Kivus

The Republican presidential candidates rolled through the heart of South Carolina in the year 2000, I was right in the middle of the action. I remember both John McCain & George W. Bush coming to the Clemson campus, and the feud among the guys on my hall about which one should carry the Republican mantle in that year’s presidential election. Though Senator McCain arrived in the Palmetto state with momentum from Iowa and New Hampshire, President Bush’s win in the state was what sent him on the path to eventual Republican nomination and ultimately the presidency. South Carolina was the first state to get the Republican nomination right and I cast a ballot in that very primary, South Carolina and I were king makers.

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.

For a number of weeks I took a break. I took a break from listening to the constant dumb beat of the media doom and gloom, I took a break from listening to people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid spew forth their ideas to “fix” our country, and I took a break from the presidential election. After years of following everything so closely, I needed to recharge. Now, since we’re actually in an presidential election year, I’ve started following things closely again. Based on what I’ve seen and heard, here’s my run down of presidential candidates:

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.

We’ll start off this recap by examining some of the “produced” segments. The first such segment, entitled _Feature Story_ featured an interview with John Edwards. It was a pretty predictable affair as he’s getting his hair cut, has a facial mask on, cucumbers on his eyes, etc…all while talking about the concept of his “two Americas”. The other “in-studio” segment was dealt with the issue of immigration. It was a parody on the typical “immigration debate” staged on cable news shows, where they put a true expert on the topic up versus someone who just spouts populist rhetoric. The rhetoric, of course, is a big winner with the crowd and the expert hardly gets a word in. The final produced segment was a “man on the street” type segment, where the question was asked, “would you vote for a black man?” This was then taken to extreme by asking things like “would you vote for a leper?”, “would you vote for a dwarf?”…resulting in nearly everyone answering “yes” to all questions, except “would you vote for a woman?” which would got some mixed results.

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.

Yes, it’s true. Existing in the wild today are conservatives who are in their twenties. Of course, when we go out, we normally have film crews following us: “Watch them enter those buildings. They come here every Sunday. We think they’re called churches” the narrator says. “Then after attending these ‘churches’, they go home, and watch cars drive quite quickly in a circle. It’s a growing sport, known as ‘NASCAR.’ We have yet to fully understand the rules, but we think it has something to do with the different colored flags they wave from time to time.” As far as the media and our peers are concerned, we might as well be some rare species.

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.

One issue that most of the web media (i.e. podcasters, tech news websites, etc…) seems to have a consensus opinion on is Net Neutrality, namely: the government should step in and regulate the internet to prevent companies from distributing bandwidth via free market principles. It’s for this reason that the term “Net Neutrality” can be simply defined as “government regulation of the internet.”

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.

It’s a familiar refrain among people in the “young” media (i.e. shows who have a target audience the skews towards late teens, early 20s). It normally comes out like this “Yeah, well, I thought we have freedom of speech in this country…”. That simple phrase is used to defend all sorts of questionable comments by people from Bill Mahr to Rosie O’Donnell. What the people making the claim of freedom of speech are upset about, however, is not the right someone has to say something, it’s the fact that people might face some consequences for what they say. Though people have the right to say what they want, other people are allowed to react to what the first person says, and it’s this second part of the equation that’s usually forgotten.

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.

In order to properly discuss a number of important issues of the day (immigration, gasoline prices, net neutrality, etc..) a certain level of economic education is required. Now, I’m not talking about some of the stuff you’ll learn in your standard Econ 101 or Econ 102 class, all of the jargon, some of the more advanced supply curve stuff…I’m talking about the type of common sense economics you’d learn in a book like Thomas Sowell’s _Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy_. Though I’ve taken those economics classes in college, I’ve found that I’ve learned more from reading Dr. Sowell’s book than I did during the 2 semesters of economics education in school. I will try to use the knowledge I’ve accumulated over the years to try and explain a couple of fairly basic, yet commonly misunderstood items.

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.

With a few shows under their belt, the crew of the 1/2 Hour News Hour seem to working out which segments are simple one shots and which segments will be recurring. In this particular episode, we get 2 recurring segments: “The Evolving Male” and “Conspiracy Corner.” “The Evolving Male” has the same male character as last week, but this time discussing his relationship with his son instead of his relationship with his wife. It’s fairly predictable stuff, talk about how he doesn’t consider himself a “parent”, that he and his son are “equals” and though he doesn’t “toss a baseball” at his son, he does toss “life choices.” As you can imagine, the kid is uninterested and disrespectful. Meanwhile, this week’s “Conspiracy Corner” tackled the issue of the the levee breaks after Hurricane Katrina. The “conspiracy” is that the levees broke because of massive rainfall, that resulted in flooding. Though the host for this segment is a little over the top, his recounting of some the real conspiracy theories (how do we know the levees weren’t blown up under water?) was a pretty solid enumeration of some of the garbage that’s thrown out there surrounding the national disaster.

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.

I recently posted the 1992 Speech from Al Gore, where he describes the threat Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed to America and the World at large. I got a response from an Al Gore fan, that rehashed some of the arguments the Democrat Party uses to explain how they could say that Saddam was a threat in 2000, 2001 but still say the war was a mistake. Since it was pretty standard stuff, I won’t repost it here, I’ll simply repost my reply:

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.

After a strong showing last week, the 1/2 Hour News Hour did a pretty good job on their follow up effort. The overall solid show however, is overshadowed by Dennis Millers’ _The Buck Starts Here_ segment, a segment that absolutely annihilated the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Though I will describe the video, it’s truly something that you have to see for yourself:

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.