The Annoying Proliferation of TV Ads

 

adglitz.com

Ham on Wry has conducted an unofficial study of just how much time is actually devoted to TV programming.  The results will probably not surprise anyone who finds the bombardment of ads between program segments intolerable.  With respect to national evening news, time devoted to what now passes as news ranged from 21-22 minutes per half-hour.  The same findings apply to 30-minute TV shows.  Programs slotted for an hour's viewing time averaged 42-44 minutes.  No wonder many people choose to record their favorite programs. When convenient, they can fast forward over the commercials and enjoy the show.

As for morning programs, since they are based on 30-minute segments, they approximate the same results as any half-hour show, but with a major difference.  The on-air personalities spend a great deal of time in banter and idle chats, so much so, that when an interview occurs, it is frequently cut off for ads to run. Further, they tell the viewers what will follow at the beginning of each half hour. What a total waste of time!

I have noticed that average run-time for ads has decreased, but that doesn't mean less time is devoted overall.  It has actually increased over the past 10 years.  The most annoying part of the change occurs when the same ad runs twice, with the second airing coming immediately after the ad that runs between the two.  Advertisers must think that the audience comprises idiots with no capacity to retain information.  If I am watching a program live, I handle the situation by reading a newspaper, doing household chores, working on a Sudoku puzzle, or some other diversion.

Television viewing has morphed into a mind-numbing experience over the course of my life.  News programs no longer devote the entire program to hard news.  Instead, they opt for pieces about social media, or famous people with no talent like the Kardashians.  60 Minutes is one of the few programs that still deals with hard news and traditional journalistic pieces.  Anyone who wants in-depth reporting must subscribe to a newspaper or read articles online.

tvisnotdead.com

Most of us recognize the symbolic characters pictured above, although some are no longer in use.  I'm old enough to remember when few ads ran during a program, so that during most of the scheduled time, the viewer was seeing the show.  I don't recall that companies had any difficulty selling their products then.  We still had to eat, drink, and be merry.  Perhaps advertisers should consider how many people actually watch their ads and are convinced to buy the product.  I have joined the record-now-and-watch-later bunch.  It saves time and aggravation. 

Read More

Gun Rights Advocates Shout at Newtown Victim's Father

J

Jessica Hill/AP

Once again, Ham on Wry posts on gun control because the nuttiness continues.  Barbara Mattson, a firearm training units detective with the Connecticut State Police displays a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle like the one Adam Lanza used in his massacre of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary.  Parents of children killed in that tragedy testified at a legislative hearing Monday, calling for improved enforcement of existing gun laws and stricter penalties for violators.

Jessica Hill/AP

Neil Heslin, who lost his son Jesse in the shooting, showed his emotion when he told the audience how difficult it was for him to see Jesse lying in a casket.  He then asked why any civilian would need to own an assault-style weapon, at which point a handful of gun advocates heckled him shouting about their Second Amendment rights.  Clearly, these people have no regard for civil discourse or respect for those who have lost loved ones when such weapons were used, and I suspect all belong to the NRA.

Wake up, crazed gun advocates!  No one is asking you to give up your constitutional rights to own a gun.   Reasonable, clear-thinking people want a common sense approach to gun ownership, and that doesn't describe the current situation.  Statistics show that our nation has the highest rate of gun deaths in any of the world's developed countries.  Adam Lanza could not have killed so many children and adults so horribly and quickly, if his mother hadn't had a stash of guns, including the Bushmaster AR-15.  Assault weapons belong in the hands of the military and law enforcement agencies, not citizens.  No one yet has provided a sound reason for anyone who uses guns for legal purposes to own assault rifles, bulletproof vests, or multi-round ammunition clips designed for maximum damage.  That includes NRA spokesperson Wayne LaPierre, who claims that assault weapons have use in sports.  What sport is that, Mr. LaPierre--kill those who disagree with you?

Gun proponents need to read the Second Amendment and remember the framers' purpose in writing it.  At that time in American history, no standing army existed, so they wanted to give citizens the right to protect themselves in times of war.  The men who drafted the United States Constitution and the amendments that followed had roots in countries ruled by monarchies and despots who could take anything they wanted at will.  They could not possibly have envisioned a time when weapons would exist to massacre large numbers of people, and they certainly wouldn't have thought about the kinds of slayings that occur with modern weapons.

In case some gun advocates still believe that the Second Amendment gives them the right to any and all weapons, I say get a grip!  That kind of thinking provides the very foundation for the Adam Lanza's of the world to wreak havoc on innocent victims.  Your right to gun ownership doesn't trump the inalienable right of American citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  You take away that right when you promote ownership of weapons designed purely to kill large numbers of people.  For once, approach this issue with reason and compromise.

Read More

Reflections on Lincoln's Presidency and Its Current Relevance

biography.com

Abraham Lincoln's courage against what his party, the Republican Party, believed were insurmountable odds of passing the thirteenth amendment by January 31st, 1865, formed the backdrop for the movie Lincoln.  This blogger finally saw the film Sunday and found it moving and insightful.  It set the stage for today's post by revealing the stark contrasts between that president and congress and our current president and congress.

The Civil War had raged for four years when Lincoln was re-elected, and he wanted passage of the thirteenth amendment to ensure that slaves whom he freed with the Emancipation Proclamation would return to slavery when the war ended, if they didn't have constitutional legality to remain free.  Since I learned history as a plethora of names, events and dates rather than an exploration of the times, the undercurrents that affected the politicians and citizens of the day, and a macro view of the details that spurred change, I had not previously studied that period with the depth that the movie did.  I saw determination, chicanery, machinations, steadfastness, bribery, and heated debate as President Lincoln worked to get enough votes to pass the amendment. 

The greatest surprise that awaited me as I watched the plot unfold was the Republican Party.  Its members had the progressive view that all men were created equal and supported freedom for Negroes, as they were identified in those times.  The Democrats offered strong opposition to the thirteenth amendment, but, eventually, enough voted "Aye" that it became law.  What a contrast that event offers to today's political landscape.

Congress today is ruled by thoughts of re-election and staying in the good graces of major supporters, such as the NRA, which creates roadblocks to doing the work the public expects.  While the House of Representative of 1865 heatedly debated the thirteenth amendment (the Senate had already passed it), today's House of Representatives has a deplorable record of absenteeism during the discussion of bills that have been brought before it.  Thus, many members don't hear the discussions of pros and cons offered before a bill becomes law.  In fact, some of the bills have onerously long contents that representatives don't take time to read, so they rely on others for their opinions.  Much is lost in this process, which defies the framers intention for the congress to answer solely to the people and not special interests.

Many citizens have lost confidence in our governing bodies and express disappointment that President Obama did not deliver on his promise to substantively change business as usual and bring compromise back to congress.  Clearly, a certain irony exists that a black man takes the oath of office for the second time in a period of great turmoil, albeit a different kind than existed in Lincoln's day.  Obama has a second chance to effect the kind of change that he promised the first time around.  Perhaps the memory of Lincoln 's relentless pursuit of what he believed crucial to America's continuation will inspire a deeper commitment in President Obama to dedicate himself to doing the right thing.

Read More

NRA Ad Uses Inflammatory Content

Wayne LaPierre/AP file photo

The NRA released an ad Wednesday, prior to President Obama's announcement of gun control proposals he wants Congress to consider, along with 23 executive actions he signed that day.  The ad poses the question, "Are the president's kids more important that yours?," and then claims that Obama is an "elitist hypocrite" because he disagrees with the NRA's proposal of placing armed guards at every school, although his daughters Malia and Sasha are protected by guards.  Despicable in its choice of content, the ad fails to recognize the the First Family has Secret Service protection by law  because they are targets by the very nature of the position the president holds.  To insinuate that Obama believes all kids are less important than his own is absolutely absurd.  Anyone who viewed his response to the Sandy Hook massacre couldn't have missed the emotion and grief he felt over the tragedy.

Ham on Wry  knows NRA members who have a more balanced view than the leadership spouts publicly, and it's time for the membership to demand a return to common sense regarding gun ownership in America.  Nicholas Kristof cited a study on the opinion page of Friday's Tampa Bay Times from Southern Medical Journal 2010, which reported that a gun is 12 times more likely to result in killing a member or guest of a household than an intruder.  Myriad studies reveal that the rate of gun death in the United States outpaces any other developed nation by a minimum multiple of 2.25.  While Canada had a rate of 2.5 deaths per 100,000 people in 2009, the United States had 10.2 deaths per 100,000 according to the Coalition for Gun Control.

Wayne LaPierre's philosophy of "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" pretty much sums up an extreme philosophy that has brought America to something akin to an armed camp.  Ham on Wry sees no defense for owning assault rifles and ammunition designed for war.  This country is devolving into an armed camp under the LaPierre philosophy, and my father would be turning over in his grave to see the way the NRA has changed since he died.  LaPierre and his ilk fail to consider the intent the framers had in including the second amendment.  I suggest that he study it more carefully and consider the many documents available that explain the reason for it.  It was definitely not written under the premise of "all guns, all the time, for all reasons" as LaPierre seems to believe.

NRA members who believe that he is too radical in his views should force him out.  Americans want to feel safe, but not at the cost of putting guns in the hands of people who shouldn't own them.  I know.  I know.  Criminals will find a way to buy guns, but we don't have to make it so easy for them.  Assault rifles belong only in the hands of the military for which they were designed and other enforcement officers who have valid reasons to carry them.  It's time for everyone to speak up and support solutions that can work.

Read More

President Obama Announces Gun Control Proposals

President Obama proposed sweeping changes to gun control laws Wednesday that would reinstate a ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004, requite mandatory background checks on all gun sales, and ban the sales of multi-round ammunition clips, which exceed 10 rounds.  Predictably, the NRA immediately cried "foul" and proclaimed, "Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation."  Perhaps the NRA spokesperson should pay attention to the content of the letters Obama received from Sandy Hook students imploring him to enact gun control  measures or listen to the ideas of the parents who lost children in the Sandy Hook massacre.

Ham on Wry calls on citizens to take a solid stand against the NRA's rhetoric that people, not guns, kill people.  The NRA should listen to some of its own members and other gun ownership advocates who see no reason for citizens to own an assault rifle,  Now is the time for advocating common-sense laws that will make it difficult for people to own a gun if they can't pass a background check and can't purchase assault rifles with ammunition designed to kill as many targets as possible. 

Florida Senator Marco Rubio immediately joined the fray by stating, "“Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence."  Please explain why law-abiding citizen need assault rifles, Rubio.  Do true sports enthusiasts use assault rifles when they hunt animals, skeet shoot, or practice shooting on targets?   Your claim is absolutely ludicrous, yet I would expect you to pander to the NRA in hopes it will support you in a future run for President.  Let me state this another way.  No true sportsperson needs an assault rifle with multi-round clips exceeding ten rounds, nor would that person balk at a background check.

President Obama is not operating under an illusion that his proposals would mitigate against all acts of gun violence.  During his speech, he invoked a grasp of reality, by stating,"While there is no law, or set of laws, that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try, and I’m going to do my part."

Obama signed 23 executive actions as part of his plan, which don't require Congressional action.  Congressional action?  That is an oxymoron in light of the 112th Congress's failure to make substantive progress during the last session.  Ham and Wry issues a challenge to the 113th Congress.  Don't allow future political donations or organizational bullies to overshadow conscience when you consider Obama's proposals.  Use reason and logic, please!  The framers of the United States Constitution did not write the Second Amendment to promote gun ownsership at all costs.  None could foresee the development of assault rifles and ammunition designed to obliterate a target.

Read More

Exactly two years ago today near Tucson, Arizona, a gunman shot former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords several times, killed six people, and wounded twelve others in his attempt to kill Giffords.  In an ironic twist, Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly marked that anniversary by announcing the formation of Americans for Reasonable Solutions to focus efforts on establishing stricter gun control policies in this country.

Finally, some high profile citizens have taken the first step to create a common sense approach to gun ownership.  This blogger has written on the subject of gun control before and doesn't want to harp on it.  No, wait a minute!  I do want to harp on it, because the NRA has warped any sense of sanity that previously existed about a sound approach to the type of guns, ammunition, and background checks that should constitute legal ownership.  Some of the spokespeople for the NRA spout nonsense that more guns in more people's hand will make us safer.  Ridiculous!  All one has to do is research the number of people killed by guns in America and contrast that number with every other first world country.  Check it for yourself, readers.  It should both shock and sadden you.

Ham on Wry supports the second amendment and has no desire to disarm those who have a legal right to own guns and can demonstrate they are of sound mind.  This requires background checks and a limit on the type of guns available to people who aren't part of a law enforcement agency of some type.  No one can ever convince me that assault rifles are acceptable defense weapons for private citizens.  They were developed for the military and designed to fire multiple rounds in order to as many people as possible.

It is far past time for the silent majority to raise its voice in support of making changes to the status quo of gun ownership.  Take assault rifles off the shelves, along with the ammunition used in them, and close the loopholes that exist for weapons purchase at gun shows.  Anyone who buys a gun, publicly or privately, should be required to undergo a background check before the purchase.  Now Americans for Reasonable Solutions can be our voice.  Thank you Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly for taking on the" elephant in the room" that we have long ignored. 

Read More

John Boehner Wins Another Round as House Speaker

 

 

Ham on Wry has lost all confidence in the House of Representatives, not that much confidence existed in that branch of the 112th Congress after its failure to make substantive advances in legislation that could actually benefit this country's citizens.  The Speaker of the House historically used the power granted to that position to push through bills and accomplish something worthwhile.  In that regard, Boehner has failed miserably and shows no signs of improvement in his latest performance dealing with tax legislation that required a special session New Year's Day for the House to approve a deal struck between the Senate and the Administration before the deadline.

With responsibilities for stemming rising debt, balancing the budget, establishing a more common sense tax code, and a plethora of other issues the 113th Congress, which was sworn in today, must consider, the House of Representatives will, once again, hold the American people hostage, while its members check in the with the sponsors who pull their strings.  Many representatives have forgotten to whom they owe allegiance--the citizens of the United States, not the special interest groups.

Ham on Wry desperately hopes that voters pay close attention to the representatives from their districts and use their power to eliminate any members that don't recall who elected them and act according to the wishes of the electorate.  It's past time to demand that our representatives do their job and negotiate with those that don't share their views in order to reach compromise.  Those who obdurately vote in lock step with a party mentality instead of focusing on what's best for the country, should be summarily fired during the next election.  The United States is running out of time to get it right, and I don't think John Boehner has demonstrated the kind leadership that can spur action during his previous term.  He has perfected a permanent scowl, but that doesn't do much to move the country forward. 

Does us all a favor, Speaker Boehner.  Step down so we have a chance for real leadership.

Read More