Pretty much everyone can see how great this service is; after all even with DVRs and TiVos becoming more and more common, it is virtually impossible not to occasionally miss your favorite program.  And if you’re like me, sometimes it is just impossible not to miss a show you want to watch because another show is on at the same time.  But even with the large user base Hulu has started to amass, they purportedly are struggling to make a profit leading the companies that jointly run Hulu, NBCU, News Corp, and Disney, to announce the service is going to transition to a paid model sometime in 2010.  It is currently unclear whether this would be a pay-for-use model like iTunes or if it would be a subscription model, but either way it is my belief that charging for content will backfire and cause Hulu to do even worse in the long run.

ABC, NBC, and Fox (I don’t know about CBS, because I don’t watch anything on CBS) have provided their shows on their websites for maybe two years under the same sort of system as Hulu, but with the introduction of a centralized, single site where users can go to get all their favorite shows, Hulu has become the standard for online TV.  People have come to expect a free site where they can go to watch their TV shows, and with the largest user demographic for Hulu being people under the age of 30, a paid model just won’t work.  People will turn to other sites, or torrents to get their shows for free.  In other words, everybody loses.  Networks lose money because they don’t get any profit from the people who turn illegal ways of getting their content.  Hulu loses its share of the market.  And the consumer loses because they have to risk viruses and will have to settle for lower quality picture and sound.

On the other hand, it is obvious Hulu can’t continue to operate without generating a profit.  How can both the users and the businesses win?  The answer is simple.  Implement regular commercials into Hulu’s system.  Make them watch the same number of commercials they would have to if they tuned into the program on regular TV.  Television stations have already proven this works for decades.  Why wouldn’t it work on the Internet?

And because the Internet is interactive, there is a possibility for even more profit from advertising.  The reason why Google can provide so many services for free is because they use the information they have on their users to give them ads users are most likely to find compelling, thus increasing the usefulness of the ad.  Instead of charging money to use Hulu, they could just require everybody gets an account and fill out a survey on their likes and dislikes.  They could also target ads based on what types of shows a user watched.  Furthermore, they could charge more money for ads that cut across demographic audiences.

And sure, most users like the fact they don’t currently have to watch as many commercials when they watch on Hulu, very few watch online just because they don’t want to watch commercials.  To deal with this group of users, Hulu could offer a pay-for-premium access that allows them to skip the commercials.

There is still hope Hulu’s parent companies will choose to go this route to continue to provide free shows to users – it isn’t over until you are required to enter a credit card number to see your favorite show.  But mark my words, if Hulu switches to paid content, there will be a vacuum for free TV… and something will fill that vacuum, legal or not.

So Iowa will have gay marriage for at least four more years.  Conservatives may feel defeated, but I think it would do the entire movement good to take a good hard look at whether or not fighting gay marriage really makes sense anymore (and perhaps whether fighting it made sense to begin with).  Most of the opposition to gay marriage is based in the traditional religious view of marriage, and I can understand the reluctance to support something that goes against many’s religious views of the world.  But for the sake of self preservation, I can hardly believe that the Conservative movement can’t see the writing on the wall.

Regardless of the status of marriage in Iowa, or any other state in the union, Barack Obama has stated that overturning the Defense of Marriage Act is a goal of his administration.  If he plans to tackle this goal with Congress, it is more likely than not that he is going to attempt to do it sooner rather than later so that he has a Democratic majority to work with.  If doesn’t plan to do it himself, his inevitable Supreme Court appointments will do it for him.  Through the President’s eyes, allowing the court system to strike down the DOMA is more beneficial.  Declaring the law unconstitutional would make the only way to reinstate a federal ban on gay marriage a Constitutional amendment… which is highly unlikely.  And once the Act gets overturned, every state would have to recognize homosexual marriage the same way they recognize heterosexual marriages – regardless of whether gay marriage was legalized in that state, basically makes defiance of gay marriage a complete farce.

Furthermore, the mantra of the Republicans and Conservatives has long been smaller, less restrictive government.  In the economic sphere, Republicans have long argued for less government influence.  Why is this any different?  Have your own personal beliefs on the issue, educate your kids in whatever those are, and let others make up their own minds.  The idea of less government influence is the very nexus of the movement.  Why abandon it?

And coming out in support of gay marriage opens up the party to support from that demographic.  The gay community doesn’t have to be tied to the left – if we were more willing to follow our own mantra, we could have thousands more party voters and perhaps a few million more swing voters.

Or the party can continue along this path and have the new generation of voters eventually turn to a different Conservative party.

But the populist approach to governance is more analogous and more conducive to the crazed and violent mob at a Wal-Mart store offering discounts for Black Friday than the best scenario for our government, or any government.  Populism amounts to mob rule and mobs are stupid.  The mob at that Wal-Mart last Black Friday actually trampled a guy to death.  That’s right, people were so intent on trying to be among the first ones in they allowed somebody to die because he (a Wal-Mart worker) was in their way.  Of course it isn’t any one individual from that crowd’s fault, because, as pretty much anyone who has ever been with a large group of people can attest to, the crowd takes on a life of its own.

Depressions, or in this case recessions, seem to bring out the worst of the mobs and the loudest cries for populism.  People in America and abroad (especially this week at the G20 summit) are so mad and blinded by the current economic situation they are willing to do basically anything to let their wrath be known.  CEOs of big companies get death threats daily, even CEOs who didn’t receive bailouts from the federal government.  Bankers and businessmen in London have gotten so many threats ahead of the G20 event there that London Police are actually advising them to go incognito.

And mob rule doesn’t isn’t even consistant.  Mobs, unlike the people who constitute them, can’t think, can’t rationalize, can’t even remember.  All they can do is react.

For a Conservative, his time in office thus far has been a major disappointment.  In his first two weeks, Obama did take a few good steps in attempting to work with Republicans; but when he began to realize Republicans weren’t just going to lay down and accept every disagreeable Democrat demand, he decided to drop his facade and stopped trying to appease Republicans.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, aka the Spending package cooked up by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, is almost entirely a Democratic grab bag.  The Dems only included requests from three Republicans in the Senate (all House Republicans voted against), putting them just over the required super majority, and making them filibuster proof.  Convenient, eh?

Saturday Night Live may like to make fun of Republicans betting on regaining the majority through public outrage over this spending package, but Obama is making a very poor strategic choice here.  By starting his Presidency off on the wrong foot, he is virtually guaranteeing his time in office will be much tougher than Bush’s was.  For a man who will in all likelihood remain the best campaigner America has seen at least in the last century, he has shown extremely poor foresight for his prospects of reelection in four years and (more importantly) the chapter that will surely be written about him as the first black American as President.

2010 and 2012 should be far off however; for those of us involved in the 2008 election, it quickly became obvious that the electorate became extremely fatigued of the elongated election cycle.  For now, Republicans should stick to their principles on government and with any luck, the excessive [governmental] expansionist policies will be abandoned or at least slowed. 

I still wish the best for our President, but perhaps more so I wish that he would correct his course after taking us on a rocky first month.  After all, we all have to pay for it (literally).

I wish President Obama the best of luck as President of the United States.  The people in our country will always disagree about the decisions and policies of the President and Congress, but I hope we can live up to the true message of the 2008 campaign; we can disagree without being disagreeable.

If we are to avoid our impending doom, we need to change our rhetoric.  Barack Obama, like Ronald Reagan was for the Republicans, is setting the standard for the Democratic party.  College and High School students who would not have been involved in the process, were more so then ever (even if they did not or could not vote), leading me to predict a generation of people who will think they are Democrats for their superficial support of Obama.

Now, in 2009 and the immediate future, we have a unique opportunity to change the dismal forecast for the Republican party.  It is time for us to drop three issues that the loudest and most annoying of us are pursuing so loudly and annoyingly.

1. Abortion – I do believe that the Republican party is on the right side of the abortion issue because I believe human life to begin at conception, but we need to drop this issue because, to independents and moderate Democrats, we are increasingly being viewed as a party where only one issue really matters.  The choice of Governor Palin as McCain’s running mate, really boiled down to one issue: abortion.  When the idea was floated that McCain might pick a pro-choice running mate like former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge or Senator Lieberman, all hell broke lose in the authoritarian social conservative branch of the party.When it comes down to it, abortion is really a philosophical debate and not a religious debate as ’so-cons’ would have you believe.  No religious texts, including the Bible, mention abortion… at all.  Fanatics stretch the meaning of words and passages to follow their belief abortion is a sin against God.  But when it comes down to it, religious texts are silent on the issue… because abortion did not really exist at the time in which they were written. The issue is strictly a philosophical debate because it poses a question religion is mute on, and science can never answer: when does human life begin?  Does it begin at conception, birth, or somewhere in between?  This issue is like the old rhetorical question “‘if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”, because the answer depends upon the beliefs and thoughts of the person.  Science can tell you the boiling point of water, but it can never answer a question the humans themselves interpret so drastically differently.

   Furthermore, religion should never be used as justification for making something legal or illegal.  I can recognize that people think that their religious beliefs guide them on this issue, but every single person has a different belief.  If somebody can come up with a non-religious argument about why we should make abortion illegal, I would probably support it (and support the Republican party supporting it).  But until then, we should keep quiet on this issue and raise our children with whatever belief set to which we subscribe.

   Also, it is important that the issue of abortion be separated from the issue of embryonic stem cell research. On the issue, they look to be very similar, however it is my assertion that they are not because abortions are a waste of precious human cells that could, theoretically and in practice save millions of lives. Most importantly, it would be possible for researchers to use the thousands of leftover embryos from procedures like in vitro fertilization that otherwise get thrown away.

2. Gay Marriage – Republicans, though few will admit – perhaps logically so, are already on the wrong historical side of the issue of gay marriage.  Opponents would argue that only two states have gay marriage and that a major victory was achieved in liberal California with the passage of proposition eight.  This is true and currently makes the issue look like social conservatives are winning the war over marriage but a few things are going to happen that are going to drastically change the tide of this argument.  Firstly, Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress is going to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.  This will force the federal government and every state to recognize same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut meaning that laws against gay marriage in the other 48 states will be effectively meaningless because all gay couples will have to do is take a trip to New England to get married.  I would guess that eventually, states will just give in and allow gays to marry in their respective home states.
3. Creationism/Intelligent Design – Opposition to teaching evolution in science classrooms is one of the most ridiculous things that many in the Republican party still trumpet.  While it is the right of any person to believe whatever they want, our schools need to be educating students in the fields of science to be competent with students from other countries. Indoctrinate them at home and in church; let the schools give them real science.

Hopefully, with these issues no longer at the forefront of our party platforms, we can begin to forge a new path for ourselves.  I strongly believe that by “staying-the-course” with social conservativism the Republican party is creating its own downfall.

• Unfriendly energy suppliers – many are concerned that our own money may end up going to fund terrorist operations that act out against American and American interests throughout the world.
• Some scientists believe Earth’s stores of fossil fuels are beginning to become depleted.
• While I’m not sold on the idea yet, many people believe that carbon emissions are not only contributing to global warming but are its direct cause.

While it has become obvious to nearly all that we will have to make changes the ways in which we power our country, many people disagree on the appropriate path to follow.  Some argue that we should rely exclusively on passive and renewable sources of energy like solar or wind based power while others argue that it would be far more effective to fall back on to tested and readily available sources of energy, namely nuclear power.  Others yet advocate for the holding off of switching the power sources in the hope that promising research and theories will flourish into actionable solutions to our energy crisis.

But the only way that we can effectively transition our sources of power is to utilize all the different types of energy that are available to us.  Our leaders need to be able to understand and take advantage of market forces to create the energy change, but they also need to recognize that the dire need to transition and have to be willing to use governmental power to help aid the process along.

While I am by no means an expert on energy, I would argue that I have at least the similar level of understanding of the issue that most of our elected officials that will be in charge of the process have.  Here is my plan:

The Next Five Years (Cost-saving, intelligent conservation)

New systems don’t implement themselves overnight so it is very unlikely that any source of alternative energy will emerge in the next five years.  Therefore, the best way to proceed for both the government and the energy advocate is to encourage conservation.

Many people might cringe when they think of conservation because they think it means that they will have alter their lifestyles, but the kind of conservation that should be advocated is the intelligent kind.  Americans cannot and will not change their lifestyles, but most do not have too much of a problem changing a light-bulb.  Replacing incandescent bulbs with compact-florescent bulbs saves time (CF bulbs do not need to be changed as often), energy (the CF equivalent of a 60 Watt incandescent bulb uses about 15 Watts) and money (because CF bulbs use less energy and does not need to be changed as often).  Plus if you think that Global Warming is caused by human activity, then you’ll be happy to learn that compact-florescent bulbs emit less CO2.

Other changes may require minor changes in lifestyle, but at least in my opinion they are worth the money they save.  For instance, turning off electric devices (including lights) that aren’t in use or carpooling when possible.

And while most people are not thinking about purchasing a new vehicle during this time of economic uncertainty, when it is time for a new vehicle, people would do themselves a favor if they purchased a smaller, more fuel efficient car.  Most people with big trucks and SUVs don’t even use them to their full extent and thus they become a waste of money as well as a waste of gas.  If you can afford the upfront cost, I would recommend going for the hybrid cars.

The Next Ten Years (Implementing pre-existing technology)

While many technological advances will be made in the next ten years, for the most part it is unlikely that they will be actionable, meaning that the best thing that can be done is to build and refortify our system with the less effective, already invented technology.

Hydropower, although already used extensively, should be further implemented wherever possible.  New nuclear power plants should also be used, both to replace aging plants and to provide alternative and additional energy.
Other renewables such as wind and solar should be utilized.  I don’t know what ten years will do to the expense of these technologies, but if they are not economically feasible a decade from now, the government should issue tax credits to stimulate their usage.

If wind and solar power are going to be used as part of a large generation and distribution system, experts say upgrades will need to be made to our power grid so that power can be transmitted over a much wider area.
By this time the government should have taken steps, if necessary, to ensure that high fuel efficiency cars and hybrids dominate the market.  One would hope however that the change would be entirely powered by the free market and the government would not need to step in.  Electric “town” cars should also begin to become feasible for above average, but not exceedingly rich, markets.

Finally, over the next decade, the government should begin to revitalize public transportation as we know it.  It should be possible for people to quickly travel between regional large cities by train.  Major changes need to be made to the ways that existing train systems (Amtrack) operate to make them quicker and more punctual.  It should also be mandatory that every city over a certain population invests in some sort of a train/subway based public transit system.

The Distant Future – Twenty+ years (Discoverying and Implementing New Technologies)

Most people would like to see the results of the promise of new technology, like hydrogen based cars, today, but it can take a long time to work ideas into something tangible and real.  Of course progress has already been made in areas like hydrogen or methane energy generation but major problems still face these technologies.  They just aren’t realistic in the present, but they could be in the future.  Therefore, we should never give up our research on this issue.

A Final Word

I have no doubt that innovative American spirit that has given the world all the comforts of modern life will be able to find new energy solutions to power the next century and beyond.  While many have doubts about whether this generation will be able to maintain and improve the American lifestyle, I believe that it could not be more clear that our country and our world stands on the brink of a new golden age.

The first is that, while it is too soon to completely know, my pre-November 4th judgments about Barack Obama were mostly incorrect.  I compared the prospective Obama to the partisanship displayed under the Bush administration, worrying that under Obama we would have nothing but the last eight years under the guise of a different President from a different party.

But Obama has done something that in my estimation is really good for the country.  He’s made a real effort to reach across the aisle in a similar way that I think McCain would have done.  President-elect Obama is still a Democrat, and many of his choices reflect a more liberal approach to governance, but many also reflect a level of moderateness that I did not expect.  A lot of his cabinet and administration are people who served in the relatively moderate Clinton administration.  Obama has even chosen a couple Bush administration officials like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Nobody can know until President-elect Obama becomes President Obama on the 20th of January exactly how he will govern, but if his cabinet selections are any indication of the true Obama then I don’t think the next four years will be as dark for the country as I predicted.

While I have come to believe that the country is in good hands (even if they aren’t the hands I would have chosen), the same cannot be said for the Republican party.  Our party faces some serious challenges in the coming weeks, months and years and some serious changes are going to have to be made; changes that I am not yet confident people will accept.

There are people like Kim Lehman (one of the people widely credited as responsible for hurting Mariannette Miller-Meeks with false propanganda) all over the Republican party, from the very roots all the way up to the top.  Will the party be able to weed out those who seek to damage others for minor political philosophy differences, whether real or imagined?

While I do not wish this to be true, it might entirely be possible that the Republican party will have to lose a few more elections before it finally realizes the necessity of getting in touch with 21st century.  With any luck we can resolve our problems in two years so that we may capitalize on the Democratic party’s lack of resolution of their problems.  Having an extremely charismatic and talent candidate allowed them to win despite their problems.

Finally, I urge Republicans not to act like the Democrats in their treatment of a President of the opposite party.  I actually had a Democratic friend tell me before the election that she didn’t believe President Bush was her President.  Beliefs like that are truly a precursor to the end of our republican democracy.  We all need to accept that Barack Obama will be our President on the January 20, 2008.  Without a doubt we’ll have disagreements with the President and his party, but echoing Senator McCain, we are fellow Americans, and nothing means more.

And please choose carefully because our country is far to important to waste on beautifully delivered speeches, and charismatic rhetoric.

Choose the candidate who can help heal the divide caused by partisanship.  Choose Sentator John McCain as the next President.

Iowans are especially privileged to have a chance to elect somebody just as capable of fixing the bitterness in Washington in Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks.  I hope that we can make the right choice.