Bill Clark

Political ads—we’ve all seen them. They start off extolling the virtues of each candidate, showing what a great person so-and-so is and telling us all about the great things he or she will do when they’re voted into office. As the primaries come and go, the frequency of these ads rises. Instead of seeing one or two a night, we start to see one or two per commercial break. Not only does the frequency change, but so does the tune. Now instead of hearing each candidate talk about themselves, it turns to the candidates talking about each other: how this guy voted against that, and how that guy voted against this. It starts out with the candidates “showing concern” for their constituents and how they’d be a better fit for them and how they’d look out for them better, and it quickly deteriorates into a mudslinging grudge-match with each candidate disparaging their opponent as strongly as he or she can.

That’s what it’s like here in Massachusetts today, the day before the special election to fill the seat left vacant upon the passing of the late Senator Edward Kennedy. Martha Coakley and Scott Brown are vying to fill the open seat in the Senate. For those that haven’t yet decided who they’re voting for—yes, there are those that still think about who they’re voting for, rather than just voting the party line—these ads have become useless. They’re now just vicious attacks on character, neither candidate can claim that they have the best interests of the public at heart anymore. And then the “non-candidate” ads are thrown into the mix. Democrats Coalition for This, Republican Election Coalition for That. Now it’s their turn to attack the opposing party’s candidate, with the sole purpose of getting people to vote Democrat or Republican. No longer is it “For the People”, now it’s just “For the Power”.

While my mind has been made up for weeks as to who I’m voting for, I can understand the bewilderment of anyone tuning into the media to help make a decision. If my mind weren’t already made up, I’d be at the point where I don’t want to vote for either of them, and not because of the reason you might be thinking. While one might think that both candidates are the devil incarnate after watching a few ads from each party, frankly I’m just disgusted at what a ridiculous mess the race has become. For a month now, the only ads you see on TV or hear on the radio are personal attacks and character assassination.

Once. Just once I would like to see a candidate run a good, clean campaign from start to finish. Talk about yourselves. What will you do for Massachusetts, for your country, and for me as a voter? Truth be told, you don’t give a damn what voters want anymore, you just want to be prom king or queen. You want the popularity and the power to do whatever you please, vote as your respective party wants you to or as will benefit you, and ignore what benefits your constituents.

I put it to all of you, every last politician, run a clean campaign and I’ll vote for you—I don’t give a damn what party you are. Put the voters first, and you’ll gain votes, it’s as simple as that.

UPDATE: I was watching the news on Boston’s Fox 25 last night from 5:30-6:30, and every commercial break consisted of nothing but Scott Brown & Martha Coakley trash-talking ads, with non-campaign trash-talking endorsements interspersed here and there. Absolutely annoying. We know about the election by now–give it a rest!

I just read an article on CNN Money entitled Why Cable is Going to Cost You More, which points out that the average cable bill has and will continue to rise about 5% per year. Today, the average cable bill is roughly $75 per month. This means that in 5 years, we’ll be paying $95 per month for the same TV we’re getting now. They go on to say that much of the cost increase has to do with upgrading their networks to handle high definition and on-demand content, as well as increased broadcast TV carriage costs. To help combat these costs, cable companies might not just add a single line item to your cable bill, but rather increase costs of services across the board to make up the different. For example, they may charge more for video on demand, digital video recorder service, and other services they offer.

The article points out that times are changing and advertising dollars are dropping on broadcast TV, so the broadcast networks are demanding higher fees for cable companies to carry their channels. Another blow is dealt to cable companies in the loss of customers to web-based television.

It seems to me that the loss of customers points to a deeper issue. While it’s all well and good that cable companies are upgrading their fiber optic networks to help carry new higher-bandwidth content, it seems that none of these companies want to innovate and provide a service that web-based television and others can’t compete with. Sure, DVR was a welcome addition to my cable system, but that was nearly 5 years ago. What has Comcast done for me recently? My cable modem speed has gone up to 22Mbps from 15Mbps. That’s nice, can’t really complain there. But what about their television service? The cable boxes I’ve been provided in the past few years have all sucked. They lock up a few times a month, they’re slow to change channels, and the interactive guide feature just plan stinks. It hasn’t seen a facelift in years, and it’s terrible compared to Verizon’s offering on FiOS.

Let’s go back to broadcast TV fees and advertising for a minute. Now that broadcast TV networks are demanding fees for their programming, what does that spell for the future of television? If they have a guaranteed revenue stream from cable providers, they don’t have to worry about advertising quite as much, which may translate into lower quality programming. We’ve already got enough lower-budget reality TV as it is. Do we really need another season of The Bachelor or Survivor? Sure, it costs the networks less to produce than a “real” TV show, but with less of a need for advertising dollars, what incentive is there for broadcast networks to create programming that people will actually want to watch? Too many great shows have been canceled to make way for more reality TV because it costs less.

Another issue that I see is the “double-dipping” that the broadcast networks are getting away with. Their programming is freely available to anyone with a television and an antenna in their local broadcast area. If cable companies are providing the broadcast networks’ feeds via the cable network only to those in the local broadcast area, why is it acceptable for the broadcast companies to demand fees from cable carriers? I don’t think they should be able to have it both ways. If they want to charge for their content being provided outside of a local broadcast area, that’s fine, but if you can’t charge for it over the air, don’t charge my cable company to provide it to me. The cable companies don’t make any money off the advertising on the local broadcast channels, and they cannot preempt commercial breaks with their own advertisements.

I guess this is what it comes down to: If networks want more advertising dollars, they need to create programming that people will watch, not just the slop reality TV that half the country watches just because it’s there. And if cable companies want to stop losing customers to web-based television and other technologies, they need to start innovating beyond their current offerings. How about integrating a Slingbox-like feature into cable boxes that allows me to watch on-demand and DVR programming on my computer or iPhone anywhere in the world? Strike a deal with Slingbox. I know there are costs associated with all of this, but if prices are going to rise anyway, how about giving me something new for my money?

On Monday, I started the One Hundred Pushups program as part of the exercise I’ll be doing during my participation in the Health Challenge, which I wrote about earlier. I’ve read about the program before, but never really saw myself being able to do one hundred consecutive pushups. Since I’m making an effort to get myself into better shape, I figured this would be a good start.

The One Hundred Pushups program is a 6 week training program designed to take you from any starting point to being able to perform one hundred consecutive pushups. It consists of an initial test where you perform as many good form consecutive pushups you can muster without resting. Once you have your results of the initial test, you move onto Week 1. Each week has a small chart prescribing how many pushups you should perform each day during the week, based on how many pushups you were able to perform during your initial test.

Each week of the program consists of 3 days of working out, so I did my initial test on Sunday and started my week on Monday. This way, I’ll be doing pushups on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with rest days in between and weekends off. I will fill those days with other exercise, most likely cardio and sit-ups/crunches.

To keep track of my progress, I’m using the website’s companion iPhone app, aptly named Hundred PushUps (iTunes link). Not only does it track your progress, but it also helps with during your workout, telling you how many reps you have to do in each set and counting out your rest periods. It’s got a simple, clean interface that makes it easy to use while working out.

Hopefully in 6 weeks I’ll be able to do one hundred consecutive pushups. In the meantime, I’ll post regular updates here on my progress on both the One Hundred Pushups program and the Health Challenge.

One Hundred Pushups website: http://www.hundredpushups.com