The next Republican debate is on CNN September 16th. Debating (if you can call it that) will be any candidate who has reached an average of 1 percent or more in three national polls: Rasmussen, Fox News and Bloomberg/BusinessWeek. For some reason, CNN is not considering the CNN/ORC poll. Make of that what you will.

At the moment, former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore has not reached that mark and most reports are presuming he won't make it. In other words, it's unlikely he's going to improve from 0% support to 1% support in a month. If that's his pace — if he's going to grow at less than 1% a month — why, he might just make it all the way to 5% by the time the Republican primaries roll around.

I'm always curious as to the ways in which a person benefits if he or she spends months running for president and winds up, as they should have known they would, at the bottom of the heap. I'm sure they are many which is why we have all these candidates who don't have a prayer of becoming Commander in Chief. Some of them undoubtedly are following Max Bialystock's business model of trying to make money off a flop but there other rewards besides that or a job at Fox News.

It looks like Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal and George Pataki will all be included in the CNN event. They're each polling at about 1%, though Fiorina is expected to rise a bit as the polls taken after the G.O.P. debate mount up. Isn't there something a little bizarre about the concept that Gilmore is out because he hasn't proven yet that he's a serious candidate but those four others are in because 1% support proves it?

Keep in mind, that's 1% support according to polls that have margins of error greater than 1%. The margin of error on the Rasmussen Poll is +/- 4 percentage points. The margin of error in the Fox News poll is +/- 4 percentage points. And the margin of error on the Bloomberg/Business Week poll is +/- 4.4 percentage points. So is the difference between 0% and 1% really significant? Theoretically, Gilmore could have more support than the four one-percenters combined.

In the 2012 presidential election, Obama beat Romney 51.1 to 47.2. Rasmussen predicted Romney would win by 1 point. Fox News predicted a tie. Bloomberg predicted Obama would beat Romney by 6 points. They were all correct but only if you applied a four point margin of error. If you took the numbers literally, they were all wrong.

A reader who shall at his own request remain anonymous writes…

I was delighted to read that classic episodes of The Tonight Show hosted by Johnny Carson will soon be airing on Antenna TV but I was upset to read that some of them may not be airable in full due to music clearance problems. I watched a few old episodes on YouTube and it was infuriating when they cut a guest's walk-on because they couldn't afford the music or when a whole musical number was cut. I know Antenna TV says they think they can clear it all but they're hedging their pledge and I'm sure there will be some music owner who will try to hold them up for big money and then they will not be able to air that episode or they will cut things from it.

This bothered me a lot with WKRP in Cincinnati. The complete set Shout Factory put out managed to clear most of the music but not all and that seriously mars the shows for me. What is it with these greedy music owners? Don't they realize that getting paid something is better than getting paid nothing?

I think you're making the mistake of presuming that the fault in these cases is always with the music owners. There are instances when the company trying to license the music goes to them, makes a real insulting offer and says, "We're not paying another cent. Take it or leave it!" If you're in the business of licensing the rights to something you control, there are cases when you just don't want to empower those who use those tactics or you just don't want to lower your price too often.

If you're routinely charging $500 for the rights to something and you start getting offers of $100 ("Take it or leave it!") and you give in to enough of those offers, eventually the folks who were paying you $500 are going to start offering $100 ("Take it or leave it!"). In fact, sometimes you've assured the guy paying $500 that that's your absolute bottom line so a bit of your honor and ethics are at stake.

Very often, it works like this: Harry the Business Affairs Guy comes to you representing a company that wants to license a piece of music or a story or something you own. You tell him the price is $1000 and that's firm. He goes to his boss and says, "If we want this, it's going to be $1000. They won't sell us the rights for a cent less." The boss okays it and the fee is paid. Later, the boss hears that someone else got the same thing from you for $300…so you've made Harry look bad to his boss. That's not nice, it's not really ethical and it may cost you money the next time you have to deal with Harry.

All that said, there certainly are rights holders who are greedy or who think that in the long run, holding firm on a high price will yield more revenue even if it sometimes means losing out on some small amounts. Also, it has been known to happen that the rights holders are warring partners who can't agree on a lower price…or any price. I just wouldn't leap to assume that when a deal can't be made, the fault is always with the seller. Sometimes, not always.

Someone assembled this video of Famous Comedians Dealing With Hecklers. I have seen many comics do this and the all-time world class champ was Sam Kinison one night in the big room at the Comedy Store.

A guy in the audience was there with a group of friends, all somewhat tipsy. The guy briefly declared himself a participant in Sam's act and for a few minutes, Sam bantered back and forth with him. Then Sam started a long set piece — the kind which one should not interrupt — and when the guy kept yelling things out, Mr. Kinison decided it was time to shut him up.

In fact, I think a little light went off in Sam's brain and he decided the time had come to not only shut the guy up but to drive him from the room in tears. Sam started with the exact same line you'll hear him use in this not-safe-for-workplace video but he did not stop where the clip stops. He continued on the same topic for some time, discussing various sex acts — some I'd never heard of — performed on or by the heckler's mother.

The guy in the audience realized he was outgunned and shut up. Sam kept at him. The guy in the audience apologized. Sam yelled, "You're sorry? Like your mother was sorry when…" and he listed various anatomically-impossible feats the mother had supposedly attempted.

The heckler finally had had enough of it and he got up and started to walk out. Sam jumped down from the stage and started to follow him out, yelling more and more about what an inept whore the guy's mother was. When Sam reached the limit of his microphone cord, he threw down the mike and continued outside. His voice, as you might remember, carried. We were actually sitting there in the Comedy Store main room listening to the headliner standing outside on Sunset Boulevard screaming at a departing audience member that his mother was wasn't worth the fifty cents she charged for sex. In the meantime, the hecker's friends awkwardly gathered up their things and fled from the room, exiting via a route which they hoped would allow them to avoid Sam.

About a minute later, Sam returned from outside, pausing to pick up the microphone as he returned to the stage. He waited out a huge ovation from the audience, then he grinned at us and said, very politely, "Okay…so anyone else want to fuck with me?" Amazingly, no one did.

Fred Kaplan on Jeb Bush's major foreign policy speech in which he blamed Barack Obama for pulling forces out of Iraq even though the George W. Bush administration signed an agreement to do just that. I'm surprised he isn't blaming Obama for shooting Dick Cheney's friend in the face, too.

To those of you who hate all the political stuff here: Sorry but I post what's on my mind and this is on my mind. Coming up in the next few days should be plenty of stuff about other topics.

Matt Taibbi goes Inside the G.O.P. Clown Car. I not only think I'm going to get the exact same number of electoral votes as Lindsey Graham but if I just write my own name in my final ballot, I may get more votes than he does, period. Sure, let's send the troops back into Iraq. It worked so well the first time…

Daniel Larison points out that Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have foreign policy positions that pretty much come down to: The U.S. should invade everywhere. Bush, Larison says, wants the U.S. to go back into Iraq and double-down (maybe even triple-down) on his brother's policies there.

Meanwhile: Rubio, Larison says, insists we can contain Iran's nuclear program by rescinding the agreement to stop it and then…and then…well, he doesn't seem to have a plan what to do at that point. But once we get rid of that deal to stop their nuclear program, it will be stopped…somehow.

The other day, I mentioned here that Kevin Drum was trying to figure out what Scott Walker meant when he claimed that an abortion is never necessary to protect the life of a mother. It turns out that what he and others are doing is redefining the word "abortion" to dance their way around that inconvenient situation.

Walker, by the way, seems to be a clear "loser" (to use Mr. Trump's favorite word) in the Republican Debate. I suppose one could argue that those who are polling under 3% and whose numbers didn't change were losers because they needed desperately to do something to raise that number. Carly Fiorina had the greatest "win" but she's not really really running for president, is she? At best, she's running for vice-president and I think even that's a longshot. If John McCain proved nothing, he proved that you can't run based on experience when your running mate has almost none — and Fiorina has even less than Palin did.

Getting back to Mr. Drum: He offers an interesting explanation of what it is that Donald Trump boosters like about Donald Trump: They like him leading them in a war against Political Correctness, especially the part where they don't get to express their fears and hatred over minorities.

Someone wrote and asked me what I think about Political Correctness. I think some Political Correctness is correct and some isn't. I had a friend years ago who used to rail on about the evils of condemning "politically incorrect" speech and to insist that as a commitment to the First Amendment, we had to shout all those things from the rooftops and laud those who refused to be intimidated by the P.C. movement.

And it all sounded very heroic and patriotic and he was right that some of it is inane. But I also realized that what this guy believed was that he should be able to say stupid, bigoted things and be praised for speaking his mind instead of being condemned as stupid or bigoted. He wanted to limit the Free Speech of others to say that. I think Trump may be tapping into a lot of votes with that mindset.

Today (Wednesday), Stu Shostak again discusses the state of the TV industry with his resident TV critics, Steve Beverly and Wesley Hyatt.  What will they be yapping about? Well, about Donald Trump and about a man of greater accuracy, Brian Williams, returning to the air; about the success of Celebrity Family Feud and whether than means another round of game shows where you win if you say some euphemism for a naughty body part; about some new cable channels and probably about the airing of old Johnny Carson shows like I just mentioned; and about scads of other topics. It's three guys ranting about what is and isn't on TV so listen in and enjoy the outrage.

Stu's Show can be heard live (almost) every Wednesday at the Stu's Show website and you can listen for free there. Webcasts start at 4 PM Pacific Time, 7 PM Eastern and other times in other climes. They run a minimum of two hours and sometimes go to three or beyond.  Shortly after a show ends, it's available for downloading from the Archives on that site. Downloads are a paltry 99 cents each and you can get four for the price of three. Your rent payment can wait until some other month. Load up on old Stu's Shows!

Antenna TV is going to start running complete episodes of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson on January 1, 2016. This is a good thing, especially if they really are complete and we don't have pieces omitted due to music rights. This article warns us that that may happen…

Tribune execs are determined to keep each episode as intact as possible — which means negotiating new agreements for the show's many musical performances on an episode-by-episode basis, in most cases.

It isn't just the musical performances but often the "play-on" music when a guest entered or a short tune in a sketch that could present a cost problem. And what about all those odd tunes when they played "Stump the Band"?

I'm going to be optimistic about this one. Those were great shows and I'll take what I can get. But I really hope they're intact…and I also hope they don't just run episodes with the biggest guest stars. Carson's mastery of the format was most evident when he didn't have a Jimmy Stewart or Robin Williams in the guest chair.

Allan Sherman sings his biggest hit and then one of his more obscure song parodies on Perry Como's Kraft Music Hall show. This is from October 3, 1963.

This is for those of you who are worried that Donald Trump could be our next president. Nate Silver once again explains why that ain't gonna happen. For one thing, it's a long time 'til the election and for another, lots of people have been this far ahead at this stage of the game and have not come close to winning their party's nomination.

I have friends who understand all this but have some inexplicable fear that maybe the election is tomorrow and we don't know it…or something. It may be a while before Trump crashes — people are enjoying the show right now — but crash he will. I think he'll look especially vulnerable when we get to some actual voting, he finishes in fourth place in some primary and his opponents can start throwing his own "loser" insult back at him. That's when I think he'll squirm away…and feel like he got what he wanted because of how much he's expanded his name recognition.

In other election news: Kevin Drum is trying to figure out what the hell Scott Walker was talking about in the debate when he explained why he can oppose abortion even when it's deemed necessary to save the life of the mother…

I've said many a time that that unborn child can be protected, and there are many other alternatives that can also protect the life of that mother. That's been consistently proven.

Well, no, it hasn't. I think this is one of those times when a candidate adopts a position, the science indicates the position is impractical and not as simple and clear-cut as the candidate makes it out to be…and the candidate deals with that by making up his own science.

It's like when Dan Quayle said that a woman who gets pregnant via rape doesn't have to have an abortion to terminate that pregnancy. She can have doctors do Dilatation and Curettage…which is, of course, a form of abortion. But some voters just want their candidates to have an answer and it doesn't necessarily have to be the right one.

Here's a great gallery of photos shot on movie sets and locations. Turn the captions off and see how many you can identify.

Cookie Monster in "Jurassic Cookie." Just click and watch…

Stephen Colbert talks about the little surprise speech he made on the last Daily Show with Jon Stewart and about that group hug that I wrote about.

Peter Beinart on "The Surge Fallacy" and how certain folks are trying to rewrite the history of the Iraq War to spare themselves some humiliation and to urge America to make most of the same mistakes again.

There's a battle going on between Uber and the entire taxi industry. The taxi companies don't like the competition and are pursuing all sorts of legal strategies to ban or restrict Uber from cutting into their business. While in San Diego for Comic-Con this year, a bunch of us were in a taxi and the driver delivered a tirade about how terrible Uber was. Some of it was about "amateur, untrained drivers." A lot of it was about how he's saddled with permit costs and higher insurance costs and all sorts of other expenses that make it too easy for Uber to undercut him.

He was railing about "Uber drivers who don't know their way around" when he suddenly realized that he was taking us the wrong way to our destination. A street was barricaded because of some convention-related event so he had to let us off six blocks from where we were going. I can't say for sure but I think an Uber driver would have known about that. (I immediately went onto Waze, a GPS app on my iPhone that's good at tracking that kind of thing. The barricade was indicated there. A good percentage of the Uber drivers I've had supplement the Uber GPS with Waze, often having two Smartphones in their vehicle.)

I am not against cab companies. I generally like cabs…though I do have a few horror stories. (And the very next cab driver I had in San Diego tried the old trick of not turning on his meter so he could collect the fare and not share it with his company.) I've usually though had good experiences in cabs but I must say this: The taxi industry has only itself to blame for the rise of "ride-sharing" services like Uber and Lyft. The cab companies have let the experience of taking a cab somewhere become old-fashioned and needlessly cumbersome.

It might help this explanation if I list some of the ways in which I think Uber is better than Cabs and ways in which I think the opposite…

I can order an Uber car on my Smartphone and one is usually here in under five minutes, well below the average with taxicabs. Not only that but I can look and see where they are and how far my driver is from me, and once I'm in the cab, how far we are from our destination, etc. There are apps via which one can summon a cab but since there's one Uber and lots of cab companies, the apps aren't as impressive. Advantage: UBER

On the other hand, you can't phone Uber to summon one of their drivers or explain things if your order involves anything more than an address. Also, it's sometimes not enough to just give an address. I once wanted to call an Uber to take me home from the Sportsmen's Lodge out in the Valley. I could tell Uber the address of the Sportsmen's Lodge but I couldn't tell them which of about six different places there I'd be waiting. It's the same address for the hotel as it is for the restaurant as it is for the banquet hall, etc. In this case, I solved my problem by walking across the street to a Ralphs market and giving Uber that address. Advantage: CABS

I've taken somewhere between 40 and 50 Uber trips. Every car I've been in has been relatively new (often very new) and immaculate. Every driver has been friendly and I've only had one less than stellar driver — a fellow who refused to listen to my directions, followed his GPS instead and wound up taking me to my destination via a non-direct route. I've been in some pretty ratty cabs and had some very rude or (worse) non-communicative drivers. This may be just my own experience but if I weighed my last 40 Uber rides against my last 40 cab rides, it's no contest. The Uber vehicles and the drivers were much, much nicer. Advantage: UBER

On the other hand, Uber drivers are for the most part, part-timers and new to the profession. I've had cab drivers with no experience or commitment to driving but not as many. On a simple, by-the-book drive, the difference may not matter but if the GPS is out or wrong, the cab driver is more likely to be able to get you there. In unusual situations, experience can really have a value so I'm going to say: Advantage: CABS

Credit cards in cabs are a hassle and often, drivers won't take you if you intend to use one. So when I take a cab, I have to worry about having cash in proper denominations. At least twice in the last decade, the fare has been, say, $7.00 and I had a twenty and a driver with insufficient change. I didn't want to tip thirteen dollars so the driver had to drive us someplace where he could go in and break my twenty. In an Uber car, I don't fuss with cash at all except to tip. Uber has a credit card of mine on file and the fare is billed automatically which makes it easier for me to pay and easier for me to track travel expenses for tax purposes. Big Advantage: UBER

Uber is generally cheaper. Advantage: UBER

But not always. Uber does "surge" pricing, multiplying its fees during peak hours. Once, I took an Uber somewhere and the trip cost me $10.00. When I was ready to return, a "surge" was on and the cost was multiplied by 2.5; ergo, $25.00. While a ride in either can skyrocket due to traffic, the base prices on cab rides don't change unexpectedly on you. Advantage: CABS

And they're probably right that Uber drivers aren't as well insured as cabs. If I'm ever in an accident, that might matter a lot. Advantage: CABS

I suppose I could think of others but I'm not really trying to get to a point of declaring one much better than the other. My thesis here is that if cabs want to beat Uber…well, they may be able to do it via legal pressures but if they really want to triumph — and maybe to get more people to take cabs — they need to become more like them.

When I go to the doctor who fixes my knees, I take an Uber car. Unless I hit "surge" pricing, it's five bucks each way and it doesn't take much longer than it would for me to drive there and park. It's also not that much more expensive since parking at the doctor's office is seven dollars and the lot is rough to get in and out of. I tip my two Uber drivers each a buck so it costs me five bucks (minus whatever I save on gas) more to Uber there and back than if I drove and it's so much easier.

I am not taking Uber because it's cheaper since sometimes, when I least expect, it isn't. I'm taking it because it's easier and more efficient. The cab companies should be scrambling to come up with an all-company app that will let me see where drivers are and to summon the nearest one with one click and to have the cost of the ride billed to my AmEx card. They should be embracing GPS systems, especially the kind which continually update with current hazards and closures.

If you can't beat 'em, learn from 'em.