Fatellite

Will satellite radio succeed, a question people are asking especially in light of this merger of the two Sat giants, XM and Sirius. I am going to say "No", at least for this week. I reserve the right to change my opinion in light of the facts, something politicians should consider doing.

I say "no", but with the caveat that I enjoy satellite radio. I do not subscribe to it, nor was I standing in Union Square a few years back when Howard Stern was giving them away. I have friends who swear by it, but in reality, they don't know what they're swearing to. Satellite radio is good, but it's really Howard Stern they enjoy. No one is swearing by XM, and/or their programming like Opie and Anthony, the one-time heir apparent(s).

Howard Stern is good. Actually, I'll take that a few steps further. The Howard Stern Show is absolutely-rigoddamndiculous, and even more so if you've worked in radio. If I was driving to work every day, or, if I even received a few radio for the home, I might actually subscribe. Well, I don't, and I didn't, so I haven't.

Outside of Howard, as good as the music can be, it's still just music, and still just different stations. It's not revolutionary in that regard. And as far as quality goes, I still cannot go under a bridge without fear of missing a jam (my sister has it in her truck, and I occasionally borrow it). FM is as good, if not better, when in range.

With all of these things being so, what happens if Howard Stern were to bounce back to terrestrial radio? It could happen! He has hordes of cash, so that's not an issue, and he has a contract that will expire. The guy only cares about being relevant, and right now, outside of his 1 million+ fans, no one really cares. He used to be in the news constantly, but now, not really at all. He will either retire, or go back to the old school. When he does, sayonora satellite radio. Merge, do whatever you want, but great programming is great programming, and outside of Howard, it's just the same programming you may have received for free, or elsewhere. If the host of the show was that good, you would have had said host in your city. But you haven't, because he/she is not, and programmers haven't developed a new talent in ages (don't think they're going to either...syndication is easier).

BUT, on some level satellite could survive, but they'd have to take heavy losses, and make major pay cuts to do so. Sirius, for one, has so many employees, so much studio space (they can sell, I guess), have invested so much into the machine itself, and pays so much in rent and wages. All of these things will have to be cut back, bigtime. People will not pay the fees, especially post-Howard, to support the entity. Combining with XM will certainly help make cuts, but not really. You'll still be talking about the same type of entity, with as many shows under one roof, as opposed to two, won't have the big time host to carry you, etc. etc.

This new entity will have to trim the fat in a big way, make employees do more for less (which isn't THAT hard with the few radio jobs that remain, relatively speaking to the past), and charge people less than they're charging now. Of course, this shrinks revenues.

I'm saying it COULD survive. COULD. But certainly not in its current form.

I like satellite radio, but that's because I LOVE RADIO, period. I'm more rare than common. Again, good product, I enjoy it, but with all the options afforded to people these days, satellite radio is going to die before it even reaches pre-school.

That's my bet.

Iraq Going Forward

I don't watch enough TV to know if this is being covered, but I certainly read enough newspapers (should they be called newspapers if you read them online), to know it's not being written about, or at least not in a place I can find it.

There are 3 Iraqs, as noted before, and I do not mean the Sunni, Shi'a and Kurdish versions. I mean the Bush, McBain, and Realist versions.

First, lets start with Senator McBain, a man so tough he's willing to let other die for decades.

McBain is trying to use the Iraq War to his advantage now, but will certainly straightshoot his way in another direction if he were to be elected. See, Iraq has no solid answers right now, unless you're a Democrat. Their answer is "bring the troops home", albeit at glacial speeds. In truth, Democrats know it'll take FOREVER to bring everyone home, since it took months and months and months and years to get us out of the first Gulf War, which didn't even last more than a year. McBain doesn't have this option, so he needs a stance almost as easy, and clearly tougher sounding: stay forever.

Easy, tough, doesn't need to be explained. Perfect......for now.

If McBain is to be elected President his tune would ring a lot differently, I can assure you. He's a Senator, after all, and part of his appeal is working well with others. Well, others want to leave Iraq, so once elected, which is the only thing he cares about, he'll acknowledge the situation as being a bad one, pass the blame a bit, and start the withdrawal. He will no longer need to sound tough since his "mission" will have been "accomplished", and those who voted for him will no longer care. Assuming he promises to lower taxes, of course.

Then there's Bush's Iraq, vowing to push on in the Middle East, for now. Again, what choice does this moron have? He started this thing, there's no victory in sight, nor will there be, so it's time to do what he does best: PASS IT ON...

This dude is the king of the cooties...pass it on...

Bush cannot do anything else, so by saying we'll stay in Iraq longer, or not draw down troops, he can maintain his bullshit/fake image of being tough. From here on out, this is all he will have. Ahhh, but for one thing, he has that one thing! If McBain were to draw down the troops, Bush can say, "we should have stayed...things were getting better..." If McBain stays in Iraq, conservatives can wait FOREVER (until we forget, or a larger war comes), and keep saying, "Iraq is going to be a Democracy." This is all Bush has to stand on, so he figures why not keep this thing going until I'm no longer responsible? Blame me, I don't care, no one likes me anyway.

So what happens if McBain wins this thing?

Prediction: Bush v. McBain

McBain will get his revenge on Bush for 2000 by blaming him for Iraq, and saying we need to move on from this battle; Bush will stick to his guns, of course. Yes, Senator McBain may have voted to goto war, but that doesn't mean he voted to fuck things up as bad as Bush has. There's a difference, people. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.

This is why we have the stances we have now. Bush cannot back down now for as bad as his legacy is, it has hope, in his eyes. For without the hope of a peaceful Iraq he has nothing. McBain has nowhere else to turn before the election, so he's going with the tough guy card. Then there's the inevitable stance Democrats have had for a long time, which neither man can adopt.

So that's the reason we have the 3 stances we're currently reading about, in simple form.


---------

Sidenote:

Notice in the NYTIMES/IHT today, in the linked article, that Bush mentions how we needed to infuse troops into the region to avoid defeat.

"Fifteen months ago, Americans were worried about the prospect of failure in Iraq," he said, sounding a triumphant note about his decision last year to send 30,000 additional troops. "Today, thanks to the surge, we've renewed and revived the prospect of success."

Now tell when he ever even hinted at the prospect of defeat during his entire Presidency, or at least around the time of the surge. Yeah, you know it never happened. Ahhh, but now it is acknowledged on some level to justify the surge, or the continued deployment of others.

If he really ever did listen to Americans he would be removing the troops. Using their collective "worry" as justification for anything makes him a hypocrite, which would be nothing new for this jackass.

Drattniks

Here's what Todd McShay of Scout.com and ESPN does not know: Vernon Gholston is a stud.

Gholston, a 6'4, 260lb rush end/linebacker from Ohio State is an absolute beast. McShay is now saying Gholston is overrated, and should not be in the Top 10. Keep listening to this guy and you'll have a franchise resembling the Arizona Cardinals.

What makes Gholston's so impressive are not his numbers, per se, but his numbers in spite of the youth of the rest of the defensive line! Gholston lined up along side of all freshman and sophomores, most of whom were undersized, and yet he still managed to dominate without the rest of the team providing pressure up front.

In big games, Gholston came up huge. Against LSU in the National Title Game, he recorded the only sack. Against Michigan in 2007, he absolutely dominated, forcing Jake Long into his only sack given up for the season. Against Penn State he was a one man wrecking crew. Against Wisconsin, he was huge. In games that mattered, Gholston mattered.


Highlights.

This guy is going to be a dominant player, period.

6'4, 260lbs, fast.

This Week on "Straightshootin' McCain"

Previously on "Straightshootin' McCain"

“it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers,”

This week McCain swings back the other way, showing us the emotional McCain. This character, he can do it all:

Senator John McCain, who drew criticism last month after he warned against broad government intervention to solve the deepening mortgage crisis, pivoted Thursday and called for the federal government to aid some homeowners in danger of losing their homes, by helping them to refinance and get federally guaranteed 30-year mortgages.

“There is nothing more important than keeping alive the American dream to own your home, and priority No. 1 is to keep well-meaning, deserving homeowners who are facing foreclosure in their homes,” Mr. McCain said in a speech on economic themes that he gave at a window company in the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn.

Such a show he's putting on for us. No one knows which way he's going to go next.

Stay tuned for more on "Straightshootin' McCain!"

Traders

Well, they've been so accurate lately, especially bond traders, but, Traders are apparently picking up Obama to win. Ballsy!

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton will win several state nominating contests in the coming months but has little chance of becoming the party's candidate for the November 2008 election, traders were betting on Tuesday.
(Advertisement)

Traders in the Dublin-based Intrade prediction market gave Democratic front-runner Barack Obama an 86 percent chance of being the Democratic presidential nominee, versus a 12.8 percent for Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady.

Keep in mind, Traders also picked Kerry the day of the election.

It's Never Going to Happen

This is something I could have told you 1 month after the beginning of the war in Iraq: It's Never Going to Happen, period, the end.

Journalists and opinion makers can wax on and on about whether oil revenues being spent is a better idea, or if fixing it from the bottom up, as David Brooks suggests, will make it work, or dividing it into 3 parts (the best solution) is going to make it better, but in the end, you're just wasting your collective breaths.

Iraq, not in its current form, nor in any not-too-distant-future form will ever be a functioning nation devoid of any major problems. Sorry folks, but that's the reality of the situation.

We went in with absurd dreams, and only now do those dreams look even more absurd than they did at the time they were being sold to us. You cannot drop a vase on the floor and put it back together. That's what we're dealing with.

So have your meetings on Capitol Hill, let the candidates for President make their cases, allow columnists who have been wrong day after day, week after week, month after month, to tell us what's going to fix the problem next, but in truth, you know, I know, and everyone else who is realistic about this situation knows, this is NEVER GOING TO WORK, period, the end.

I can only assume the reason we're there now is to make sure Iran doesn't dominate Iraq in the near term. I figure that over time the Iran/Iraq/US relationship will change, and then we'll have to worry less about Iranian dominance/influence in Iraq. Of course, this will not happen under the current regime, obviously, and maybe not the next. But only when we fear Iran less will politicians make a real push to get out. For now, we're going nowhere. The place isn't getting fixed, and everyone knows it. Preventing bigger problems is the current goal, and until we see a future where bigger problems will not arise, we will be there.

Nice work, Republicans.

Where are the flowers and the candies?

Assholes.

Deportes

First off, cheers to me for winning my NCAA pool 3 years running. Go Kansas!

Second, and no surprise, Sean Hannity continues to be a fucking tool.

Watch this video of his show, discussing MMA, ignoring every point, and every FACT the guests are making. Phenomenal stuff.

Best part is towards the end when he makes the comment about his guest trying to gain from this, and his guest's comment about how Hannity called him and that he's the one gaining. So funny.

Ignorance and opportunism, the way of the Conservative Commentator.

"Protecting children..." of course.