EDWARD R. MURROW

RTNDA Convention
Chicago
October 15, 1958

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends shook their heads and said, "This you cannot do--you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it." We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, with a faint tone of surprise, "It was a fair count. The information was there. We have no complaints."

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence.

Recently, network spokesmen have been disposed to complain that the professional critics of television have been "rather beastly." There have been hints that somehow competition for the advertising dollar has caused the critics of print to gang up on television and radio. This reporter has no desire to defend the critics. They have space in which to do that on their own behalf. But it remains a fact that the newspapers and magazines are the only instruments of mass communication which remain free from sustained and regular critical comment. If the network spokesmen are so anguished about what appears in print, let them come forth and engage in a little sustained and regular comment regarding newspapers and magazines. It is an ancient and sad fact that most people in network television, and radio, have an exaggerated regard for what appears in print. And there have been cases where executives have refused to make even private comment or on a program for which they were responsible until they heard'd the reviews in print. This is hardly an exhibition confidence.

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, "We are young; we have not developed the traditions nor acquired the experience of the older media." If they but knew it, they are building those traditions, creating those precedents everyday. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition. They are, in fact, not content to be "half safe."

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

So far as radio--that most satisfying and rewarding instrument--is concerned, the diagnosis of its difficulties is rather easy. And obviously I speak only of news and information. In order to progress, it need only go backward. To the time when singing commercials were not allowed on news reports, when there was no middle commercial in a 15-minute news report, when radio was rather proud, alert and fast. I recently asked a network official, "Why this great rash of five-minute news reports (including three commercials) on weekends?" He replied, "Because that seems to be the only thing we can sell."

In this kind of complex and confusing world, you can't tell very much about the why of the news in broadcasts where only three minutes is available for news. The only man who could do that was Elmer Davis, and his kind aren't about any more. If radio news is to be regarded as a commodity, only acceptable when saleable, then I don't care what you call it--I say it isn't news.

My memory also goes back to the time when the fear of a slight reduction in business did not result in an immediate cutback in bodies in the news and public affairs department, at a time when network profits had just reached an all-time high. We would all agree, I think, that whether on a station or a network, the stapling machine is a poor substitute for a newsroom typewriter.

One of the minor tragedies of television news and information is that the networks will not even defend their vital interests. When my employer, CBS, through a combination of enterprise and good luck, did an interview with Nikita Khrushchev, the President uttered a few ill-chosen, uninformed words on the subject, and the network practically apologized. This produced a rarity. Many newspapers defended the CBS right to produce the program and commended it for initiative. But the other networks remained silent.

Likewise, when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? I have no illusions about the difficulties reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served--in their public interest--with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China.

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the coporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time-- frequently on the same long day--to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism.

Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. Not so long ago the President of the United States delivered a television address to the nation. He was discoursing on the possibility or probability of war between this nation and the Soviet Union and Communist China--a reasonably compelling subject. Two networks CBS and NBC, delayed that broadcast for an hour and fifteen minutes. If this decision was dictated by anything other than financial reasons, the networks didn't deign to explain those reasons. That hour-and-fifteen-minute delay, by the way, is about twice the time required for an ICBM to travel from the Soviet Union to major targets in the United States. It is difficult to believe that this decision was made by men who love, respect and understand news.

So far, I have been dealing largely with the deficit side of the ledger, and the items could be expanded. But I have said, and I believe, that potentially we have in this country a free enterprise system of radio and television which is superior to any other. But to achieve its promise, it must be both free and enterprising. There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the Republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot hope to receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. I testify, and am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors because of the money it would cost.

But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program. This is so because so many stations on the network--any network--will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. But in the view of many this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency.

So it seems that we cannot rely on philanthropic support or foundation subsidies; we cannot follow the "sustaining route"--the networks cannot pay all the freight--and the F.C.C. cannot or will not discipline those who abuse the facilities that belong to the public. What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the Republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated.

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, "No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch." I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won't be, but it could. Let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: The Corporate Image. I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have the public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide."

I refuse to believe that the presidents and chairmen of the boards of these big corporations want their corporate image to consist exclusively of a solemn voice in an echo chamber, or a pretty girl opening the door of a refrigerator, or a horse that talks. They want something better, and on occasion some of them have demonstrated it. But most of the men whose legal and moral responsibility it is to spend the stockholders' money for advertising are removed from the realities of the mass media by five, six, or a dozen contraceptive layers of vice-presidents, public relations counsel and advertising agencies. Their business is to sell goods, and the competition is pretty tough.

But this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Let us have a little competition. Not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations which dominate radio and television decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: "This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren't going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas." The networks should, and I think would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right decision--if that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations are done for.

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. It was: "Go hire a hall." Under this proposal the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time; the local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program-he has to. Then it's up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as falliable human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are some even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interests of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don't know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thorough-going job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the majority of shareholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about the corporation and the country.

It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said--I think it was Max Eastman--that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporation that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

I am just commenting on a few cases I know for sure are happening and have been happening for many years. My personal experience and what I see people whom I know are on government assistance doing.

As for proving it with statistics, many of these people on the government subsidies fill out forms improperly or change information on the forms they submit from their landlords to the government. I have also seen this when my grandmother had rental properties, they would ask for them back so they could mail them, instead of having her mail them. One time my mother typed up her response, and the renter who lived next to my grandmother...was asking for a typewriter. Never asked for one before or since, just when that one piece of paperwork had been typed.

So how can one accurately find statistics on how much people deceive or change their living situations to benefit more greatly from the system? Do they have a check box on forms that says "I divorced my wife and refuse to pay child support so she can draw a government subsidized check for rent on my children, and get them into medicaid?"

It's enough that I've seen multiple cases like this over the last 10-15 years.

This bill could help the middle class greatly, because it's impossible to say how it'll get twisted around and massaged to make it work "better" for corporate interests or what loop holes have been overlooked in it's creation and re-examination.

And really middle class is a pretty broad term, a lot of people like to classify themselves as middle class. In this "middle class" range people go from being 10k above the poverty line to pulling down 250k or more. So sure if you're barely above poverty, YOUR middle class will be subsidized. But if you're pushing the upper limits of middle class and spend your time worrying about trying to avoid taxes, YOUR middle class probably won't be sudsidized much if at all.

Middle class is such an ambiguous term, I couldn't even find a definition that meant anything from a discussion standpoint.


>> ^longde:

I'm willing to talk about your anecdotal cases, but please back them up with statistics. How many people are like this, and how much of our budget goes to subsidizing them? I don't think it's much in either case.
It's baseless to say working people were and are getting screwed. This bill for instance, helps the middle class greatly.
The american middle class is much more subsidized than the Tea or Republican parties would have us believe. >> ^Porksandwich:
I have to say that Grayson's proposed bill to allow people to pay into Medicare is interesting. It's not as if the US gov hasn't spent the time and effort into setting up a healthcare network like every other health insurance company has, IE Medicare. So allowing people access to what they have been and still are paying for is not crazy hard to understand. We already spend the money for the agreements they make with the hospitals and providers, so why can't they just allow people to trickle over to Medicare if people choose to? I suspect it has something to do with keeping insurance companies in business.
All I know is for the last two years minimum, the economy has obviously been down. And maybe 3 years ago it was starting to get to those levels. In that same period of time, my insurance premiums jumped up each year. This last year, it went up by nearly 50 percent. I pay out of pocket for it, and if I looked into it I would probably be in the realm of receiving government assistance at this point. But I'm trying to keep it coming out of my own pocket. The silly thing about it all is, I pay these outrageous premiums and I can't afford to get any tests done besides really simple blood tests the doctors want every so often. If I didn't have to cover the premium costs, but could get in on the pricing deals Medicare/other insurance companies had.......I could have the tests done with the money I would have been putting toward premiums. I've had to stop getting treatments in the last couple months for allergies because of the out of pocket costs on top of the new and improved monster premiums (even after I raised my deductible, etc).
Now I know for a fact there are people out there who've been on Medicare/SSI/Medicaid/Welfare/Whatever government program gives out money, who are 50 something years old and have been on it since they were 15. Worked an actual job very little in their lifetime, and have drawn a pretty sizeable check (more than someone would typically draw on unemployment at the lower end). So these people choose not to work at all, have the government cover most of their health care costs, live in a rental property most lower income working stiffs would find quite nice, and still afford to go out to the casinos every week and grab a steak dinner every week or so as they gamble away their government check.
And there are people out there who just want to be able to get treated so they can keep their job/house/whatever. And the government officials can't figure out a way to make it so working people can suffer a little less, but they can provide all of the above for people who don't work at all. It's a pretty fucked up situation, and all these welfare recipients get together and figure out ways to get more government money via divorce, custody, and other legal loop holes other people wouldn't even think of doing. And that's just the legal stuff, then you get into the welfare/medicaid guys who are getting drugs on the government dime and selling em for cash outta their welfare paid for houses.
So if you're not well off job wise, and completely unwilling to be a degenerate milking the system even though you could work......you get fucked.

I'm willing to talk about your anecdotal cases, but please back them up with statistics. How many people are like this, and how much of our budget goes to subsidizing them? I don't think it's much in either case.

It's baseless to say working people were and are getting screwed. This bill for instance, helps the middle class greatly.

The american middle class is much more subsidized than the Tea or Republican parties would have us believe. >> ^Porksandwich:

I have to say that Grayson's proposed bill to allow people to pay into Medicare is interesting. It's not as if the US gov hasn't spent the time and effort into setting up a healthcare network like every other health insurance company has, IE Medicare. So allowing people access to what they have been and still are paying for is not crazy hard to understand. We already spend the money for the agreements they make with the hospitals and providers, so why can't they just allow people to trickle over to Medicare if people choose to? I suspect it has something to do with keeping insurance companies in business.
All I know is for the last two years minimum, the economy has obviously been down. And maybe 3 years ago it was starting to get to those levels. In that same period of time, my insurance premiums jumped up each year. This last year, it went up by nearly 50 percent. I pay out of pocket for it, and if I looked into it I would probably be in the realm of receiving government assistance at this point. But I'm trying to keep it coming out of my own pocket. The silly thing about it all is, I pay these outrageous premiums and I can't afford to get any tests done besides really simple blood tests the doctors want every so often. If I didn't have to cover the premium costs, but could get in on the pricing deals Medicare/other insurance companies had.......I could have the tests done with the money I would have been putting toward premiums. I've had to stop getting treatments in the last couple months for allergies because of the out of pocket costs on top of the new and improved monster premiums (even after I raised my deductible, etc).
Now I know for a fact there are people out there who've been on Medicare/SSI/Medicaid/Welfare/Whatever government program gives out money, who are 50 something years old and have been on it since they were 15. Worked an actual job very little in their lifetime, and have drawn a pretty sizeable check (more than someone would typically draw on unemployment at the lower end). So these people choose not to work at all, have the government cover most of their health care costs, live in a rental property most lower income working stiffs would find quite nice, and still afford to go out to the casinos every week and grab a steak dinner every week or so as they gamble away their government check.
And there are people out there who just want to be able to get treated so they can keep their job/house/whatever. And the government officials can't figure out a way to make it so working people can suffer a little less, but they can provide all of the above for people who don't work at all. It's a pretty fucked up situation, and all these welfare recipients get together and figure out ways to get more government money via divorce, custody, and other legal loop holes other people wouldn't even think of doing. And that's just the legal stuff, then you get into the welfare/medicaid guys who are getting drugs on the government dime and selling em for cash outta their welfare paid for houses.
So if you're not well off job wise, and completely unwilling to be a degenerate milking the system even though you could work......you get fucked.

I have to say that Grayson's proposed bill to allow people to pay into Medicare is interesting. It's not as if the US gov hasn't spent the time and effort into setting up a healthcare network like every other health insurance company has, IE Medicare. So allowing people access to what they have been and still are paying for is not crazy hard to understand. We already spend the money for the agreements they make with the hospitals and providers, so why can't they just allow people to trickle over to Medicare if people choose to? I suspect it has something to do with keeping insurance companies in business.

All I know is for the last two years minimum, the economy has obviously been down. And maybe 3 years ago it was starting to get to those levels. In that same period of time, my insurance premiums jumped up each year. This last year, it went up by nearly 50 percent. I pay out of pocket for it, and if I looked into it I would probably be in the realm of receiving government assistance at this point. But I'm trying to keep it coming out of my own pocket. The silly thing about it all is, I pay these outrageous premiums and I can't afford to get any tests done besides really simple blood tests the doctors want every so often. If I didn't have to cover the premium costs, but could get in on the pricing deals Medicare/other insurance companies had.......I could have the tests done with the money I would have been putting toward premiums. I've had to stop getting treatments in the last couple months for allergies because of the out of pocket costs on top of the new and improved monster premiums (even after I raised my deductible, etc).

Now I know for a fact there are people out there who've been on Medicare/SSI/Medicaid/Welfare/Whatever government program gives out money, who are 50 something years old and have been on it since they were 15. Worked an actual job very little in their lifetime, and have drawn a pretty sizeable check (more than someone would typically draw on unemployment at the lower end). So these people choose not to work at all, have the government cover most of their health care costs, live in a rental property most lower income working stiffs would find quite nice, and still afford to go out to the casinos every week and grab a steak dinner every week or so as they gamble away their government check.

And there are people out there who just want to be able to get treated so they can keep their job/house/whatever. And the government officials can't figure out a way to make it so working people can suffer a little less, but they can provide all of the above for people who don't work at all. It's a pretty fucked up situation, and all these welfare recipients get together and figure out ways to get more government money via divorce, custody, and other legal loop holes other people wouldn't even think of doing. And that's just the legal stuff, then you get into the welfare/medicaid guys who are getting drugs on the government dime and selling em for cash outta their welfare paid for houses.

So if you're not well off job wise, and completely unwilling to be a degenerate milking the system even though you could work......you get fucked.

I don't know anything about the autism correlation or cause.

But I do know mercury is fuck shit dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28element%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#Allergies

There is no convincing evidence that thiomersal is a factor in the onset of autism.[17]

What that means is that they cannot prove people are getting sick from Thiomersal, or that they aren't. There simply isn't enough data to go on. That is why the The Hannah Poling Case was ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and damages were awarded. There was a direct correlation with the vaccinations, she had contracted "vaccine-induced varicella." However a month later she was diagnosed with Autism. But that is where speculation begins. How did they know, precisely, that the vaccines caused the Autism? I don't know and I don't have the time to read more of the court document.

I know that they won the case because it was Civil, Preponderounce of Evidence is all that is needed to win that case. That is why OJ Simpson was cleared of criminal charges for murder, but ordered to pay out for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown.

Just because there is a correlation does not prove causation.

As I understand it science can't disprove that vaccines didn't cause the sickness, only that the likely hood of that taking place is less likely than one might think. Meaning? It could be possible, like there could be a god, but probably not.

The U.S. federal government agreed to award damages in one case, to a girl with a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency who developed autistic-like symptoms after receiving a series of vaccines,[20] some of which contained thiomersal.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/20/2089
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#Allergies

Now for my opinion of chemicals. If there is even an ounce of doubt in your mind, then it should not be used. It is your free choice once they start forcing it, then we have a problem.

Proper science needs to be taught here. Just because there are a million studies that prove it to be safe doesn't mean there can't be a fluke. The same can be said in reverse. My wife likes to say, "A tree could fall on you too," to which I reply, "It sure could."
As if saying that it could happen means you shouldn't prepare for it. Trees are treacherous.

Read the fine, fucking, print.
http://smallbiztrends.com/2010/02/always-read-the-fine-print.html

Here's some fine print:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#flu
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#spox
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#dtap

I'll stop here, side-effects are depressing. Sure the rare ones are rare, but they can still kill you. Never let that; "They are rare" fool you into taking something that could possibly complicate matters. Always weigh the risks.

[Ramble End]

*controversy *promote

Some insurance company is kicking itself over letting one future senator go uncovered during their child's birth. When they could have covered him and denied all of the non-senators and people with the power to hurt their profits.

This last year for me has been a terrible year dealing with Anthem, they decided the medications Im on for asthma are no longer "formulary".....even though the "formulary" they decided was the best option does absolutely nothing for me in the case of an attack perhaps even aggravates the condition. And then at the end of the year they jacked my rates up triple what it was the year before.

What they hold against you is so arbitrary it's impossible to know. Major surgeries? If it was back surgery not related to an underlying condition like my brother, doesn't affect rates. Have a mental breakdown? Not held against you, seek treatment...they just may decide not to pay for it. Asthma? Not supposed to be held against you, but they will question treatments related to it. Overweight? Yes, but they won't pay for any treatment related to it. Allergies? Yes, they screwed up payment for this I dunno how many times...go for months while the provider tries to get paid by the insurance company. Then you get the mega-bill 5 months down the road because Anthem sudden figures out their issues and pays 5 months worth at once.


Given how much of a change I've seen in insurance coverage in the last year, I have to wonder if the insurance companies aren't worried about the bill being passed and trying to nickel and dime as much as they can. Just like the credit companies were doing with outstanding credit debt, maxxing out rates or cutting off credit lines to people before the bill became active limiting their rates/abilities.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We're thinking of getting a cat. We've got allergies in our family though- so we're considering a Devon Rex.

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. Some rando yammering away for 10 minutes without any attempt to add credulity to his out-of-left-field claims using any evidence, hell, even other testimony, does not deserve time in the Science channel.

And yes, for the record I am biased due to a severe allergy to bullshit.

Even though I am not posting atm, I am alive and kicking, and I do check VS - mostly just sifttalk these days - at least a few times a week. Every morning I do check cnn.com, 2 or 3 of my local news sites, and .. (yes, no 'manly man' will probably check some of these, or at least admit it.. but they are good/fun sites I check for mental wellbeing/fun/laughter!)

http://www.engrish.com/ and
http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/ - just for laughs

http://www.perezhilton.com/ - OK, I love celebrity gossip

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/ - Well, ain't this cool?

http://www.aromaleigh.com/ - as a female, with make-up allergies, mineral make-up is the best!!

http://www.bme.com/ - OK, I have just one non-ear-related piercing, but this place has it all.. piercings, tattoos, implants and then some..

And

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ - just to see if what you wanted to go see in the movies this week really is worth watching!

That looks bad. Stupid, you'd think they take some anti-histamines or one of those allergy pens with them. You never know what you're allergic to until it happens. On second thought, maybe they did have anti allergy stuff but they wanted his face to swell, anything for TV right?

If you have been circumcised you are at a disadvantage to non circomsized when it comes to sexual function.

1) the for skin behaves rather like lubrication once the penis is within the vagina the 4 skin allows the penis to move freely , Manny women only get wet at the beginning of intercourse and cannot maintain the required amount of lubrication to stop potentially harmful rubbing,

2) men are designed to ejaculate when the skin withdraws and exposes the glans within the vagina, men with a 4 skin have a larger likely hood of being able to control the point of climax as they can contole whether the glans are fully exposed or not during intercourse.

3) there is a good argument that the glans become desensitized after circumcision due to the glands abnormally being exposed to rubbing on clothes and that the body becomes used to the sensation of the glans being exposed.

4) with a normal penis when you masturbate you do not need to use lubricant , there is a good reason why the guy i live with who has Jewish parents has 3 bottles of baby oil in his room.


The only time sum one should be circumcised is if they suffer from Phimosis or Paraphimosis. Interestingly Paraphimosis can be caused by circumcision as well as infection and the fact that anny sergery that is not required is a bad idea as all sergary has risks associated with it.


The only rational argument i have heard for circumcision is the cleanliness argument. however this only stands if the male is incapable of washing themselves a minimum of once every 4 days or maby has diabetes or a Urinary-tract-infection , has allergies to condoms, wants to use lubricant bit has allergies to that , has skin conditions, as these can all lead to Balanitis (an inflammation of the end of the penis)


In the end its better to have a for skin , its not the end of the world to not have one , but its definatly better to have one ,

Think of it as a car with a convertible roof verses the same car with a solid top.

Perfumes, lotions, colognes, etc. give me allergies.

Thanks for noticing...:) End of the school year and aweful allergies/virus stuff.

In reply to this comment by MikesHL13:
Good to see new videos from you today. Have missed your sifts.

Who gives a fuck. Kids cry about anything unfamiliar. I cried my eyes out when I saw a cat. I didn't grow up to have a phobia of them, just an allergy.

Great video, nice tune, the kid will have a cool story to tell people when he is older.

1. Like my brother Ornthoron did, I study physics.

2. I get really good grades.

3. Like my brother Haldaug, I play the jazz saxophone. As he actually studies music, I can't really compare myself to him.

4. I also play the clarinet and the piano.

5. I got much better grades in nynorsk than bokmål, even though bokmål is the language I use.

6. I've had socialist democrat leanings for most of my life (gasp!)

7. I'm being torn in a liberal direction by my brothers and a persuasive right-wing extremist friend (by Norwegian standards).

8. Hanging on videosift doesn't help.

9. While i've never really believed in any god, I didn't call myself an atheist until about a year ago.

10. Despite this I was baptized and confirmed a Lutheran Christian. Hey, it's a cultural thing!

11. I read a lot of popular science, and like to pretend I know something just because i've read a book about it.

12. At around 8 years of age, I had a philosophy discussion club with two friends.

13. My favourite philosopher is Daniel Dennett.

14. I learned programming in High School on a Casio 9850GC+ calculator. Among the programs I wrote was a drawing program and a Mandelbrot fractal generator (which used over an hour to draw a single frame!)

15. Since that i've learned real computer languages, but have never really finished a programming project.

16. Since I moved out, I've usually gone to bed two o'clock in the morning.

17. I still do not drink that much coffee...

18. I own a Flower Stick (a kind of Devil Stick for newbs). I am good enough at it to impress people who have never seen one before.
People who have seen one is another matter...

19. Despite my grass pollen allergy, I haven't taken more than about three packs of antihistamines in my life.

20. I am a slow writer. I'll be back with a few more!